Chuck Schumer(D-NY) Introduces "Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011": AKA Fuck Your Due Process Act

[Broseph_]

[url]http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/23/new-gun-control-legislation-would-prohibit-those-arrested-but-not-convicted-of-drug-crimes-from-possessing-firearms/[/url]

[quote]Get collared years ago on a bogus drug charge because the oregano in your back pocket looked like was a bag of weed? Or maybe a judge back in 2006 dropped those charges because you were able to provide proof for that Adderall prescription? Under proposed legislation, it will not matter if you were innocent all along or even proven innocent by a court of law.

Either way, you can forget about buying a gun.

The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 would greatly expand the definition of those legally prohibited from owning firearms to include anyone who’s ever been arrested — even if never convicted or found guilty — for drug possession within a five-year period. The legislation is certainly troubling for those who want a “common sense” debate about drug decriminalization. And it would seem fears that any new national gun-control legislation would be used to limit the gun-rights of law-abiding citizens is at least partially justified.

Sponsored by New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and introduced earlier this month, the expanded background checks bill includes a “clarification of the definition of drug abusers and drug addicts who are prohibited from possessing firearms.” Under Schumer’s bill, the definition of a “drug abuser” would include anyone with “an arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years.”

Current federal law already specifies that two kinds of drug users can be barred from owning a gun: (1) Those who have been convicted of possessing or using a controlled substance in the past year and (2) Anyone who has had multiple drug arrests in the past five years, including one within a year of applying for a firearm, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The rules surrounding what “inference” the federal government can make about a current “drug user” are complicated. Add to that regulations stating who is prohibited from owning a firearm; a cumbersome background check system; and inter-departmental communication and, suddenly, the combination of firearms and drugs becomes a confusing bureaucratic mess of regulations and codes.

But the “arrest” language of Schumer’s bill and a clarification from the ATF indicate that a greater number of innocent Americans would be barred from owning a gun if the Senate bill becomes law.

“Under the definition of ‘unlawful user’ … an inference of current use could be drawn if the one arrest resulted in a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year,” the ATF told the The Daily Caller.

To clear up any confusion, Schumer’s bill would expand that “inference” to say: if you’ve ever been arrested for any kind of drug use or possession in the past five year, you can be denied the lawful possession of a firearm.

The bill’s definition of an “unlawful user” also includes anyone arrested for drug paraphernalia within the past five years if the paraphernalia is found have traces of a drug, and those who make an “admission” to using or possessing a controlled substance in the past five years. The meaning of “admission,” however, is not defined.

Schumer’s office was unavailable for comment. One thing is clear, though: the senator’s legislation would prohibit a lot more innocent-until-proven-guilty people from possessing firearms.

A little more than 1,600,000 people were arrested in 2009 on drug violations, according to statistic from the Federal Bureau of Investigations. About half of those people were arrested on marijuana charges, with simple drug possession — rather than sale or manufacturing — accounting for nine-tenths of those collars, according to Reason magazine. It’s those last set of figures that could very well rally two groups most people might consider odd bed-fellows: pot-smokers and firearms enthusiasts.

Read more: [url]http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/23/new-gun-control-legislation-would-prohibit-those-arrested-but-not-convicted-of-drug-crimes-from-possessing-firearms/#ixzz1HRo8oWn8[/url]
[/quote]

Great, not only does this nullify 2 Amendments in one go with the result right to Due Process completely annulled, I get to also have my right to bear arms nullified for 5 years with no legal recourse available due to this bullshit

God Bless America

[Source]

Sometimes i wonder is America going backwards instead of Forwards.

[blacksam]

[quote]To clear up any confusion, Schumer’s bill would expand that “inference” to say: if you’ve ever been arrested for any kind of drug use or possession in the past five year, you can be denied the lawful possession of a firearm.
[/quote]
This sounds good in theory, but when in practice will fall flat on it's face. Why? Too much paper work.

[Led Zeppelin]

Drug law in the US is backwards as all hell already, no need to combine the two and do the same with gun law...

[Broseph_]

[QUOTE=blacksam;28767125]This sounds good in theory, but when in practice will fall flat on it's face. Why? Too much paper work.[/QUOTE]

That and the ATF would simply go "LOL NO PASSING BACKGROUND CHECK 4 U", since for some reason they keep appointing anti-gun idiots who can't tell a .22 rifle apart from a Machine Gun to be the policy making head of it

[Acesarge]

Oh great, a democrat has caught the stupid virus now.

[Thy Reaper]

This is just stupid on countless levels.

[Zolofto]

[QUOTE=blacksam;28767125]This sounds good in theory, but when in practice will fall flat on it's face. Why? Too much paper work.[/QUOTE]
Not only that, unlawful ownership of guns will skyrocket.

[QUOTE=Acesarge;28767410]Oh great, a democrat has caught the stupid virus now.[/QUOTE]
They always had the stupid virus. They just put it behind some curtains so they can get into office.

[Carbisari]

still gotta go through to become a law

[redonkulous]

I don't understand why anyone voted for him. Oh yeah, he has ungodly money backing him.

[Treybuchet]

[QUOTE=redonkulous;28768357]I don't understand why anyone voted for him. Oh yeah, he has ungodly money backing him.[/QUOTE]

Same as anyone.

[Haxxer]

[QUOTE=Source;28767081]Sometimes i wonder is America going backwards instead of Forwards.[/QUOTE]

It's like they say

Congress is the opposite of progress

[Xen Tricks]

Veracity of the source is a little questionable (hint: they use the phrase "obamacare"), but if this is actually accurate that's pretty fucked up. A drug charge shouldn't keep you from... well, anything.

[DainBramageStud]

At least you guys will have it better than Britain.

Here, you don't even need to be arrested to not be able to buy a gun :v:

[ExplodingGuy]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28770029]Veracity of the source is a little questionable (hint: they use the phrase "obamacare"), but if this is actually accurate that's pretty fucked up. A drug charge shouldn't keep you from... well, anything.[/QUOTE]
Daily Caller is a right leaning source, but it's accurate none the less.

[URL="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-436"]Here's the bill if anyone wants to read it.[/URL]

[del]And If I'm reading section 124 correctly, it would allow post secondary educators to decide whether or not a student is mentally defective.[/del]

[editline]0[/editline]

Never mind, I did read it incorrectly.

[GarrettFox]

[QUOTE=blacksam;28767125]This sounds good in theory, but when in practice will fall flat on it's face. Why? Too much paper work.[/QUOTE]

In what way does this sound good on paper?

The constitution specifically prohibits life and liberty being taken away without due process. Being arrested for something is not the same as being convicted of something. And simply because you were arrested for drug possession, it doesn't give the government the right to prohibit your access to freedoms.

Fucking ridiculous.

[Craig Willmore]

Yes, good idea, increase how hard it already is to purchase a firearm, and completely prohibit a large group of people from purchasing them.

That won't make them, ya know, buy a firearm illegally or anything.

[redBadger]

Hold your horses, this hasn't actually been passed yet.

[Xen Tricks]

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28770246]Daily Caller is a right leaning source, but it's accurate none the less.

[URL="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-436"]Here's the bill if anyone wants to read it.[/URL]

[del]And If I'm reading section 124 correctly, it would allow post secondary educators to decide whether or not a student is mentally defective.[/del]

[editline]0[/editline]

Never mind, I did read it incorrectly.[/QUOTE]

[quote]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.[/quote]

Whelp, that's an awful amendment. What a moron.

[ThatHippyMan]

So, because my sister and I were stopped by a cop, had a few marijuana seeds thrown in our car ny said cop, arrested, then proven innocent because the cop confessed, we can't buy guns?

I'm sorry, what?

[Miskav]

Inb4 "America is so shitty, why do you need the guns?"

Different culture, guns are more widespread in the US than other western countries, etc etc.

There, no shitstorms.

[Garmr89]

[QUOTE=Miskav;28771308]Inb4 "America is so shitty, why do you need the guns?"

Different culture, guns are more widespread in the US than other western countries, etc etc.

There, no shitstorms.[/QUOTE]

If only.

[Megafan]

Well this is just dumb. This guy clearly is an idiot. Well at least the dumb law proposal ratio for Democrats is still less than that of Republicans. I've seen maybe 2 from the Dems, but at least 7 for the Reps during this year already.

[Badal]

Both parties are retarded, what the hell am I going to do election time.

[Miskav]

[QUOTE=Badal;28771689]Both parties are retarded, what the hell am I going to do election time.[/QUOTE]

Don't vote.
Not like an individual vote matters in your system.

[Megafan]

[QUOTE=Badal;28771689]Both parties are retarded, what the hell am I going to do election time.[/QUOTE]

Look into other parties and try and actually get support. This mentality of "damn both those parties are dumb but if I try for a third party I'm just wasting my vote it's hopeless" is major reason why no other parties get anywhere.

[editline]23rd March 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=Miskav;28771788]Don't vote.
Not like an individual vote matters in your system.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because more people just not voting and being apathetic is just what we need.

[Pepin]

Where is the rational here? How many drug users have guns? How many of those drug users use their guns for illegal purposes? This isn't going to reduce murder at all because people who intend on using guns for illegal purposes are going to get those guns regardless of this bill. If anything, it is going to leave some people who need a gun without the ability to have that just because of some unrelated issue. The bill is striping people of their 2nd amendment right without warrant.

[Megafan]

[QUOTE=Pepin;28771987]Where is the rational here? How many drug users have guns? How many of those drug users use their guns for illegal purposes? This isn't going to reduce murder at all because people who intend on using guns for illegal purposes are going to get those guns regardless of this bill. If anything, it is going to leave some people who need a gun without the ability to have that just because of some unrelated issue. The bill is striping people of their 2nd amendment right without warrant.[/QUOTE]

This. Most gun crime isn't done with legally-acquired guns.

[ThatHippyMan]

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28772268]This. Most gun crime isn't done with legally-acquired guns.[/QUOTE]

Because to most lawmakers, a gun's a gun.

[Joey Skylynx]

[QUOTE=Badal;28771689]Both parties are retarded, what the hell am I going to do election time.[/QUOTE]
Vote Rock. Atleast that way you won't listen too bitching about the parties doing something bad.