Gun Grabbers and Ganja - Call out the hypocrites! (Letter to Rep. Earl Blumenauer)Submitted by Blue Republic on Sun, 03/31/2013 - 03:41
OK, here it is showtime - after Congress' Easter recess for the big gun grab.
How does this relate to marijuana?
Well, for decades marijuana users have been legally denied their Second Amendment rights, since they are *all* defined as "prohibited persons" under federal law - and for a prohibited person to possess even a single shot .22 or a live round of ammunition is a felony (10 year sentence) under 18 USC § 922(g) & (n).
In reality, there have been few prosecutions for this, or for the other felonies of stating you are not a prohibited person on the 4473 forms (even if you don't know you are "prohibited") and related. But the language of the title to Senator Reid's "base" gun control bill S.649 is very clear that it's purpose is to prevent all gun possession by prohibited persons.
So, even though much progress has been made toward reforming/eliminating marijuana prohibition, we still have a situation where the 2nd Amendment rights of (probably) more than 40 million Americans are legally extinguished, and some of those who have been most receptive toward reforming marijuana laws are also, hypocritically, supporting the trashing of 2A rights of tens of millions of Americans simply because they use cannabis.
Take Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer, for example. His district is bluest of blue, he has made some worthwhile efforts toward marijuana law reform, yet he is on record supporting every gun-grabbing bill that has come down the pike in recent years.
So, my letter to him - easily ignored, of course, but he and everybody else on Capitol Hill *should* be getting hundreds of letters like this - are they going to be hearing from you?
(modify as needed for fake conservative hypocrites...)
Dear Congressman Blumenauer,
As a former constituent, still Oregonian, I appreciate your
efforts toward reforming marijuana prohibition and allowing
states to make their own decisions on adoption of medical
marijuana or its legalization for recreational use.
Nevertheless, there seem to be some significant gaps
and inconsistencies in your positions on marijuana and
on gun control so I would very much appreciate answers
to the following questions.
You are on record as supporting the "Fix Gun Checks" bill
which has been substantially incorporated into Sen. Reid's
"base bill" S.649. In fact, Subtitle A of S.649 is identical to
the title of S.374:
"Ensuring That All Individuals Who Should Be Prohibited From
Buying a Gun Are Listed in the National Instant Criminal Background
1) As you do not mention it in your "The Path Forward" or Marijuana FAQ,
could you tell me whether you are aware that under current federal
law that all marijuana users are deemed "prohibited persons" under
complete prohibition from possessing firearms or ammunition and
considered felons if they do so? 18 USC § 922(g) & (n)
2) If you are aware of the above situation, could you please clarify whether
you support the effective suspension of all Second Amendment rights for
all consumers of cannabis by making them "prohibited persons?
3) If you do not support the blanket inclusion of all cannabis consumers
as prohibited persons then what are you doing to change the current
laws that mandate this? On the other hand, if you agree with the current
blanket prohibition, could you explain the basis for that?
4) If marijuana use can justify the suspension of an individual's Second Amendment
rights, is there anything that would prevent it from also being used to justify
suspending their rights under the First or other Amendments?
5) Since for the "Fix Gun Checks" bill/S.649 to accomplish its stated aim of
preventing acquisition of guns by prohibited persons it would have to have
information about all marijuana users, do you believe states should have to
report on legal recreational users (CO & WA)? On all misdemeanor marijuana
convictions? On all convictions for marijuana violations? On all registered users
of medical marijuana? If Oregon does not provide such information for the
NICS system should it be penalized?
I look forward to a response from you to the above questions. Hopefully, that
will clarify what appear to be rather inconsistent positions on these important issues.