License Plate Readers & Gun Shows

[HiBC]

But there is a little bit more....:


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 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; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year....

 

[Tom Servo]

We're only speculating as to why the DEA might be involved. Has anyone found a source that answers the question?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But there is a little bit more....:

...

But the only reference in that to one year is a conviction within the past year. The same paragraph also mentions a pattern of arrests within the past five years. Even so, this is not a law or a regulation. This is the BATFE telling us what they might use as grounds for pursuing charges and a conviction.

I remain of the (perhaps outdated) opinion that the best way to be able to honestly state that you're not a user is to not use.

 

[BarryLee]

Has anyone found a source that answers the question?

As mentioned earlier the DEA’s involvement seems to be limited to the fact that they maintain a database tracking the movement of vehicles. According to the WSJ other law enforcement organizations access this information for a variety of investigations. From what’s been reported so far this doesn’t appear have anything to do with drugs or somehow linking drug use to gun ownership. The idea of using the license plate readers at gun shows was to help combat gun trafficking, but supposedly never occurred. The primary concern here is that they would be collecting data on the movements of law abiding citizens and maintaining that information in a database.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-agency-weighed-spying-on-cars-at-gun-shows-1422398739

 

[HiBC]

Aguila,really,I'm not trying to be in a whizzing contest.I'm not any sort of legal scholar.I read the last line.It sems to imply,to me,and I could be wrong,but the reg seems to imply that "eg" if there is evidence,such as a failed drug test(not a conviction,just documentation) A failed drug test "within the last year",per the language of the reg...one would be a prohibited person.

It does not seem like this should be so hard.Here is the the quote:

" or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.... "

So,IMO,if you apply at Wally World ,fail the drug test,sufficient document exists to prove you a prohibited person for one year from the failed drug test.
I simply do not use.I'm not worried .I have met people who put themselves at risk.IMO,they can make that choice,no problem.I hope it is an informed choice,with an understanding of the risk.If you ask 100 people who own firearms and also have failed a drug test if they understand the implications,my guess,few do.

Would that ever come up?I have no idea.

Now,I'm off to better things to do.Its been fun.Thanks!!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm not looking to participate in a whizzing contest, either. We're talking about things that have significant legal consequences, so it's important that the information be as correct as we can get it.

You wrote:

Aguila,really,I'm not trying to be in a whizzing contest.I'm not any sort of legal scholar.I read the last line.It sems to imply,to me,and I could be wrong,but the reg seems to imply that "eg" if there is evidence,such as a failed drug test(not a conviction,just documentation) A failed drug test "within the last year",per the language of the reg...one would be a prohibited person.

You read the last line of what? What regulation are you citing? Binding regulations do not "imply" -- they state.

18 U.S.C. § 922(1) defines "addict":

(1) The term “addict” means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.

From 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3):

(3) 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));

So that takes us to 21 U.S.C. § 802 for the definition of what constitutes a "controlled substance":

From 21 U.S.C. § 802(6):

(6) The term “controlled substance” means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. 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.

Nowhere in the law is "unlawful user" defined, nor is there any mention of a prescribed time period for the establishment of an addiction, or for the establishment or termination of status as an "unlawful user."

 

[HiBC]

AG??

OK.I went back again,picked up the whole quote.

This time I got Mr Frank Ettin's words of introduction,citing the ATF regulation,and the line that seems to apply,IMO,all in one place at one time so nothing gets left out.

"A court will start with the definition in the ATF regulations (27 CFR 478.11):
Quote:
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 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; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year....

So,OK,Mr Frank Ettin starts with this.He names the ATF reg.


""A court will start with the definition in the ATF regulations (27 CFR 478.11):"

OK so far?Seems good to me.I trust Mr Ettin.Is it good per you?

Now,taken directly from that reg,this line:

"or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.... "


What is so hard about that?I agree,it is important to get it right.That is the only reason I am responding.

to recap,all at once,filtered down

ATF regulation 27 CFR 478.11 states,last line:

""or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.... "

Is it something I am doing wrong?I do not understand how that can mean anything but what it clearly states.I hope maybe Mr Frank Ettin will explain to me where I am wrong.I do want to understand the law.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year....

The part I think you're missing is the sentence that begins a bit more than halfway through the section you quoted. An "inference" basically means something akin to a suspicion or a deduction rather than an absolute fact based on incontrovertible evidence. And the word "may" is significant, because where a judge or a jury "may" decide from the kinds of evidence enumerated that an "inference" (not a firm conclusion) that someone is an unlawful user, the judge or jury equally "may" find that those suggested determining factors do NOT support an "inference" that the person is an unlawful user.

All of which boils down to: You're on unfirm ground if you smoke marijuana (or snort cocaine) and you try to play the "I'm not using today so I can check the "No" box on the 4473" game. There is no hard-and-fast rule as to how long a former user must have been off whatever substance before he or she can claim he or she is not a user. The fuzzy language of the section you quoted ("may" draw an "inference") essentially offers a guideline but does not lay down any bright line.

I've never been tempted to mess with any controlled substances (not even like Bill Clinton, who famously admitted he had "tried" marijuana but "I didn't inhale"), so there's no issue whatsoever when I check "No" on the 4473.

 

[JimDandy]

From a legal standpoint, I have a hard time objecting. I can't find any reason to believe I - or more directly my necessarily semi-public vehicle identifying information- should have some expectation of privacy in a public parking lot or the street leading up to it.

My objection would be from an efficiency standpoint. I can't imagine a database that this license plate was at a gunshow- not even who was driving the car that may or may not have been SUPPOSED to have that license plate attached- is a very efficient way to find the ONE person out of a thousand (or whatever the number is) involved in illegal firearms activities.

 

[lefteye]

^^^ Two good points.

 

[TDL]

Second, why is the DEA involved with gun shows?

DEA is part of DOJ and an agency dealing very often with crime guns. DEA confiscates massive numbers of illegal guns/crime guns as part of their drug gang /drug activity arrests. perhaps they have tracing data showing a significant number most of the seized guns in those arrests are coming from straws at gun shows. Just enter in google -- site:dea.gov gun yields 700 results.

DEA also deals internationally and their own claim is that most guns Mexican drug gangs acquire cash here and use it to buy guns here -- though "secondary markets" naming "gun shows" first.

So, with conditions a+b:
a) a branch of government thinks something is important to them; and
b) nobody until now has said: "Hey, what the heck? perhaps you should not do this"

As far as storing the plate numbers, if you think they are not, when all that data costs them $1.75 in hard drive space, you are kidding yourself! Simply merging it with border crossing plate captures, and/or any presence near a drug activity area, or for that matter large cash transactions, is probably a gold mine.

Big data is enormously seductive to bureaucrats and law enforcement.

 

[JimDandy]

And the studies that have been done, by or for the government - with the access to governmentstatistics and info that entails- has historically placed the percent of crime guns coming from flea markets and gun shows at less than 2% - Pawnshops are more than double, retail stores were more than quadruple. Friends/Family and illegal/street sources accounted for almost 40% each.

The caveat to this is, the data was last updated in a source I can find in February 2002 - before every politician and news organization told criminals they should be buying their guns at gun shows because it's so effective.