18 USC 922 - Prohibited Persons [Purp]

There's all sorts of "discussion" about firearms law in this country, 99.99% of which is nonproductive blather not worth paying any attention to because of all the intentional distortions being spread by participants propagandists.

I use the word "intentional" here very ummm....intentionally. All Federal firearms law and BATF rulings in this country have been available online and accessible in a matter of minutes for a number of years now.

There are no LEXIS/NEXIS paywalls, no needing to purchase expensive paper copies of Federal law books or CD's from the GPO, nothing whatsoever inhibits any person from entering a conversation fully prepared to discuss current law. Twenty years ago this was not the case. Today, there is no excuse.

If you're spouting bullshit today on 03FEB2013, you're either an intentional and willing propagandist, or dumber than a box of rocks. The barriers today for attaining competence in this "national discussion" are so low, they're buried in the dirt.

So, for those who aren't out there spouting bullshit, but never paid any particular attention to the nation's firearms law, yet may be "law curious" because of the "national discussion", I present to you the actual, unvarnished, stone cold, it is what it is, nobody can deny it, reality of who is prohibited from buying, possessing, or shipping firearms AND ammunition in the USA.

Lets have a round of applause for 18 USC 922 (g)

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Clearly, there's a number of issues in THE LAW as it exists today worthy of consideration in any rational "national discussion".

Here's a few that leap out at me.

The "has been committed to a mental institution" wording makes no distinction between voluntary and involuntary commitment, and offers no notion of expiration date. So, for example, if someone's family died in a tragic plane crash and they were having problems dealing with that and checked themselves in for some help in getting their life back on track and dealing with the trauma, they were "committed", and 40 years later they would STILL fall under this filter.

Its like a Roach Motel - they can check in but they can never check out. Is this inflexible wording of the law fair or just in all cases of "commitment"? That's one of the things this "national discussion" should be talking about.

Another point for consideration is the "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" language. "Unlawful user" is pretty absolutist language, it has no expiration date. It prohibits anyone who ever burned down a splif or partook in a bit of nose candy at a party. Strictly speaking, Obama broke Federal law by touching that shotgun since he's openly admitted he used illegal drugs in the past.

"Medical" marijuana aficionados? Prohibited.
Doctors who've dipped into their sample closets? Prohibited.
Anyone who's been to a rave and did some E? Prohibited.
Anyone who took some Vicodin that wasn't prescribed for them? Prohibited
etc, etc, etc

There's more in this snip of actual law worthy of the "national discussion", but this should be enough to get some NO BULLSHIT dialog started. If people want something changed, they should be able to state how the existing law should be amended. No more gauzy hand waving and BS emotional appeals.

posted by Open Blogger at 02:23 PM

| Access Comments