DexterMeth
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2003
- Messages
- 52,313
I have been looking all over the net for an answer to this question, but I couldn't find it, so I thought I'd give it a try here, especially since it deals with narcotics.
I understand it is the law in California (and in most other states, if not all) that one cannot purchase a firearm/(or pass the background check), if one is addicted to narcotics. Now I assume that there is a certain time frame for this, because if someone used to be addicted to narcotics and do them, but no longer and hasn't for a years, they wouldn't fall into the "addict to" category, right? I can't just assume this, I need to KNOW it, BUT assuming that is correct, how long is that time frame?
The other rule that I understand that someone could easily get flagged for is "mental illness". What if this was a temporary episode directly linked to substance abuse? Like if someone had a bad trip on a psychedelic and went to the ICU, was monitored for 8-10hrs until they came down and then discharged, does that go on their record as mental illness? What about if when you were in rehab and when the doctor asked why you WERE abusing "this or that", and you said to self medicate because of anxiety?
If none of this is part of one's life anymore, they don't use or abuse drugs, and they aren't crazy, like I meantioned earlier, is there a specific time limit a person has to wait to be deemed, "clean"/"not addicted"? Upon running a background check on a person for purchasing a firearm, would something like admitting oneself (NOT court ordered or anything like that, but a self check-in), even pop up as a flag to not let the person purchase?
It seems rediculous to me that because someone used to abuse drugs, that never had any trouble with the law because of it, and only went to rehab because they checked themself in, should be haunted and punished by society for the rest of their life because of it. I can't see that being ethical, that just because someone USED to do drugs that means they don't have the right to legally defend themself and family and household with a firearm(s)?
Any input, personal experience, etc. would be greatly appreciated. I am obviously looking foremost for the answer to this. Again, can a person who USED to be addicted to narcotics purchase a firearm?>>>If so, how for long would they had to have been clean?>>>Does admitting oneself into rehab wave a person's right to buy a gun?>>>If so, how long would one have to wait until they were then deemed fit to purchase?>>>Would having a single "bad trip" on a psychedelic permenantly ruin one's right to purchase? (The person has no criminal nor government appointed mental health record..unless checking oneself into rehab counts?) Is any of this even the government's/AFT/FBI's business if the law was never involved?
Sorry for being redundant, I just wanted to make sure I didn't leave anything out. If this is the wrong forum, please move accordingly. I have no clue where else I'd ask this. Obviously if no one can help me out I'll register to some NRA forum or something just for this single post. Thank you.
I understand it is the law in California (and in most other states, if not all) that one cannot purchase a firearm/(or pass the background check), if one is addicted to narcotics. Now I assume that there is a certain time frame for this, because if someone used to be addicted to narcotics and do them, but no longer and hasn't for a years, they wouldn't fall into the "addict to" category, right? I can't just assume this, I need to KNOW it, BUT assuming that is correct, how long is that time frame?
The other rule that I understand that someone could easily get flagged for is "mental illness". What if this was a temporary episode directly linked to substance abuse? Like if someone had a bad trip on a psychedelic and went to the ICU, was monitored for 8-10hrs until they came down and then discharged, does that go on their record as mental illness? What about if when you were in rehab and when the doctor asked why you WERE abusing "this or that", and you said to self medicate because of anxiety?
If none of this is part of one's life anymore, they don't use or abuse drugs, and they aren't crazy, like I meantioned earlier, is there a specific time limit a person has to wait to be deemed, "clean"/"not addicted"? Upon running a background check on a person for purchasing a firearm, would something like admitting oneself (NOT court ordered or anything like that, but a self check-in), even pop up as a flag to not let the person purchase?
It seems rediculous to me that because someone used to abuse drugs, that never had any trouble with the law because of it, and only went to rehab because they checked themself in, should be haunted and punished by society for the rest of their life because of it. I can't see that being ethical, that just because someone USED to do drugs that means they don't have the right to legally defend themself and family and household with a firearm(s)?
Any input, personal experience, etc. would be greatly appreciated. I am obviously looking foremost for the answer to this. Again, can a person who USED to be addicted to narcotics purchase a firearm?>>>If so, how for long would they had to have been clean?>>>Does admitting oneself into rehab wave a person's right to buy a gun?>>>If so, how long would one have to wait until they were then deemed fit to purchase?>>>Would having a single "bad trip" on a psychedelic permenantly ruin one's right to purchase? (The person has no criminal nor government appointed mental health record..unless checking oneself into rehab counts?) Is any of this even the government's/AFT/FBI's business if the law was never involved?
Sorry for being redundant, I just wanted to make sure I didn't leave anything out. If this is the wrong forum, please move accordingly. I have no clue where else I'd ask this. Obviously if no one can help me out I'll register to some NRA forum or something just for this single post. Thank you.
