Is the ATF trying to ensure that no marijuana “user” can purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer?

One of the cardinal rules of government is that “no matter how much power government has, it always wants more.” Thus it has been for two-and-a-quarter centuries: a constant battle between individual liberty and the drive by the federal government to limit – that is, control — individual freedom.

A favored tool by which the government achieves this control is its vast regulatory powers. The favored agency that Washington uses to control or limit the exercise of an individual’s right to possess a firearm, is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives – “ATF” for short. Recently, the ATF has teamed with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) to hammer individuals’ Second Amendment rights in those states that have loosened laws against the personal use of marijuana.

Ever since the “War on Drugs” formally entered the national lexicon in the early 1970s, marijuana has maintained its position in Schedule I of what the government defines as a “controlled substance.” Thus, regardless of how marijuana is treated under the law of any state, under federal law it has no recognized medical benefit and is subject to the highest potential for abuse. While more than two dozen states have passed some form of marijuana legalization for medical or recreational use, Uncle Sam has not budged in how he views marijuana, and reserves the right to prosecute persons for possessing the substance, even though they may do so in compliance with the laws of the state in which they live.

Now, however, this legal dichotomy has created a new and troubling problem that pits the exercise of one’s Second Amendment rights against the fundamental notion of federalism. Simply stated, the problem is this:

If a person exercises their right under state law to obtain a card allowing them to purchase marijuana for medical purposes – even if they do not actually use that card and do not in fact use marijuana – does the fact that they have opted to have such a card, permit the federal government to deny them the right to purchase a firearm?

Both the ATF and DEA, of course, answer this question without any hesitance, in the affirmative. This back-handed slap at the Second Amendment by the government is accomplished by requiring any person seeking to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, to disclose on the form every purchaser must fill out in order to exercise their Second Amendment-guaranteed right (the notorious Form 4473), whether they are a “user” of any controlled substance, including marijuana. If the prospective purchase answers positively to this question, the firearms dealer cannot then allow the purchase to go forward.

ATF, which is responsible for administering the Form 4473, has gone two steps further in the government’s zeal to ensure no marijuana “user” can purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer. First, the agency makes it clear on the Form itself that possession of marijuana remains unlawful under federal law, regardless of its legal status under state law.

Secondly, and more problematic are the instructions ATF gives to the firearms dealer: “ . . . if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have ‘reasonable cause to believe’ that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance,” and therefore “you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person, even if the person answered “no” to the question as to whether they are a “user” of marijuana.

To place into perspective what the government is doing here, consider that in 2016 there were some fourteen-and-a-half million individuals possessing concealed carry permits in the United States (nearly one million in my home state of Georgia). Under the government’s theory that if you simply have a license to use medicinal marijuana, then you are by that fact alone a “user”; the same could be said for a concealed-carry permit holder – if you have a concealed carry permit, you necessarily use that permit to carry a firearm at all times, even if you in fact chose not to at any particular time or all the time.

Thus stands the power of the federal government to deny a person the right to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, without any proof whatsoever that they have violated any federal law. And, so long as the Congress fails to stop this clear abuse of the Bill of Rights by the ATF (with the full backing of the DEA), many law-abiding citizens will continue to be denied a fundamental right expressly guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Such is the regulatory power of the government and the corresponding constitutional lethargy of the Congress.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th Congressional District from 1995-2003. He was the Libertarian Party nominee for President in 2008.

Originally published here via Merionwest.org

Much has been said of the ineffectiveness and intrusiveness of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) over the last decade and a half. However, when newspaper headlines start mocking the agency for asking a passenger “Is that a cookie or a bomb?”, it becomes clear that we have a real problem.

To be sure, there is a vital need for pre-flight security. That has never been in question. What has been questioned is the amount of power granted to a single federal agency for performing functions that can, could, and should be undertaken by private agencies under contract with the federal government. At least private contractors could be fired for the troubling behavior demonstrated by the TSA over the years, including beating-bloody passengers with special needs, humiliating teenagers over choice of clothing, and making incredibly rude remarks about passengers – including U.S. Olympians.

Despite numerous incidents of this nature, the TSA is routinely rewarded each year with billions of taxpayer dollars, out of blind deference to the golden calf of “national security.” And now, federal officials are poised to give the agency even more power over you.

Responding to recent terror threats in the same, often ham-fisted and reactionary methods typical of federal agencies in the post 9/11 world, the TSA currently is testing new screening procedures that require passengers to remove food and reading materials from carry-on bags. In addition to demanding that passengers place their shoes, coats, laptops, “liquids,” and any other bulky items in separate bins, new procedures being applied in several airports require passengers to separate out books, magazines, and snacks for extra inspection by TSA agents.

Where today passengers are advised to arrive at their departure airport at least two hours before a scheduled flight, one can only imagine the additional time delays this will create with TSA screenings; though, this should be the least of passengers’ worries. According to TSA officials, screeners may “fan” reading materials while checking for contraband, but promise they are not actually paying attention to what travelers are reading. Never mind that it was revealed only two years ago that TSA’s SPOT (Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques) program employs subjective behavioral markers such as excessive body odor and sweating, for secret scorings to determine if an individual passenger likely is a terrorist. Yet, have no fear — the content of a person’s reading material is completely off-limits. Sure.

Try as they might to convince us of their trustworthiness, nothing in the TSA’s history of gratuitously punitive, if not deliberately petty behavior, leads us to believe this to be true. Rather, what is more likely is that reading material specifically will become the focal point of TSA screeners’ discretion as to whether passengers warrant additional screening. A passenger’s magazines and books will then be subject also to callous remarks from agents; all of which passengers must silently endure. After all, what other recourse do they have when faced with abuse from federal agents – submit or miss your flight, or find yourself facing criminal charges.

Passengers, who long ago should have abandoned hope for even a modicum of privacy or dignity when attempting to fly, must also endure the embarrassment of pulling out their choice of reading for other passengers to see and judge. Ready to fly? You must also be ready for your fellow passengers to know if you are dealing with marriage issues, depression, or a have a predilection for erotica. It will soon be all on display as agents “fan” through your reading material with the restraint and professionalism demonstrated with other luggage items.

To its credit, TSA’s Pre-Check program, in which passengers apply to be vetted before flying and then are allowed expedited screening without all the dehumanizing antics of going through non-Pre-Check screening, is a significant step in the right direction. However, rather than double-down on what has so far been a relatively successful program, TSA fritters away its budget on other highly questionable projects like SPOT, and now what might be called its “Approved Reading Materials Assessment Program” (“ARMAP” for short).

Congress, of course, should step in and undertake serious oversight of TSA, including this latest foray into inspecting an individual’s reading materials. Unfortunately, considering the deference with which the Congress has approached funding TSA year after year, it is unlikely the legislative branch of our federal government will do more now, than issue some stern warnings followed by approving increased funding for yet another year. And the privacy rights of the citizenry – at least those who wish to exercise their right to travel by commercial air carriers – will have suffered another blow in the name of “national security.”

Originally published here via townhall.com