Narcotic pain killers

[Oldman11]

Something has been on my mind for awhile. I’m 75 and had to go on a narcotic pain killer in 2008 to function,in doing so I turned in my Louisiana cdl license. It clearly says no narcotic use so did I do the right thing? I have had people tell me it was ok if it was doctor prescribed. I have no record of any kind,only two speeding tickets when I was young. I think if I had to protect myself a jury would be all over the doctor prescription,the doctor and myself. What are your thoughts on this?

[Spats McGee]

As with so many Legal Things, "it depends." Could it make a difference in a SD hearing or trial? Sure. Someone may have some concerns that the pain killers had some effect on your ability to process information in the moments leading up to the shooting. Questioning whether your belief that your life was in danger was reasonable. Then again, if you take them in accordance with prescribed doses, frequency, etc., then the impact of your consumption of those pain killers would be greatly reduced in the eyes of a judge or jury, IMHO. It will also depend, in part, on what your doctor says about the effect of those pain killers on perception, cognitive processes, etc.

[DaleA]

I'd also be interested in the question of can you have a Louisiana carry permit if you're taking PRESCRIPTION drugs. That is, did you HAVE to turn in your carry permit when your doctor prescribed the drugs.

I guess we'd need a Louisiana lawyer for that question.

[hdwhit]

DaleA wrote:
I guess we'd need a Louisiana lawyer for that question.

...or you could go look it up for yourself:
http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/LawSearch.aspx

Search for "concealed" and then start with RS 40:1379.3 which has all the definition related to the requirements for a concealed handgun permit and also lists disqualifying factors.

[jmhyer]

I'd second the point made by Spats and add this...
Taking them only as prescribed is very important. Your prescription records would certainly be scrutinized. Be sure that your narcotics are filled only at one pharmacy and prescribed only by one provider. Take them only as prescribed (less frequently, if possible). Never request early prescriptions or extra medications as that suggests that you may have a problem with abuse.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by hdwhit

...or you could go look it up for yourself:
http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/LawSearch.aspx

Search for "concealed" and then start with RS 40:1379.3 which has all the definition related to the requirements for a concealed handgun permit and also lists disqualifying factors.

Nope, for this kind of issue just reading the statutes will most likely be insufficient. One will also need to look at the case law. I certainly wouldn't venture a professional opinion without doing the case law research, and I'm sure Spats wouldn't either.

For example, one disqualifying factor under 1379.3C(5) is that an applicant for a conceal handgun permit must not:

...suffer from a mental or physical infirmity due to disease, illness, or intellectual disability which prevents the safe handling of a handgun.

So is someone who has a condition for which he has been prescribed a drug which can adversely affect his cognition, coordination, perception, or judgment, even when used as prescribed, considered disqualified under that provision?

I don't know, but perhaps that or related questions have been considered by Louisiana courts. If so, the applicable case law will be essential to addressing the OP's concerns.

[briandg]

The second part of that is

prevents the safe handling of a handgun.

Here we go again with vague verbiage that is better resolved after the fact than before.

A person can mostly be adjudged to be incompetent to handle a handgun safely after he commits an unsafe act. Until you see the guy in behaviors that clearly show that he can't point the thing in the right direction it gets fuzzy.

We don't test older people here to see if they are still capable of driving, but we can revoke the permits after they have proven themselves to be incompetent. But, that usually requires an accident.

[langenc]

Quite amazing. I have read statements like this and it also exhists in MI.

Alcohol is ok but touch on pain killer and whamo!!!!

[Longhorn1986]

If you need that pistol in a hurry, you'll be in deep kimchee.

You have to be alive to be judged impaired or unfit. What's the old adage about being judged by 12 is better than carried by 6?

[Sevens]

I will look at your situation quite differently...

Someone has to look at a defensive gun use, see the situation and then make the decision to go forward with charges. Disparity of force is going to have a huge hand in such a decision.

If you are 25yrs old, 6-foot-5 and 290 lbs of muscle -- I would think you'd be far more ripe to be questioned. 75 years old and with medicinal needs to continue to function from day to day? Hard to imagine that you would be burned at the stake for defensive gun use.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Oldman11

I think if I had to protect myself a jury would be all over the doctor prescription,the doctor and myself. What are your thoughts on this?

As a senior citizen myself, I don't understand why a question about a commercial driver's license is being discussed on a firearms forum.

[cjwils]

I think the original poster needs to explain "cdl." I assumed it referred to some type of gun carry license, but Aguila thinks it is a commercial driver's license.

[Longhorn1986]

CDL: When Semis are outlawed, only outlaws will drive Kenworths!

[Sevens]

I don't believe the OP's post is too cryptic to figure out. I think he's said that since the State believes he should not be driving commercially while on prescription narcotics, he's wondering if that is a reasonable basis to assume that he would be judged poorly for also carrying a handgun while under the same meds. Or more to the point -- using that handgun defensively.

I applaud his thought process.

[44 AMP]

There are two points to consider, whether you are legally "impaired", meaning you meet a legal definition of impairment, and the other point is whether or not the system (including prosecutor, judge & jury) would consider your judgement "affected".

Affected and Impaired are NOT the same thing, legally, but can be in people's opinions.

[dreaming]

Frank raised a good point, but too cut a bit closer to the bone one needs to ask if the statute only applies where the mental or physical infirmity due to disease, illness, or intellectual disability prevents the safe handling of a handgun or does 1379.3C(5) also concern where medications or other treatments for those conditions affect safe handgun handling. Just imo.

[Aguila Blanca]

Let's go back to the original question:

Originally Posted by Pldman11

Something has been on my mind for awhile. I’m 75 and had to go on a narcotic pain killer in 2008 to function,in doing so I turned in my Louisiana cdl license. It clearly says no narcotic use so did I do the right thing? I have had people tell me it was ok if it was doctor prescribed.

You wrote that "it" clearly says no narcotic use for the CDL. What is "it"? Are you referring to a state law or motor vehicle regulation? If so, we need to see the actual language. You wrote that it "clearly" says no narcotic use, but then you wrote that some people have told you it's okay if prescribed by a doctor. That makes two contradictory interpretations of what we have to assume is the same law or regulation. Both interpretations may be wrong, but they can't both be correct. So without knowing what the law/regulation actually says, we can't offer an opinion as to whether or not you did the right thing surrendering your CDL.

Then we move on to the self defense issue. That's covered under other state laws (and, in the case of using deadly/lethal force, probably not in regulations). Again, subject to Frank's caveat that case law is always lurking in the wings, it's probably a mistake to try to equate drivers license laws with self defense laws. Driving is not a right. The state may decide that, rather than deal with degrees of impairment, for a CDL they simply don't want to allow ANY use of narcotics, even with a prescription. (Remember, we haven't yet seen the law, so we're speculating.) But you probably also have a personal driver's license, too. Did you surrender that? Does the state law for normal, non-commercial drivers' licenses carry a total prohibition against narcotics -- even if prescription?

Then remember that self-defense is a fundamental human right. It seems to me that it would take a very harsh and arbitrary government to say that because your doctor prescribed a painkiller that happens to be on a government list ... you have to surrender your right to defend yourself.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by dreaming

....one needs to ask if the statute only applies where the mental or physical infirmity due to disease, illness, or intellectual disability prevents the safe handling of a handgun or does 1379.3C(5) also concern where medications or other treatments for those conditions affect safe handgun handling. Just imo.

I don't know. And that's why I wrote in post 6:

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

...is someone who has a condition for which he has been prescribed a drug which can adversely affect his cognition, coordination, perception, or judgment, even when used as prescribed, considered disqualified under that provision?

I don't know, but perhaps that or related questions have been considered by Louisiana courts. If so, the applicable case law will be essential to addressing the OP's concerns.

[K_Mac]

Then remember that self-defense is a fundamental human right. It seems to me that it would take a very harsh and arbitrary government to say that because your doctor prescribed a painkiller that happens to be on a government list ... you have to surrender your right to defend yourself.

It may be harsh and arbitrary, but a prescription for medical marijuana does exactly that. I'm afraid that if a prosecutor could make the case that an individual was impaired by the use of prescription narcotics it would be hard to convince a judge or jury to not consider that when deciding if lethal force was justified for self-defense.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by K Mac

It may be harsh and arbitrary, but a prescription for medical marijuana does exactly that.

Totally different situation. Regardless of what some states have done in recent years, marijuana is illegal under federal law. Under federal law, there is no such thing as [legal] "medical marijuana." A user of "medical marijuana" isn't deprived of his/her lawful right of self defense, he/she is barred from lawful possession of firearms not because the marijuana might impair or affect his/her judgement and/or coordination, but for the simple reason that by using it a person commits a felony offense.

Two years ago, I was admitted to the VA hospital ICU for a blocked and inflamed gall bladder. Once I was stabilized, they sent me home for awhile to get ready for surgery, and they gave me a prescription for oxycodone. It's a controlled substance but it's legal when prescribed by a doctor and when used in accordance with the prescription. In fact, I didn't use it, but I kept it in case the pain got too bad (which, mercifully, it didn't). Had I used it, I probably shouldn't have carried in public when using it ("impairment" and all that), but I don't think there would have been any seriously negative consequences if I had been forced to use a gun for self defense inside my own home.