PDA

View Full Version : LTC application power of law?


Purple K
08-22-2011, 8:02 PM
The Standard DOJ application references PC 12050 thru PC 12054. I just re-read both the application and the PC. There is one section of the application that I don't see any corresponding section of code. What other PC, if any, does this section get it's authority?

"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."

Thanks in advance.

Cokebottle
08-22-2011, 8:20 PM
• 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.

These three are applicable to any person, CCW or not, by other areas of the PC.
A CCW does not "deputize" the holder.

Librarian
08-22-2011, 8:24 PM
... but the rest have no statute to back them up.

Now, if such items are listed on the license you are given, they must be obeyed on pain of withdrawal of the license.

But on the application? No legal barrier.

Purple K
08-22-2011, 8:31 PM
... but the rest have no statute to back them up.

Now, if such items are listed on the license you are given, they must be obeyed on pain of withdrawal of the license.

But on the application? No legal barrier.

That's what I thought, but wanted to be sure. Thanks!

choprzrul
08-22-2011, 10:34 PM
I find this thread quite interesting.

Judges sometimes legislate from the bench.....

.....and apparently, the CA DOJ sometimes tries to legislate from the desk.....


.

hoffmang
08-22-2011, 11:07 PM
.....and apparently, the CA DOJ sometimes tries to legislate from the desk.....


That's old news. However, here I expect it was CSSA (http://www.calsheriffs.org/) or CPCA (http://www.californiapolicechiefs.org/) and not DOJ making things up.

-Gene

wildhawker
08-23-2011, 2:58 AM
That's old news. However, here I expect it was CSSA (http://www.calsheriffs.org/) or CPCA (http://www.californiapolicechiefs.org/) and not DOJ making things up.

-Gene

Yep. We have CSSA and CPCA to thank for the current iteration of carry license application.

-Brandon

Meplat
08-23-2011, 4:07 AM
Our sheriff only stipulates that you not be "under the influence" no prohibition on drinking or prescription drugs or being in a bar.

I have wondered if the term "under the influence" has a legal definition other than that in the vehicle code, .08?

They did have some trouble here with some permit holders flashing around Cracker-Jack-Box badges. I think most of them just said like CCW or something on them but a very stern letter was sent out to CCW's that it was a no-no and if you were caught doing it your permit was gone, no matter what the badge said.
Yep. We have CSSA and CPCA to thank for the current iteration of carry license application.

-Brandon

Dutch3
08-23-2011, 4:13 AM
I have heard of people being cited for being "under the influence" of prescription antibiotics, so it could be a pretty fine line.

Librarian
08-23-2011, 11:47 AM
Our sheriff only stipulates that you not be "under the influence" no prohibition on drinking or prescription drugs or being in a bar.

I have wondered if the term "under the influence" has a legal definition other than that in the vehicle code, .08?

So far as I can tell, there really isn't a 'definition'. I got called for a jury trial for someone who was charged with DUI based on marijuana use (I was dismissed before trial).

It's just my opinion, but I think most people understand their bodies well enough to know when it is not safe for them to drive (whether they have the judgement to act correctly on that evaluation is a different issue). I suggest that a reasonable LTC holder should use similar criteria to 'safe to drive' for 'reasonable to carry', but that avoids the issue rather than places boundaries on it.

OTOH, how good is the judgement of someone who reasons 'Hey, my BAC is 0.079, I must be good!'? Artificially set objective measurements don't always account for real effects on individuals.

dantodd
08-23-2011, 12:05 PM
I have heard of people being cited for being "under the influence" of prescription antibiotics, so it could be a pretty fine line.

I've "heard of" a lot of things that aren't true. What antibiotics impair one's reason to the extent that they would be cited for 647(f)? As for being cited for carrying while "under the influence;" even if one could be "under the influence" of antibiotics what law would one be cited for if they did carry while taking antibiotics?

Purple K
08-23-2011, 12:44 PM
I have wondered if the term "under the influence" has a legal definition other than that in the vehicle code, .08?

Yes, is 0.08 THE limit for LTC's?

wildhawker
08-23-2011, 12:48 PM
Yes, is 0.08 THE limit for LTC's?

What's printed on your license?

Purple K
08-23-2011, 12:53 PM
There aren't any restrictions printed on my permit.

paul0660
08-23-2011, 12:56 PM
The Standard DOJ application references PC 12050 thru PC 12054. I just re-read both the application and the PC. There is one section of the application that I don't see any corresponding section of code. What other PC, if any, does this section get it's authority?

"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."

Thanks in advance.

I think you left out an important part:

Any violation of these restrictions or conditions may invalidate the CCW license and may void any
further use of the license until reinstated by the licensing authority.

The implication is that violating the restrictions invalidates the license, and at that point, you are violating 12025 and 12031, and maybe 626.9 and other stuff.

Force of law? I dunno. Scary for sure.

wildhawker
08-23-2011, 1:10 PM
There aren't any restrictions printed on my permit.

There you go.

Mom sez: don't commit a criminal act, and enjoy bearing arms.

-Brandon

wildhawker
08-23-2011, 1:11 PM
I think you left out an important part:

The implication is that violating the restrictions invalidates the license, and at that point, you are violating 12025 and 12031, and maybe 626.9 and other stuff.

Force of law? I dunno. Scary for sure.

The application derives its authority from? Please read this thread carefully before replying.

-Brandon

paul0660
08-23-2011, 1:17 PM
Please read this thread carefully before replying.

Read all of my post.

Force of law? I dunno. Scary for sure.

Something that scares me is paying lawyers to explain to DA's that they have no case.

Don't say it doesn't happen.

I follow all those silly rules, legal or not.

Purple K
08-23-2011, 1:18 PM
Thank you Brandon. I rarely drink to excess. However, having a single beer with lunch or a single glass of wine with dinner shouldn't be cause for me to disarm for the entire outing. I was just concerned that there was some obscure PC that set a limit of .02 or .04 etc.

wildhawker
08-23-2011, 1:23 PM
Read all of my post.

Something that scares me is paying lawyers to explain to DA's that they have no case.

Don't say it doesn't happen.

I follow all those silly rules, legal or not.

I did read your post. It sounds like you're conservative in manner, which is fine (and maybe even prudent), but please at least admit that your fears have no rational basis as there's no offered evidence supporting the risk.

Where has it happened? I've not heard of a DA prosecuting a LTC licensee for something obviously not otherwise criminal.

-Brandon

taperxz
08-23-2011, 1:39 PM
What's printed on your license?

The State of California is who regulates. They give the authority to a sheriff to license the individuals. Beyond that the state outlines nothing on what happens after the license thus, no laws are broken. If the Sheriff finds out you have "broken one of his rules" he can revoke the license but still, no law was broken except that the offense that got your license revoked could have been illegal in itself. Which is a separate issue from the 2A. close?

taperxz
08-23-2011, 1:40 PM
In fact it seems to me that they follow the same type of protocol as DMV.

Havoc70
08-23-2011, 2:10 PM
That's what I thought, but wanted to be sure. Thanks!

Methinks I'm about to called out at another forum..... :D

Purple K
08-23-2011, 3:46 PM
Lol @ Havoc

paul0660
08-23-2011, 4:19 PM
I did read your post. It sounds like you're conservative in manner, which is fine (and maybe even prudent), but please at least admit that your fears have no rational basis as there's no offered evidence supporting the risk.

Where has it happened? I've not heard of a DA prosecuting a LTC licensee for something obviously not otherwise criminal.

-Brandon

The lawyer leaks out. Prosecution isn't the worry. Those of us without esq. on our business cards, or a get out of jail card, or enough bluster to intimidate a cop, need to worry about the language in that application. It might be time for the bright minds extant to work on it, since it would effect a raft of CCW holders in the state, soon, if other plans work out.

Scenario is this: the only prohibition printed on my card refers to being under the influence of alcohol and drugs. I am sitting in a bar (a real bar) and someone sees my old school cell phone and calls 911 with a mwag report. Nice cop shows up, and depending on the smell test, the attitude test, and the first words out of my mouth, asks me to hit the floor, or stand up with fingers interlaced, or asks for my permit. Me, knowing my rights, am not going to show him my permit (that is just an app requirement btw) nor hand him my gun (another app requirement). I really only see this stuff on COPS, but I don't think it would end well. EVEN if I proffered my license and firearm, depending on HIS UNDERSTANDING of the requirements of the application, he might hook me and take me downtown for being in the bar, effectively voiding my permit in his opinion, and writing up 12025 and 12031 violations which, in the case of guns that are on the permit but not registered (legal in my county) could wobble it up to a felony. The booking cop or the superintendent might have a better take on these nuances, or not. It would eventually make a great thread.

I don't need to belabor this. Prosecution is not the issue.

Attorneys never spend a minute in jail for their clients crime, and never pay a dime of their own money to their clients.

Fix the app. It should be as easy as falling off a log. But DON'T tell us not to worry about it.

Meplat
08-23-2011, 4:30 PM
I agree with you 100%. And in the absence of a clear definition I would think a DA could make either .08 or the old field sobriety test fly with a judge or jury. I tend to believe that as things are now our sheriff would just pull the permit if an officer said; "This guy was packing and he was drunk as a skunk." I doubt it would go to any kind of court contest unless there were brandishing or some other infraction involved.


So far as I can tell, there really isn't a 'definition'. I got called for a jury trial for someone who was charged with DUI based on marijuana use (I was dismissed before trial).

It's just my opinion, but I think most people understand their bodies well enough to know when it is not safe for them to drive (whether they have the judgement to act correctly on that evaluation is a different issue). I suggest that a reasonable LTC holder should use similar criteria to 'safe to drive' for 'reasonable to carry', but that avoids the issue rather than places boundaries on it.

OTOH, how good is the judgement of someone who reasons 'Hey, my BAC is 0.079, I must be good!'? Artificially set objective measurements don't always account for real effects on individuals.

Meplat
08-23-2011, 4:35 PM
Thank you Brandon. I rarely drink to excess. However, having a single beer with lunch or a single glass of wine with dinner shouldn't be cause for me to disarm for the entire outing. I was just concerned that there was some obscure PC that set a limit of .02 or .04 etc.

Actually .04 is the limit for class A CDL holders.:(

Meplat
08-23-2011, 4:55 PM
Fix the app. It should be as easy as falling off a log. But DON'T tell us not to worry about it.

Weeeeeeeeell…………………..
Be careful what you wish for. All this nebulous stuff hinges on the discretion of the issuing entity. The penalties (loss of permit) are administrative, summery, and in the great scheme of things relatively light. When we get shall issue and the issuing agencies lose their summary discretion, “fixing the application”, as seen by the ‘progressive’ Ca legislature, may mean making all those things that now have the force of suggestion cold hard felonies.

paul0660
08-23-2011, 4:57 PM
Actually .04 is the limit for class A CDL holders.:(

and for pilots and certified crewmembers.

paul0660
08-23-2011, 5:05 PM
Weeeeeeeeell…………………..
Be careful what you wish for. All this nebulous stuff hinges on the discretion of the issuing entity. The penalties (loss of permit) are administrative, summery, and in the great scheme of things relatively light. When we get shall issue and the issuing agencies lose their summary discretion, “fixing the application”, as seen by the ‘progressive’ Ca legislature, may mean making all those things that now have the force of suggestion cold hard felonies.

Whatever. All of us spent hours today, combined, trying to figure out the unfigurable. I have great confidence that my sheriff will use his discretion wisely.........but, he gets elected every once in a while, and the next guy, like past sheriffs, can have a new bent. I would like this stuff codified, pretty much as it stands, and NOT give the sheriff incredible leeway for revoking permits.

Of course, I would like a lot of stuff. For now, I will not print my handgun and not listen to lawyers unless they make sense. Remember Animal House? All of them lawyers.

Meplat
08-23-2011, 5:17 PM
Whatever. All of us spent hours today, combined, trying to figure out the unfigurable. I have great confidence that my sheriff will use his discretion wisely.........but, he gets elected every once in a while, and the next guy, like past sheriffs, can have a new bent. I would like this stuff codified, pretty much as it stands, and NOT give the sheriff incredible leeway for revoking permits.

Of course, I would like a lot of stuff. For now, I will not print and not listen to lawyers unless they make sense. Remember Animal House? All of them lawyers.

Probably easier than trying to fix the app right now would be to stay active enough to make sure your local CLEO stays gun friendly and in office. I know it's not a satisfying solution, but it's probably the more doable.

wildhawker
08-23-2011, 5:19 PM
Last thing's first: I am working on fixing the application, but we'll likely need 2A bear done before we can leverage the sort of changes we - and you - seek. In the meantime, please don't conflate my point that much of the application is without statutory authority (and any revocations based on the application would be heavily scrutinized by us) with an instruction of "not to worry about it".

In your case, it appears there is a printed restriction on carry while "under the influence of alcohol and drugs". The restriction appears to be undefined. It might be worth your while to make a written request to your licensing authority for a clear determination of their standards for this restriction(s). Alternatively, a defense attorney might argue that the restriction is vague.

In our world (firearm owners), we often must balance prudence, [lawful, yet possibly ill-advised] behavior, and risk. Where no clear lines are drawn, we are left to a) seek competent legal advice, or b) make decisions based on the best information available to us. It sounds like you've done the latter, and in balancing your own level of acceptable risk with your desired behavior (carry), find a conservative approach to be the best fit. I applaud your consideration, and don't mean to imply that I disagree with your decision for you. I only wish to state for the audience that your choices are not necessarily compelled by force of law.

-Brandon

Scenario is this: the only prohibition printed on my card refers to being under the influence of alcohol and drugs. I am sitting in a bar (a real bar) and someone sees my old school cell phone and calls 911 with a mwag report. Nice cop shows up, and depending on the smell test, the attitude test, and the first words out of my mouth, asks me to hit the floor, or stand up with fingers interlaced, or asks for my permit. Me, knowing my rights, am not going to show him my permit (that is just an app requirement btw) nor hand him my gun (another app requirement). I really only see this stuff on COPS, but I don't think it would end well. EVEN if I proffered my license and firearm, depending on HIS UNDERSTANDING of the requirements of the application, he might hook me and take me downtown for being in the bar, effectively voiding my permit in his opinion, and writing up 12025 and 12031 violations which, in the case of guns that are on the permit but not registered (legal in my county) could wobble it up to a felony. The booking cop or the superintendent might have a better take on these nuances, or not. It would eventually make a great thread.

I don't need to belabor this. Prosecution is not the issue.

Attorneys never send a minute in jail for their clients crime, and never pay a dime of their own money to their clients.

Fix the app. It should be as easy as falling off a log. But DON'T tell us not to worry about it.

Librarian
08-23-2011, 5:19 PM
As an outside-the-California-box exercise, consider what we know about laws governing LTC in other states, where it's more common. Pick on Texas or Georgia or Virginia or Indiana for examples, or any others you may know.

When it dawns on Our Fine Elected Officials, hereafter OFEO, (using the same 'Fine' as in 'RTFM', if you like) that the number of LTC folk is no longer 30 K for the whole state, and not really a Big Concern To Influence My Election, but 300K, or 600K, I suspect that there will be some movement to emulate those other states in some ways. Some of the things on the application, and some of the restrictions added by issuing authorities, may be proposed to OFEO as suitable additions to the Penal Code.

At that time, what is on the application as we know it today might reasonably be expected to change.

paul0660
08-23-2011, 5:24 PM
Probably easier than trying to fix the app right now would be to stay active enough to make sure your local CLEO stays gun friendly and in office. I know it's not a satisfying solution, but it's probably the more doable.

It is not a solution, and it does not help people in other counties.

As I mentioned before, the rewrite of the app would benefit all, and now that I think of it, it would be better to do that now, before the ccw smoke is in the air, than later.

My sheriff will be Sheriff as long as he likes, I think. Perfect combination of good old boy and politician, with some hero mixed in.

paul0660
08-23-2011, 5:25 PM
Last thing's first: I am working on fixing the application, but we'll likely need 2A bear done before we can leverage the sort of changes we - and you - seek. In the meantime, please don't conflate my point that much of the application is without statutory authority (and any revocations based on the application would be heavily scrutinized by us) with an instruction of "not to worry about it".

In your case, it appears there is a printed restriction on carry while "under the influence of alcohol and drugs". The restriction appears to be undefined. It might be worth your while to make a written request to your licensing authority for a clear determination of their standards for this restriction(s). Alternatively, a defense attorney might argue that the restriction is vague.

In our world (firearm owners), we often must balance prudence, [lawful, yet possibly ill-advised] behavior, and risk. Where no clear lines are drawn, we are left to a) seek competent legal advice, or b) make decisions based on the best information available to us. It sounds like you've done the latter, and in balancing your own level of acceptable risk with your desired behavior (carry), find a conservative approach to be the best fit. I applaud your consideration, and don't mean to imply that I disagree with your decision for you. I only wish to state for the audience that your choices are not necessarily compelled by force of law.

-Brandon

10-4

Meplat
08-23-2011, 5:29 PM
and for pilots and certified crewmembers.

Didn't know that, thanks. Anybody here got a maritime pilot's licence? They probably are the same way.

paul0660
08-23-2011, 5:32 PM
Quote:

and for pilots and certified crewmembers.
Didn't know that, thanks. Anybody here got a maritime pilot's licence? They probably are the same way.

For ATC it is .02, btw.

Meplat
08-23-2011, 5:46 PM
It is not a solution, and it does not help people in other counties.

As I mentioned before, the rewrite of the app would benefit all, and now that I think of it, it would be better to do that now, before the ccw smoke is in the air, than later.

You are probably on to something there. It would probably be more favorable to us before shall issue than after. But, I fear we will be fighting these battles for ever, after shall issue, no matter what we do before.


My sheriff will be Sheriff as long as he likes, I think. Perfect combination of good old boy and politician, with some hero mixed in.

I think that is pretty much the case with most Sheriffs. Hard to unseat unless they retire, die, or are caught in the sack with a live boy or a dead girl.

Purple K
08-23-2011, 5:46 PM
Actually .04 is the limit for class A CDL holders.:(

Class B as well.

BigDogatPlay
08-23-2011, 6:03 PM
For the sake of the discussion.....

• Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.

PC 148 et seq.

• Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace officer as defined by California law.

PC 538d et seq.

• Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.

PC 417 et seq.

Dutch3
08-23-2011, 6:04 PM
I've "heard of" a lot of things that aren't true. What antibiotics impair one's reason to the extent that they would be cited for 647(f)? As for being cited for carrying while "under the influence;" even if one could be "under the influence" of antibiotics what law would one be cited for if they did carry while taking antibiotics?

Good questions. There was a case locally about 15 years ago regarding a firefighter/paramedic that was arrested for driving under the influence of (lawfully prescribed) antibiotics. As I recall, he was placed on leave without pay and was likely going to lose his job. There were a couple of other cases regarding DUI via antibiotics I recall as well, but don't have all of the details.

Consider it anecdotal if you will, but do consider it.

Gray Peterson
08-23-2011, 6:09 PM
Good questions. There was a case locally about 15 years ago regarding a firefighter/paramedic that was arrested for driving under the influence of (lawfully prescribed) antibiotics. As I recall, he was placed on leave without pay and was likely going to lose his job. There were a couple of other cases regarding DUI via antibiotics I recall as well, but don't have all of the details.

Consider it anecdotal if you will, but do consider it.

An anti-biotic causing a DUI? Huh?

taperxz
08-23-2011, 6:17 PM
10-4

I see where you are going with the literature on the back of the LTC, however in your county i could also speculate that your sheriff is referencing illegal drugs and alcohol. Possibly even prescription drugs that say right on the bottle not to drive or operate machinery while taking this drug. Rule of law V. spirit of the law. I know spirit gets you no where in court but...

He is a pretty reasonable sheriff. In fact he is the type of sheriff most in this state wish they had in regards to the 2A.

Dutch3
08-23-2011, 6:27 PM
An anti-biotic causing a DUI? Huh?

It happens. Google.

Librarian
08-23-2011, 6:34 PM
Good questions. There was a case locally about 15 years ago regarding a firefighter/paramedic that was arrested for driving under the influence of (lawfully prescribed) antibiotics. As I recall, he was placed on leave without pay and was likely going to lose his job. There were a couple of other cases regarding DUI via antibiotics I recall as well, but don't have all of the details.

Consider it anecdotal if you will, but do consider it.

That's kind of weird.

The CalCrim jury instructions for 647f give these required elements:
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with being under the
influence of (alcohol/ [and/or] a drug) in public [in violation of Penal Code section 647(f)].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant was willfully under the influence of (alcohol[,]/ [and/or] a drug[,]/ [and/or] a controlled substance[,]/ [and/or] toluene);

2. When the defendant was under the influence, (he/she) was in a public place;
AND

<Alternative 3A—unable to care for self>
[3. The defendant was unable to exercise care for (his/her) own safety [or the safety of others].]
<Alternative 3B—obstructed public way>
[3. Because the defendant was under the influence, (he/she) interfered with, obstructed, or prevented the free use of a street, sidewalk, or other public way.]

Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose.

As used here, a public place is a place that is open and accessible to anyone who wishes to go there.(3) appears to be the difficult element to associate with any antibiotic with which I am familiar.

As to driving, VC 312 (http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/312.html)says The term "drug" means any substance or combination of
substances, other than alcohol, which could so affect the nervous
system, brain, or muscles of a person as to impair, to an appreciable
degree, his ability to drive a vehicle in the manner that an
ordinarily prudent and cautious man, in full possession of his
faculties, using reasonable care, would drive a similar vehicle under
like conditions.and for VC 23153 (http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/23153.html) Calcrim cites these
Under the Influence Defined.
People v. Schoonover (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 101 (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/5/101.html), 105–107 [85 Cal.Rptr. 69];
People v. Enriquez (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 661 (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/caapp4th/42/661.html), 665–666 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 710].

Enriquez says Defendant and Christine exited their automobile and Phillips got out of the patrol car. Defendant, walking in a staggered motion, moved toward the rear of his vehicle. When Phillips asked for defendant's driver's license, he noticed defendant was sweating, his eyes appeared glossy, and he had difficulty standing. In slurred and broken speech, defendant asked why he had been stopped.

Phillips checked defendant's pulse, which was beating at 130 beats per minute. The pulse for a normal person is 50 to 60 beats per minute. Phillips measured defendant's pupils with a pupillometer. Defendant's pupils were dilated and fixed; they would not react to light. He had both vertical and horizontal nystagmus. Phillips asked defendant whether he was under the influence, and defendant gave an affirmative response.

After defendant was taken to jail, a blood sample was taken. Laboratory tests confirmed the presence of PCP in defendant's blood.

Based on this evidence, a jury found defendant guilty of driving under the influence and being under the influence of a controlled substance.(50-60 beats per minute? 80 is closer, and higher if one has just been pulled over!)

Antibiotics generally produce not much more than nausea as a side (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/antibiotics/page4_em.htm) effect (http://www.squidoo.com/antibiotics-classification).

So, while charges may have been laid r/t antibiotics, I'd be curious to see on what basis they were filed.

dantodd
08-23-2011, 6:35 PM
It happens. Google.

Still not seeing it, only that antibiotics can have interactions with alcohol but that is very different than being "under the influence" of antibiotics.

monk
08-23-2011, 7:01 PM
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.

This one concerns me most since I take medication. It doesn't affect me physically and I take it at night. Still.

Dutch3
08-23-2011, 7:32 PM
That's kind of weird...


...Antibiotics generally produce not much more than nausea as a side (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/antibiotics/page4_em.htm) effect (http://www.squidoo.com/antibiotics-classification).

So, while charges may have been laid r/t antibiotics, I'd be curious to see on what basis they were filed.

As I said, it was a long time ago. Local story in the Marysville Appeal-Democrat ~15 years ago. Definitely prescription antibiotics, I don't remember exactly what. The accused was also posting on a usenet group (yuba.sutter.local or something similar). Also a couple of cases more recently in Butte county related to DUI antibiotics. Sorry I don't have more concrete info. Take it as it is.

Just mentioned as it could be significant to LTC. DA with an agenda or a grudge, etc.

Meplat
08-23-2011, 8:24 PM
It is not a solution, and it does not help people in other counties.

As I mentioned before, the rewrite of the app would benefit all, and now that I think of it, it would be better to do that now, before the ccw smoke is in the air, than later.

You are probably on to something there. It would probably be more favorable to us before shall issue than after. But, I fear we will be fighting these battles for ever after shall issue, no matter what we do before.


My sheriff will be Sheriff as long as he likes, I think. Perfect combination of good old boy and politician, with some hero mixed in.

I think that is pretty much the case with most Sheriffs. Hard to unseat unless they retire, die, or are caught in the sack with a live boy or a dead girl.

dantodd
08-23-2011, 8:36 PM
This one concerns me most since I take medication. It doesn't affect me physically and I take it at night. Still.

you can rest easily. If you get issued and the Sheriff tries to revoke because of a prescription drug that doesn't impair your judgement or ability to use your firearm CGF would be all over that like white on rice.

Meplat
08-23-2011, 8:48 PM
Class B as well.

Yep. And a good thing too. There are probably more class B school buss drivers than class A.

hoffmang
08-23-2011, 10:38 PM
You are probably on to something there. It would probably be more favorable to us before shall issue than after. But, I fear we will be fighting these battles for ever after shall issue, no matter what we do before.

There are a bunch of BS restrictions that would remain if we reopened the application today versus after carrying under a license becomes a fundamental enumerated right subject to the parade and canvassing permit case law. After that, a whole bunch of things will fall away because they're moot on the application.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
08-24-2011, 7:12 AM
My sheriff will be Sheriff as long as he likes, I think. Perfect combination of good old boy and politician, with some hero mixed in.


Sounds like you live in San Diego County.


The Raisuli

Andy Taylor
08-24-2011, 7:47 AM
As a side note, the restriction placed on most, if not all Sac LTCs reads "NOT VALID IF CONSUMING ALCOHOL OR REMAINING AT ANY ESTABLISHMENT THAT PRIMARILY SERVES ALCOHOL." Now by a strict reading of that, one could disarm, go into a bar, drink enough to put them well over .08. Then stop drinking, leave the bar and rearm legally while still very impaired, using the .08 standard.