If fixing the NICS database means greater reporting of marijuana convictions are you good with it?

[HereSince1628]

Obama is expected to move to shore-up the instant check database.

Over a year ago the ATF announced that a permit for medical marijuana should be enough to place a person on the prohibited from gun purchase list.

The Office of Technology Assessment says an estimated 14 million records of users/addicts of prohibited substances are missing from the NICS instant check database...they estimate ~2 million records for persons prohibited for reasons of mental health are missing.

Among the 987K denials of purchases (prohibited people the system caught trying to make purchases) resulting from instant checks since Nov of 1999, persons denied for being users/addicts of such substance represent 8% of the total. The number of persons prohibited for mental health reasons represent 1.03%. Roughtly 1/8 of the permit denials to users/addicts.

[jmg257]

1. Sure - why not? nt

[HereSince1628]

3. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't I'm just asking.

Last edited Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Historically there is a lot of discussion about mj in GD. It seems like there should be an intersection of interest.

[bemildred]

2. The Feds are irrelevant at this point, they just don't know it yet. nt

[HereSince1628]

4. Check me please, you seem to be saying the instant check for gun purchases is irrelevant?

Is that what you mean?

[bemildred]

6. I'm talking about dope, this is about dope records preventing gun purchases, yes?

And I already know for a fact that dope records are highly imaginary, nobody (Edit: determined) will be prevented from getting a weapon by their MM script.

[HereSince1628]

10. So, imagination is why everyone complains the prisons hold too many mj offenders?

Something isn't squaring up on that.

This was a concern among the pro-marijauna people just last year.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/sep/28/atf_says_no_guns_medical_marijua

[bemildred]

12. No, the scripts, the doctors write, those are imaginary.

And local authorities rat the Feds out. A lot of places depend on MM economically.

[HereSince1628]

16. Yes, I've seen the documentaries on the MM industry.

[bemildred]

17. I have "acquaintances".

Not going there myself, I like things quiet.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. That is sure not how it works in Oregon. The State, each year, gets two separate forms from

each doctor recommending medical marijuana. There are no 'scripts' for medical marijuana here, nor in other states. The State of Oregon keeps records of each patient, each growsite is registered and open for inspection. The fee yearly is $250 in addition to any doctor fees, and that is also not imaginary.
Some local authorities do share information locally. The Feds are not relevant, that is for sure. But you are very incorrect about the records being imaginary, and also about people losing gun permits, I know someone who had his permit and then it was refused because of his participation in the medical marijuana program. I don't care for guns at all, so for me it is one less around me but still, fact is he had the permit and lost it, because the State has good, hard copy records of all participants in the program.
It is not this way in CA, where your description is closer to accurate, except for the part about 'scripts' because they don't write scripts for it there either.

[bemildred]

47. And then again, in Colorado it's completely legal.

What sort of database will they get from that? One just doesn't know whom to obey anymore.

My point is that everybody is making it up as they go along now, nobody is obeying the feds except under duress, and sometimes not even then.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. But many of the things you say are not accurate outside of CA. It is that simple.

In Oregon, we follow Oregon law. By doing so, we would be treated differently than those following the law in CA or in WA. We are not making it up, we have clear and precise law to follow. CA does not. The CA law is now oldish and has not been amended or updated as we do here.
There are no 'scripts' for marijuana here nor in CA. And while much of what you say about the databases does apply to CA, none of it applies here and that is the entire point of saying it is not equitable. YOU have no database of medical marijuana patients but WE do. Oregonians can be cross checked, Californians can not.
You were saying no one would lose a gun permit, but they do and have. In Oregon. Because the State cross checks two lists. To claim those lists and records are 'imaginary' is simply not true in Oregon, nor is it true that no one loses a permit.
Some hospitals will deny transplants to marijuana patients. Oregonians they have on a list. Californians can just lie to them. The inequity is about things far more important than someone wanting to keep a gun. And the inequity is real, not imaginary, just as our records in Oregon are as real as our tax forms.

[bemildred]

54. Thanks for clearing that up. nt

[kestrel91316]

56. My MMJ recommendation (it is not legally a "prescription")

is a private matter between me and my physician. There is NO federal record of it, and it's not obtainable by anyone without a subpoena or my authorizing its release.

There is no way for a federal gun purchase check to uncover it. If a person has a criminal conviction for MJ, that's different.

[bemildred]

57. Exactly. (And that is without even considering that people will lie freely in that context.) nt

[HereSince1628]

14. Your edit takes it back to people who want guns will get them...

that seems to suggest you think the NICS instant checks for gun purchases is worthless to start with, is that correct?

[bemildred]

15. Yes. Especially if they are stupid enough to tie MM to it.

If they stick to keeping guns from being sold to people who are upset and lack good self-control, it might do some good, if they try to use it to punish the disobedient over unrelated issues like MM, it will accomplish little, and in a decade or so we will be re-visiting the issue all over again and everybody will have forgotten this "plan".

[HereSince1628]

18. Nonetheless it is the law to report records of users/addicts, and Universal checks mean little if

the database is full of holes.

And the biggest holes are for 23 million missing felony records and 14 million records of user/addicts. Ex-cons represent 58% of the people caught trying to get guns by the system. User/addicts represent 8% of the prohibited who are caught trying to buy weapons.

Those are the two biggest groups of people the system catches.

[bemildred]

19. True enough, and I'm saying the database will be full of holes.

They will catch the dumb ones, the naive. Just because you have a big pile of data, that doesn't mean you know anything.

[HereSince1628]

24. I'd bet much of the exec order stuff announced today is directed at makin instant checks better.

Universal checks based on a system full of holes is an obvious, and easily critiqued problem. Even the NRA pushes filling the holes in the database. I doubt that the Obama administration would leave it's self open to such embarrassment.

[bemildred]

34. I think it's political drama.

Not that its a bad thing.

Constructing and maintaining databases is labor intensive, people have to type; if they are not accurate, your database is worthless; and they will make mistakes, and people lie, so you have to have good quality control too. And databases of this sort are never done, they have to track events, they have to be maintained continuously, they have to be funded.

[HereSince1628]

39. At some level it's more than political drama...it's also about rights to equal protection/treatment

If some people's records are in the database and many people whose records should be are not, it isn't possible to say that everyone is treated equally under the law.

Equal protection is a constitutional right, not merely drama.

[bemildred]

45. I think it's about changing the law.

That is often what political drama is about.

I think there is rational grounds for equal protection suits based on federal databases in such uses as are being discussed here, but since the primary purpose of such drama-bases is to intimidate the public into obedience (which might or might not be a good thing) I don't expect much to be accomplished directly.

Of course, rationality is not a reliable guide when considering legal issues.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. The equal protection issue is much more up front that you think. Your views of the law are CA

centric while Medical Marijuana laws differ greatly from State to State. CA has a freewheeling system in which the State plays a very small role. Oregon, on the other hand, requires direct registration with the State Medical Marijuana Program, full disclosure of all grow site information, names, addresses, the words. Two separate doctor letters each year for each patient.
The State of Oregon issues holographic stamped IDs to each participant, patient, grower and an appointed caregiver. CA's 'cards' are not issued by the State, CA does not keep a registered list of grows or of patients.
So. People in Oregon doing the same thing as people in CA would be treated differently under a law that limits medical marijuana patients in any way. It is inequitable and it favors the system that is less transparent, the system that the Feds like least.
Here in Oregon, checking the list of medical marijuana patients against a list of registered gun permit holders would take about a minute. And they most certainly do it. No one has to be 'obedient' or intimidated, if they are part of the program, their information is very much in that database, updated yearly, paid for with high fees. Here, participation means transparency. Hard records and yearly updates.

[bemildred]

55. You don't appear to have any idea what I think. nt

[bemildred]

9. You think they needed more guns?

Or what?

[HereSince1628]

11. Terrible yes, but obviously a non sequiter.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. It's certainly not a reason NOT to modernize and update the database

That would be a silly suggestion.

What qualifies as, ahem, disqualifying can be worked out in the regs.

[HereSince1628]

7. As it exists, the regs require user/addicts of unlawful subtances be prohibited

the absence of reportings in this category of the database are about 25% of the missing records being complained about.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. I have no problem with that

Obviously, the asymmetry between cannabis and alchohol are unsustainable on that point, but I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice a bit of consistency for the greater good, especially of the case on cannabis can be modified going forward. Not updating a database for this reason is stupid.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. The simple fix...

de-criminalize possession of marijuana.

Problem solved.

You're welcome.

[obamanut2012]

21. This

[Recursion]

23. Legalize drugs in general and the gun violence problem largely disappears

Lots of problems solved there.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

26. An exceptionally good point

I'm going to guess that a third of gun homicides trace back, one way or another, to the drug trade.

[Recursion]

28. I'm not saying there wouldn't be other problems, of course

But, yeah.

[HereSince1628]

32. Intoxication by alcohol or other substance is a major factor in all violence.

Gang violence, which does include much gun violence, may be reduced by legalizing various drugs. I'm not sure what a reduction number might look like.

It has been estimated that removing such intoxications would reduce violence by 35%.

[Recursion]

33. Removing intoxicants is something I'm going to go out on a limb and declare impossible

Though I'm sure the world would be a much better place

[HereSince1628]

27. Much resistance about that remains across the country

It's doubtful that Congress would legalize it any time soon.

As gun owning is common and mj use is common I'd bet a lot of gun owners are also mj users. This sets up a rather interesting dynamic.

States do get to set their own prohibitions for gun purchases.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Actually a majority of Americans now support legalization of marijuana...not that Congress cares

what American voters think, but that resistance is dwindling and it is now the minority opinion.
"The public backs legalization by 51 percent to 44 percent, the poll found, but is divided on the issue by age and gender.

Men support legalization by 59 percent to 36 percent while women oppose it by 52 percent to 44 percent. Two-thirds of voters under the age of 29 support legalization, while a majority of voters over the age of 65 oppose it."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-usa-marijuana-poll-idUSBRE8B40EG20121205

This fact is problematic for prohibitionists....

[kestrel91316]

58. I guess I'm an outlier. I'm a 55 yo woman and I support legalization of MJ.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. 10 points to the first good answer, the only good answer...

nt

[HereSince1628]

52. Simple to say, not so simple to try to implement

down the road there will be various changes if the law starts to chafe many

[ecstatic]

53. doesn't address safety concerns

I want drugs to be legalized because I think that would reduce crime, but that doesn't address the issue of known addicts and drunks having access to killing machines. What about my safety?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

59. Felony Convictions

If you're a confirmed meth addict and have a felony conviction to prove it, then you should be prohibited. As to drunks, there would have to be a national standard. I think DUI is a misdemeanor in most states, but others can upgrade to a felony under some circumstances (causing personal or property damage as the result of an addident, or having previous DUI convictions). Off the top of my head, I think having two DUI's on your record (everybody deserve the right to make one mistake) should have you on the excluded list.

That being said, I'd like to see a period (maybe ten years) after which if you've kept you nose clean otherwise, you can own a gun.

[Romulox]

61. WHAT safety concerns? Are you referring to a peer review study? Or do you just have "concerns"?

but that doesn't address the issue of known addicts and drunks having access to killing machines.

Marijuana isn't addictive, and this article isn't about alcohol. Your comprehension isn't very good, even when not impaired.

[ecstatic]

62. I know some people who are having a rough time quitting

and, as much as I love them, I would not want them handling a gun while high. Obviously, some people never get addicted and maintain high functioning while on drugs, but I'd prefer a blanket prohibition for anyone on prescription drugs (narcotics), marijuana, and a record of alcoholism or driving while intoxicated. Sorry if it sounds harsh; by my standards, even I would be prohibited from buying a gun because I obtained a prescription for adderall last year. The problem is, everyone is trying to create loopholes so that gun laws will affect everyone else but not them. That's why nothing ever gets done.

As far as my comprehension goes, my comment was in response to a variety of posts made in this thread comparing DUI lists to marijuana lists, etc. It's possible that I am impaired at the moment but I don't think my points are unreasonable.

[Romulox]

63. This is what is called an "anecdote". Generally it's not very useful in public policy debates.

The reason is that I can say I know several people with just the opposite experience. Neither you, I, nor any third party has any chance of sorting out who is "right", or which of us know more people who behave in which way.

That's why we rely on science to set public policy, not some vague mis-giving you might have (but seem unable to articulate.)

What's troubling is that the people most motivated to control others' behavior tend to have the least respect for science, logic, or even basic common sense. Or, to be more to the point, who cares who you want to deny basic rights? You can't even explain yourself, and yet you want control over others. Unbelievable.

[Robb]

22. Yes.

[obamanut2012]

25. Only if DUI convictions will also be reported

And be part of that database stopping people from passing a NICS check.

Marijuana uses should not be stigmatized like this. It should be decriminalized. Ridiculous.

[HereSince1628]

29. That would probably depend on state prohibitions... I think that's possible.

Alcohol intoxication and other substance abuse are important contributors to all forms of violence including gun violence.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. It is the guns that are available that is the problem.

The nics database is window dressing. Serious gun reform has been done successfully in other countries, Canada and Australia, for example.

[pipoman]

35. Countries with no serious constitutional hurtles..

[Warren Stupidity]

38. We regulated machine guns in 1934.

Not even the Scalia (Roberts) court thinks that gun regulation is unconstitutional. By the way, it is a hurdle.

[Recursion]

41. Yeah, Heller and McDonald both said the scope of regulation is pretty broad

Actually in a lot of ways Heller broadened the scope for regulation from what it was in Miller, since in Miller the only criteria mentioned was that a "non-military" weapon could be banned.

[pipoman]

42. Not "in common use for lawful purposes"

is the basis for NFA registration..applied in Miller, referenced several times since.

[pipoman]

31. There are so many bigger problems with NICS

for instance, of those 987,000 denials, less than 5% have been even investigated. That is nearly a million people who are prohibited from owning firearms who sent a note to the BATFE that they are actively trying to buy guns, and nobody cares enough to investigate. Other problems include failure or refusal by states to report to NICS those things which have already been mandated.

[HereSince1628]

36. I'll bet the issue of states not reporting is addressed by Obama today.

The prosecution for unlawful attempts to purchase is not a database issue, per se. But it raises questions about how seriously prosecutors look at such violations.

[pipoman]

43. Maybe the system would actually be effective

if enforcement was funded..but alas, it really isn't about that now, is it?

[Volaris]

40. My suggestion would be...

If its legal in your state to have a Medical MJ script, HAVING one should not get you an automatic denial. If you live in Colorado or Washington (state) they shouldnt be allowed to ask.
I say this not because I think the Feds shouldnt be doing thier jobs, so much as that ANYTHING that can be done to get MJ re-scheduled or that keeps pushing the disconnect between MJ federal policy and MJ REALITY is something we should be making noise about.
I say, this particular "intersection" shouldn't be about gun control as much as it is about MJ law. If it's there, it should be pointed out.

[HereSince1628]

48. Real enforcement of the Brady Act and disciplined attention to the reporting requirements of NICS

will raise many issues.

There is certainly a 'disconnect' between citizen's views, some state law, and the views of federal law and federal authorities.

[ecstatic]

51. Shooting while high...

Not sure I'm comfortable with that... Gun owners have an incredible power: the ability to kill anyone at anytime (in most instances).

You can't be surprised that some agencies have determined that marijuana use may impair one's ability to operate a deadly weapon safely. First, some users experience hallucinations. Legitimate self defense reaction times might be slower, giving attackers a great chance to take the gun and use it against them. I don't see a problem here...

[Romulox]

60. Can you imagine the Gun Warriors teaming up with the Drug Warriors? It's like a culture war

jambaroo!