Please go to the link and fill out the online letter to your Senator. The GOA system works, I get replies from my reps whenever I write.
[url]http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm[/url]
Millions More to Be Barred from Gun Ownership
 -- Immediate Action Needed

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

November 12, 2002

The House has passed H.R. 4757, the so-called "Our Lady of Peace
Act."  Its chief sponsor is the rabidly anti-gun Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy of New York.

Not surprisingly, one of the other rabid anti-gunners from New York,
Senator Chuck Shumer (D), has sponsored the companion bill in the
Senate (S. 2826).

The bill would require states to turn over vast numbers of
sometimes-personal records (on potentially all Americans) to the FBI
for use in connection with the Instantcheck.  These records would
include any state record relevant to the question of whether a
person is prohibited from owning a gun.

This starts with a large volume of mental health records, but the
FBI could also require that a state forward ALL of its employment
and tax records in order to identify persons who are illegal aliens.
It could require that states forward information concerning drug
diversion programs and arrests that do not lead to prosecution, in
order to determine whether a person was "an unlawful user of... any
controlled substance...."

The bill would also help FBI officials to effectively stop millions
of additional Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were
guilty in the past of committing slight misdemeanors.  You might
remember the Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed
in 1996?  Because of this ban, people who have committed very minor
offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even
yelling at a family member have discovered that they can no longer
own a firearm for self-defense.

But the anti-gun nuts in Congress are upset because many of the
states' criminal records are incomplete.  As a result, the FBI does
not access all of these records when screening the background of
someone who purchases a firearm from a gun dealer.  The
McCarthy-Schumer bill would change all that and keep millions of
decent, peaceful citizens from owning a firearm because of one
slight offense committed in their past.

The bill also reaches for a gun owning prohibition on nearly 3
million more Americans who have spent time in mental health
facilities.  This group has no more involvement in violent crime
than does the rest of the population.  But even assuming that those
with (often minor and treatable) mental health histories are "bad"
guys, this bill is NOT about keeping bad guys from getting guns.
Bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get guns, no matter how many
restrictions there are.

This bill is all about control.  Schumer and McCarthy want to keep
pushing their agenda forward, making it impossible for more and more
Americans to legally own guns!  But if it is OK to ban gun ownership
for certain people who have engaged in a shouting match with another
family member, or who have stayed overnight in a hospital for
emotional observation or who have been written a prescription for
depression, then who will be next on the McCarthy-Schumer hit list?
People who drink an occasional beer?  People who take "mind
altering" cold medicines -- Nyquil, TheraFlu, etc.?

H.R. 4757 and S. 2826 are major, anti-self defense bills that will
only make the country safer for criminals while opening the door to
invading the privacy of all Americans.

A near-total gun ban on the island of Great Britain has resulted in
England suffering from the highest violent crime rate of any
industrialized country.  Why would a less oppressive form of gun
control work when an outright ban has failed to keep guns out of the
wrong hands?

ACTION:

Please contact your Senators and demand that this bill be stopped.
A pre-written message is provided below.  To identify your Senators,
as well as to send the message via e-mail, see the Legislative
Action Center at [url]http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm[/url] on the GOA
website.

----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Senator:

I am shocked that the Senate has before it a bill (S. 2826) that
would prohibit millions of Americans from owning a gun for
self-defense.  Those who would be banned present no greater risk of
committing violent crimes than does the rest of the population.  Are
all the rest of us next?

Please vote against this monstrosity (also known as the Our Lady of
Peace bill) if it comes to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  Gun
Owners of America will be using this vote for their rating of
Congress.

I would like to hear from you about whether you support this massive
increase in gun control.

****************************

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will
bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.

To unsubscribe send a message to
[email protected] with the word unsubscribe in
the subject line.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
[email protected] is at your disposal. Please do not add that
address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per
week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.

                                             On October 16, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by voice vote legislation authorizing funding to ensure that states and
                                             localities report the names of individuals "adjudicated as mentally defective" with the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background
                                             Check System (NCIC).

Sponsors of the legislation, known as "Our Lady of Peace Act" (HR 4757/S 2826), attempted to expedite
                                             Senate passage late last week but were blocked in their effort to achieve unanimous consent. Since then, both the House and
                                             Senate have recessed until at least the week of November 18 when members of Congress will return for a post-election "lame duck"
                                             session.

It is expected that sponsors of HR 4757/HR 2826 will again attempt to push the bill through the Senate and on to President
                                             Bush's desk where it likely would be signed into law.


                                             During the current congressional recess, NAMI will be attempting to force changes in the current version of the "Our Lady of Peace
                                             Act" to address concerns raised about provisions in the bill that would erode the privacy of individual's mental illness treatment status
                                             and reinforce existingstigma regarding people with mental illness.

NAMI will also be urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to
                                             convene hearings on the bill to examine the potential impact on privacy rights of individuals with mental illness and likelihood that
                                             potential disclosure to the federal NCIC database might deter individuals from seeking treatment.

To date, neither the House nor the
                                             Senate have held hearings on HR 4757/S 2826.

                                             In an E-News message circulated on October 2, NAMI outlined a range of concerns about HR 4757/S 2826.

Included below is
                                             additional background material and a restatement of the impact this legislation could have on individuals with mental illness.

During
                                             the current recess, NAMI advocates are encouraged to share these concerns with their U.S. senators and urge them to amend the
                                             current version of this legislation to ensure that the privacy rights of consumers are not unfairly compromised as part of the effort to
                                             ensure appropriate screening of individuals seeking to purchase firearms.

All members of Congress can be reached by calling the
                                             Capitol Switchboard toll free at 1-800-839-5276 or at 202-224-3121 or online through www.congress.org.

                                             Background on "Our Lady of Peace Act"

                                             Since 1968, federal law has required state and local government agencies to report the names of persons "adjudicated as mentally
                                             defective" to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for conducting the National Instant Criminal Background
                                             Check System (NCIC) for people seeking to purchase firearms.

However, most states and localities have never complied with this
                                             law. HR 4757/S 2826 authorize a set of incentive grants to state and local agencies to report these names.

Although NAMI
                                             recognizes the importance of screening individuals who wish to purchase guns, there is mounting concern that this legislation
                                             contains overly broad language and has potential to reinforce stigma and compromise the privacy of individuals with mental
                                             illnesses.



                                             The term "adjudication as a mentally defective," as defined in HR 4757/S 2826, encompasses a variety of categories.

While it is
                                             much narrower than all individuals diagnosed with a mental illness, it does include all individuals that have been involuntarily
                                             committed to a psychiatric facility, without regard to functional impairment, when the commitment occurred or the reason for the
                                             commitment.

Additionally, [b]any determination (formal or otherwise) by [u]a governmental agency[/u] that a person is a danger to themselves
                                             as a result of a mental disorder or illness would serve as a basis for reporting their name to the FBI's NCIC.[/b]

Likewise, a determination
                                             that a person lacks capacity to contract or manage their own affairs would also trigger a disclosure to the NCIC.


                                             Second, as currently drafted HR 4757/S 2868 is lacking adequate protections to safeguard the privacy of individuals whose names
                                             are reported to the FBI for maintenance in the NCIC system.

Specifically, the bill directs the Attorney General to work with states,
                                             local law enforcement and the mental health system to establish regulations and protocols for protecting privacy.

However, the bill
                                             contains no specific parameters or guidelines for doing so.


                                             Finally, in NAMI's view the very use of the language "adjudicated as a mentally defective" in S 2826 is outdated and highly
                                             stigmatizing of people with mental illness and would possibly deter some people from seeking necessary treatment.

While most reasonable persons understand and accept that for obvious reasons severly mentally ill people should not have access to firearms...hell probably not even can openers..or paring knives..

The provision for Govt agencies to turn over all their health records to the FBI or other Govt agencies so designated bothers me..

It also bothers me that an unamed Govt. agency can arbitrary make decisions on who can and who cannot be allowed to own a firearms for the defense of their loved ones..

This has the potential of not allowing a traumatized rape victim to own or possess a firearm for protection from her assailents..

It also has the potential to keep any Combat Veteran who has had trouble sleeping at night or gone to an outpatient group to have his fundamental rights to self protection and family protection taken away because he expsosed himself to combat and then does the responsible thing in dealing with it after he is out of combat...

Kinda like being spit on for your service only this time its Uncle Sam doing the spitting...

Its interesting to me how those congresspersons who havent agreed on anything related to Homeland defense took only a few hours to ram this through in their lame duck session...

Any returning combat vet from our new war on terror or Iraq that gets into some real shit and has to deal with it after returning from combat wont dare talk to any MD about it...or risks losing his right to keep and bear arms after returning to civilan life...

Now aint that a kick in the shorts?

b-b-b-but re-pube-lick-ans aren't supposed to pass anti-gun laws!

and you poor saps thought the assault weapons ban would just go away.............

This is what MY representative (Jeff Flake) said about it on the floor:

[url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:2:./temp/~r107uYmi2q:e45176:]OUR LADY OF PEACE ACT -- (House of Representatives - October 15, 2002)[/url]

I am writing my representative, Jeff Flake R-AZ, for an explanation of why he voted for this.

Anyone who expected the return of Christ with the Republican party gaining control has got to be misguided. The only reason I voted Republican is because they will at least slow down the process so I can enlarge my stash.  Dems go to far left, Repubs go to far left for me as well, just not nearly as much. The assault weapons bill is up to fate as far as I am concerned. Combine negative media coverage with "election 2004" and it doesn't look good. Gun owners like us are a stranded group. Repubs know they have us in their pockets, and dem's know they will never get us, so it is lose-lose

P.S. I WILL still be writing letters tomorrow.  Never know if things will change.

Point of clarification please:

Exactly WHO will this bill prevent from purchasing guns who is not already barred from owning guns?

Exactly what form of "gun-owner registry" will be established by this bill?

I read it and aside from the legalese, I need some clarification on exactly WHAT is in this bill that will either create a "Federal gun-owner database" or will bar previously legal gun-purchasers from owning guns?

[:(!]

GOA site is great for letters... sent them to WA and my home state of OH

Let’s say if you were busted for possession of Marijuana about 5, 10 or 20 yrs ago. Let’s say it was a Misdemeanor, which was thrown out. You just lost your right to own a gun.

Lets say you went into Rehab at any-time for any thing except over eating you just lost your rights to own a gun. If there are even records of rehab for physical therapy you COULD be given a hard time. REHAB is the key word.

Lets say you are taking an anti depressant like Zoloft which is also given for nerve problems that cut electrical stimulus due to back injuries. You just lost your right to own a gun.
Lets say you take an anti-depressant due to PTSD from things you witnessed at the WTC or other horrific scenes. You just lost your gun rights. Now with that said think about all those Fire/EMS/Police going to see a Doctor for what happened at the WTC and they are given an anti-depressant for their PTSD. Are those LEO going to lose their right to carry a gun at work or off duty.
There are lots of reasons this is a bad law and if it goes through many many people are going to lose their right to have a gun. Or going to have to do a lot of paper work and get notes to prove different.
We have not even talked about the affects it will have on people divorced with out there being any court orders given out. Or caught J-walking, littering, spitting on a subway track not even the platform. Give an inch they will take miles on miles of your right to own a gun.

How about if you have a judgement for an outstanding parking ticket. Or are in default on a loan including student loans.

The GOA is a great site for people "who don't want to get involved"

Emails away.  Will pring and mail also.

Reply from Sen. Nelson, FL:
It's about the Money, Stupid!


                     November 13, 2002



                     Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXX
                     Po Box XXXX
                     XXXXXX, Florida  326XX


                     Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

                     Thank you for your correspondence regarding the Our Lady of Peace Act.

                     This legislation seeks to improve the National Instant Criminal
                     Background
                     Check System (NICS) by requiring more reporting by states on the
                     criminal
                     and/or mental health status of its residents who are ineligible to
                     purchase guns. The Federal Gun Control Act restricts persons who have
                     been
                     committed to a mental institution or convicted of a felony from
                     purchasing
                     a firearm, estimates show that over 10,000 felons have been able to
                     purchase firearms due to faulty information from states that impeded
                     the
                     background check process. Among the provisions of the bill, are
                     requirements for states to report persons who have been:  under
                     indictment, convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year,
                     committed
                     to a mental institution, or convicted of a domestic violence
                     misdemeanor.
                     States would receive $375 million in grants to facilitate electronic
                     automation of their records for better access by the Federal Bureau of
                     Investigation. This measure has been forwarded to the Senate Committee
                     on
                     the Judiciary for review.

                     I understand your concern that this legislation may further affect gun
                     owners' rights. I appreciate your letter and will keep your views in
                     mind
                     if this legislation comes before the Senate.
                     Please do not reply to this message.  The e-mail address
                     [email protected] is no longer valid for incoming messages.
                     If you would like additional information or would like to contact me in
                     the future, please visit my website, http://billnelson.senate.gov, and
                     click on the link marked "Contact Bill".

Just WHERE IN THE HELL does anyone see that simply taking an antidepressant automatically voids your RKBA under this bill?????

Come on people - read the damn bill!!!

WHERE IN THE HELL is it written in this bill that a person entering rehab or AA will forfeit their RKBA????


According to the bill:


According to GOA Website: [i]"The bill also reaches for a gun owning prohibition on nearly 3 million more Americans who have [red]spent tim[/red] in mental health facilities.

But if it is OK to ban gun ownership for certain people who have... [red]stayed overnight[/red] in a hospital for emotional observation [red]or who have been written a prescription for depression,[/red]"[/i]

As stated in the Bill:
[b](C) [red]EXCEPTIONS[/red]- This paragraph does not apply to--
(i) a person--
(I) in a mental institution [red]for observation[/red]; or
(II) [red]voluntarily[/red] committed to a mental institution; or
(ii) information protected by doctor-patient privilege.[/b]


GOA is WAY overreaching on this. Nearly ALL people who enter "rehab" or other behavioral health centers do it [u]voluntarily[/u] and are NOT covered by this bill.



It's NOT just "spent time" in rehab or mental hospital - just those who were [u]involuntarily[/u] committed - "overnight observations" are exempted from - this and I don't see ANYTHING saying a mere prescription for antidepressant forefeits your RKBA! Sheesh!! Come ON - give me a break GOA!! What's with the exaggeration???

THIS is the exact same type of incorrect and hysterical rhetoric that the Bradyites use against us!!! They whip up their minions with over-reaching and baseless analyses and generally make themselves look like hysterical asses. Apparently GOA is doing the same thing here and is ruining their credibility.



Can SOMEONE [b]PLEASE[/b] show me in this bill where it says that ANYONE in rehab, taking Zoloft, suffering from PTSD, depression, anxiety  or any other behavioral health problem could forfeit their RKBA??????


If I'm wrong on this - PLEASE show me where!

Go to [url]http://thomas.loc.gov[/url]. Enter "H.R. 4757" in the search function, bill summary and status then check out the bills original co-sponsers. Along with the usual predictable cast of clowns: Blagojevich, Sheila Jackson-Lee,
Barney Frank, etc, some of the names are very surprising: Ehrlich, Dingell... WTF?

The old soviet empire used the definintion of "mental patient" to wisk away political rivals and dissidents..

All they had to do is refine and re-define the rules under which one would be classified..

This law will be tweaked...the data base created will be used sooner or later to go after todays law abiding citizen..

who should have the right to protect themselves and their families from violent criminals and terrorists....and who should have the power to take away such God given rights...The State?

This like the so called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill is a load of crap...finance reform is Orwellian speak for control of who and who cannot critisize our fearless gutless wonder leaders..

"Our Lady of Peace"... this bill is named after the Virgin Mary...and written by atheists what a hoot...it is incrementalism..of the same sort that took the Aussies weapons away...you go after the ammo ..then disalow a type of weapon...then you go after who can own them...where they can shoot them...then you go back after the type of weapon.

..constantly whittleing away at what you see as the problem...GUNS...and those who own them...until all are disarmed except the terrorists..murdereres...thieves ...rapitst and of course our saviors...the boyze in uniform...under control of the feds and eventually the new global govt...

If this one gets signed...along with campaign finance reform..we are headed for the same govt as Australia and Britain..meanwhile we are crawling with terrorists and illegal aliens and violent criminals and thats just congress...its even worse out on the street

This is a clone topic and I demand it be locked! [:P]

[url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=149066]Here's[/url] my thread on this I posted almost a month ago. I guess my subject line wasn't spiffy enough, no one seemed very concerned.

Here's my opinion on this clap-trap:

1) The only reason this was passed was because Muhammed and Elmo were shooting up Maryland at the time.

2) It's wasteful spending.

3) NICS sucks. It should go away, not grow.

4) Will GWB sign this? Does he want to get elected in '04? Does a bear shit in the woods?

Thanks fer listenin.

dam i better get my bushmaster soon.
i was told from my doctor before that i have panic attacks and i had to talk to a shrink. this was 5 years ago and i quit going because it didnt help in the least. so now i wont be able to get a gun? well if they tell me i cant get a gun then i musnt be able to work anymore also so they better be sending me a SS check in the mail every month.

From Maria Cantwell (D)-WA

The Congressional list per area has to be updated.  Distrcts in NYS have been completely uprooted because of redistricting.

I sent the email to my senators for all that would do.  Chuck and Hillery.

The_Macallan...You are right it does not say that and I am the guy that said it...I have read the bill and I am saying this because that is the next step...

Example...Ban certain guns in NYC...Then it was assault weapons. Then it was paint toy guns red...Now it's ban ALL toy guns..Now it's also Paint ball guns...SO do you see a pattern and this is only NYC right now...And I know it might not relate to this rule.
My point is they say one thing now and soon it will be another right and another freedom. Do you know they expel children for playing cops and robbers or pointing a finger at another kid...Maybe those kids will never be able to own a gun because they have a record? FAR FETCHED I think not.
Sure stand up for this bill and see what comes next. Do you know they tried to ban Holloween parties in my kids school. Because certain costumes promote a child to be violent or act out that person later in life....GIVE ME A BREAK. Still don't see a connection well it's the same people backing this new gun control law...

Sorry it doesn't say that now in the bill, but like I said give an inch and they will plow you under.

.

Do the words "judged them a potential danger" scare anyone else like it does me??

Who will be doing the judging?

Jimno

The damn Republicans run the house!

Why did they let this pass???

Two-faced assholes!

I think Rep. Ron Paul is the only guy I like.

Oh, I am SOOO screwed......

I got the same form letter from Bill Nelson.  He always votes straight dem party line.

This law opens the door, and when slowly tweaked this is how it will work:

If you own or want to own a deadly firearm, you must be mentally ill.
Since you are obviously mentally ill, you are not allowed to own a firearm.

This is the same Catch-22 scenario of all gun laws.

Sorry dopers and nut cases, I dont want you buying guns.

Existing federal law already makes it illegal for abusers of illegal drugs to buy guns. It one of the questions on the yellow form. Yet lots of dopers, including many who post here, just lie (commit perjury) when filling out the form. What this bill will do is make records, which can demonstrate that illegal drug abuse, available. I would even support retroactively prosecuting every doper who ever lied on the federal form.

That's not what the law says. A person who is arrested for drug possession, but is found not guilty at trial would not be prohibited.

A person who is arrested for drug posession, pleads guilty and attends a diversion program instead of jail or prison, will be prohibited.

Current law says illegal drug users cant purchase guns. A drug user is a drug user whether he is sentanced to jail or sent to diversion. Its not the misdemeanor conviction prohibiting him from buying the gun, its the DRUG ABUSE.

Where and how do I find out what my Rep(DEMOCRAP) voted?[peep]

Straight off the 4473:


Almost every weed smoker in America is doing so unlawfully, so these people are already out.

Coffee and alcohol are stimulants and depressants, so anybody with an addiction to them is also out.

Hmm is nicotine considered a depressant in this case? If so, then out goes the ciggy smokers too.

Edited to add... following the wording of this question on the yellow form, I guess it is okay to consume non-controlled hallucinogens as long as they have no stimulant/depressant/narcotic quality.

[Clinton/Liberal Logic Mode]

QUESTION: "Are you..." (Question is asking in the [u]present tense[/u]).
ANSWER: No. I am not [u]RIGHT NOW[/u] smoking pot. [:)]

QUESTION: "addicted to..." (addiction is a diagnosis made by medical professionals).
ANSWER: No. I've never been [u]DIAGNOSED[/u] by a trained medical professional as having an addiction to pot, tobacco, beer, XTC, LSD... [:)]

[/Clinton/Liberal Logic Mode]

Such logic should be thrown right out.

'Drug user' I take to be in the present continuous tense, so even if you were not on drugs then but you use regularly you are a drug user.

If you used it when you were younger or tried it once yesterday, you used drugs but are arguably not a drug user.

Also it asks you whether you are addicted. It doesn't ask whether you've been diagnosed. Being addicted is absolute, you either are or you aren't regardless of what you believe or a doctor said.


That said, this information is voluntary in the sense we fill up the 4473's ourselves, and have to interpret the questions ourselves. There are probably alot of people who would use such logic to say they aren't using/addicted, but there are many more who are just plain addicted but deny it and fill NO on the form. There must be tons of people from middle america who have drinking issues and buy guns.

It's not a lie... if you believe it's true.

Garand_Shooter, this just sound like "reasonable gun-control"... it sure is a good thing we have Republicans controlling the Presidency, House, & Senate, or we'd be in trouble.....

Republicans will give us a domestic spying network:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/opinion/14SAFI.html?ex=1037854800&en=3778829e1bec3dc2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

But the Repubicans are our friends :-)

Please accept my appologies for sounding like an ass.  But for those of you that do not have a problem with this bill,I would like to know if you have ever heard the term "STEALTH LEGISLATION" ?...... This is an act where the Senators and Congressmen read a bill and agree to it,prior to the final vote.......Then low and behold after the vote that passes it, they get to read the version that passed,and then they see the changes that were made , that only changed a few words........Does any of this sound familiar? It has happened in the very recent past and continues to happen. And i am sure it will happen to this bill since the original composers of the bill actually produce the final version for release. Flame away......

Hi all new to the boards. Great site !!!

So let me get this straight. When I was young and stupid I got poped for possesion of a controled substance. I did the drug derversion and completed it. This was 10 years ago. I have been clean and not had any negative contact with LE since then. Will this disqualify me from having guns. If so how much time do I have to get an AR beore this passes and goes into affect. By the way the dervision was done in Kali.

I don't want dopers like you armed.

Hey! 1_153_370_371_407 didn't you read my post! I said that I have been clean and have not had any negative contact with LE! and just because I got busted at a party when I was younger does not make me a "doper"!!! Nor should it disqualify me from owning a gun.
You only typed a few words "I don't want dopers like you armed" but from what you typed I can tell more about you than you think! Your a self righteous SOB!!!
Say guys I'm new to the boards so can someone tell me is this guy a asshole or what? He seems pretty judgmental, and has a hard time reading the facts posted by other members. He has a lot of posts so I know he has been around here for sometime, who else doesn't like him.  

So  George W.  is a past abuser of alchohol, does that mean he will no longer be able to own a firearm if this is passed ?

I forgot to include the smiley faces. Scroll up the thread away and look for a post by AR15Fan. I was imitating him.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. If I had seen the smiley face I would have known you were joking or being sarcastic. Sorry for the stab at you. I thought you were my enemy or putting me down. It would be a tragedy if I could not get an AR for getting a slap on the wrist for having a joint in my breast pocket when a keger I was at more than 10 years ago got "raided" But anyhow if anyone has been in a similar situation and is afraid of not being able to get a gun, you may find this bit of info that I found on the definition of a drug abuser useful. I know I was set at ease.

National Instant Criminal Background Check System


Persons Who Are Unlawful Users of or Addicted to Any Controlled
Substance

   As proposed in Notice No. 839, the terms ``controlled substance''
and ``unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance'' are
defined as follows:

   Controlled substance. A drug or other substance, or immediate
precursor, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act, 21 U.S.C. 802. The term includes, but is not limited to,
marijuana, depressants, stimulants, and narcotic drugs. The term
does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or
tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in Subtitle E of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
   Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A
person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of
self-control with reference to the use of the controlled substance;
and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a
manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is
not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a
matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has
occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively
engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of
a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used
at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or
receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be
drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled
substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers
the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a
controlled substance within the past year, or multiple arrests for
such offenses within the past five years if the most recent arrest
occurred within the past year.

   The DOJ Office of Policy Development inquired whether the proposed
definition includes persons found through a drug test to use a
controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered
within the past year. In response, ATF agrees that this information
would give rise to an inference of unlawful drug use. Accordingly, the
final regulations are being amended to identify these persons in the
definition as an example of unlawful drug user.
   DOD commented that the examples should be expanded to include
illegal drug use as evidenced by nonjudicial or administrative
proceedings. DOD believes that it would be helpful to add the following
at the end of the proposed definition:

   For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference
of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other
administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-
martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative
discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.

   ATF finds that the Defense Department's proposed language helps to
clarify the definition with respect to the military and is adopting the
proposed amendment into the final regulations.