View Full Version : Schumer Pushes for Military to Report Applicants' Drug Use to Prevent Gun Purchases
Schumer Pushes for Military to Report Applicants' Drug Use to Prevent Gun Purchases
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/16/schumer-require-military-report-applicants-drug-use-prevent-gun-purchases/#
"WASHINGTON -- If someone admits to a federal official that he's used illegal drugs, that information should be sent to the FBI so that person can be disqualified from purchasing a gun, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday............."
There are a number of angles to this story. One, if it's passed it would encourage people to lie on their applications.
Another is "sent to the FBI". This is just a step away from having other "information" sent to the FBI.
All you folks with PTS....................
Schumer Pushes for Military to Report Applicants' Drug Use to Prevent Gun Purchases
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/16/schumer-require-military-report-applicants-drug-use-prevent-gun-purchases/#
"WASHINGTON -- If someone admits to a federal official that he's used illegal drugs, that information should be sent to the FBI so that person can be disqualified from purchasing a gun, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday............."
Another is "sent to the FBI". This is just a step away from having other "information" sent to the FBI.
Roger that, and I'm sure that's the intent.
First that, then you've taken anti-depressants, then if you have a family history of mental illness, the list will be endless.
Why isn't he asking that they test all welfare, food stamps, unemployment, and other entitlement recipients for drug(s)??
:confused::confused:
Surgicalcric
01-16-2011, 17:12
Why isn't he asking that they test all welfare, food stamps, unemployment, and other entitlement recipients for drug(s)??
:confused::confused:
Because he wouldn't get reelected Brother.
Why isn't he asking that they test all welfare, food stamps, unemployment, and other entitlement recipients for drug(s)??
:confused::confused:
Probably because none of them swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you're planning on pissing all over the Constitution, you have to know who your enemies are.
Ya right, I would much rather a Drunk have a Gun then someone who smokes some Pot. Our system is a joke.
Why isn't he asking that they test all welfare, food stamps, unemployment, and other entitlement recipients for drug(s)??
:confused::confused:
Just what we need - more bureaucracy to generate even more bureaucracy to keep an eye on yet another group of minimally qualified watchdogs who could give a $**t less as long as they're collecting their $. And then there are the $$$$ of staffing, running, and monitoring such a program - Oy vey, was fur ein fortz n' zovver! :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
Just what we need - more bureaucracy to generate even more bureaucracy to keep an eye on yet another group of minimally qualified watchdogs who could give a $**t less as long as they're collecting their $. And then there are the $$$$ of staffing, running, and monitoring such a program - Oy vey, was fur ein fortz n' zovver! :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
Oh, I don't know about that. You would probably be cutting back on the force as you try and grow it because the workload would be drying up so fast.
But then you may have a point. No government agency - except the Military - seems to ever get smaller. Just more government workers sitting around trying to look like they have something to do.
Anecdotal information in link below but Schumer should worry about his own "house" first.
How many House and Senate members (and staffers) have been stopped for DUI...how many use drugs, prescription or otherwise?? Goes to judgment, just sayin'...
This is not a direction that we want our country to go. Schumer is an opportunistic fraud and a showman. I don't see him trying to ban politician's driving cars on Chappaquiddick. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
BigJimCalhoun
01-16-2011, 18:44
Didn't President Obama admit to cocaine use when he was younger? Isn't the nuclear arsenal far more dangerous than a firearm?
:munchin
charlietwo
01-16-2011, 19:58
As a recruiter... good Lord. This terrifies me. I would say 50% of juniors/seniors in high school that I talk to either smoke pot or are on ADD/ADHD medicine.
Quick.. someone get the 2nd Amendment a flak jacket!
They want our guns as badly as they want our privacy and our money. They'll get it all if we don't vote the rest of the marxist bastards out of office next term.
Oldrotorhead
01-16-2011, 20:29
Should we go through the politicians that that would be exempt from this new law? We could start with Patrick Kennedy. Hollywood would be devoid of firearms. Oh wait!! Congress would exempt themselves from this as they have other legislation. Some how their would be an escape clause for contributors as well. Just the peasants would have to comply. Certainly not the gods in D.C. and their supporters.
craigepo
01-16-2011, 20:30
Why isn't he asking that they test all welfare, food stamps, unemployment, and other entitlement recipients for drug(s)??
:confused::confused:
That is coming up for a vote in Missouri very soon.
http://www.kctv5.com/politics/26491130/detail.html
That is coming up for a vote in Missouri very soon.
http://www.kctv5.com/politics/26491130/detail.html
Sounds like a good idea to me, but not everyone agrees......
Meanwhile, Faheemi Manor, also of Kansas City, thinks the state government should leave this issue alone."It's bad enough they got testing for everything else. They get involved in your personal life, and then take away your benefits, and I feel like that's one of your amendments, one of the amendments of the Constitution," Manor said.
Alvin Brooks and Rev. Cleaver would probably agree:rolleyes:
l
Someone is laid off for no fault of their own and seeks unemployment...and you think they should be tested? :confused:
Someone is receiving welfare assistance because they are physically or mentally handicapped and you think they should be tested? :confused:
What's next - testing anybody who turns in a 1040 and due a refund to make sure they're sober enough to spend it wisely?
How about testing all public employees and elected officials - after all, it's our tax dollars. How much would that cost us - monetarily and to our civil liberties?
Maybe we should do random, unannounced testing of anyone who has a CCL or registered weapon(s)? Or is that different? Does the Second Amendment trump the Fourth Amendment?
And testing for what? In Texas, alcohol is still the biggest issue...and the last time I looked at the statutes, it was legal.
The first false positive for opiates due to a poppy seed muffin or bagel addiction and then what? More definitive testing at >$? Disgruntled employees on admn leave pending further testing? Law suits? Who pays for all those perqs?
And what of the Fourth Amendment? http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm
IMO this 'feel good' movement belongs in the not such a good idea bin of fad 'nanny state' ideas - especially today when so many people of good character are drawing such public assistance due to the current 'bear' economic situation and job market realignment.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Surgicalcric
01-16-2011, 22:14
Someone is laid off for no fault of their own and seeks unemployment...and you think they should be tested? :confused:
Someone is receiving welfare assistance because they are physically or mentally handicapped and you think they should be tested? :confused:
If they are the recipient of unemployment, welfare, food-stamps, WIC, free childcare, etc... then yes.
What's next - testing anybody who turns in a 1040 and due a refund to make sure they're sober enough to spend it wisely?
Since the refund is their own money they can do with it what they please... I dont care what someone spends their own money on. But that isnt what this is about...
How about testing all public employees and elected officials - after all, it's our tax dollars. How much would that cost us - monetarily and to our civil liberties?
I dont have an issue with public officials being drug tested...in fact believe they should be. Since the fiasco of the health care bill passing I am certain Congress is on something
Maybe we should do random, unannounced testing of anyone who has a CCL or registered weapon(s)?
If they are the recipient of any of my previously mentioned programs then yes.
The first false positive for opiates due to a poppy seed muffin or bagel addiction and then what? More definitive testing at >$? Disgruntled employees on admn leave pending further testing? Law suits? Who pays for all those perqs?
I imagine the same thing that happens when other (LE, FIRE, EMS, MILITARY, ETC) people who are subject to random drug testing have false positives...
And what of the Fourth Amendment? http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm
What of it?
As with employment with institutions which DEMAND drug testing...if you dont want to to be subject to the test dont rely on the benefits...
IMO this 'feel good' movement belongs in the not such a good idea bin of fad 'nanny state' ideas - especially today when so many people of good character are drawing such public assistance due to the current 'bear' economic situation and job market realignment.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Welfare is the "FEEL GOOD" movement and the epitome of a "NANNY STATE."
Furthermore, I dont know of any "good people" who wouldnt piss in a cup if they needed help. It is those who have something else to lose who dont want to face up to what they do...
Now, I dont have an issue with people using it to get back on their feet. I have a monumental issue with people who have used it as primary means of income for extended periods of time. That said, IMO the government has overstepped its bounds by providing welfare (and social security) to begin with; it says, "promote the general welfare," not provide it. Welfare is the church's responsibility...
longrange1947
01-17-2011, 08:53
How about testing all public employees and elected officials - after all, it's our tax dollars. How much would that cost us - monetarily and to our civil liberties?
We already are tested and tested randomly. Two of our instructors have been tested twice last year on random picks.
Agree with Surg, I have nothing to hide and will pee whenever asked. You want money for being unemployed or on welfare then you need to be pee'ed to show you are not using that money for drugs or what ever. Maybe not a popular opinion but a basic truth.
I am tired of the PC crap to censure speech and being cowed into quiet over give aways that the US can no longer afford.
We already are tested and tested randomly. Two of our instructors have been tested twice last year on random picks.
I am tired of the PC crap to censure speech and being cowed into quiet over give aways that the US can no longer afford.
:cool: Nailed it.
It is always interesting to hear pleas for an extension of the 'nanny state' which would - if enacted and pending Constitutional review - further erode our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and increase our national debt at a time when we can least afford either...and even more so when the arguments so strongly in favor of such a position come from among those who so consistently rail against both. :confused:
Based on precedent and a learned distrust of bureaucracies of any sort, I remain leery of the dangerously lurking unintended consequences to our civil liberties and but a further rendering of the very fabric of our society such a proposal would - IMO - bring about.
Welfare is the church's responsibility...
And 'which' church might that be? In September, I visited a church under construction in Nazareth in which an American church had recently given $200m for the main altar. Millions for bricks, mortar, and the trappings of bureaucratic success - pennies and feigned hope for the altruistic betterment of mankind.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
We already are tested and tested randomly. Two of our instructors have been tested twice last year on random picks.
Agree with Surg, I have nothing to hide and will pee whenever asked. You want money for being unemployed or on welfare then you need to be pee'ed to show you are not using that money for drugs or what ever. Maybe not a popular opinion but a basic truth.
I am tired of the PC crap to censure speech and being cowed into quiet over give aways that the US can no longer afford.
Agreed, I've been tested as has everyone else in the military for years, and understand that before testing was a reality, we had severe drug abuse issues in the military. Government handouts must not be excluded from the same scrutiny. This is not a civil liberties issue; it's a common sense issue. Our liberties are frequently made conditional primarily along the lines of adherence to our laws, but also regarding an individual’s age; mental diagnosis; and even military service where as we acknowledge our adherence of a drug testing requirement in order to stay, and prosper in this volunteer force. Under certain status parameters we’ve learned to accept limited liberties. Government handouts certainly should be included.
Most people could care less what someone else does to themselves regarding their drug abuse or anything else for that matter. I just don't want my tax dollars to pay for it, or my government enabling this behavior either....jd
Surgicalcric
01-17-2011, 10:04
...increase our national debt at a time when we can least afford either...and even more so when the arguments so strongly in favor of such a position come from among those who so consistently rail against both. :confused:
Then I say we stop ALL welfare...
I would offer our debt would be decreased due to the amount of money saved from not paying for people's habits, cars, steak dinners, etc... for those who abuse the system and test positive for illegal drugs.
And 'which' church might that be?
Any church Richard. Without regard to where ALL the money goes, the church (any denomination) gives millions to needy people each year. That money is given freely by people led to give it...
...pennies and feigned hope for the altruistic betterment of mankind...
So says you...
longrange1947
01-17-2011, 10:14
Just to be clear, I am talking of our civilain instrucotrs, the military ones have always been tested. I was first piss tested in 10th Group, Devens, 1970 with the guidelines of E4 and below and 21 and below were druggies. E5 and above and 22 and above were druunks. No BS! :munchin
Just to be clear, I am talking of our civilain instrucotrs, the military ones have always been tested. I was first piss tested in 10th Group, Devens, 1970 with the guidelines of E4 and below and 21 and below were druggies. E5 and above and 22 and above were druunks. No BS! :munchin
In 1980, our BN S-2 was busted for dealing pot. Also, perhaps a year later, someone dropped acid in the BN Commanders cofee pot. These were not happy times....jd
Dozer523
01-17-2011, 11:04
Agreed, I've been tested as has everyone else in the military for years, and understand that before testing was a reality, we had severe drug abuse issues in the military. Government handouts must not be excluded from the same scrutiny. I don't think drug testing in the military is designed to keep weapons out of the hands of dopers. There are too many safeguards against that starting with the armorer asking, "why?".
Military drug testing is because drug use is so destructive to good order and discipline. I got pee-ed at least once per year at SWC and except for that awesome three days I "got stuck with" the 100% inventory of the SWC weapons collection I never went near a bullet-launcher.
I swear the only words I remember from the custodian was , "Could we PLEASE pick up pace? Do you have to play with ALL of them?":D
. . . perhaps a year later, someone dropped acid in the BN Commanders cofee pot. These were not happy times....jd The only time things ever made sense?:D
I don't think drug testing in the military is designed to keep weapons out of the hands of dopers. There are too many safeguards against that starting with the armorer asking, "why?".
Military drug testing is because drug use is so destructive to good order and discipline. I got pee-ed at least once per year at SWC and except for that awesome three days I "got stuck with" the 100% inventory of the SWC weapons collection I never went near a bullet-launcher.
I swear the only words I remember from the custodian was , "Could we PLEASE pick up pace? Do you have to play with ALL of them?":D
The only time things ever made sense?:D
The conversation was in regard to requiring drug testing for those receiving government welfare handouts. It was pointed out that this would be violating the civil liberties of those on welfare. I disagree...it will make them conditional though.
Our liberties are frequently made conditional primarily along the lines of adherence to our laws, but also regarding an individual’s age; mental diagnosis; and even military service where as we acknowledge our adherence of a drug testing requirement in order to stay, and prosper in this volunteer force. Under certain status parameters we’ve learned to accept limited liberties. Government handouts certainly should be included.
I think government welfare should also be conditional, if you're smoking pot, crack, heroin, or whatever....you don't qualify for a government handout.
Regarding weapons and specifically Sen. Schumer's desire to have the military report to the FBI on prospective recruits past drug use, I think it would be a pernicious policy. Military recruiters deal with young kids who try to get into the military and may have experimented with drugs. If Schumer had his way, honesty would disqualify these people from weapons ownership. How this would affect recruiting efforts is I’m sure no concern of Schumer’s but, what would Schumer do next? Make PTSD, or TBI disqualifiers? Schumer should keep his anti military bias out of the disqualifier process. If he wants to go after drug abusers as a means of limiting weapons purchases fine, but leave the military out of the witch hunt.....jd
Although the thread has drifted a bit to discuss positions on drug testing for welfare recipients - and how mandating such testing may violate one's constitutional rights - we should recognize that the 4th Amendment, by its terms, generally protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. IMO, there is room for healthy debate on the testing issue within the purview of the Constitution and legal precedent (many here are subject to drug testing in exchange for a paycheck).
While protecting one's privacy is certainly important - the current debate really requires us to consider whether it is REASONABLE to test a limited universe of folks - people who accept public welfare funds - for illicit drug use.
While, I am generally against growth in government - I truly wonder whether such testing - of this limited universe of folks - would also permit such folks to not only be removed from the rolls until clean - but also be advised/treated for drug and other related health issues.
Would testing not assist in identifying the very folks that will require the most assistance ($$) and who may prove to be the most costly (long term) participants in the system?
I can't help but consider what would be the result - if the system committed to both removal from the welfare rolls AND also a treatment component based on a positive test.
Would this potential revision to the current welfare payment structure (drug testing welfare recipients) be an opportunity to actually reduce costs (or at least reallocate payments currently made to a drug user - and redirect such payments to a medical professional who treats the patient until a clean test). And, would that reallocation reduce actual costs in the long run? I don't know, but I do like the thought of reducing both costs and illicit drug use - and I certainly don't wish to pay for illicit drug use (and all that flows for such behavior) either directly or indirectly - especially for someone else. ;)
Notwithstanding the above (a worthy discussion) I still disagree with Schumer on his proposal - the unintended consequences of reporting ALL instances of drug use for the purpose of limiting firearms ownership for life could be quite severe - the bureaucracy - a nightmare.
I suspect that the truth would become more elusive than it already is.
DJ Urbanovsky
01-17-2011, 15:00
Uhhh... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this already dealt with on form 4473, which I've had to fill out every time I've purchased a firearm from a dealer?
11E... Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Let's pass more laws that do the same thing as the laws we already have on the books. :mad:
Spot on - little doubt that Loughner lied on the form - but told the truth to military recruiters.
Oldrotorhead
01-17-2011, 17:30
Although the thread has drifted a bit to discuss positions on drug testing for welfare recipients - and how mandating such testing may violate one's constitutional rights - we should recognize that the 4th Amendment, by its terms, generally protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. IMO, there is room for healthy debate on the testing issue within the purview of the Constitution and legal precedent (many here are subject to drug testing in exchange for a paycheck).
While protecting one's privacy is certainly important - the current debate really requires us to consider whether it is REASONABLE to test a limited universe of folks - people who accept public welfare funds - for illicit drug use.
While, I am generally against growth in government - I truly wonder whether such testing - of this limited universe of folks - would also permit such folks to not only be removed from the rolls until clean - but also be advised/treated for drug and other related health issues.
Would testing not assist in identifying the very folks that will require the most assistance ($$) and who may prove to be the most costly (long term) participants in the system?
I can't help but consider what would be the result - if the system committed to both removal from the welfare rolls AND also a treatment component based on a positive test.
Would this potential revision to the current welfare payment structure (drug testing welfare recipients) be an opportunity to actually reduce costs (or at least reallocate payments currently made to a drug user - and redirect such payments to a medical professional who treats the patient until a clean test). And, would that reallocation reduce actual costs in the long run? I don't know, but I do like the thought of reducing both costs and illicit drug use - and I certainly don't wish to pay for illicit drug use (and all that flows for such behavior) either directly or indirectly - especially for someone else. ;)
Notwithstanding the above (a worthy discussion) I still disagree with Schumer on his proposal - the unintended consequences of reporting ALL instances of drug use for the purpose of limiting firearms ownership for life could be quite severe - the bureaucracy - a nightmare.
I suspect that the truth would become more elusive than it already is.
Drug and alcohol testing, even tobacco testing could work the same was as other testing works. People take drug tests to work, and get money. What is the difference when you drug test for say welfare to get money. In both cases you may elect not to participate.
On another of your points, why should the general public be forced to pay for a drug users problems?
None of these benefits including a job are listed in the 18 enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution so any federal welfare program is in effect charity, and strings can be attached.
There is less reason to allow the Federal Government to drug test in order to purchase a fire arm since the Fourth Amendment does not give the Feds that power. I don't support not testing for fire arms purchase I'm just saying if they ask the question here why not for the free stuff.:munchin
"Drug and alcohol testing, even tobacco testing could work the same was as other testing works. People take drug tests to work, and get money. What is the difference when you drug test for say welfare to get money. In both cases you may elect not to participate."
We agree on this - I believe that was my point.
"On another of your points, why should the general public be forced to pay for a drug users problems?"
Because, among other things, it may save us tax dollars in the long run.
That is, this testing may be a real opportunity - and treatment may, in addition to cleaning up otherwise anonymous and nonproductive addicts, make the idea more palatable to opponents in getting such a law passed.
Currently, we (taxpayers) are contributing tax dollars to social programs without drug testing. Assuming that some of these recipients take illegal drugs, we (taxpayers) are already, directly or indirectly, paying to subsidize a drug habit.
Where I expanded my comments - raising for discussion - the possible reallocation of welfare benefits from a recipient who tests positive - to a medical professional to treat the addict.
That is, I suggested that the payment that a welfare recipient would have received (had they not blown the drug test) - might be money well spent by reallocating those funds to medical care - for those addicts willing to receive treatment.
My thinking was that in the long-run, helping a nonproductive addict get straight, might be cheaper than ignoring the problem. Ignoring the problem often leads to crime, use of the criminal justice system, incarceration, recidivism, etc., etc., all having additional real costs to society.
Testing just strikes me as a rare opportunity - an opportunity to both help society AND save tax money - I realize that we can ignore these folks once they piss positive - I just view that as a bit short sighted - but I am willing to listen - I just saw what I perceived to be an opportunity - I could be wrong but our current strategy is not working.