18 USC 922 – Prohibited Persons

by Susan Olsen

Cross-posted in its entirety:

H/T Ace of Spades

18 USC 922 – Prohibited Persons

“There’s all sorts of “discussion” about firearms law in this country, 99.99% of which is nonproductive blather not worth paying any attention to because of all the intentional distortions being spread by participants propagandists.

I use the word “intentional” here very ummm….intentionally. All Federal firearms law and BATF rulings in this country have been available online and accessible in a matter of minutes for a number of years now.

There are no LEXIS/NEXIS paywalls, no needing to purchase expensive paper copies of Federal law books or CD’s from the GPO, nothing whatsoever inhibits any person from entering a conversation fully prepared to discuss current law. Twenty years ago this was not the case. Today, there is no excuse.

If you’re spouting BS today on 03 FEB 2013, you’re either an intentional and willing propagandist, or dumber than a box of rocks. The barriers today for attaining competence in this “national discussion” are so low, they’re buried in the dirt.

So, for those who aren’t out there spouting BS, but never paid any particular attention to the nation’s firearms law, yet may be “law curious” because of the “national discussion”, I present to you the actual, unvarnished, stone cold, it is what it is, nobody can deny it, reality of who is prohibited from buying, possessing, or shipping firearms AND ammunition in the USA.

Lets have a round of applause for 18 USC 922 (g)
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.


Clearly, there’s a number of issues in THE LAW as it exists today worthy of consideration in any rational “national discussion”.

Here’s a few that leap out at me.

The “has been committed to a mental institution” wording makes no distinction between voluntary and involuntary commitment, and offers no notion of expiration date. So, for example, if someone’s family died in a tragic plane crash and they were having problems dealing with that and checked themselves in for some help in getting their life back on track and dealing with the trauma, they were “committed”, and 40 years later they would STILL fall under this filter.

Its like a Roach Motel – they can check in but they can never check out. Is this inflexible wording of  the law fair or just in all cases of “commitment”? That’s one of the things this “national discussion” should be talking about.

Another point for consideration is the “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” language. “Unlawful user” is pretty absolutist language, it has no expiration date. It prohibits anyone who ever burned down a splif or partook in a bit of nose candy at a party. Strictly speaking, Obama broke Federal law by touching that shotgun since he’s openly admitted he used illegal drugs in the past.

“Medical” marijuana aficionados? Prohibited.
Doctors who’ve dipped into their sample closets? Prohibited.
Anyone who’s been to a rave and did some E? Prohibited.
Anyone who took some Vicodin that wasn’t prescribed for them? Prohibited
etc, etc, etc

There’s more in this snip of actual law worthy of the “national discussion”, but this should be enough to get some NO BS dialog started. If people want something changed, they should be able to state how the existing law should be amended. No more gauzy hand waving and BS emotional appeals.

Write some words.
Propose how this text should be amended.
Be specific.
You have no excuses now.
You’ve been given the tools.”

Like it? Share it!

Leave a Comment

  • mer

    #3, “…is an unlawful user…” doesn’t that imply present tense? If it was was written “… is or has been an…” would imply past tense (see #4).

    Just picking nits, I agree with the overall theme of the post.

    • nhsteve

      “…as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)”

      Whoever has the time could go look that up as it would indeed have bearing on the ‘national discussion.’

    • C. dog e. doG

      Nice catch, Mer. Wonder if ol’ Billy Boy Clinton could handle a gun while assessing whether there is sex here, or not. Just so long as Monica Lewinsky doesn’t inhale. Some interesting implications for those wishing tobacco to become a controlled substance. Cigar, anyone?
      – C. dog

  • mer

    #4 has always bothered me, Susan’s comments articulates my thoughts very well. Just because someone needed help at one point in their life, they give up the right to an avenue of self defense?

    • C. dog e. doG

      Why should it be any different for those seeking medical help via turbo-charged hemp? Let’s see, it’s o.k. for a drunk guy to go out and shoot anything resembling a bambi – so long as its in season – but Government forbid that his buddy do same cuz’ he inhaled some whacky weed and ate a bag of potatoe chips.
      – C. dog

      • Chris P. Bacon

        You…you’re funny you. Are those Wise potato chips? As i am sure you know, no-one inhaling wacky weed goes shooting bambis. That is way to much work, and vewy woud.

        • C. dog e. doG

          LMfAO Schwartz once again. Funny how standards change depending on how many beers consumed and how many miles under the hood. I sweaaa you have the best stories. They could make a movie out of your service years: “Stripes II; Lo-Brow on the High Seas”. Maybe the dishonorable discharged are all crazy, no matter how “odd” the orders from above.

          I saw a naked prune once that looked like Prophet Obama. I thought it sacrilegious to eat him, so I left him with 72 virgins while sky-diving.
          – C. dog versed in all religions

          • Chris P. Bacon

            My Dad says the same thing about a movie. Problem is, most people wold not believe it.

            I was told to go mow the lawn, but the Master Chief in charge of the housing maintenance unit was supposed to call first (only full birds and above got their lawns mowed). Well, his defense was he never told me to do it. Yah, like out of bordem in 98 degree heat and 101% humidity in Nawlins LA., on my own, i just decided to grab a lawn mower and go have some fun. Who are the going to believe, and e-2 or a retired e-9?

            Course, after walking through the gate of the fence and seeing Mrs. Admiral lying there my first thought was: “damn, i forgot the weed whacker!!”

          • C. dog e. doG

            You, sir, are insubordinate! Drop and give ‘er 50! Hmmm, I imagine you the Bill Murray type: a sardonic, disruptive wise potatoe chip.
            – C. dog, New Hamster’s very own ill-manered mutt

          • Chris P. Bacon

            Oh don’t worry, i got ole Master Chief back. i had my girlfriend call his house when i knew he wasn’t home and when his wife answered she asked for him. That didn’t go over well.

  • http://www.GraniteGrok.com/ Rick Olson

    um, actually the word “committed” is grounded in volumes of case law. Civil commitment is a court action. Voluntarily going to a nut house to get ones bolts tightened up, generally does not fall into this category…except if a person volunteers before a court can order it, then it is a “consent order” but still a court order. This turns on adjudication. Some states bar firearm ownership if one ever merely says they were mentally ill.

Previous post:

Next post: