Drug Policy

The Tucson Shooting, Drug Users, and Guns

|

National Review's Robert VerBruggen raises some important civil liberties concerns about Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) plan to make it easier for the FBI to keep guns out of the hands of admitted drug users like Jared Loughner:

Chuck Schumer proposes that when prospective military recruits admit drug use in interviews — as Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner did — they should be reported to the FBI and entered into the database of people who are forbidden to buy guns.

As Schumer points out, it is already illegal to sell a gun to a drug user or addict; this policy, therefore, would make existing law more effective. However, there are several reasons to be concerned.

The first is that Americans have a Second Amendment right to own handguns, and this right cannot be denied without due process. Schumer's policy, as outlined in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, contains little in the way of process: The military would report to the FBI, and the individual's gun rights would be gone.

The second is that Schumer has offered no guidelines as to how long these individuals would stay in the database. Federal law doesn't forbid selling guns to former drug users or addicts (so long as they are non-felons), or even to those convicted of misdemeanor drug offenses, and there's no reason to deny rights to people for life on the grounds of their smoking pot at 17.

NEXT: Cyberwar Is Harder Than It Looks

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Where’s my effin’ picture?!

  2. there’s no reason to deny rights to people for life on the grounds of their smoking pot at 17

    just as there is no reason not to.

  3. I don’t remember the part of the 2nd amendment that says I lose that right if I smoke some MJ.

    On a related note I talked to a guy in the core at A&M this weekend and he said they have started testing for for all cannabinoids (even the ones still legal after the new DEA regulations). So our soldiers can’t even get high that way any more.

    1. “”I don’t remember the part of the 2nd amendment that says I lose that right if I smoke some MJ.””

      I don’t remember the part of the 2nd amendment that says I can lose that right, period. It does say it shall not be infringed, but no one in any of the three branches of government knows what that word means.

    2. Its the Corps!

      1. I don’t care, they are a bunch of goofy looking hicks.

    3. So our soldiers can’t even get high that way any more.

      There is a federal ban on artificial cannabinoids. Unless they stocked up, nobody’s getting high that way anymore.

      1. Unless you have a bunch of homeless guys in your basement and you are extracting endocannabinoids directly from their brains.

      2. Wrong, the DEA just banned only 4 of them, there are potentially hundreds. My local head shop had a replacement product within a couple days.

  4. If you want to join the Army, and you admit drug use, you are either a moron or nuts. Not saying that alone should be used to deny purchasing a gun. Just sayin’.

      1. Just run for President instead.

  5. There is also the fact that it will discourage qualified people from enlisting because of past drug use. I assume they don’t have a strict zero-tolerance policy with respect to past use of marijuana, for example. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    1. Don’t ask, don’t tell, bro!

  6. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

    You playing the part of Balko today, Mr. Root? My nuts THANK YOU.

  7. Maybe they can try enacting this policy on police and FBI recruits first.

    1. Or maybe Chuck Schumer can spend the rest of his asinine existence in excruciating pain for being such a fucking ball licker.

      1. You have a permit for that violent rhetoric?

      2. You have a permit for that violent rhetoric?

      3. There is no event that Schumer will not attempt to slither his way into the spotlight with it. What’s the expression? “The most dangerous place in DC is between Chuck Schumer and a camera.”

        1. Don’t I know it! Ouch!

    2. Maybe they can try enacting this policy on police and FBI recruits Schumer’s security detail first.

  8. “Chuck Schumer proposes that when prospective military recruits admit drug use in interviews ? as Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner did ? they should be reported to the FBI and entered into the database of people who are forbidden to buy guns.”

    “…with no trial or anything resembling due process.”

    Pure, unadulterated Chuck!

  9. National Review’s Robert VerBruggen raises some important civil liberties concerns about Sen. Chuck Schumer[…](D-N.Y.)

    “… which represents a full time job.”

    1. Saved or created?

  10. NPR’s navel-gazing about it’s “oops, Giffords ISN’T dead – erase, erase, erase!!!” moment.

    Read the comments…priceless.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombud…..f=17370252

  11. http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombud…..f=17370252

    NPR’s self-[recta;] examination about its reporting blunder.

    Read the comments – priceless.

  12. FUCKING SPAM FILTER! One more time:

    NPR self-exam on its Tucson reporting fuck up. Read the comments.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombud…..f=17370252

  13. The first is that Americans have a Second Amendment right to own handguns, and this right cannot be denied without due process.

    …subject to reasonable restrictions, according to Heller. I don’t think it would be reasonable for drug use to prevent you from owning a weapon, but I think we all know how the courts would treat that question.

    1. How about losing it because you made repeated death threats?

      1. Death threats are prosecutable, so if you can get a conviction, go for it.

    2. Yeah, mentioning marijuana would be pretty much guaranteed to flip Scalia on the Second Amendment question.

  14. Even if Republicans are better than Democrats on gun rights, state taxes, and school choice, both parties are basically the same and libertarians should shun them (#3 in a series).

    1. That there is Team Red crazy talk!

  15. Maybe marijuana leads to schizophrenia. That is why it should not be legal. Also, look at the dumb, anti-Semitic things you Rhoemites say. Is the whacky weed the cause of that?

    A scary thought.

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.”

  16. When the revolution comes, don’t forget to remember the downstate New Yorkers who are responsible for my everpresence.

    1. I’m a downstate New Yorker and I voted against you.

  17. Oooooo – the guy supposedly, at some point, smoked some pot. Ok. Did the motherfucker drink, too? Was it a damned 4Loko that tickled his rage stoking fancy? Any of these assholes mentioning any other pet whipping subjects using the grease provided by the gore from one jerk last week? Doubt it. Hypocritical jackwagons.

  18. By this logic the man that currently can order a world destroying nuclear strike at any moment would be unqualified for firearms ownership.

  19. This would help with recruiting for the military big time. Anytime they are talking about putting people on a list it worries me.

  20. I admitted to trying pot when I enlisted. They didn’t ask me about anything else.

    Schumer can go fuck himself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.