Reno-era policy kept Jared Loughner off FBI gun list

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Washington Post

An old policy memo from the Clinton administration paved the way for accused Arizona gunman Jared Loughner to buy his first firearm.

Put in place by then-Attorney General Janet Reno, the policy prohibited the military from reporting certain drug abusers to the FBI, which manages the national list of prohibited gun-buyers, federal officials said.

Loughner attempted to enlist in the Army in December 2008 but was rejected because he failed a drug-screening process, Army officials said. Within a year, Loughner bought a Harrington & Richardson shotgun from Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson.

-----

Federal law since 1968 has prohibited gun sales to anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. Licensed dealers have been required to check the backgrounds of gun-buyers since 1994. But the Reno policy told federal agencies not to report people who had voluntarily given drug tests for fear it would deter them from seeking treatment, federal officials said.

"We do get reports from the military," said John A. Strong, the FBI section chief who oversees the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). "Although if you are trying to get into the military and flunk the drug test, that's a voluntary test and you are exempted. The (Justice Department) has decided to exempt voluntary drug tests. They did not want to have a chilling effect on those seeking treatment."



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/18/AR2011011804524.html?hpid=topnews

---

Catch 22 here. So do we give up privacy to government to enhance public safety?

[TheWraith]

1. "Once failed a drug test" is not the same thing as being a crazy drug addict.

I would wager good money that most people here have at least tried some kind of illegal drug, but that doensn't make them unfit to handle a firearm, drive a car, or other things you need to be sober for. Failing a drug test you know is coming may mean that you're an idiot, but that's all.

Edited to add: there's also serious privacy issues whenever you talk about the possibility of confidential medical data automatically being given up to a government agency. Imagine for a second if, the next time you had a physical, they automatically sent your physical description, photo, and fingerprints to an FBI database without your consent? Some people would say it shouldn't be a problem if you're not doing anything wrong--but if you're using that argument, you ARE doing something wrong.

[James48]

3. Your note

You said "Edited to add: there's also serious privacy issues whenever you talk about the possibility of confidential medical data automatically being given up to a government agency."

I would point out that the first test IS a government agency.

When someone enlists in the Army, they DO have their fingerprints sent to the FBI automatically. Getting a military enlistment physical isn't the same as going to your local doctor.

If someone failed a drug test for an enlistment, they have absolutely no excuse. They KNEW a government agency was testing.

[TheWraith]

6. There's a large distinction between a check for security reasons, and permanently recording the info

The guy's fingerprints were sent for a background check, same basic situation for the drug test--not for the data mining needs of the FBI. The distinction is between checking whether he's okay right there and then, or databasing that information forever. Imagine the line between a field sobriety test, and being permanently recorded as a potential alcohol abuser.

There's already far too much storage of information going on--I don't see how providing medical data gathered by one organization makes another one more effective, unless you imagine that everyone who washes out of the military for drugs is going to run amok.

[pipoman]

9. And, what happens in 5 or 10 years when MJ is legalized?

Will there still be thousands of people denied rights for having smoked pot when they were 18?

[Nostradammit]

2. MSM Sez: "See! It's all the fault of those damn liberals!"

HOwzabout we fund mental health care and keep our privacy?

[pipoman]

8. That would require we actually mean we

were fixing a problem...we couldn't have that...it's far too easy to treat symptoms than effect a cure.

[Turbineguy]

4. I knew it.

It was bound to come out sooner or later. Clinton did it.

[Swamp Rat]

5. The Clenis did it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SqhhJb_P3Kk/Sc5XEHJcmuI/AAAAAAAAGFw/h3EGyE8Hgf8/s400/Cone+Nebula.jpg

[Luminous Animal]

7. So it was drugs that drove him to do it, eh? All of those millions of U.S. drug users

are poised to mow us down. Give me a fucking break.

[Toucano]

10. If gun sales are prohibited to any "unlawful user", there should be about 80% less guns

on the streets of the USA.

Gimme a break!

This is a bogus attempt to shift the focus.

[Octafish]

12. Closer to 99-percent, based on traffic.

Ever see anybody observe the 55-mph speed limit?

[cowcommander]

11. So what about private, face-to-face gun sales between individuals?

A background check wouldn't have kept Loughner from getting a gun.