Prescription Pain Meds and Concealed Carry? - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Prescription Pain Meds and Concealed Carry?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,415
    If I did have any first-hand insight into this subject, I would not post it on the internet. Keep it between yourself and your lawyer, as you have confidentiality protections with him/her. You should have the same confidentiality protections with your doctor, but that's a much more tenuous legal relationship, and if it were me, I would not count on it holding firm, either from the doctor's voluntary wish to maintain confidentiality for their patients perspective, or from the perspective that if the government (any government, local, state or federal) wants certain medical information which most of us assume is protected as being private, they'll get it.

    The truth is that there are no strict standards for identifying illegal use of prescription drugs juxtaposed against gun ownership or carry laws, or maybe more to the point, no strict standards for who might be considered a "legal" authority to put someone on such a list. NICS is the overriding authority on that subject, and the section that covers how people get on a restricted list says the following:


    SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

    (c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

    (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    (A) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    (C) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    The above is the latest revision (2007) to NICS concerning how one gets "adjudicated" to be incompetent to own and/or carry a gun. If you're interested in the referenced section in (C) that controls adjudication as a mental defective, that section is here. You will see though, that this 2007 legislation is not restricted by it, but rather, this legislation expands on the word "adjudicated" to include unspecified "boards," "commissions" and "other legal authority." Click on the link to verify that for yourself if need be.

    The makeup of the "board" or "commission" or "other legal authority" is not specified anywhere, but more importantly, not mandated to be made up of a body that adheres to the due process protections of The Constitution. It might be confusing seeing all that legalese when only a few words, distilled down to the text's real meaning, are pertinent, so let's do just that; break it down. Basically what it is saying is.....

    The Federal Government may not provide to the Attorney General any record of adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if....

    ....the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability without a hearing by some doctor, or self-appointed "commission" or "board" of doctors and/or lawyers, or perhaps just some local anti-gun yahoos "officially" appointed by a Mayor or County Commission or whatever, because this law does not stipulate what constitutes a "legal authority!!"

    The law is so ambiguous as to allow the formation of some body with the imprimatur of governmental legitimacy, but it mandates no standards whatsoever that protects gun owners from being tagged as "mental defectives" by literal partisan hacks bent on ridding the United States of private gun ownership.

    With all of the above in mind, I highly recommend that you never say a word in public about your prescription drug usage. Without much trouble or legal obstacles, it could result in you being "adjudicated" to be incompetent to own/carry guns by people who have no professional training in determining such complicated medical diagnosis.

    Otherwise, welcome, and good luck. May the Lord relieve you of all pain as you navigate this country's completely usurped version of "government of, by and for The People."

    Blues

    ETA: "Section 101" as-referenced above may have been the section in the bill itself before it was passed. I copied and pasted an excerpt of my own post from back in '07 when I was arguing against its passage. However, the law was passed and signed by Bush, and became law that same year. The language may be attached to different code section numbers now, but it was passed as-cited above.
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Jackson, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    47
    Thanks. I get your point. I really don't take prescription pain killers. Just wondered hypothetically.

  4. Blues, that is one of the best posts concerning prescription drugs and related issues I have seen. Kudos.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by aburgher View Post
    Thanks. I get your point. I really don't take prescription pain killers. Just wondered hypothetically.
    I'm glad we all could give advice. Sometimes bringing up hypothetical issues and solutions makes us all better informed.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by aburgher View Post
    Thanks. I get your point. I really don't take prescription pain killers. Just wondered hypothetically.
    A bit late but... Generally State and Federal Firearms Laws are concerned with intoxication and habitual intoxication, whether it's legal or recreational. Some states go beyond a BAL (Blood Alcohol Level) to the amounts of the drug's metabolites that are in the blood stream at the time of he incident. For example marijuana's particular metabolite registers for 2+ weeks after smoking one joint; if you get into a car wreck, the tox reports will show this and depending on the level you are/were DUI; now use a firearm and it's up to the Review Boards or equal. If it resembles Zimmerman good luck- I suspect that DOJ would have a field day at your expense.

    Pre-Zimmerman, this would not be a high profile type issue, Post-Zimmerman it's anyone's guess. Generally, like if you are in an auto accident beyond a fender bender with no injuries, demand that BALs be done on both parties ASAP.

    In response to BluesStringer's post, now enter Veterans Disarmament Act of 2007- HR 2640, Veterans Disarmament Act signed into Law Jan 8 2008 and became Public Law. I believe this is part of what he is referring to.

    BATFE's illegal regs can be found at 27 C.F.R. 478.11. These regs state that a person is permanently prohibited from owning a gun if "any lawful authority" (including a government psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) holds that he represents "any" risk to himself or others or is unable to manage his affairs. And in a letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE states that "any danger" -- not just a "substantial" or "imminent" danger -- is enough to make you a "prohibited person. This act is broadly applied to non-Veterans as well.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by desertrat12 View Post
    A bit late but... Generally State and Federal Firearms Laws are concerned with intoxication and habitual intoxication, whether it's legal or recreational. Some states go beyond a BAL (Blood Alcohol Level) to the amounts of the drug's metabolites that are in the blood stream at the time of he incident. For example marijuana's particular metabolite registers for 2+ weeks after smoking one joint; if you get into a car wreck, the tox reports will show this and depending on the level you are/were DUI; now use a firearm and it's up to the Review Boards or equal. If it resembles Zimmerman good luck- I suspect that DOJ would have a field day at your expense.

    Pre-Zimmerman, this would not be a high profile type issue, Post-Zimmerman it's anyone's guess. Generally, like if you are in an auto accident beyond a fender bender with no injuries, demand that BALs be done on both parties ASAP.

    In response to BluesStringer's post, now enter Veterans Disarmament Act of 2007- HR 2640, Veterans Disarmament Act signed into Law Jan 8 2008 and became Public Law. I believe this is part of what he is referring to.

    BATFE's illegal regs can be found at 27 C.F.R. 478.11. These regs state that a person is permanently prohibited from owning a gun if "any lawful authority" (including a government psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) holds that he represents "any" risk to himself or others or is unable to manage his affairs. And in a letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE states that "any danger" -- not just a "substantial" or "imminent" danger -- is enough to make you a "prohibited person. This act is broadly applied to non-Veterans as well.
    Veterans (or even civilians) may be asked if they have trouble balancing their checkbooks. Who uses checkbooks any more? You may be asked, "how then do you resolve your debit and credit issues"? Electronic (online banking) means would be good here. Beware the problems this loaded question may bring-up, if you don't have a bank account, but deal with cash and check cashing services, or you have trouble paying your bills, even through no fault of your own. This can and will be used as partial evidence that the person in question is unable to manage his affairs. Be aware that what sounds trivial, is the punch that will knock you off your feet.

    If for any reason, you cannot manage your financial affairs, without the help of a third party (addition, subtraction, deposits, withdrawals), you will be disarmed.

    Beware the book of dirty tricks. Our dear government wants the entire population disarmed.

    We're the government! We are here to help you!

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Jackson, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    47
    Again, thanks so much to everyone for responding. I am fortunate to be among such well-read and intelligent friends. The answers provided certainly give everyone much to consider. It is always good to be prepared and to make sure every action one takes is carefully considered and purposeful.

    Many blessings to all!

  9. #18
    Interesting post. After my last knee replacement surgery I was on pain meds (oxcycoton or something) for about 3 weeks. I stopped taking them because they stopped other stuff (you don't want to know) but I still carried during that time. It never occurred to me that I might be regarded as incapacitated. I was given a handicapped parking pass and was allowed to drive while on the stuff. At least no one warned me not to do so. Next time I go under the knife I will have to ask about this. Thanks for bringing it up.
    Typos are for the entertainment of the reader. Don't let it go to your head!

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,097
    A few of you dudes seem to be missing the point completely. You want to send the op to the gallows go right ahead. Have you dudes ever heard the term "reasonable doubt"? I got a better idea...why don't you go drink until you are just below the legal threshold of intoxication in your state and then go run someone over and tell the court you were not legally drunk. Good luck with that one! Some of the stuff I have read on this forum tells me there are far to many gun carriers/owners that will exercise very risky behavior and deal with the consequences later. Please tell me where the woods are that you hunt in so I can stay the hell away from there. Hey...I have a better example for you...just forget reasonable doubt for a second...have you ever hear the term "George Zimmerman"?

  11. So, let's go with JimTH's theory here for a moment and consider this....using my home state Washington as an example....

    1. There is no law in Washington state against carrying a firearm while under the influence of anything.
    2. I am taking prescription pain medications.
    3. The issue that JimTH says will happen will only occur if I use my firearm to defend myself against a criminal act being committed against me or my family, during which criminal act I was in fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death.
    4. So, according to JimTH, I should leave my gun at home while taking prescribed pain medications.

    So..... here is the question, and the challenge that is still unanswered:

    The question: which outcome would you rather face? Being in the situation of being attacked by a criminal, being in fear of imminent danger of grave bodily harm or death and NOT having your gun because you left it at home? Or carry your gun and if you have to use it to defend yourself, taking the chance of having to defend your actions in court? Personally....I would rather face the jury than the violent criminal. I would rather spend $1 million on defense attorneys than pay $2 thousand for a funeral.

    And the challenge that is still unanswered, JimTH: If "you find yourself in need of a self defense argument you will loose based on the medication you describe. Any first year law student could very easily make the argument that your perceptions of any event were skewed by the drug you were taking" then provide us with the court cases where it has happened. Or are you not up for the challenge that, according to you, any first year law student should be able to fulfill?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast