Comment: Prohibited Persons

(See in situ)

Prohibited Persons

Thanks to the Mods for finally frontpaging something about this.

The text of the bill is not up yet on but it apparently
incorporates the bad features of several bill such as S.374 and S.443
that had been passed out of the Judiciary Committee. The title of
the bill is the same as for Schumer's S.374. The title itself suggests a
way of making even "progressive" senators very uncomfortable supporting it:

"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, and for other purposes."

Because one thing neither Congresscritters nor the NRA nor very many folks at DP (apparently) want to talk about is just who those "prohibited persons" are and how many of them there are.

In addition to the 150,000 plus veterans who have been deprived by bureaucratic fiat of their 2nd Amendment rights, ALL consumers of cannabis are prohibited from possessing firearms - without regard for whether they are doing so perfectly legally according to the laws of their state. 18 USC § 922(g) & (n) and are considered felons under federal law if
they possess so much as a live round of ammunition. Number of people involved? Estimates I could find were that 40+million American adults use marijuana. The number of medical marijuana users is probably close to 2.5 million.

So when Dianne Feinstein or the NRA or whomever say they believe in the 2nd Amendment they need to be exposed for what they *really* support if they support a definition of "prohibited persons" that means 40 or 50 million Americans have *no* 2nd Amendments whatsoever. And that those people are felons if they attempt to exercise their 2A rights and that anyone who would provide them with a gun or ammo is a felon, too.

We need the awareness and support of those pushing for marijuana legalization/reform - they have ignored this as much as the NRA, but it's a bit inconsistent to say that someone has a right to consume cannabis but that the government may then use that to deprive you of some other fundamental constitutional right.

Otherwise, they are defending a system where, for example, an elderly person growing and consuming medical marijuana legally (under state laws) is a felon and can be sent away for ten years if they have so much as an old shotgun or single shot .22 to defend themselves with.

The only way that the Reid bill could accomplish its aims is to get all possible information from the states and/or by its own data collection and go after all the gun owners that might be pot smokers or vice versa. So I guess we don't have much trouble envisioning what all those MRAP armored personnel carriers are for.

So if you are contacting your Congressperson, Gun Rights organization or whomever, the first question I would as is the same as I asked Senators Merkley and Wyden (no response yet)

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

If it's "yes", at least you know where they stand - let them see how that plays come re-election time.

If it's "no", then ask them what they are doing to secure those rights and stay after them if they flag in doing so.

My other (non-frontpaged) posts on the subject are here (don't get thrown off by the differing bill numbers - pretty much all the bad stuff in those bills has been rolled into S.649):