"Lindsay Lohan Tweets photo of herself holding gun to mouth," reads the Fox News headline:
Yesterday, amid reports of rampant drug use and self-destructive behavior, the troubled star Tweeted a photo of herself holding a gun to her mouth, calling it "art."
The photo was a Polaroid from a shoot with photographer Tyler Shields, Lohan said.
Thing is, drug use and guns don't mix. It's the law. Per U.S. Code, it's one of the criteria by which one is legally classified a "prohibited person":
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922. Unlawful acts
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(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));
...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. [Emphasis added—DC]
Cocaine is one of those controlled substances, and per the Associated Press, Lohan "pleaded guilty in August 2007 to two misdemeanor counts of being under the influence of cocaine," and has not yet completed her probation requirement for "a court-ordered drug and alcohol education program. Lohan has had trouble completing the program and had her probation extended last year."
So while still under probation and a court-ordered drug intervention, she possesses and ignores essential safety rules and handles a firearm? Assuming it's a real one, and the photo is grainy enough that I can't be sure (there are additional photos of Lohan holding a gun here and here), are we witnessing evidence of a federal felony in progress?
Could "the troubled star" have just created a whole new set of legal problems for herself creating what she calls "art," and will authorities investigate, including determining whether a real firearm or a prop gun was used, and who it belongs to?
And why do I care? Frankly, as long as she doesn't hurt or threaten anyone, I don't. As far as "prohibited persons" are concerned, my longstanding position is anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. I just find it interesting that a gaggle of fawning, comment-posting enablers (who I have to assume would freak if they ran into a responsible open carrier in a Starbucks) are all gaga over the artistic genius of a rejected Obama supporter handling a gun like an idiot with her booger hook on the bang switch. And I find it telling (and typical) that with all the media reports out there on this incident, the highly paid "Authorized Journalists," with staffs and budgets and resources, seem oblivious to the potential implications of existing law. Not that they'll let that stop them from clamoring for more...
Comments
There won't be a investigation because she's one of the liberal left elite. She would probably be one of the first to advocate taking our 2A rights away.
It's probably a movie prop.
I'm fairly sure she'd never be courageous enough to pick up a real gun. Her attitudes and what little commentary that can be classified as actual English clearly indicate her liberal views, and we're all familiar with that unfortunate pattern.
Still, she ought to be prosecuted for encouraging that sort of behavior. She's been strung out for years, misbehaving and getting away with intellectual and moral murder. Now her new 'art' is going to encourage her pre-emo grade teenie-bopper fans to keep stealing their parents' cocaine, and now play with guns, since none of said fans will stop to think she wasn't playing with the real thing. Great work, Lindsay... What a loser.
She needs a guardian, as well as some mental help.
It is sad to watch someone spiraling down the drain, though. Her "liberal" views* are just another symptom of her being disturbed, as they are in anyone. She simply has more symptoms than most.
*"Conservatives" get no free pass on this either, by the way, just in case you are a "liberal" who came hear to read about Lindsay, and who thinks I am picking on your kind. "Conservative" and "liberal" are just two sides of the same "I am here to force you to do as I say, for your own good" cow patty.
Don't be to hard on her, its tough in the spotlight. She is courageously doing responsible field research on drugs and violence...NOT!!!
But seriously David, you point is quite valid. It is wrong for a public celebrity to act in a manner that teaches unsafe lifestyles and activities. Guess who WON'T take responsibility when a kid shoots themselves doing the same stunt with a loaded weapon. Make a t-shirt out of that tragedy...Lindsay does it...BANG!!!
I think it was very much in the public interest to point out her miss conduct.
This is exactly what gives guns a bad wrap! Clueless fools waving a gun around(even if a prop). The anti-gunners will be all over this. But then that put us law abiding gun owners on that slippery slope - take her gun(s) away or not? And who gets to make that decision based on what/whose criteria?
I agree with Robert - she has too many connections and there will be no investigation.
Have to be a group of law abiding, armed citizens talking about how inept the government is before you get investigated and arrested (for nothing).
this is a fail article. Interstate commerce is just as ridiculous.
+1 to citizenjohn on the movie prop thing.
Also, does the restriction extend to actors and such, if one was a convicted or prohibited person, etc. using a prop in a movie?
That said, it is one more example of Lohanite foolishness.
Mr. Codrea is straight on about the booger hook being on the bang switch too. The biggest worry is that some fan of hers will see this and decide to play around the same way, and killing themselves.
She's special though. You or me do drugs and have a pic online holding a gun and WHAMMO! they'll be kicking in our doors before you can count to 5.
But her? She's a modern-day object of worship. She's regularly featured on supermarket tabloids and appears on Entertainment Tonight. She's in a special class of people, much like the 'only ones'.
She probably has nothing to worry about. Outside of Richmond's Project Exile, prosecution of "felon in posession" cases are unheard of. I did some research on it a few years ago and found less than a hundred cases. Let me make that clear. That wasn't a hundred cases in my home state per year. Make sure you're sitting down before you read the next line. That was a hundred cases for the whole country for the whole 30+ years that the law had been in effect.
A prop gun? Either way, real or play, it is play that is certainly a bad example and "artistic statement" or not, certainly indicative of rampant, pandemic idiocy in the Artiste Class. Ho hum!
Dave, I don't really see a problem here. Years ago, the movie section in the paper would show Sean Connery and Roger Moore holding their Walther PPKs close to their right cheek with barrel pointed up, in whatever James Bond movie they were in.
If Lohan wants to display a gun close to her mouth, so what?
David I’m to the point of saying “So-what, Who cares!”
In Illinois the General Assembly just passed a bill that will make it a mandatory 1-3 yrs for having a gun without a FOID card with NO exceptions for self defense.
Has far as I can tell it was passed under the silence of the ISRA/NRA.
Right now I can’t even find the Bill number and there are NO updates by the ISRA
They may not have wanted the Bill but never put on a full court press to stop it either.
In other words it was a compromise stunt by the ISRA/NRA. Allow a little to go through to keep the really bad bills bottled up.
Since All gun control is bad how is this a good thing?
who cares. i also think gun owners are just going to ignore all the stupid laws now being enacted.
If anyone noticed she has her finger on the trigger. I hope that weapon was unloaded.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!