Should Drug Users Be Denied Guns?

by SodaHead Politics Posted 2011/01/17 15:00:00

Related Topics: Chuck Schumer, Jared Lee Loughner, FBI, Legislation

114 votes
Read all 125 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	55 votes	48%
	No	59 votes	52%

A flurry of potential new laws are being discussed in Washington following the tragic shootings in Arizona. Is there a way to prevent future attacks? Democratic New York Senator Chuck Schumer has one idea that doesn't cost anything or even require legislation: if someone tells a federal official he or she uses drugs, that info would be passed along to the FBI so the person wouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

Federal law currently prohibits the sale of firearms to anyone who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," so if the military, which rejected Jared Lee Loughner for his admitted drug use, had notified the FBI, theoretically Loughner would not have been able to purchase his gun.

Schumer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press:"

"There, there are certain things that can be done that are - that don't even require legislation. After Jared Loughner was interviewed by the military, he was rejected from the Army because of excessive drug use. Now, by law, by law that's on the books, he should not have been allowed to buy a gun. But the law doesn't require the military to notify the FBI about that, and in this case they didn't.

"So I this morning I'm writing the administration and urging that that be done, That the military notify the FBI when someone is rejected from the military for excessive drug use and that be added to the FBI database."

Add a comment above

Steve Johnson 2011/01/18 04:10:27

No

+6
Actually, Chuck Schumer should be denied a microphone.
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Politics

Orangedragan 2011/01/17 15:36:30

Yes

+1
It makes sense to me. I think people should have to take some kind of test or evaluation before being approved for a gun. If someone is mentally unstable, allowing them to buy a deadly weapon probably isn't such a great idea.

reply
MadAsHEck to Oranged... 2011/01/17 23:49:14

Jared Loughner was mentally unstable, as the College and the Sheriff's Department has on Record. But till someone had filed a report in the "Do Not Sell Guns To" database he was free and clear. They dropped the ball where there were indications beforehand.

reply
Oranged... to MadAsHEck 2011/01/18 03:17:17

Merely proving that the sale of firearms should be regulated more carefully. If someone as mentally unstable as Loughner could get his hands on a weapon with as little effort as he did, it's only a matter of time before someone else does, and then another, until someone finally says "Hey, maybe we shouldn't be selling guns to these people without checking to see if they're going to kill somebody with them."

reply
MadAsHEck to Oranged... 2011/01/18 03:38:49

And how are we to determine if a person can or will go over the edge??

We were apprised after the fact that the killer at Fort Hood had problems, and the Army did little or nothing to stop him. But he was a Muslim, And it would have been politically incorrect to try to say anything negative about him. Might be construed as Muslim bashing.

Like in football, On any given day any given person could take a gun and kill someone. There's no way to know. In most situations where someone has suddenly killed someone it is not unusual to hear those interviewed say "He/She was such a sweetheart I would never have thought he would do this"

reply
Oranged... to MadAsHEck 2011/01/18 07:05:21

I don't assume to know how we would measure such instabilities, but some security is better than none. I'm sure that the ASA would be able to help out in some way.

reply