It’s kind of a shitty law in the first place, but he was assuredly guilty of it. It’s still unusual that they went after him for it when it wasn’t connected to any other crime (which is usually when federal prosecutors use this law) and really unusual that the judge threw out the plea bargain.
I don’t really get this take. I’ve seen the same people wanting stricter gun control and also saying this is a dumb law. Most responsible gun owners who are pro gun rights would agree that we don’t want drug addicts to have guns. Why isn’t this something people can all agree on?
Admittedly, this is hypocritical as hell because police don’t bother to follow up on felons who own guns, and even infrequent marijuana use prohibits people from purchasing firearms. But, it’s just good sense for someone who is addicted to crack to not own guns.
Even with the details of this case, my understanding is that it all started because he was on drugs, and didn’t have his gun safely stored and his then girlfriend, also a drug user, took it and threw it in a trash can in a public place, which is an excellent reason not to let drug users have guns.
“Drugs” are a pretty broad category of thing, it’s unlikely that you’re ever going to get an honest answer out of anyone, and it’s even more unlikely that anyone using illegal drugs who wants a gun is going to not buy a gun because of this. It’s just more war on drugs bullshit.
I’ll also add that if people were actually worried about the competency of people buying guns to own guns, then it would make far more sense to put the burden of proof on the person buying to prove their competency. But that’s not what this law is really about.
It’s kind of a shitty law in the first place, but he was assuredly guilty of it. It’s still unusual that they went after him for it when it wasn’t connected to any other crime (which is usually when federal prosecutors use this law) and really unusual that the judge threw out the plea bargain.
It was clearly used as a political tool in this case.
I don’t really get this take. I’ve seen the same people wanting stricter gun control and also saying this is a dumb law. Most responsible gun owners who are pro gun rights would agree that we don’t want drug addicts to have guns. Why isn’t this something people can all agree on? Admittedly, this is hypocritical as hell because police don’t bother to follow up on felons who own guns, and even infrequent marijuana use prohibits people from purchasing firearms. But, it’s just good sense for someone who is addicted to crack to not own guns.
Even with the details of this case, my understanding is that it all started because he was on drugs, and didn’t have his gun safely stored and his then girlfriend, also a drug user, took it and threw it in a trash can in a public place, which is an excellent reason not to let drug users have guns.
“Drugs” are a pretty broad category of thing, it’s unlikely that you’re ever going to get an honest answer out of anyone, and it’s even more unlikely that anyone using illegal drugs who wants a gun is going to not buy a gun because of this. It’s just more war on drugs bullshit.
I’ll also add that if people were actually worried about the competency of people buying guns to own guns, then it would make far more sense to put the burden of proof on the person buying to prove their competency. But that’s not what this law is really about.
Drug addicts need to defend themselves too! /s