Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
July 2010
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Archives

Authors

The 2nd Amendment and the Drug War

The Supreme Court ruled this week, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to own handguns.

Mark Draughn at Windypundit notes that Mayor Daley of Chicago is planning to fight the ruling and notes:

It’s nonsense to think that the loss of Chicago’s handgun is going to endanger cops or any other first responders. Illinois will almost certainly keep its background check requirement, which means that only people with no significant criminal record will be able to possess a handgun legally. The aren’t likely to suddenly commence a life of crime.

Let me put it another way: Last weekend in Chicago, 54 people were wounded by gunfire, 10 of them fatally. Since ordinary Chicago residents can’t own handguns legally, most of those shots must have been fired by people who had guns in violation of Chicago’s tough handgun ban. It’s hard to imagine that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens would have made things any worse.

But the mayor has some ideas, supposedly about safety, that could make things more dangerous…

“If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders,” Daley said. “We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun.”

Fine, have a registry. But here’s what’s going to happen: the registry will do nothing to help responders facing illegal weapons (the ones that they need to worry about), but it will cause first responders to be overly aggressive when approaching licensed owners (who are much less likely to be a violent threat).

This was exactly the situation in the case of Drug War Victim Anthony Andrew Diotaluto.

Anthony worked two jobs to help pay for the house he lived in with his mother. He had permit for a concealed weapon because of the areas he traveled through for his night job. Sunrise police claimed that he had sold some marijuana, and because they knew he had a legal gun, decided to use SWAT. Neighbors claim that the police did not identify themselves. Police first claimed that Anthony pointed his gun at them, and later changed their story. Regardless, Anthony was dead with 10 bullets in him, and the police found 2 ounces of marijuana.

A marijuana bust turned deadly because the cops knew that he owned a gun.

These days, over 40,000 SWAT “call-outs” happen each year, mostly due to the drug war.

This directly conflicts with legal gun ownership, increasing the likelihood that legal gun owners will be killed by police in either routine, or accidental, raids.

Those who value the 2nd Amendment (including the NRA) should be speaking out forcefully about the excesses of the drug war.

You’ve got plenty of reason.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

28 comments to The 2nd Amendment and the Drug War

  • Steve

    The thing is, NRA-type gun owners tend to be law’n’order authoritarians. They don’t see a disconnect because they can’t. They are overly self-assured. They are creatures of faith. They can even limit their omnipotent god’s ability to say different things to different people. It’s their way or the highway. They’re afraid of falling for anything if they don’t stand for something. Bullshit like that.

    Or so it seems to me.

  • kaptinemo

    It’s the ‘pariah factor’, again. The NRA doesn’t want to piss off its’ LEO members by sticking up for something that’s morally right and politically suicidal. But they’d be amazed at how many responsible firearm owners are cannabis consumers. I’d sooner trust a weapon in their hands than in those of a drunk…

  • the best thing we could do to help prevent the problems involved would be to NOT use swat teams for anything other than the purpose for which they were designed: hostage situations.

    there is absolutely nothing about drug use (or simple sales for that matter) that requires armored assaults.

  • Cannabis

    Queue the wingnut’s “if your not doing anything illegal” comments in you local paper’s online forum in 3, 2, 1…

  • claygooding

    Eventually,org such as NRA and even police assn will pay lip service to ending the prohibition. Our prisons are full,our judicial system has reached a gridlock and is dropping charges and dismissing indictments and our jails are full.
    We are at a saturation point in our efforts to legislate morality.

  • Umm...Donuts Good

    No need for guns the armed civil servant report takers will come and save us. Remember when seconds count the cops are down at Dunkins?!

  • kaptinemo

    “This directly conflicts with legal gun ownership, increasing the likelihood that legal gun owners will be killed by police in either routine, or accidental, raids.”

    And the obvious corollary is that police may face well-armed homeowners who already take the Second Amendment very seriously. Eventually, a SWAT team may be facing such a situation, and if they’re facing a recent combat vet, the soljah-boy wannabes who think nothing about busting down the doors of grannies and waving MP5’s in their faces in a display of tough-guy bravado will be facing a real ‘life-taker and heat-breaker’ Oath Keeper who’s no stranger to killing. Rent the original Rambo movie to see what might happen next.

  • Zeb

    The NRA is not too likely to take a stand one way or the other on the drug war. They are a single issue group and do well sticking to the one issue (which is why I am a member despite the fact that I disagree with most members on many other issues besides gun rights).

  • […] rights, ensures legal battlesRockford Register StarInside INdiana Business (press release) -Drug WarRant (blog) -The New Americanall 3,772 news […]

  • Dante

    More and more, it seems that the police treat anyone with a gun, legal or not, as a criminal.

    In effect, the police have now adopted an anti-2nd Amendment position, which is unconstitutional. They now seek to paint anyone and everyone who carries a gun as a “bad guy” first and foremost.

    Of course, all of the police carry guns.

    Ironic, eh?

  • Flipnik

    Is self-defense a human right?

  • Ripmeupacuppa

    “Eventually,org such as NRA and even police assn will pay lip service to ending the prohibition. Our prisons are full,our judicial system has reached a gridlock and is dropping charges and dismissing indictments and our jails are full.
    We are at a saturation point in our efforts to legislate morality.

    Word!

  • Poke

    Rescinding our 2nd Amendment right to own firearms – a basic right given to us by America’s founders – will NOT prevent criminals from owning and using guns violently. Criminals respect no laws, so why would anyone think that the law to ban guns in Chicago will have ANY affect on the number of guns that criminals have. Owning a large cache of guns is just one more crime to add to the list when they’re arrested — so what??!! In all likelihood, after passage of such a law, only law-abiding citizens would give up their guns. Criminals, who have no respect for the law, would be the only people to still have guns! The result of the gun ban would be exactly opposite of what was intended – the bad guys would have ALL the guns.
    We will make our cities, its citizens and its police men and women, safe only when all criminals know that the use of firearms to resist arrest is not in their best interest, but will result in their assured punishment. Until the juries and judges of America make criminals pay for their actions, the criminals will own guns, whether they’re outlawed or not, and will use them violently to avoid arrest. Don’t be fooled. Giving up our right to own firearms will not make us safer. It will only endanger us more.

  • not quite as dangerous as guns… but there people who shouldn’t even be allowed to type on a qwerty:

    US NY: OPED: Medical Marijuana Too Dangerous, Costly

    Marijuana is not a safe drug. Over time, damage to users’ lungs and brains are measurable and significant. Marijuana is widely regarded as a “gateway drug” that introduces children to the drug culture. Most kids who become addicts move on to other more potent drugs. Although most who experiment with marijuana do not become addicted, young people who avoid it altogether tend not to become drug addicts of any kind.

    Continuing Calvina’s “Marijauna, the most dangerous drug theme”…

    Oh… and Modesto’s petite prohibitionist posted this:

    If you would like to set up an interview about this issue with Calvina Fay, or another member of our coalition opposing “medical” marijuana in New York, please contact Lana Beck at (727) 828-0210 or (727) 403-7571.

  • Jon Doe

    “THC levels vary greatly. In recent years its potency has risen by up to 600 percent and, in some cases, 1,500 percent.”

    That’s a bold claim. Completely made-up, but bold nevertheless. Guess if you gotta lie, lie big.

    Also I loved his claim that most New York pot is laced with Angel Dust (PCP) or arsenic (!).

  • Hope

    Oh Allan. She’s mean. Are you going to do it?

  • jon

    Criminals respect no laws,[…]

    Just how small a minority are people that generally do respect laws, except laws regarding consensual activities among adults? I would never kill anyone, have never stolen anything, and have no intention of ever knowingly harming someone else, yet because of certain laws regarding the mere possession of certain arbitrarily defined chemicals, I’m a “criminal”, just not the kind the police should really be worried about.

  • Me? Nah Hope… I have no desire to ever meet any of these people. But knowing how some folks are in our community I’m not shy about helping with the flow of traffic on the information highway.

  • darkcycle

    Yes, Allan420, I’m with you there. But to those who like to poke the bear, there it is, poke away….

  • ezrydn

    Kaptin,

    Exactly! And the real odd part is, SWAT is there over what keeps you from being like Rambo. That’s the sad part. And people either don’t know or don’t care what might trigger an “episode.”

    When “we” sense movement in the night, unexpectedly, mentally, we don’t take the time to figure out if they’re friendly or enemy. We simply wake up in a free fire zone.

    Remember John’s statement to the Col. at the end of R1? “They made me do it!” There’s truth in that. We never go off on our own. It must be triggered by outside influences. And we are well aware of what missing our target means.

  • claygooding

    A surprising editorial from these people!

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/The-Adam-Smith-Institute-Blog/2010/0701/Prison-reform-and-the-cost-of-drug-prohibition

    “The Adam Smith Institute has advocated a more sensible policy, involving the medicalisation of addictive and damaging drugs, and the legalisation of recreational drugs.”
    For the Christian Science Monitor to print this kind of statement seems revolutionary and a definite change.

  • Vinnum Sabbathi

    That shit ridden cesspool on Lake Michigan known as Chicago will pass some new draconian gun laws in ten days the radio announced. Gun owners won’t be able to go out on their porch or into the garage with their firearms. Here is another fun fact. The 1968 gun control act is almost a direct copy of nazi gun laws from the 30s.

  • Hope

    Calvina.

    I’d cry and run off if she looked at me.

    She’s a ravager.

  • Hope

    Besides. I stutter a bit.

    Lol!

    She would really send me into a fit of stuttering!

  • Hope

    I’d be blind… from the migraine aura.

    It would be hellacious.

  • claygooding

    Calvina is a waste of perfectly good fecal matter.

  • claygooding

    Allan or Pete,if you have time,please go to the following site and send a letter to the editor regarding “drugged driving”. As has become apparent,I don’t have the literary
    competence to make it sound right.
    http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/jul/02/ed-drug02-ar-261919/
    It is Kerli pushing his d/d agenda and I feel we need to address his every effort to get support for this wasted financial attack on marijuana users.

  • claygooding

    “There is still more we can do. Fifteen states have already passed legislation establishing a zero tolerance per se standard for drugged driving. Using this standard, an individual who is driving erratically can be stopped and cited if, after testing, the driver is found to have an illegal drug in his or her system. Sanctions for violating these laws are not purely punitive; they should also help direct drugged driving offenders get the treatment or brief intervention they need in order to lead drug-free lives”

    Testing for drugs are at best circumstantial,because a person could have used a drug 3 or 4 days prior
    to driving,or in the case of marijuana, UA shows the drug for up too 45 days after use. The evidence of drugs in a drivers system does not show that the driver was impaired by the drug at the time of the incident.

    “At the federal level, we will push for more research into technologies to accurately identify the presence of drugs in the system. Together, we can use this information to expand anti-drugged-driving laws nationwide.”

    Karen Tandy,a former administrator at the DEA,now works for Motorola,where a subsidiary company has developed a recent use marijuana detection device. It is very expensive as is all new technology but it only detects marijuana use,not heroin,cocaine or any of the pharmaceutical drugs that do impair driving
    which will put many dollars in Tandy’s pocket,if they can convince America of this problem that does not seem to be that much of a problem. If a driver is weaving,driving recklessly or endangering other drivers,we already have laws in place to remove the driver from the highway and don’t need to gear up and spend millions of dollars,making former DEA administrators rich.
    Recent simulator testing of the effect on a drivers ability show little to no impairment caused by marijuana use. The only real difference between a “straight” driver and a driver under the influence of marijuana was that the marijuana user drove at slower speeds. How many drivers on the way home at 5 pm do you know that need to slow down?

    “I have made reducing drugged driving a priority for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in 2010. ONDCP is working with the Department of Transportation and others on new initiatives aimed at getting drugged drivers off the road.”

    He has made it a priority to spend more tax dollars chasing the dogs tail and making former DEA
    people rich. His office has already spent over a trillion dollars and there are more drugs available than
    ever,with more harm done to our society by the laws,than any damage done by the drugs.

    It is time to end this insanity,and we should make it our priority to remove this man and his bureaucratic empire from our government. The ONDCP has a 15 billion dollar budget and over 1/2 of that budget is spent keeping marijuana prohibited and enforcing marijuana laws.. Wake up America. This man is more of a danger to us than a driver smoking a joint,swigging on a beer and texting his girlfriend at the same time.

    This is about as good as I could do with it.