Tragedy Begets Bad Law

16Jan/116

Tragedy Begets Bad Law

First of all, Schumer's a tool and we all know this, but I thought I'd address his latest idiocy before it starts to gain bi-partisan support. As if some lowly small-time blogger is going to be able to stop that, but one can dream, can't he?

Apparently Loughner was able to buy a gun in spite of two things. 1. He's crazy; but has never been treated or officially diagnosed. 2. He's got a history of drug use. That drug use kept him out of the military because he admitted it to recruiters. It did not, however, keep him from buying a gun because without an arrest, it never made the FBI radar. So Schumer, in his finite wisdom, has declared he wants to force recruiters to disclose this information to the FBI when they get it; ostensibly to prevent the next Loughner.

One thing that constantly amazes me about politicians is their super-human ability to ignore obvious (if unintended) consequences in the name of good intentions. The only thing this bill would do is prevent applicants from disclosing their drug use to military recruiters, which would simply mean someone like Loughner would have been allowed to enter the military.

How scary is that?

Well, it would do one more thing, it would keep otherwise qualified applicants from even trying for fear of their drug use getting onto the FBI radar (no one likes the idea that the FBI might have a file on them). Prior minor drug use isn't necessarily a disqualifier, but if one gets caught lying on the application about this issue, it could be grounds for immediate dismissal (less than honorable).

More on our propensity to respond to tragedy with bad law at the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Adam Wells

Living life at 84 mph and 7000 feet. All I ask is that you don't block traffic, act like a professional, and don't act all surprised when your actions have consequences. Oh, and don't complain about the refs; trust me, they don't care if your team wins or not.

Tagged as: arizona shooting, bad law, law of unintended consequences, LUC, schumer Leave a comment

Comments (6) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Donald Douglas
January 16th, 2011 - 19:13

I’m taking a break from the Tucson blogging.

I’ve got you linked up on a Rule 5 roundup: ‘Britney Spears — ‘Hold It Against Me’ — Rule 5′.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
William Teach
January 16th, 2011 - 20:12

I’m sure Chuck will run right out and complain about the Federal government ignoring 14 states which allow the use of medical marijuana, in violation of Federal law…..even I can’t hold a straight face typing that.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
snaqwells
January 16th, 2011 - 21:00

Yeah, that crossed my mind, too.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Joe
January 17th, 2011 - 04:23

Loughner tested postive for weed when he applied, which is why the Army did not take him. If he had laid off the bong for two weeks before joining he would have gotten in. Where does testing postive for weed disqualify you from owning a firearm? Weed does not exactly make you into a violent killer of anything other than brownies and other delicious munchie foods. You can even join the FBI if you admit marijuana use (they will lie detector you on your past drug use but if not excessive [less than 20 times] you can still be a Special Agent).

This is not about drugs and firearms, this is about Chuck Schumer trying to make firearm ownership that much harder.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Joe
January 17th, 2011 - 04:43

• Any person who is addicted to the use of narcotics (state and federal)

Well, I guess that means no guns for Andrew Sullivan! Actually even excitable Andrew, since he is a legal resident, could own some guns (although living in Masschusetts and D.C. might make it difficult). While marijuana is classified a narcotic, you have to be addicted to be banned from gun ownership. From what I have read about this guy, Jared Loughner would not have been banned for drug use. What Loughner should have been banned for is his mental illness. There was plenty of reasons to make gun ownership harder for Loughner, but he was not in the system.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Joe
January 17th, 2011 - 04:46

Current federal restrictions.

Do we really need more?

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )