Admitting drug use = no guns?

[Mini 14]

That's already on the 4473.

Question 11e.

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any controlled substance?

The Federal Gun Control Act defines an addicted person, or unlawful user, as a person who has a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.

So if you smoke pot, and answer "no" to question 11e, you've just committed a felony.

No need for a new law.

 

[manifold]

Weed and guns don't mix...

...just ask SFC Ollie.

 

[editec]

Senator Schumer is always looking for strange and unusual ways to rape the 2nd Amendment:

WASHINGTON -- If someone admits to a federal official that he's used illegal drugs, that information should be sent to the FBI so that person can be disqualified from purchasing a gun, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday

Schumer Pushes for Military to Report Applicants' Drug Use to Prevent Gun Purchases - FoxNews.com

Way to never let a tragedy go to waste, Chuck!

Asie from the fact that there's no law to this effect - no court anywhere will uphold this as 'due process'.

The very first thing cops are looking for when they bust people who they KNOW aren't drug dealers is their guns.

I mean seriously, you think the war on drugs is REALLY about drugs?

Wake up.

It's about marginalizing and disempoowering those people (who though the use of marijuania) prove that they are NOT going to be TOOLS.

Drug laws (especially marijuana use) is a LITMUS test to determine who is NOT going to go with the flow.

 

[manifold]

Senator Schumer is always looking for strange and unusual ways to rape the 2nd Amendment:

WASHINGTON -- If someone admits to a federal official that he's used illegal drugs, that information should be sent to the FBI so that person can be disqualified from purchasing a gun, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday

Schumer Pushes for Military to Report Applicants' Drug Use to Prevent Gun Purchases - FoxNews.com

Way to never let a tragedy go to waste, Chuck!

Asie from the fact that there's no law to this effect - no court anywhere will uphold this as 'due process'.

The very first thing cops are looking for when they bust people who they KNOW aren't drug dealers is their guns.

I mean seriously, you think the war on drugs is REALLY about drugs?

Wake up.

It's about marginalizing and disempoowering those people (who though the use of marijuania) prove that they are NOT going to be TOOLS.

Drug laws (especially marijuana use) is a LITMUS test to determine who is a useful tool and who is NOT

Is that why you prefer to remain a useless tool?

 

[jillian]

Actually, that is the case.

Loughner had arrests, but no convictions.


If you have a conviction for any crime involving domestic violence, you are not permitted to own a gun ever again. EVen if your offense is sealed, it still counts.

The other poster was saying that a criminal background check to see if you have convictions is unconstitutional, i.e., an 'infringement'.

Yes. It is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

"prior restraint" is a first amendment concept... not a second amendment concept. Even Heller acknowledges the appropriateness of regulation.

 

[martybegan]

I wouldn't mind seeing a drug test along with a criminal history and mental health check before someone can purchase a gun.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. What I would like to see is doctors, hospitals, education institutions, and other places being required to notify federal officials of drug related incidents and mental health issues. For Example: Someone could be seeing a psychologist for being emotionally distrubed and then still go buy a gun because he or she has no criminal record and can pass a background check. I think that they should be required to report these types of things. If someone has been "linked" by the justice system to be in a gang, then they should automatically be restricted from purchasing a firearm.

The problem with gun control is that there are many pro-gun advocates that are willing to find "some" middle-ground to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally distrubed without having to give up their right to own arms. However, there are many anti-gun advocates that just want to strip the right away from law-abiding citizens and do away with guns altogether (which is ridiculous). This notion has been proven wrong time and time again in other countries. The U.K. has this law but has a high gun crime rate. Japan has this law but has one of the highest suicide rates the world. Washington D.C. had this law and saw their gun crime sky-rocket. Once everyone figures out that people are going to kill other people with or without guns, then the better off everyone will be. People have been killing other people for centuries before guns were around, and more brutally. If we banned guns, we would start finding more gruesome murders of people hacked apart by axes, knives, etc... It's just a fact of life.

The problem is that you would be denying a person a right to a firearm without due process, which in this case really means a trial and a conviction. That is why a felon or even a person who is convicted of a domestic misdemenor can be denied a firearm. In the case of mental deficency, you would probably need a judgement on mental incapacity to legally bar a person from possesing a firearm under state and federal law. It seems harsh to block a persons rights over them seeing a shrink for marital issues, or other harmless mental issues.

I also agree with your underlying point on the whole gun debate in general. The two sides are firmly entrenched, with gun rights supporters not trusting any increase in regulation because they see it (and probably rightly so) as being proposed not by other gun owners, but by those who's goal is the total suppression of the 2nd amendment. Its kind of like when PETA tries to propose regulations for the meat industry, when thier whole goal is to shut down said industry, not regulate it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The other poster was saying that a criminal background check to see if you have convictions is unconstitutional, i.e., an 'infringement'.

Yes. It is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

So in your world, Loughner would have had his Glock even with a felony gun crime on his record.

Nothing I have said supports this.
Why do you continue to mal-interpret my posts?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. It is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

"prior restraint" is a first amendment concept... not a second amendment concept. Even Heller acknowledges the appropriateness of regulation.

That's why I originally posted that they were FORMS of prior restraint.

The -concept- of prior restraint - a restriction to the exercise of a right in which that exercise is prevented, in advance, to determine the legallity of that exercise, rather than acting upon that illegal exercise after the act is committed - applies to ALL rights.

Prior restraint is particularly heinous because it prevents the exercise of a right w/o any prior evidence that said exercise might be illegal. There's no way to argue that background checks are not prior restraiint and that prior restraint is a infringement that will pass strict scrutiny.

 

[BrianH]

I wouldn't mind seeing a drug test along with a criminal history and mental health check before someone can purchase a gun.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. What I would like to see is doctors, hospitals, education institutions, and other places being required to notify federal officials of drug related incidents and mental health issues. For Example: Someone could be seeing a psychologist for being emotionally distrubed and then still go buy a gun because he or she has no criminal record and can pass a background check. I think that they should be required to report these types of things. If someone has been "linked" by the justice system to be in a gang, then they should automatically be restricted from purchasing a firearm.

The problem with gun control is that there are many pro-gun advocates that are willing to find "some" middle-ground to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally distrubed without having to give up their right to own arms. However, there are many anti-gun advocates that just want to strip the right away from law-abiding citizens and do away with guns altogether (which is ridiculous). This notion has been proven wrong time and time again in other countries. The U.K. has this law but has a high gun crime rate. Japan has this law but has one of the highest suicide rates the world. Washington D.C. had this law and saw their gun crime sky-rocket. Once everyone figures out that people are going to kill other people with or without guns, then the better off everyone will be. People have been killing other people for centuries before guns were around, and more brutally. If we banned guns, we would start finding more gruesome murders of people hacked apart by axes, knives, etc... It's just a fact of life.

The problem is that you would be denying a person a right to a firearm without due process, which in this case really means a trial and a conviction. That is why a felon or even a person who is convicted of a domestic misdemenor can be denied a firearm. In the case of mental deficency, you would probably need a judgement on mental incapacity to legally bar a person from possesing a firearm under state and federal law. It seems harsh to block a persons rights over them seeing a shrink for marital issues, or other harmless mental issues.

I also agree with your underlying point on the whole gun debate in general. The two sides are firmly entrenched, with gun rights supporters not trusting any increase in regulation because they see it (and probably rightly so) as being proposed not by other gun owners, but by those who's goal is the total suppression of the 2nd amendment. Its kind of like when PETA tries to propose regulations for the meat industry, when thier whole goal is to shut down said industry, not regulate it.

I'll agree with that... good post

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the case of mental deficency, you would probably need a judgement on mental incapacity to legally bar a person from possesing a firearm under state and federal law. It seems harsh to block a persons rights over them seeing a shrink for marital issues, or other harmless mental issues.

This is exactly what those that support the idea hope for.

 

[martybegan]

Yes. It is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

"prior restraint" is a first amendment concept... not a second amendment concept. Even Heller acknowledges the appropriateness of regulation.

That's why I originally posted that they were FORMS of prior restraint.

The -concept- of prior restraint - a restriction to the exercise of a right in which that exercise is prevented, in advance, to determine the legallity of that exercise, rather than acting upon that illegal exercise after the act is committed - applies to ALL rights.

Prior restraint is particularly heinous because it prevents the exercise of a right w/o any prior evidence that said exercise might be illegal. There's no way to argue that background checks are not prior restraiint and that prior restraint is a infringement that will pass strict scrutiny.

Just want to get this straight. by your strict definition of prior restraint it would be up to a felon on the form required for purchase of a firearm to admit that he was a felon. Any other requirement greater than that would become infringement accoring to that line of logic.

 

[manifold]

If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns...

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...

Guns don't kill, it's really the bullets...

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand...

Did I leave any out?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The -concept- of prior restraint - a restriction to the exercise of a right in which that exercise is prevented, in advance, to determine the legallity of that exercise, rather than acting upon that illegal exercise after the act is committed - applies to ALL rights.

Prior restraint is particularly heinous because it prevents the exercise of a right w/o any prior evidence that said exercise might be illegal. There's no way to argue that background checks are not prior restraiint and that prior restraint is a infringement that will pass strict scrutiny.

Just want to get this straight. by your strict definition of prior restraint it would be up to a felon on the form required for purchase of a firearm to admit that he was a felon. Any other requirement greater than that would become infringement accoring to that line of logic.

Its not MY defintion - its THE defintion.

A felon would have to buy the gun and then be prosecuted for buying that gun, just like a writer would have to publish slanderous material and then be held accountable for said slander - in neither case could the government restrict the action in question before it was actually taken.

 

[jillian]

That's why I originally posted that they were FORMS of prior restraint.

again... it doesn't MATTER if it's a prior restraint or a FORM of prior restraint. It's not a relevant inquiry with respect to the second amendment.

Go read Heller... this time with comprehension.

And your posts are the reason that normal people don't trust gun loons.

 

[martybegan]

The -concept- of prior restraint - a restriction to the exercise of a right in which that exercise is prevented, in advance, to determine the legallity of that exercise, rather than acting upon that illegal exercise after the act is committed - applies to ALL rights.

Prior restraint is particularly heinous because it prevents the exercise of a right w/o any prior evidence that said exercise might be illegal. There's no way to argue that background checks are not prior restraiint and that prior restraint is a infringement that will pass strict scrutiny.

Just want to get this straight. by your strict definition of prior restraint it would be up to a felon on the form required for purchase of a firearm to admit that he was a felon. Any other requirement greater than that would become infringement accoring to that line of logic.

Its not MY defintion - its THE defintion.

A felon would have to buy the gun and then be prosecuted for buying that gun, just like a writer would have to publish slanderous material and then be held accountable for said slander - in neither case could the government restrict the action in question before it was actually taken.

That would require constant searches of a felons home and person, and while an option is not a realistic one.

To me a instant background check does not constitute any infringement as seen by court decsions. there is no restraint there, as if you pass the check, you get the gun. I do agree that an arbitrary waiting period does constitute infringement. There has to be a real way of preventing legal sales of firearms going to people who have no right to them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's why I originally posted that they were FORMS of prior restraint.

again... it doesn't MATTER if it's a prior restraint or a FORM of prior restraint. It's not a relevant inquiry with respect to the second amendment.

Read what I said - this time with comprehension:
The CONCEPT of prior restraint, the argument behind it and the reason why it is constitutionally unacceptable, applies to ALL rights.

Go read Heller... this time with comprehension.

I'm sure I've read it more than you have, and understand it far better.
Nothing in Heller supports the idea that prior restraint is a constitutionally acceptable restriction.

And your posts are the reason that normal people don't trust gun loons.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/150653-observations-regarding-the-anti-gun-crowd.html#post3208579
Thank you for supporting my premise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its not MY defintion - its THE defintion.
A felon would have to buy the gun and then be prosecuted for buying that gun, just like a writer would have to publish slanderous material and then be held accountable for said slander - in neither case could the government restrict the action in question before it was actually taken.

That would require constant searches of a felons home and person, and while an option is not a realistic one.

It's also not constitutional - you cannot simply search felons' houses simply because they are felons or pick them up off the street and search their person - you have to have probable cause, and in the case of hteir house, a warrant.

To me a instant background check does not constitute any infringement as seen by court decsions.

Show how it is -not- prior restraint.
Show how prior restraint passes strict scrutiny.

 

[martybegan]

Its not MY defintion - its THE defintion.
A felon would have to buy the gun and then be prosecuted for buying that gun, just like a writer would have to publish slanderous material and then be held accountable for said slander - in neither case could the government restrict the action in question before it was actually taken.

That would require constant searches of a felons home and person, and while an option is not a realistic one.

It's also not constitutional - you cannot simply search felons' houses simply because they are felons or pick them up off the street and search their person - you have to have probable cause, and in the case of hteir house, a warrant.

To me a instant background check does not constitute any infringement as seen by court decsions.

Show how it is -not- prior restraint.
Show how prior restraint passes strict scrutiny.

so basically the only form of gun control you would find acceptable would be felons being on good behavior and volentarily not buying guns, or just prosecuting them after they commit another crime of also possesing a gun when they should not.

This may meet your understanding of how the constitution should work, but basically it is an impossible set of requirements to implement.

I think i have been arguing the wrong point, most of your postions rely on infringment meaning directly prior restraint, which in reality translates to no enforceable regulation until after an act has occured. This would require additional punishment after the fact for example, of a felon owning a gun, but would allow for no legal method of preventing said felon from buying the gun.

This line of logic is just as bad as those who think banning all guns will result in a utopia of bunnies and kittens living in peace and understanding. If society was forced to live under the rules as you see them, there would be such a strong movement to amend or revoke the 2nd amendment that you would end up losing ALL rights to gun ownership.

 

[jillian]

Read what I said - this time with comprehension:
The CONCEPT of prior restraint, the argument behind it and the reason why it is constitutionally unacceptable, applies to ALL rights.

you're not very difficult to 'comprehend'. you just haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I'm sure I've read it more than you have, and understand it far better.
Nothing in Heller supports the idea that prior restraint is a constitutionally acceptable restriction.

you've probably read it more than i because you don't seem to have any other way of identifying yourself except by the power of your... artillary. but i can guarantee you don't understand it better.

once again...

from heller:

The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handgun

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Thank you for supporting my premise.

i'm not anti-gun. i'm anti-gun LOONS. people who feel that guns replace their inconsequential genitalia are pathetic.

and we have guns in my home, schmuck.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so basically the only form of gun control you would find acceptable would be felons being on good behavior and volentarily not buying guns, or just prosecuting them after they commit another crime of also possesing a gun when they should not.

Like everyoe else, felons can only be prosecuted for a crime -after- they commit the crime. Certainly, you agree.

This may meet your understanding of how the constitution should work, but basically it is an impossible set of requirements to implement.

Hardly. You find a felon with a gun, you arrest him and prosecute him.
Constitutionally, you cannot stop him from buying one, you can only punish him after he does, because to try to stop him before he buys is a form of proor restraint and violates the Constitution.

I think i have been arguing the wrong point, most of your postions rely on infringment meaning directly prior restraint, which in reality translates to no enforceable regulation until after an act has occured.

That's -exactly- what prior restraint mandates.

This would require additional punishment after the fact for example, of a felon owning a gun, but would allow for no legal method of preventing said felon from buying the gun.

That's -exactly- what prior restraint mandates.

The problem here is that you think there -should- be a means to do this, and you apparently don't care about the constitutional restrctions that keep you from it. Prior restraint is constitutionally prohibited for a reason; you cannot simply discard that reason because it gets in the way of something you think you sould be able to do.

The flaw here is not the prior restraint argument, but the idea that it is OK to violate the constitution and restrict -everyones'- rights in order to try to stop -someone- from possibly committing a crime.

This line of logic is just as bad as those who think banning all guns will result in a utopia of bunnies and kittens living in peace and understanding.

Non-sequitur and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

If society was forced to live under the rules as you see them, there would be such a strong movement to amend or revoke the 2nd amendment that you would end up losing ALL rights to gun ownership.

This is wholly unsupportable - anyone and everyone agress with the principle of prior restraint as it applies to the freedom of speech; only those with an agenda or a deep lack of understanding can then possibly disagree with the -exact same principle- when applied to the right to arms.

Tell me:
What's so different between the two rights that Prior Restraint clearly applies to one but not the other?