Prescription Narcotics & Gun Ownership

[Aaryq]

Howdy, folks,
I had a tooth pulled recently and was issued some prescription narcotics for pain. It's unlikely to happen where I live but what would be the legal ramifications of using a firearm for self defence while under the influence of narcotics taken properly in accordance with the scrip?

 

[vaeevictiss]

I'm not the law, but i would like to say none. Narcotics get a bad name but just because it is a narcotic doesn't mean it is illegal as long as it is used within the guidelines prescribed by your doctor.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Trebor]

Like so many questions about the law there is no cut and dried answer.

The legal ramifications depend on the circumstances, and how the prosecutor and/or jury view the totality of the circumstances.

If a known felon ax murderer escaped con tries to break in, and you shoot him, the fact there are narcotics in your system probably won't mean much.

If the shooting is at all "questionable" (think Zimmerman) the prosecutor will look at EVERYTHING and the fact there are narcotics in your system might make a difference.

In between those two extrems is anyone's guess. There is no "one right answer" you can get. (Like many other things in life as well).

 

[thefish]

I'm not the law either, but I bed to differ. If you plan to carry concealed, you will be in direct violation CA penal code

While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
 Consume any alcoholic beverage.
 Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.
 Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
 Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon demand.
 Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
 Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace officer as defined by California law.
 Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.
 Carry a concealed weapon not listed on the permit
 Carry a concealed weapon at times or circumstances other than those specified in the permit.

http://handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

Personally, I would make the decision to either take the meds, or carry, but not both. If you were "under the infulance" and had to use your weapon, I'd bet you would be in for an uphill legal battle.

 

[rdhood]

Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.

Really? Aspirin? Cholesterol lowering drugs? Caffeine? 24Hr Nasal spray?

I have a chronic gastrointestinal disorder. I take two medications... neither of which causes any narcotic type of affect or has any warnings against driving/using machinery, etc. Under CA law, I would not be allowed to carry... ever. What an asinine law.

 

[thefish]

I'm not saying it's not asinine, i'm just saying that is the law.

If you were using asprin, or something without the warning, I doubt the law would come into play. However, you do bring up a good point. If the script has a warning that you shouldn't drive, will have impaired judgement, etc, all more the reason to choose one over the other.

In a not so cut and dry shoot, I would think the prosecutor would lump a "judgement imparing narcotic" right up there with being drunk. I don't say I agree with the law, i'm just saying based on what the written law is, I wouldn't carry and take the narcotics.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.

Really? Aspirin? Cholesterol lowering drugs? Caffeine? 24Hr Nasal spray?

I would be confident in saying that the spirit of this section refers to medications or drugs that can impair your abilities or judgement. It says influence, not effect. Aspirin does not impair your judgement, and unless you take half a bottle of No-doze, caffeine isn't a mind-altering drug, either.

OP-use your judgement. Do the painkillers make you loopy? If so, understand that you may face criminal charges for carrying while using them. That in and of itself wouldn't nullify a SD claim, but may make it a tougher sell. And even if the shoot is good and you were not charged with manslaughter, etc., that doesn't mean they won't charge you with carrying under the influence.

 

[TurtlePhish]

FWIW, my friend's dad was prescribed some kind of narcotic and there was a shooting, don't really know the details. He was acquitted of any criminal charges, but all of his firearms were confiscated by either the police or DCF.

 

[Rob G]

[Standard High Road Disclaimer] I am not a lawyer [/Standard High Road Disclaimer]

The problem with narcotics, even prescribed ones, is that they often do effect your judgement and overall mood. So from a legal standpoint they're pretty much lumped in with alcohol and other mood altering substances. I.E. you probably shouldn't be handling (carrying) a gun while on them. Laws will vary by state and the whole thing is a big grey area but you really don't want to put yourself in a situation where an officer has to decide if you have enough Vicodin (or whatever) in your system to be "intoxicated."

However, to your specific question about being involved in a self defense shooting, then I think a few points that other have made here are pretty on point:

1. If an axe murderer comes after you in front of a dozen witnesses with an axe and you shoot him, you're unlikely to be charged with aggravated assault, or murder, as the case may be.
2. If there's any question as to the legitimacy of the shooting situation, the fact that you've got narcotics in your system will absolutely be used against you. The prosecution will use it to argue that your ability to properly understand and evaluate the situation was impaired, and that the method of impairment was something you undertook voluntarily.
3. No matter what happens with #1 and #2 you can always be charged with possession of a gun while intoxicated. Although possibly being on your own private property could mitigate that.

 

[Zoogster]

thefish
that is not CA penal code but the restrictions placed by a specific Sheriff on that carry license.
They can place whatever restrictions they want and some counties place more than others.

There is nothing in California state law for example that says you cannot carry concealed if you have a carry license while drinking.
Nothing that says you cannot go into an establishment that serves alcohol or makes most of its money from alcohol.
Nothing that says you cannot be under the influence of prescription medication.

In fact under California law you can be intoxicated and in a bar and carrying.
While legal prescription drugs also should have no legal disqualification. The only exception would be state legal marijuana use, which would still be illegal at the federal level, and an additional crime to use and possess while carrying a gun.

The thing is in California most of the population lives in counties that do not give permits to regular people.
While far inland in counties with very low population densities and rural communities you have several counties that are like going back in time, and have views that one would expect in the 1950s elsewhere in the country.
There is some great aspects to these places, but there is also additional restrictions and expectations, and you have found one of them.
Sheriffs in some of such counties may place restrictions that include whatever they want.
The issue of the license is discretionary in the state, and the terms they put on it are as well.
However the terms they put on it do not carry the power of law. They may revoke the permit for a violation, but it is not the law.

Restrictions they put that are already the law also don't matter, because it is already the law, whether they say not to do it or they are silent on the subject.

The only restrictions on that list that are the law are:

 Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
 Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace officer as defined by California law.
 Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.

They are not worded in proper legal jargon but they are the law.
You cannot impersonate a peace officer, interfere with peace officers lawfully performing their duties, or brandish a weapon. That is already state law.

While

" Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon demand"

is probably best followed as well because irregardless of the law arguing with a cop while they want a gun you won't give them is not a place you want to be, but I don't believe it is the law for a permit holder. (The game laws do state anyone hunting must do so for inspection to insure compliance with game laws. Also that anyone carrying an unloaded gun back when unloaded carry was legal before this year must turn it over to any officer that requested so they could check that it was unloaded. Neither of which apply to someone with a carry permit.)



However the rest of the restrictions are those imposed by the Sheriff that issues the license.
Another county may have entirely different restrictions.

 

[Zoogster]

As for the OP, if you shoot someone and there is any gray area on justification, like there will be in a large percent of shootings in a public place with almost anyone, or any that could involve friends, relatives, coworkers, or others with some sort of relationship to you even in a home, then being intoxicated will play a role.
It will be used to question your state of mind, and whether what you did was what another reasonable person would have done. Implying that by being intoxicated your thought process was unreasonable, and you did things that would not have been done otherwise.


However if someone breaks into your home, robs you at a business on camera, or otherwise does something that traditionally shows quite clearly who the aggressor was, then it should have no impact.

 

[Librarian]

Just to supplement Zoogster, California Penal Code says

California Penal Code Section 26200

(a) A license issued pursuant to this article may include
any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the issuing authority
deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place,
manner, and circumstances under which the licensee may carry a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person.
(b) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be
indicated on any license issued.

The law is entirely serious about 26200(b); if some conduct is not specifically a crime already in some California Code or another, an issuing authority MUST make the limitation appear on the license itself. Things on the application or on supplementary paperwork from an issuing agency are effectively a 'wish list'. At some time, violating the 'wishes' may perhaps result in revocation of one's LTC, or denial of renewal, but there is no criminal component.

 

[Rmeju]

To the OP:

I would imagine the public carry of a weapon, even under a valid permit, would be questionable or even flatly prohibited while under the influence of a narcotic, even a prescription one, depending on your jurisdiction.

I would imagine that the use of a firearm in self-defense, so long as it was actually justified, would not give rise to criminal liability merely because you were under the influence at the time. That said, the presence of a narcotic in your system could very well complicate a claim of self-defense (i.e. a prosecutor might question whether deadly force SD was truly justified under the circumstances, asserting instead that you were a hopped-up, trigger happy drug addict).

How's your criminal record? How powerful is the narcotic? Were you illegally carrying under the influence, or were you sitting at home trying to sleep, and managed to get your gun from your dresser drawer at the time of attack? Those and other, similar questions might come up and influence a jury's decision about whether they believed your assertions that your act of SD was justified.

Of course, this is something you should talk to a lawyer about.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Rmeju,

Good post and spot on.

 

[MedWheeler]

Okay, having a prescribed narcotic at a measurable level in the bloodstream does not necessarily constitute being under the influence. That phrase means that one's normal pattern of behavior, thought process, or other aspect of demeanor is affected and/or altered by the substance.
So, to answer the OP's question, you would not be in trouble in an otherwise "clean shoot" situation if there is no indication that the medication has in any way affected your actions, and that your judgement and perception remained that of "any reasonable person" in a similar situation.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...you would not be in trouble in an otherwise "clean shoot" situation...

But as we've said in different contexts, you're not the one who decides if it's a "clean shoot", and there's no guarantee that your particular violent encounter will be so obviously clean that the matter won't go further.

So if there's any disagreement about whether your act of extreme violence against another human was justified, your having taken medication that could affect your perception and/or judgment will become an issue. Hopefully you'll be able to convince the DA/grand jury/trial jury that your perception and/or judgment wasn't affect. But you will have to deal with the question.

 

[MedWheeler]

But as we've said in different contexts, you're not the one who decides if it's a "clean shoot", and there's no guarantee that your particular violent encounter will be so obviously clean that the matter won't go further.

True, but the OP's initial question was about "being under the influence" of a prescription medication, not about what constitutes a "clean shoot". My response assumes that the hypothetical shooting has already been determined to be "clean." That was to keep it on topic, hence my use of the phrase otherwise "clean shoot".
If justification for the shooting is questionable, then extensive review will take place, whether or not prescription medication is involved.
Back to the OP, you have to determine how the drug affects you now. If it doesn't have any real mind-altering affects at its prescribed levels, then I wouldn't worry. To worry about it is like saying you'll never have a beer again for fear it might still be in your bloodstream should the defecation hit the rotary air dispersal device.

 

[Zoogster]

An "otherwise clean shoot" somewhat misses the reality though.

They are a gray area. Yes some overwhelmingly are justified, but most that are technically justified in public will be gray areas to other people. You may know it was justified, but the people back in a court room get to figure it out.
The prosecution will try to smear you, make you look bad, and so make your actions more questionable.
In TV dramas and movies justice prevails, they eventually see it just like it happened. In reality even people present see the same events very differently, some missing key aspects that alter the perception, others remembering based on how what they saw made them feel, not what actually happened yet giving the perspective they know what happened.
For example the person that missed the altercation, or even the quiet robbery attempt hears a loud gunshot and sees you, the bad guy in their mind, and perhaps the guy just robbing you who may or may not be hit running away. Their mind while it is a fresh memory impacted by emotion files it away as you the cold shooting bad guy, shooting someone trying to run away. You may have fired while they were attacking, coming at you, standing still, or perhaps even while they were turning and the situation was fluid. But the brain of witnesses does not store the details exactly many times, but rather stores them based on perspective.
They perceive you as the bad guy, know you have the gun, know you are shooting, and know someone else that appears scared or wounded is fleeing while you appear to be hostile.
Now each thing they record after that is from the perspective of you as the bad guy, their mind searches for and saves details that strengthen that.
They may learn later it was something different, but their entire memory of events is clouded by how their mind started collecting the data.

A court room hearing their initial statement to police then gets to hear about the details from that perspective.
A jury then wonders who is telling the truth, you or the witness.
Because that is how many people think, both your stories don't match up entirely so someone must be lying right?
Even if you are both telling the truth, but some facts are distorted or remembered in a way the mind has altered or perceived differently.


Then in addition they get to hear of every possible way the prosecution can assassinate your character. Including the impact the drugs you were on at the time had.
If those drugs actually have a warning label like don't operate heavy machinery, etc You may get statements designed to impact the jury like "They shouldn't even have been operating a car, yet they were operating a firearm and deciding who got to live and die. Making decisions no reasonable person in their right mind would have."


You may know it had no impact on what happened, but it's still an extra tossed in there.


Also some of the prescription narcotics are quite potent and impact different people in different ways. A lot of people do become less rational, while others are not affected that severely. But that means there will be evidence of people with a severely impacted state of mind from many of the same drugs, giving credibility that it made a difference in your decision even if it really didn't in your case.

 

[sonick808]

There are tons of people on prescription narcotics these days. I doubt it would even come up, and if it did, it wouldn't even be a point of contention as long as you weren't overdosing or a drooling idiot at the scene.

As long as it's prescribed, and you feel your motor and cognitive skills are un-impaired, do as you will.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I doubt it would even come up, and if it did, it wouldn't even be a point of contention as long as you weren't overdosing or a drooling idiot at the scene....

And you know this how?

If I were a prosecutor and decided that a use of force case in which someone claimed self defense was sufficiently murky to warrant prosecution, and that person was taking medication known to have the capacity to affect mood, perception and/or judgment, I know how I could use that to further my case.

And before anyone gets in a tizzy about that, that would be my responsibility as the lawyer for the state. And it would be the responsibility of the defendant's lawyer to challenge/rebut/negate my arguments. That is how our adversary system works, is intended to work and has worked for hundreds of years.

And I know this because I practiced law for over 30 years and know a few things about how to use information to my client's advantage.

 

[sonick808]

i should have placed another 'i doubt' in front of the point of contention. Regarding anything else legal, i never claimed to know.

As for cognitive and motor skill affect, i know plenty about that by having far too many friends and family getting cancer. Once they become tolerant, they are more alert than your usual idiot behind the wheel.

It suspect it would be easy to find a pain specialist to testify that once tolerance is achieved, the medication is a non-issue. even under the influence, opiates are hardly in the drug class to force rash decision making. Bad aim or falling asleep during a robbery would be more like it.

ETA: If a lawyer uses a medication against a person even though an expert testified otherwise, that makes them a bad person. they may be a good lawyer, but still a bad person. It's true the saying I heard the other day, "there is no justice system, only a legal system."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It suspect it would be easy to find a pain specialist to testify that once tolerance is achieved, the medication is a non-issue. even under the influence, opiates are hardly in the drug class to force rash decision making...

Perhaps. And perhaps there will be an expert who might testify otherwise.

...ETA: If a lawyer uses a medication against a person even though an expert testified otherwise, that makes them a bad person. they may be a good lawyer, but still a bad person...

[1] And if the lawyer on the other side had an expert who testified differently?

[2] Each side will have his witnesses, his experts and his evidence; and it will be up to the jury to decide. Again, that is how our adversary system works, is intended to work and has worked for hundreds of years.

[3] As far as being a "bad person", what would you think of a lawyer who shirks his professional responsibility to be a zealous advocate, within the rules, for his client's interests? If you were in trouble, would you want to be represented by a lawyer who was so cavalier about his professional duties?

...It's true the saying I heard the other day, "there is no justice system, only a legal system."

Do you really know what justice is? Do you think everyone agrees with your view of what justice is? And what about people who see justice differently from you.

Even Socrates and his students, as described in Plato's Republic couldn't agree.

 

[sonick808]

Frank: I don't have the attention span to type what I would be glad to discuss in person. If we ever cross paths, let's make this a high priority. lol. Suffice to say, i agree in some places, not in others.

OP: As long as you don't feel impaired in any way, you've done your due diligence.

 

[Texan Scott]

Especially after reading the article about the glock guy in birmingham...
i think if i was on narcotics (and the military's given me more morphine, i know whereof i speak), i would hesitate to carry a gun, just because i'd be more likely to have an accident. more likely to shoot myself than anyone else. i'd hate to look numbly down at the bloody mess in my lap and think 'wow... that doesn't hurt a bit, but i bet ima regret it later...'
Be SAFE out there.

 

[Rmeju]

Rmeju,

Good post and spot on.

Thanks Frank!

OP: As long as you don't feel impaired in any way, you've done your due diligence.

This is BAD ADVICE (and nothing personal against that poster). I would urge, in the strongest possible terms, to speak with an attorney before choosing to carry while on prescription narcotics simply because you don't "feel impaired in any way."