Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Sheepdog Scout, Nov 10, 2010.
On a related note.
Blood will run in the streets.
"However, once a gun owner becomes intoxicated, the permit to carry is invalid, according to state public safety officials. The state defines intoxication as having an alcohol concentration of .08 or more, or having any amount of controlled substance detectable in blood or urine."
So does this mean that you can't carry if you take Adderall for ADHD or take Vicodin for pain (e.g. tooth)? They are both controlled substances and I am sure they could be detected in the blood or urine. Is this how it is for all states?
In Minnesota a person can't have a B.A.C. of .04% or higher while carrying. Half the legal driving limit of .08%
That's exactly what comes to my mind. I believe that any medication, which requires a doctor's prescription, is a controlled substance. Would this render a woman's permit null and void if she's discovered to have taken birth control pills? What about cholesterol reduction pills?
I understand that's not the "spirit of the law", but couldn't it be taken to that extreme in a worst-case scenario?
I'm not exactly opposed to making it illegal to be drunk or high on illegal drugs while carrying a gun in public.
It is all about Iowa becoming shall issue instead of the old may issue at the sheriffs discression. Several sheriffs didn't want to give up their power over the populace. The whiny ones that still oppose it will do what the law says, wheather they like it or not.
Actually that isn't the case. Controlled substances are specific medications that have abuse potentials in addition to their therapeutic activity. It ranges from Schedule V (like codeine I believe) to Schedule II (Adderall, Percocet, Morphine Sulphate, etc.). Cholesterol meds and birth control aren't "controlled substances", but they do need prescriptions. I was just wondering because their are lots of people that take controlled meds daily (think ADD meds, antianxiety meds, pain meds, etc.) but it seems like this law would exclude these patients from carrying. Just doesn't seem right. I could understand people that are illegally taking these drugs, but not necessarily the legal people.
As long as the same rule applies for voting, I'm in.
We have one here in central Iowa that doesn't like it, and I can assure everyone that he's doing all he can to mess things up before 1/1/2011 when it takes effect.
I was in renewing mine a few months ago (I've been one of the few that has been issued one under the "May Issue" laws) and the whining done by one of the members of administration was really over the top.
Shall issue laws in this state are way overdue.
Reciprocity with other states January 1 2011 will be nice. Living thirteen miles from the state line can be a real pain.
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with you, though, that if one is taking medication legally, as prescribed, they shouldn't be denied the privilege of a carry permit. Should be stipulated in the writing of the law.
Again, I'm sure this isn't the spirit of the law, and I'd say the odds of it ever becoming an issue are astronomical. The only way I see that ever becoming an issue is if someone is involved in a questionable self defense shooting and it somehow comes to the prosecution's attention that they're prescribed a controlled substance.
If that substance has the potential to aversely affect one's judgment, then it could be a problem for the shooter.
I think you would have to articulate impairment with a detailed description of behavior that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the medication they were taking affected their judgement for it to fly.
One of the problems with drug use (both legal and illegal) is that unlike alcohol there is no way to measure where the impairment threshold is.