Comment: Prohibited Persons and 2A letter to Wyden and Merkley

(See in situ)

Prohibited Persons and 2A letter to Wyden and Merkley

Come on, people - if these people want to support laws
that say forty million or more Americans have *no* Second
Amendment rights because they consume cannabis then
let's make sure they have to do so explicitly and publicly.

The more people call them on this the harder it becomes
to ignore. Those of you who do Facebook consider asking
questions like these on your Congresscritters FB page:

Dear Senator Merkley,

As you are probably aware, 18 USC § 922(g) & (n) of the
Federal Code makes it a felony punishable by 10 year in
prison for a "prohibited person" to possess a firearm. As
I understand it, this definitely means to include those who are
users of marijuana.

Estimates of the number of adult marijuana users in the US mostly run to
40 million or higher. The estimates of the number of users of medical
marijuana seems to be 2.0-2.5 million people.

Federal law does not currently make any distinction as to whether marijuana
use is legal under state law or not - any use voids the users 2nd Amendment
rights and makes it a felony for them to possess even a single live round of

So, I have several questions to which I await your response.

1) Do you agree with the existing provisions of law that void the 2nd Amendment rights of all marijuana users?

2) If your answer to 1 is "no" do you believe that there are marijuana users
that should be excluded from the category of "prohibited persons" under 18 USC § 922(g) & (n)?

3) If your answer to 2 is "yes", what marijuana users do you feel should *not*
be classified as "prohibited persons" and what to you propose to do to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of such individuals?

4) Legislation has been proposed by your colleague, Senator Schumer of New York
(S.374) whose full title is:

"A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm
are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a
background check for every firearm sale."

For the bill to accomplish its stated purpose it would be necessary to identify
all marijuana users and have this information in the NICS system. Are you in
support of states being required to provide such information to
the federal government? Are you currently supporting S.374?

5) What kind of information about marijuana users do you
think Oregon should provide for inclusion in NICS database?
Should it include, for example, the identities of medical marijuana
card holders? Of people convicted of simple possession/consumption
violations under Oregon law?

I look forward to hearing from you so as to be able to clarify your
position on these important and timely matters.


(Blue Republic)