CCW and prescription drugs.


9 BIGINDIAN

New member
I am in the process of filling out my application for Calif. CCW permit. It asks about prescription drugs "are you currently taking any prescription medication on a regular basis that may alter your moods or impair your judgment?" I am taking meds that improve my judgement and alter my mood (anti-depressant) and worried how this will affect the decision for approval of CCW. If I omit this info will they (Sheriff) check to see if my info is correct, or should I answer honestly? How much weight does this have with the approval process?
 

Here's a thought.

if our medical records are private and not available to the government do we have an obligation to inform them of any and all medical conditions? would this be a violation of the 5th amendment?

If you answered no and they come forward stating they know you are using anti-depressants you / we now would know they are violating doctor / patient privilege.

Plus, depending on which county in CA you live in, thinking you can get a CCW may be proof of irrational behaviour. :frown:

Sam
 
Why not lie about other things on your application?

Sounds like you intend to ignore the rules, if you think you can get away with it. Isn't that the mindset of most criminals?
 
Better idea. Consult an attorney. You're still protected by privilege then and you get much better info than on a web forum with anonymous commentary from people that won't defend you in court if you choose the wrong answer.
 
Here's a thought.

if our medical records are private and not available to the government do we have an obligation to inform them of any and all medical conditions? would this be a violation of the 5th amendment?

If you answered no and they come forward stating they know you are using anti-depressants you / we now would know they are violating doctor / patient privilege.

Plus, depending on which county in CA you live in, thinking you can get a CCW may be proof of irrational behaviour. :frown:

Sam

The problem is that part of the California CCW application process, the suspect...I mean applicant, is going to sign a medical release form:
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/34/CCW Forms/CCW NOTARIZED FORM.pdf

And then there is this, which if true, our suspect....I mean applicant, would not be able to carry concealed anyway, even if he was taking only an aspirin:
Link Removed

Page 5:
While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee shall not, when carrying a
concealed weapon:
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
 
Why not lie about other things on your application?

Sounds like you intend to ignore the rules, if you think you can get away with it. Isn't that the mindset of most criminals?

It's funny you give Billary a pass but call this guy out for wanting to lie. Sometimes I just don't understand you XD.
 
It's funny you give Billary a pass but call this guy out for wanting to lie. Sometimes I just don't understand you XD.

Where did I give a Clinton a pass, or for that matter, any politician?

But let's define criminal activity.... willfully breaking the law with the 'hope' you can get away with it. To lie on a application (especially when it states "I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.") makes one no better than a Clinton.
 
Attorney is not needed.
You are required to answer the form truthfully.
If you don't, you are a criminal, even if you're not the type we carry guns to protect ourselves from.

It's not a gray area.
 
Page 5: While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee shall not, when carrying a
concealed weapon:
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.

That's one of the broadest no-carry laws. Some states, like Kansas, prohibit carry only if under the influence of drugs to "such a degree as to render such person incapable of safely operating a firearm."

Other states, like New York, have no such laws because it assumes if you are granted a concealed carry permit you'll be responsible and mature enough to not use your weapon while incapable of using it in safe manner.

To bad so many states feel the need to babysit their concealed carry permit holders. Might be better not to give them a permit at all if they can't be trusted not to SWD ("shoot while drunk").
 
That's one of the broadest no-carry laws. Some states, like Kansas, prohibit carry only if under the influence of drugs to "such a degree as to render such person incapable of safely operating a firearm."

Other states, like New York, have no such laws because it assumes if you are granted a concealed carry permit you'll be responsible and mature enough to not use your weapon while incapable of using it in safe manner.

To bad so many states feel the need to babysit their concealed carry permit holders. Might be better not to give them a permit at all if they can't be trusted not to SWD ("shoot while drunk").

It's good to know that only fine, upstanding citizens of the great state of New York can legally carry firearms. Every state of the union should follow New York's example. And to hell with the 2nd Amendment.

[end of sarcasm]
 
The problem is that part of the California CCW application process, the suspect...I mean applicant, is going to sign a medical release form:
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/34/CCW Forms/CCW NOTARIZED FORM.pdf

And then there is this, which if true, our suspect....I mean applicant, would not be able to carry concealed anyway, even if he was taking only an aspirin:
Link Removed

Page 5:

Everyone should read these documents! These are the two of the best examples of an Alice in Wonderland, Orwellian logic in print.

If you wish to play their game you can try to argue and debate the definition of each word, each sentence, each paragraph separately using the Shyster definitions not Webster's, along with 37,000 court documents that reference said words or sentances until the end of time.

Or one could read these as a whole and summarize. They demand you give up ALL rights, now and forever in order to have the privilege of exercising another right.

No, I am not about to disregard what they call law and carry, but am also not going to drop my pants and bend over.

I continue to be angry and sad.

Sam
 
Everyone should read these documents! These are the two of the best examples of an Alice in Wonderland, Orwellian logic in print.

If you wish to play their game you can try to argue and debate the definition of each word, each sentence, each paragraph separately using the Shyster definitions not Webster's, along with 37,000 court documents that reference said words or sentances until the end of time.

Or one could read these as a whole and summarize. They demand you give up ALL rights, now and forever in order to have the privilege of exercising another right.

No, I am not about to disregard what they call law and carry, but am also not going to drop my pants and bend over.

I continue to be angry and sad.

Sam

Gun control laws have never been about reducing crime. Gun control laws are about turning otherwise law abiding and peaceful citizens into criminals.
 
EDITORIAL: One law for us, another for you - Washington Times


EDITORIAL: One law for us, another for you - Washington Times


EDITORIAL: One law for us, another for you

The California state Senate voted 28-8 Wednesday to exempt itself from the pointless gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the populace. Legislators apparently think they alone are worthy to pack heat on the streets for personal protection, and the masses ought to wait until the police arrive.

This is just one of many bills Golden State politicians used this legislative session to set themselves apart from the little people, the ones who pay their inflated salaries. Annual compensation for legislators averages about $140,000, not counting luxurious perks such as taxpayer-funded cars and free gasoline. By comparison, the average Californian earns $50,000 a year, and the unemployment rate is 11.9 percent - far above the national average. Exact salaries for state assemblymen and senators are obscured by the use of a “per diem” payment scheme that shelters a significant chunk of income from taxation.

Attempts by a handful of reformers to require politicians to provide a full annual disclosure of the benefits received from the public treasury have been rebuffed. Currently, government officials must file a statement of economic interests revealing income from any source other than a local, state or federal government agency. Gifts worth more than $50 also must be disclosed, but lawmakers rejected a bill that would have prohibited acceptance of concert and sporting event tickets, gift cards, spa treatments, golf outings and other benefits from lobbyists trying to buy votes.

Bills of this nature never meet an honest fate in which roll-call votes put members on the record as favoring or opposing each idea. Instead, reform measures are held in committee to die quietly as legislative deadlines pass. As of last week, it’s effectively impossible for a bill to become law if it hasn’t already passed in at least one of the chambers.

Such a silent death sentence was imposed on a bill that would have eliminated the practice of allowing select public employees to avoid paying red-light-camera tickets and escape any consequence for using toll roads without paying. The current system grants free rides to politicians, court workers, police officers, city council members, social workers, meter maids and their spouses. The bill failed even after a compromise amendment deleted the requirement to pay red-light-camera tickets.

The arrogance of the political class is certainly not limited to California. Federal law prohibits private companies from pestering the public with unwanted telemarketing calls from businesses, but Congress exempted “political organizations” - i.e., themselves - from its provisions. In Sacramento, an attempt failed to establish a special Do Not Call list for people who don’t want to listen to automated calls from California pols.

Left coast politicians lack all shame regarding their self-enrichment at public expense. Even though their outrageous conduct has sunk a once-prosperous state $10 billion in debt, the public seems not to care. In November, voters recycled Jerry Brown as governor even though Gov. Moonbeam’s disastrous tenure during the 1970s enabled the compensation packages for a unionized public sector that are busting the budget today. When California finally goes bankrupt, voters need only look in the mirror when wondering who deserves the blame.
 
What about HIPA- states that our prescription drugs and medications are private and cannot be accessed w/out our permission?
 
That's one of the broadest no-carry laws. Some states, like Kansas, prohibit carry only if under the influence of drugs to "such a degree as to render such person incapable of safely operating a firearm."

Other states, like New York, have no such laws because it assumes if you are granted a concealed carry permit you'll be responsible and mature enough to not use your weapon while incapable of using it in safe manner.

That is incorrect. New York has definitely denied applicants based on prescription medications
 
Lying and being discovered can get you charged with perjury and you can lose your second amendment right as a whole. Not worth it, in my opinion.

Fill out the application honestly and if denied, so be it. You can always move to a state that isn't so restrictive if you really want to CC.
 
You can always move to a state that isn't so restrictive if you really want to CC.
+1... Been there, done that!


"Has this world been so kind to you that you should leave with regret? There are better things ahead than any we leave behind.”
~ C.S. Lewis ~
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top