Question about GCA of 1968

[FUCK THE POLICE]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968"]Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories of individuals is prohibited:

....

4. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.

It's illegal to own a gun if you smoke pot?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

the prohibition of marijuana violates our constitutional rights and thus trumps that GCA

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It's illegal to own a gun if you smoke pot?

yes, according to the unconstitutional GCA/NFA, the use of a controlled substance removes your inalienable right to keep and bear arms, with no due process whatsoever.

 

[RockX]

Read up on U.S. v. YANCEY

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in fco 20100903100.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr

an unlawful drug user like Yancey could regain his right to possess a firearm simply by ending his drug abuse. In that sense, the restriction in § 922(g)(3) is far less onerous than those affecting felons and the mentally ill.

Thus the gun ban extends only so long as Yancey abuses drugs. In that way, Yancey himself controls his right to possess a gun; the Second Amendment, however, does not require Congress to allow him to simultaneously choose both gun possession and drug abuse.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I've never actually heard of anyone being prosecuted under it. :-/

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Read up on U.S. v. YANCEY

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in fco 20100903100.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr

an unlawful drug user like Yancey could regain his right to possess a firearm simply by ending his drug abuse. In that sense, the restriction in § 922(g)(3) is far less onerous than those affecting felons and the mentally ill.

Thus the gun ban extends only so long as Yancey abuses drugs. In that way, Yancey himself controls his right to possess a gun; the Second Amendment, however, does not require Congress to allow him to simultaneously choose both gun possession and drug abuse.

shall not be infringed? and no due process? sorry, I can't agree with this opinion and find it totally illogical.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Great post webbway! Now I know how to ban guns once and for all!

Just make a law that says that anyone who is currently breathing cannot own a gun under penalty of death. Thus the gun ban extends only so long as the breather breathes. In that way, the breather controls his right to possess a gun; the Second Amendment, however, does not require Congress to allow the breather to simultaneously choose both gun possession and breathing.

Also, those who chose to both breathe and possess a gun thus freely choose to die, under the twisted logic of retributionist animals in which failure to acquiesce to a threat of force is equivalent to consent.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Great post webbway! Now I know how to ban guns once and for all!

Just make a law that says that anyone who is currently breathing cannot own a gun under penalty of death. Thus the gun ban extends only so long as the breather breathes. In that way, the breather controls his right to possess a gun; the Second Amendment, however, does not require Congress to allow the breather to simultaneously choose both gun possession and breathing.

Also, those who chose to both breathe and possess a gun thus freely choose to die, under the twisted logic of retributionist animals in which failure to acquiesce to a threat of force is equivalent to consent.

which is exactly why the framers meant 'shall not be infringed' to mean 'shall not be infringed'.