Get collared years ago on a bogus drug charge because the oregano in your back pocket looked like was a bag of weed? Or maybe a judge back in 2006 dropped those charges because you were able to provide proof for that Adderall prescription? Under proposed legislation, it will not matter if you were innocent all along or even proven innocent by a court of law.
Read the whole thing. The article points out one of the hidden easter egg in the bill to encourage more states to report mental health records to NICS, which I pointed out flaws in a few weeks ago.
The whole point here is that owning a gun is a constitutional right. If that’s going to be the case, you can’t just take the right away from people without due process of law. Our opponents in Congress suggest they accept Heller and McDonald, but their policy preferences show that’s all lip service. There are certainly criteria for prohibited drug users that would probably be constitutional, but that’s not what our opponents are talking about. Their goal is different. Their goal is to expand the class of prohibited person to be as wide as humanly possible.
It’s very interesting that even the Brady Campaign acknowledges due process concerns here. They say they are working with McCarthy’s office on this. It will be very interesting to see the language of McCarthy’s bill.