New Gun Law Proposed by Senator Chuck Schumer Would Ban People with Arrests for Drug Violations from Buying Guns
Forbidding people from owning a gun without even requiring that they have been convicted of an offense? Would Schumer support denying people the right to vote because they have simply been arrested? He probably doesn't think that people should be prevented from voting even if they have been convicted of violent crimes such as murder or rape. You can find this bill by going to Thomas.gov and looking up bill S.436.
Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012)
S.436.
SEC. 104. CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF DRUG ABUSERS AND DRUG ADDICTS WHO ARE PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS.
(a) Inferences of Abuse- Section 921 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(c) Unlawful User of Any Controlled Substance-`(1) IN GENERAL- An inference that a person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) may be drawn based on--`(A) a conviction for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years;
`(B) an arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years;
`(C) an arrest for the possession of drug paraphernalia within the past 5 years, if testing has demonstrated the paraphernalia contained traces of a controlled substance;
`(D) a drug test administered within the past 5 years demonstrating that the person had used a controlled substance unlawfully; or
`(E) an admission to using or possessing a controlled substance unlawfully within the past 5 years.
`(2) MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES- For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference that a person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance may be drawn based on disciplinary or other administrative action within the past 5 years based on confirmed use of a controlled substance, including a court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on use of a controlled substance or drug rehabilitation failure.'.
(b) Application to Federal Courts- Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note), as amended by this section 102, is amended--(1) in subparagraph (C), by inserting `(including any record of a Federal court of any person ordered into a diversion program as described in section 921(a)(37))' after `any person'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:`(G) APPLICATION TO FEDERAL COURTS- In this paragraph--`(i) the terms `department or agency of the United States' and `Federal department or agency' include a Federal court; and
`(ii) for purposes of any request, submission, or notification, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall perform the functions of the head of the department or agency.'.
(c) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 103(a), is amended by adding at the end the following:`(37) The term `addicted to any controlled substance' includes a person ordered by a court into a diversion program designed for abusers of or addicts to controlled substances as part of a criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding, regardless of whether the person was convicted, whether the court made a finding of guilt, or whether the program accepts participants who are abusers of or addicted to substances other than controlled substances.'.
(d) Conforming Amendment to NICS Improvement Amendments Act- Section 102(b)(1)(C)(iii) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking `(as such' and all that follows through `adjudications,'.
Labels: GunControl
posted by John Lott at 10:23 PM
6 Comments:
This could get very ugly. How many law enforcement officers were picked up for drugs when they were young and either pleaded out or never prosecuted? How many hunters and casual shooters have flunked routine urinalysis at school or work thanks a practical joker friend? How many military people have failed a urinalysis then gone on to be battlefield heroes?
I don't think Sen. Schumer has thought this through well enough.
As Mark Walters from AAR would say, 'Chuckie the Ban' is at it again.
Guilty even if never so judged. Now, while the "court of public opinion" may sometimes so feel, for a government to institute such a thing, especially within the US, does not seem too likely. Not (unfortunately) impossible, just unlikely.
Our gun rights would be subject to any police officer's whim.
Since nearly all currency contains traces of cocaine, any dollar bill could be construed as drug paraphernalia and one could be arrested for it. While the bill would test positive for cocaine, the charge wouldn't stick, but the arrest alone would destroy part of one's constitutional rights.
This bill is especially ominous given the parallel effort to prohibit private transfers and require (unenforceably without total registration) all transfers to go through NICS.
The strategy is obvious. Run all transfers through NICS, while expanding the prohibited persons list to include as many people as politcially possible.
When mere arrest has come to justify prohibition, conviction for any offense, even mere traffic violations, looms as a very real possibility.
This legislation is outrageous and clearly demonstrates the anti-freedom radicalism and amoral, political depravity of Senator Schumer. Despite his being a US Senator, he really is just another thug from the streets of Crooklyn because he acts like one.
John A Many probably thought on the same lines with the Lautenberg Amendment. The courts would never allow a post de facto law, would they? Yet it has been upheld. We must be ever vigilant in the protection of our rights.
In Marbury v Madison (1803), Mashall stated the following: "Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
With the above in mind, I must ask why is the Constitution ignored by all three branches? The Second Amendment is very clear on the rights it protects, and the above SCOTUS decision supports the Constitution in it's entirety, not just select portions.
Where praytell, are the checks and balances to control those whom deliberately undermine our Constitution?
Post a Comment
<< Home