Admitting drug use = no guns?

[BlindBoo]

Okay, if someone is stupid enough to admit to military recruiters that they have used illegal drugs then perhaps they are too stupid to do alot of things.....

However, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution limiting the 2nd Amendment rights to those who admit to using other than the state sanctioned recreational drugs.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Please!!!

The only drug that'd be detected (due to THC's-composition) would be Cannabis....unless-of-course someone purposely ingested something (shortly before testing).​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It really does seem that the democrats want America to take their eye off the ball and focus on 2nd Amendment rights. Unemployment rose this past month, the economy is still anemic at best. There still is the business of getting a budget that politicians can agree on.
But, let's focus on the 2nd Amendment.

....As-opposed-to 2-YEARS-WORTH of investigations???? (....i.e. 280 hearings??!!!)

"Committee chairs have broad powers to investigate – and Republican leaders are encouraging them to DO so."

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

They should do the same thing when people purchase computers.

C'mon...c'mon....where're "conservatives" gonna get their porn, if all this Country's "outlaws" are denied computers??!!!

Hell.....without Gay-porn, so many Republican-congressmen would be chasing-each-other-around, that....nothing of moral-value would get legislated!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Would you submit to the above tests to get a driver's licsence?

...Or, denying combat-pilots to operate, without being cranked on "Go Pills"???!!!



Hmmmmmmmm......wait a minute. What's the MOST-abused drug??

ALCOHOL!!!!

How 'bout we put a Breathalyzer at the entry to The House???!!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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

All of these things are forms of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

Denial of gun ownership to someone convicted of a gun crime is prior restraint??

lol

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.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I am betting that the Republicans are praying that the dems start focusing on Gun Control again, as it is an instant loser for them in 90% of the country.

True, it worked for the republicans this last election where the democrats were more focused on healthcare that the majority didn't want along with Cap and Trade, Immigration, Stimulus spending, regulating businesses, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell....again not focusing on jobs and the economy.

You also have to remember that in the 2000 election Gore lost his own freaking state, and that his gun control agenda was probably a big part of that.

....At least, that's what gun-shop owner$ were telling their CU$TOMER$!!!!!!!

(That lil' old $cam that alway$ works!!!)
​

November 3, 2009​

"It was already a political truism that Democrats prompt sales of both guns and ammo. The U.S. government taxes both to support wildlife conservation, and those receipts jumped after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 and after Democrats retook Congress in 2006.

But the spike under Obama seems to be on a different scale: The receipts are on pace to set a record in 2009, according to Treasury Department data, with tax revenue due from guns up 42 percent and revenue due from ammunition at 49 percent. Recently, analysts have said earnings reports from gunmakers seem to show demand for weapons slackening.

"I think it's Katrina. I think it's terrorism. I think it's crime. And I also think that it's people worrying about [whether] they'll be attacked by politicians," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "They're suspicious, and justifiably so."

Under Obama, the White House has said it wants to stop the illegal flow of U.S. guns to Mexican drug cartels, and it directed Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to review the way current gun laws are being enforced.

Still, in interviews with gun owners and ammunition dealers, many said the run on bullets was sparked by worries about what Obama might do."

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

All of these things are forms of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

Denial of gun ownership to someone convicted of a gun crime is prior restraint??

I'm sorry -- your response doesn't address what I said.
The prohibition against criminals, etc, buying guns isn't a form of prior restraint, the background check on someone to see if they are a criminal, etc, is.
Please try again.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If Drug Addicts don't have guns...how can they resort to second amendment remedies???

The Government needn't bother with drug addict's guns...there is a much more powerful organization supervising their disarming.
.
.
.
...
...

​

I was about to respond, the same, to Meister.

I remember....yeeeaaarrrs-ago....an acquaintance who'd traded a brand-new pair o' hiking-boots (he was wearing), for a "dime"-bag o' heroin.....one o' those many-lessons that (always) reminded me why tryin' junk probably wasn't a very-good-idea. ​

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

So you wouldn't mind infringing on the Second Amendment? Having to take a drug test and a mental health evaluation puts an undue burden on someone's right to bear arms. Not going to happen.

 

[jillian]

Just another attempted end run around the constitution.

The Constitution does not require that drug users be allowed to own guns. Heller specifically provides for regulation.

That said, I haven't read the proposal and fauxnews has a bad habit of mischaracterization.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just another attempted end run around the constitution.

The Constitution does not require that drug users be allowed to own guns.

No... but the constitution -does- require due process before the state can deprive someone of one of their rights.
If admitting drug use to a federal official, is, in and of itself, due process sufficient to lose your right to own a gun, it is then also sufficient to be jailed.

 

[uscitizen]

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'.

He should include alcohol use as well if he is going to be such a nut about it.
Alcohol is involved in many shootings.

 

[manifold]

Anyone who admits to illegal drug use under any circumstance is an idiot.

I wouldn't even tell my doctor if I used drugs (which of course I don't and never have).

 

[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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All of these things are forms of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

Denial of gun ownership to someone convicted of a gun crime is prior restraint??

lol

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'.

 

[Bigfish]

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

They should do the same thing when people purchase computers.

Or vote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Denial of gun ownership to someone convicted of a gun crime is prior restraint??

lol

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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

 

[shintao]

Telling ya guys/gals, if you don't get off your butts you will have no guns. I would say by the next 20-30 years and that will be the end of them. The 2nd has to be completely restored to "Shall Not Be Infringe."

Pressure needs to be applied on Congress 24/7 for as long as it takes, tie up Congress so nothing else gets done, make it a priority in your reps skull, demand riders on bills. Be in the streets, be verbal, and be polite and calm. Don't carry guns, carry the 2nd Amendment, as that scares the hell out of Americans. But yeah, we need to get serious on this.