(B)ATF(E) can take your guns for substance abuse

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: (B)ATF(E) can take your guns for substance abuse

Post by Werz »

OK. It's time for me to be a spoilsport and actually read the statute and administrative rule.

Under 21 U.S.C. §881, the federal government has had the authority to do all these things since 1970. That's right, this has been the law for more than 40 years.

The new rulemaking is an inter-agency transfer of duties. The BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) has been delegated the authority, for one year, to handle administrative seizures and forfeitures now handled by the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration). No difference in the scope of the authority, just a different agency. Same game, different players.

Sorry to ruin all the delicious paranoia, but I fail to see the sky falling.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
User avatar
evan price
Forum Janitor
Forum Janitor
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Westfield, Ohio

Re: (B)ATF(E) can take your guns for substance abuse

Post by evan price »

bignflnut wrote:I'm not trying to be disagreeable, BUT, everybody knows that when you accept a prescription for Tylenol with codine, you voluntarily surrender your RKBA. Is it worth having a dozen weapons removed from your home?
Since when? Prescription medications legally disbursed by a doctor for treatment of legitimate medical problems does not forfeit your rights. It might affect the bear portion of RKBA- in the same way that you should not drive while using most of these drugs- but if your guns are not being carried while you are under the influence of narcotics I fail to see how this would be justified.

Form 4473 question 11(e) states that anyone "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" can't possess firearms. If a controlled substance is prescribed by a doctor- such as a Schedule 2-5 narcotic- then it is not an unlawful use by definition, and as long as you use them within the guidelines of the prescribing physician you won't become addicted (in theory).
"20% accurate as usual, Morty."

Striking down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!
Carpe Noctem- we get more done after 2 am than most people do all day.
User avatar
OhioPaints
Posts: 5666
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Brown Co./ southern Ohio

Re: (B)ATF(E) can take your guns for substance abuse

Post by OhioPaints »

Since when? Prescription medications legally disbursed by a doctor for treatment of legitimate medical problems does not forfeit your rights.
But all they have to do is claim that you are using them illegally. They don't have to prove it, just claim it. You don't get your day in court with an attorney present, they just do as they please.

Of course our government would never abuse their extra-Constitutional authority. And Ruby Ridge and Waco never happened either. :cry:

p.s. Don't forget that the "secret compartments" law our state passed a few months ago does not differentiate between illegal meds and legal ones.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: (B)ATF(E) can take your guns for substance abuse

Post by bignflnut »

evan price wrote:
bignflnut wrote:... everybody knows that when you accept a prescription for Tylenol with codine, you voluntarily surrender your RKBA.
Since when? Prescription medications legally disbursed by a doctor for treatment of legitimate medical problems does not forfeit your rights. It might affect the bear portion of RKBA- in the same way that you should not drive while using most of these drugs- but if your guns are not being carried while you are under the influence of narcotics I fail to see how this would be justified.

Form 4473 question 11(e) states that anyone "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" can't possess firearms. If a controlled substance is prescribed by a doctor- such as a Schedule 2-5 narcotic- then it is not an unlawful use by definition, and as long as you use them within the guidelines of the prescribing physician you won't become addicted (in theory).
Yep, should have posted that in sarcastic purple as some have argued obtaining a CHL is a voluntary surrender of the federal 5th Amendment Right (via notification). It is another example of where a positive action falsely negates a Right.

I don't think it's difficult to understand how the govt justifies the position that scheduled substances disqualifies someone from owning firearms as they would be kept / owned "under disability". They have every justification to deny PTSD patients via a Brady background check. We've handed the MADD folks the victory on bearing arms or even using pointy things when we have any amount of alcohol or narcotics in our system. That ship has sailed, giving them the foundation to now say we endanger others when we own / keep our weapons while relying on pharmaceuticals for medicinal purposes.

And if you want to say that this power has been in the State's court for 40 years, does that make it more just? Do you wish to vote for a candidate who will not challenge this, or even speak of it? (even if that candidate is labelled "pro-gun" :lol: )
Last edited by bignflnut on Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
OhioPaints
Posts: 5666
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Brown Co./ southern Ohio

Re: (B)ATF(E) can take your guns for substance abuse

Post by OhioPaints »

evan price wrote: If a controlled substance is prescribed by a doctor- such as a Schedule 2-5 narcotic- then it is not an unlawful use by definition, and as long as you use them within the guidelines of the prescribing physician you won't become addicted (in theory).
Evan,

That's just plainly incorrect. Many doctors will continue to prescribe narcotics that can and do become addictive. I've seen it with my parents.

Of course addiction varies widely from one individual to another so what is okay for one is not for another person. Some doctors are more than willing to just throw more narcotics at a patient who is in pain even past the point where they are obviously addicted.

=====================================================

Some have pointed out that such confiscation has been "legal" for decades. Of course the whole confiscation without a trial is an affront to our Constitutional rights. But the current issue is that this had been extended to the BATF which has a history of abusing citizens and looking for ways to entrap people. Just because the DEA did it doesn't mean that we should accept F-troop doing it.

Ken
Mr Ed
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:07 pm
Location: Akron

Re: (B)ATF(E) can take your guns for substance abuse

Post by Mr Ed »

OhioPaints wrote:
evan price wrote: If a controlled substance is prescribed by a doctor- such as a Schedule 2-5 narcotic- then it is not an unlawful use by definition, and as long as you use them within the guidelines of the prescribing physician you won't become addicted (in theory).
Evan,

That's just plainly incorrect. Many doctors will continue to prescribe narcotics that can and do become addictive. I've seen it with my parents.

Of course addiction varies widely from one individual to another so what is okay for one is not for another person. Some doctors are more than willing to just throw more narcotics at a patient who is in pain even past the point where they are obviously addicted.

=====================================================

Some have pointed out that such confiscation has been "legal" for decades. Of course the whole confiscation without a trial is an affront to our Constitutional rights. But the current issue is that this had been extended to the BATF which has a history of abusing citizens and looking for ways to entrap people. Just because the DEA did it doesn't mean that we should accept F-troop doing it.

Ken
I am sure that is a ages old analogy. I first remember hearing it in a ZIg Ziglar book - See you at the top. It is fitting now because people show nothing but apathy in our country to some of the most serious issues the country faces. :(
User avatar
MrKitty
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:41 am
Location: Youngstown, OH

Re: (B)ATF(E) can take your guns for substance abuse

Post by MrKitty »

steves 50de wrote:
Bianchi? wrote:
bignflnut wrote:Perhaps one declines prescriptions known to cause legal problems.
I dare you to have abdominal surgery, and then go home without a bottle of oxycontin (or equivalent). There are some things in life that require heavy prescription drugs.
BIANCHI is right after i had colon surgery their is no way to cope with the pain without some help from pain killer's.I think if i had a large collection of some nice firearm's and was inclined to think i may be raided for" legal drug use" a may move the gun's to a safe house and only keep what i'am willing to part with,.... which would only be one or two gun's :twisted:
I wouldn't be willing to part with a single one. o.o
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
-Thomas Paine
Post Reply