Under the influence?

NavyLT

Two different things, in your second case they would simply be transporting a firearm not CC or OC.

Orphan said:

NavyLT

Two different things, in your second case they would simply be transporting a firearm not CC or OC.

Click to expand...

Two different things indeed. According to the law though, it says in a place when and where a CPL is required. In the second situation, since a CPL is not required, there would be no justification under this portion of the law for confiscation. Unless I suspect it was only for temporarily to secure it.

(e) In the possession of a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, and who is under the influence of any drug or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, as defined in chapter 46.61 RCW;

Sparky508 said:

Two different things indeed. According to the law though, it says in a place when and where a CPL is required. In the second situation, since a CPL is not required, there would be no justification under this portion of the law for confiscation. Unless I suspect it was only for temporarily to secure it.

(e) In the possession of a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, and who is under the influence of any drug or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, as defined in chapter 46.61 RCW;

Click to expand...

100% agree

Orphan said:

100% agree

Click to expand...

So.......
I guess I misunderstood your statment.
(Maybe I m just feeling combative):lol:

Seems to me, if one was in a place, throwing all of the OC and other rules out the door, meaning your home or place of bussiness etc. (Think of the rules as understood by the majority of people who aren't versed.............)

While not an intelligent thing to do by any means, one could be under the influence of whatever floated his boat, in his own house and wouldn't be subject to confiscation. Although as I type and think , I suspect there would be reckless endagerment type things that could possibly come into play.

.......and it appears in this reading, that you would only lose your gun, not your CPL..

To add confusion, one can take a medication and not be "under the influence" of said medication. For example, if I have a single beer, I am not "under the influence" of the alcohol in said beer. Likewise, if I am in pain, and take a percocet as proscribed, the 5 grains of oxycodiene shouldn't put me in under the influence of opiates, because the pain receptors should be taking up all the opiates and not leaving any free to "influence" me to any degree. When a person does get "intoxicated" by opiates, it is because the amount of opiate he is taking exceeds the need...

Of course, trying to convince a prosecutor and jury of those facts....

oneeyeross said:

To add confusion, one can take a medication and not be "under the influence" of said medication. For example, if I have a single beer, I am not "under the influence" of the alcohol in said beer. Likewise, if I am in pain, and take a percocet as proscribed, the 5 grains of oxycodiene shouldn't put me in under the influence of opiates, because the pain receptors should be taking up all the opiates and not leaving any free to "influence" me to any degree. When a person does get "intoxicated" by opiates, it is because the amount of opiate he is taking exceeds the need...

Of course, trying to convince a prosecutor and jury of those facts....

Click to expand...

Actually, you can be found to be "under the influence" of a prescribed medication if for any reason it impairs your ability to pass any law enforcement's evaluation of your motor skills. That's why there are numerous warnings that accompany prescription drugs. The big hint should be "Caution, can cause dizzyness, drowsiness, impair your ability to operate motor vehicles, etc, etc, etc". Impaired is impaired even IF you are only taking the prescribed dosage. You also want to beware of additive effects of drugs when taken with other food/drink/medication.

You could take one "opiate pain killer" for example and not have any sense of impairment. You could drink one beer and likewise not even feel it. Even pass a roadside sobriety test. But for some, combine the two and they may wake up in the middle of Albertson's with no clothes on, wondering how they got there.

BTW, I've witnessed all kinds of individuals that didn't think they were "influenced" by their drink or meds yet they just about fell on their faces when subjected to a field sobriety test. Usually the first to fail is one's rational judgement and it's all downhill from there.

NavyLT said:

You are confusing confiscation with forfeiture. If a police officer is detaining you for whatever reason, they can confiscate your firearm. If you are taken into custodial arrest, for say being drunk and disorderly in public, they will take your gun into evidence or holding as personal property.

Click to expand...

Misplaced the verbiage between the two, so I suspect I was confused, but yes sir, you said it more better than me.

Edit to add: Said confusion was not due to being under the influence..............

amlevin said:

SNIP

You could take one "opiate pain killer" for example and not have any sense of impairment. You could drink one beer and likewise not even feel it. Even pass a roadside sobriety test. But for some, combine the two and they may wake up in the middle of Albertson's with no clothes on, wondering how they got there.

SNIP.

Click to expand...

Sounds like there might be a story there. Any surveillance video?

Lammo said:

Sounds like there might be a story there. Any surveillance video?

Click to expand...

It's a recurring nightmare. So far, it hasn't happened to me.

With my luck, if it does, it will be "News at Eleven".

amlevin said:

Actually, you can be found to be "under the influence" of a prescribed medication if for any reason it impairs your ability to pass any law enforcement's evaluation of your motor skills.

.

Click to expand...

True, but you are discussing an officer's subjective assessment, while was referring to a clinical situation. And, even then, when taken to court, the officer's subjective assessment has to be backed up with a breathalyzer or blood alcohol (at least, in the cases I was involved with, for Federal use)...

oneeyeross said:

True, but you are discussing an officer's subjective assessment, while was referring to a clinical situation. And, even then, when taken to court, the officer's subjective assessment has to be backed up with a breathalyzer or blood alcohol (at least, in the cases I was involved with, for Federal use)...

Click to expand...

Those tests only cover alcohol. Those "subjective assessments" can be more than enough, especially if the subject has a hard time standing, walking, talking, etc. For those there are often the video's from dash-cam or at the "station". Also to be considered is the persons actions before being stopped. Wandering all over the road, driving at either extremely high speed, or better yet, 30 mph on the freeway, are all considerations that get these people convicted, even without the backup chemical tests. Impaired is impaired, regardless of the substance, all that's necessary is to provide convincing evidence to the court for a conviction.

This subject came up at an opportune time as a lot of people are beginning to take antihistamines for seasonal allergies. Some of these meds, especially the stronger Rx versions (e.g. Xyzal), can have significant side effects that the patient wouldn't necessarily expect. Carrying a firearm while on some of these meds - and many other classes of meds, for that matter - may be irresponsible, regardless of whether or not it is legal.

Whenever I'm taking a new medication I consider going unarmed for the first day or two. This gives me the chance to recognize side effects that might impair my functioning.

oneeyeross said:

True, but you are discussing an officer's subjective assessment, while was referring to a clinical situation. And, even then, when taken to court, the officer's subjective assessment has to be backed up with a breathalyzer or blood alcohol (at least, in the cases I was involved with, for Federal use)...

Click to expand...

It is much much more than subjective assesment, LEOs are trained experts and their testimonly is viewed as such in a court of law. One of the 1st things a DA will do is get a LEO to state his training so that the jury/Judge knows he is qualified to make the determination that you were impared. BAC results are simply more evidence to use against you.

BTW you dont have to blow in the portable breathalizer on the side of the road nor do you have to do any roadside tricks for the officer you can simply refuse to talk or do anything. You do have to blow in the breathalizer at the courthouse/jail/substation etc. IANAL