Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

42-Year-Old Pot Conviction Stops 20-Year Army Veteran From Buying a Rifle
Reason.com ^ | July 10, 2013 | Jacob Sullum

Posted on 07/11/2013 2:59:00 PM PDT by Altariel

Ron Kelly, a 20-year Army veteran, recently tried to buy a .22-caliber rifle at the Wal-Mart in Tomball, Texas. He was turned away because he failed the FBI background check. He appealed the rejection, and last month he got a Justice Department letter explaining that he was legally disqualified from owning guns, after handling them in defense of his country for two decades, because of a 42-year-old marijuana conviction. As a high school student in Durham, North Carolina, he had been caught with a small amount of pot and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession, receiving a sentence of probation because he was a first-time offender. The probation lasted a year, but according to the Justice Department the ensuing loss of Kelly's Second Amendment rights lasts a lifetime. "I am ashamed of the way my government has treated me," Kelly told The Houston Chronicle. "The government may have the greatest of intentions with the [law], but they messed it up."

Kelly's disqualification may in fact be unjustified under current law, which bars gun sales to people convicted of felonies but not misdemeanors (except for misdemeanors involving domestic violence). Unless the feds are treating what North Carolina called a misdemeanor as a felony for some reason, Kelly's pot conviction should not be covered by that provision. The only other disqualifier that seems possibly relevant is the one for anybody who is "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," but more than a 1971 conviction for possession should be required to demonstrate that Kelly falls into that category.

Even if it turns out that Kelly is allowed to own a gun under current law, the case illustrates the folly of the absurdly broad criteria used to strip people of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, since it clearly would be illegal to sell Kelly a gun if he still occasionally smoked pot, whether for medical or recreational purposes, or if he had been caught with enough marijuana to be charged with a felony four decades ago. "Better" background checks can only mean more injustices like this.

[Thanks to Allen St. Pierre for the tip.]


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 666; army; banglist; communism; criminalgovernment; govtabuse; guncontrol; guns; marxism; military; rapeofliberty; secondamendment; tyranny; veteran
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 last
To: HenryArmitage
But it was still marked as a felony for purpose of record keeping.....

If you could have been sentenced to ... blah blah blah, then your are hosed.

FR lawyers can illuminate.

61 posted on 07/11/2013 7:00:19 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mylife
It is beyond odd.

LOL, cops are cruising sports, gun and ammo parking lots with digital license plate cameras that automatically upload the plate info to law enforcement databases that are shared with homeland security, while TSA strip-searches cripples at airports while waiving muslims through unexamined, while the NSA admits to providing "security" code additions to Android phones...

... and you think this is odd?

62 posted on 07/11/2013 7:21:11 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Yes I do think it is odd.
Imagine the monumental task and cost it is to digitize all these old records.
We cannot round up and deport 11 million illegals but we have manpower to dig up records on a kid getting busted with a few doobies in 1972?


63 posted on 07/11/2013 7:25:51 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

1971


64 posted on 07/11/2013 7:33:47 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson