SPEAKER_01 0:23

What's up, y'all? Welcome to Behind the Holster, a Concealed Coalition Podcast. My name is Jody Piku, and I'm here with two of my dear, dear friends, Mr. Matt Wheeler and Mr. Gates Crawford. And today's podcast is sponsored by Kangaroo Carry Holsters. It's the best holster you'll never see. They make a shoulder holster like you'd never believe, been in business since 1996, made 100% right here in the USA. So thank you for joining us today. We've got a pretty cool topic. I think it's going to bring for a lot of discussion and probably a lot of different perspectives. So we've got a question that we put out roughly about two months ago. The question was the Supreme Court is set to hear a case about whether habitual drug users should be allowed to carry a firearm. And we ask, what are your thoughts? Now, before we get into the discussion of it, we want to give you a little background of what that case was for, what it looked like, and a little bit of information on it. I know Mr. Matt Wheeler has studied this case a little bit, so he's going to enlighten us on what the actual case was about. So Matt, go ahead and take it away for us.

SPEAKER_02 1:36

Absolutely. Yeah. Welcome to the podcast. Um, I get one of the uh one of the things that I get to do with Concealed Coalition is read through all the uh all the Supreme Court decisions that are really difficult to read. Um so here we go. Uh the Supreme Court is currently examining um the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G3. Essentially, if you've ever taken a concealed carry class, you have heard your instructor stand up there and say, if you are an unlawful or habitual user of a controlled substance, you cannot possess a firearm. That's been a standard, but the problem is habitual user has never been defined. Now, the Fifth Circuit of the Supreme Court is currently or or has currently set the precedent that in order to charge someone under this statute, so carrying a firearm while being a habitual user of a controlled substance, that user or the the arrestee must be under the influence or impaired or intoxicated at the time of arrest. Now, the lawsuit from the conglomerate of states that are going after this preset by the or this this concept that's been preset by the Fifth Circuit, they're arguing this is too narrow of a of a use for this uh for this statute. So essentially what's what what's trying to be achieved is the expansion of the prosecution based on this particular statute. Now, there's a little bit of back and forth, but the lawsuit is very straightforward as far as this is too narrow. We need to open this up. You can you need to if you are a habitual user, then you cannot possess a firearm, whether or not you're under the influence at the time of arrest. Now we can get into some some details on habitual user and how that can clearly be defined in a court of law in just a little bit, but the biggest problem is habitual user has never been defined by law. Now you questions on that one. Oh, yeah, same, same questions. So the ATF right now is under the working working assumption that you must be intoxicated or have been proven to be with narcotics or have narcotics or have a controlled substance on you recently in the past, three to five years by some states.

SPEAKER_01 3:51

Okay, right there. So so Yates, I'm gonna get to yours in a second, but I want to I want to hit this one while he's talking about the intoxication of it. And so I can tell my story on another podcast, but from from my story of my car accident and being on the strongest of pain medications that are known to man, at what point? So if I'm drinking alcohol, we have a test for that, right? They could pull me over, make me blow, they could take my blood. At what point they say that these prescription pills that are mind-altering or narcotics are in your or intoxicate you for four to six hours. And I say that because when they prescribe you something, it's take one every four to six hours. So at what level of intoxication am I at at hour five? And how do you tell that? I don't keep a I never kept a log of when I took my medication, like oh, I took it at 3 p.m. and I got pulled over at 7 30 p.m. and I had my prescription in my car with me. Would that prove intoxication? Because I have my legal prescription that was from a doctor in my car with me, or is that some sort of blood test that they have to do to tell the level of how that medication is affecting me? And I can tell you this the medication over time, I could take one pill when I first started and I could be throwing up, it was so strong. Four years later, it would take five pills to equal the strength of that one. So that's like, how do you judge what is intoxication when it comes to a medication?

SPEAKER_02 5:15

So from the law enforcement side, there's some important nuances that we need to consider. If you are operating a motor vehicle, you are operating under implied consent. So when you get your driver's license, you sign this little piece of paper saying that you will not operate a motor vehicle materially impaired, um, whether that be narcotics, alcohol, anything. You cannot operate while impaired. When you get pulled over, you have the opportunity to take standardized field sobriety tests or refuse, or you can tell the cop to take you to the hospital for a blood test. You can refuse all of that though. So even while driving a motor vehicle, you cannot legally, as law enforcement, prove that someone is intoxicated. Now you can demonstrate it through observation. There's drug recognition experts in law enforcement that are able to observe you, observe your movements, speech patterns, the way that you the way that your pupils dilate. There's a lot of factors that can go into it that can be argued in a court of law. But the problem is you can't be forced as a US citizen to go have your blood drawn or to blow into a tube or to take a standardized field sobriety test. So there's effectively no way to prove whether or not someone is intoxicated, other than essentially the culmination of a bunch of different factors, such as speech patterns, slurring, walking funny, odors, etc. Now, there can be assumptions drawn. Search incident to arrest, they find narcotics on your person, and all of a sudden you are now a habitual drug user, having narcotics on your person, whether or not you've taken them, whether or not they're legal, even a class three controlled substance, such as pain pills, could theoretically fall under this statute, and you would be prohibited from possessing a firearm, having opiates, narcotics, et cetera, that are legal prescribed by a doctor to you. The biggest issue that I saw with this lawsuit was the definition of a habitual user. Essentially, what it said was convicted felons are not allowed to possess a firearm, and convicted felons should reasonably know that they are a convicted felon, because that is a yes or a no. It then drew an inference to say that anyone who is a habitual user of narcotics or controlled substance should reasonably know that they are a habitual user of controlled substances. Therefore, it's fair, it's impartial, it's saying it's a yes or no. But if a doctor prescribes you pain medication for six weeks, you take it for six weeks and then you're done. Is that habitual use during those six weeks?

SPEAKER_01 7:40

Theoretically, what's the definition, right? Of habitual. I'm looking at it right now, done or doing consistently or as a habit. And to me, the word in itself habitual, I was an habitual drug user when I was prescribed medication that was that I was told to take every four to six hours, right? Every four to six hours. Therefore, every four to six hours, I'm taking a prescription medication that I needed for pain that was prescribed to me legally by a doctor. Therefore, I wasn't a habitual drug drug user.

SPEAKER_02 8:13

The biggest problem is though, there's no legal definition. So Webster can define anything in order to have a legal working definition that either has to be in statute or it has to be um set forth as precedent by case law. And there's essentially nothing to that effect. The fifth court has somewhat set that precedent behind intoxication at the time of arrest. Um, but that is what's being argued right now.

SPEAKER_01 8:34

Yates what you got. I know you got some questions.

SPEAKER_00 8:37

I've just been enjoying y'all going, you know, you going at it because yeah, I know we probably have a lot of listeners who were who would strangle each other if they got into a heated debate about such a topic. I mean, I I didn't have much of a question, but more of a statement to go along with Wheeler's presentation of this is how do we truly define this? And what does enforcement look like on the back end? As the three of us here are very familiar with, while there's often good intent with legislation that we see that's introduced and well, potentially later passed, right? Is always good and often good intent. I shouldn't say always, often good intent, but it's the execution or how we uphold that law that that is where we often fail, right? As a society, it's just it's not executed well. So again, to reiterate the points you all stated is how do we define habitual drug use? And to the point of folks who are lawfully prescribed various narcotics and medications, the way I've always seen it interpreted is that, hey, it is lawful for you to, of course, take those prescription drugs. Are you a pr uh uh habitual user? Possibly, however, you're in lawful possession of those. So when it comes to enforcement of being under the influence and operating, let's say a motor vehicle, well, that's determined at that time given those circumstances. So there is this gray area, there is that leeway there. Are we going to grant that lee that same leeway when it comes to narcotics? I don't know. We're not being informed here, and that's my big question. And as a national trainer, that's really my main concern is I truthfully don't care what people do in their private or spare time. Let's just treat it like we would, let's say, alcohol. You know, we're not driving and drinking, I would hope. So let's not drink while we're handling or carrying a firearm. Same thing with narcotics use. I look at it this in the same fashion. And I'm sure I'm speaking to several folks who were who participated in our poll. They're probably thinking, you know, it's awful funny. Prescription drugs, marijuana, they always get a bad rap, but we're not nearly as strict on alcohol. And you start looking at the data, it's responsible for thousands of deaths a year, not just simply due to the operation of a motor vehicle, right? So it's just always been funny to me that we're so lax with alcohol when it is a serious problem. And no, I'm not a fan of more government regulation, don't take it that way, but we're very lax on alcohol. But man, we are we are tough on all of these other things, such as again, prescription drugs and and various narcotics and whatnot. It just seems there's not much of an equal balance there when both of them pose significant problems when abused.

SPEAKER_01 11:28

I agree. And that so let me tell a quick story. Um this is one of those uh asking for a friend stories, and so I'm gonna plead the Fifth Amendment on this one. But there was a guy who worked for a company one time and he was prescribed medication by doctors uh take every four to six hours, 120 pills per month of a very strong narcotic. Part of this said individual's job was to drive a company vehicle to certain places at certain times. This company brought him in and made him sign a document saying that he would not drive their vehicle while he was taking that medication. Now, I can tell you that that person signed that contract immediately because how could you ever tell, unless there was just excessive impairment, right? Which most people who are in pain uh every day, all day, and are continuing to take medications, you can't tell. I can tell you that I was on medication for four years and not one person knew it. It was all legal, it was all from a doctor, but not one person knew because it had affected me in a way that made me act normal. I got to a point to where I needed it when I woke up in the morning.

SPEAKER_00 12:41

You had a new baseline.

SPEAKER_01 12:42

I had a new baseline 100%. And so you sign that contract because it's like, how are you ever gonna tell? Are you gonna drug test me? Well, of course it's gonna be in my system because it's prescribed to me. And I could say I took it on a weekend. So this when you move into the concealed carry space for that, and I don't know about y'all, but I've been I've been asked this question before in in class is hey, I'm on this medication, can I get a concealed carry permit? Well, at the end of the day, I can certify you all day long. Whether you get that permit or not is obviously gonna be up to county sheriff or the state department, whoever issues that permit. So that's not a judgment call for me to make. If I see impairment and we're getting putting guns in our hands, obviously, right? We're not gonna we're gonna stop things right there. But if I'm a habitual drug user, let's call it a good habitual drug user, where I have to take prescribed medication every single day, four to six hours, every day I have to take it. I should not be driving a vehicle at all. Would you agree? Because those medications on the bottom say do not operate machinery or drive a vehicle. It literally says that.

SPEAKER_00 13:45

So if I'm on that medication, just assume they were only talking about forklifts, right? You mean that that applies to cars too?

SPEAKER_01 13:51

I picture bulldozers, right? That's how I irrationalize. I'm like, oh, they're talking about bulldozers and stump grinders, right? We're not gonna mess with those, maybe a stump grinder. But if I'm taking that medication and I'm prescribed that by a doctor, and I'm with you, Yates, on the government regulation 100%, but in in some way, shape, or form, my driver's license should not be valid at that point. That's a way out thought. But if I'm on medication, I'm in chronic pain, and I am prescribed to take it every four to six hours, I should not be able to drive a vehicle. If I can't drive a vehicle, then legally I'm talking about I should not be able to carry a firearm. But here's the thing I know in some states they don't do a medical background check whenever you're getting your concealed carry permit. So the state could very well be issuing concealed carry permits to habitual drug users that are prescribed medication that have to take it every day. I firmly believe that some people are in so much pain that's just their way of life, they have to take that medication. I hate it for them, but it's the reality. So you got a state that's issuing a permit to somebody who's prescribed medication, they're gonna have to take it for the rest of their life. So they have the card to carry a gun. So my question is like, where is, you said it, Yates, the level playing ground with alcohol and drug use? Like, I just I don't know. I guess it's confusing to me. If I'm in a car and I'm a habitual drug user and my wife's driving and there's a gun in the car that's licensed to me and I have a concealed carry permit, and something happens where I have to use that firearm, am I gonna get charged? Let's say it's 100% self-defense. Am I gonna get a separate charge for handling that firearm while under the intoxication of pain of pain medication?

SPEAKER_00 15:26

It's a great question. You know, he up until this point, right? Here, here's how I've always looked at it. You have habitual drug users that obtain narcotics unlawfully, meaning not through the proper process, not at no doctor evolved, no pharmacy, no, no, whatever. Then you would have what I would consider lawful habitual drug users, right? Now, the lawful habitual drug users aren't necessarily committing a crime until they have an event, right? Where maybe they are operating a vehicle under the influence or in possession or carrying a gun under the influence, whatever. Obviously, the unlawful habitual drug users, because of how they're obtaining such narcotics, well, they're they're they're always breaking the law, right? No matter if they're in possession of a firearm, driving a motor vehicle, whatever. But the way this lumps, the way this whole thing appears to me without additional verbiage, is that we're we're we're removing now, it's not really so much what the narcotics are, what the drugs are scheduled, whether it's alcohol. It is just simply, hey, everyone now under the influence is now a criminal. Whether you're even operating a motor vehicle or in this case, you're you're attempting to purchase a firearm or you're carrying a firearm. It just makes everything again, it's not on that weighted scale. It's simply at face value right now, and you two correct me if I'm wrong in my line of thinking, it just said doesn't matter what you are using at the time, you were intoxicated, and there you go. You you you are now a criminal in the eyes of the law. And it's I don't know where we go from here.

SPEAKER_01 17:00

The difference in alcohol to me and what we're talking about right now is is alcohol is a choice that you make to drink it. It's not uh order, you're not gonna go to the doctor and doctors and say, All right, Yates, I need you to take three shots a day, four to six hours apart, of whiskey, the strongest whiskey you can get. You're never gonna get that prescribed as a doctor to fix an issue that you have. So alcohol is a choice that you make to drink it.

SPEAKER_00 17:27

You were diving, you were getting into a dangerous conversation here.

SPEAKER_01 17:32

I'm I'm not I'm not sure.

SPEAKER_00 17:33

Because they're doing your part the drug use is a choice, right? And I get that during COVID, during COVID, wasn't that long ago, sticker stores were deemed necessary businesses. Yeah. Why? Because of alcoholics and and and all of that, right? Come back.

SPEAKER_01 17:50

But I'm gonna go ahead and never been I've never been to a pharmacy with a prescription to get a bottle of alcohol.

SPEAKER_02 17:57

I'm gonna swoop in real quick if you if you don't mind. Yeah. I'm gonna back up just a little bit and then lay out what I believe is actually going on here, which is much darker than it appears. I believe that this has nothing at all to do with the regulation of carrying a firearm while also habitually using a controlled substance. I believe that this is a structured attack on the privacy, individual privacy as it relates to firearm owners and concealed carry holders. And I'm gonna I'm gonna back this up a little bit and hopefully lay out a compelling case. So the goal stated in this lawsuit is to eliminate the number of individuals carrying a firearm and also using habitually using controlled or illegal substances. In this lawsuit, it highlights very clearly the inherent dangers of trafficking narcotics and carrying firearms. Whether there there was one case that it spoke about where it said if someone is selling a a large amount of illicit narcotics and also carrying a firearm, they're likely to resort to violence as a first line of defense if they're robbed, if they're jumped, etc., which I don't disagree with. So if none of the laws on the books today existed, I would understand the perspective of this lawsuit. Specifically, if we were able to take anyone with a convicted history of trafficking in narcotics and prohibit them from possessing a firearm, that would be good. But the problem is that law is already on the books. If we were able to take anyone who's been adjudicated mentally unfit to possess a firearm, cannot possess a firearm, I think that's a good idea. The problem is that law as well is already on the books. In addition, anyone who is actively under the influence of any substance, whether it be alcohol or controlled uh controlled substance, shouldn't be able to actively have a firearm on their person. That would be a good idea too. The problem is all three of those laws already exist. So where do we go from here? Because it's not solving for something that doesn't exist. All of these things are already in place. What it's solving for is giving the states an opportunity to illegally or unlawfully search your medical histories, pull your prescription records, do blood tests simply because you are in possession of a firearm, simply because you are exercising your Second Amendment right. So it's violating the Fourth Amendment because you're exercising your Second Amendment. I don't think that it's I don't think it's a good faith lawsuit. I believe that there is some serious underlying intent behind it in order to undermine and violate the current privacies and the current ability we have to exercise our constitutional rights. It's my opinion.

SPEAKER_00 20:44

I would agree with that. I would agree with that.

SPEAKER_01 20:46

Yeah, there's a certain there's a certain level of that that I do 100% agree with. Now, I know here in Louisiana, I can't tell you exactly how many years ago it was, but the first time that I applied for my concealed carry permit, I did not have to fill out a medical release form along with that. When I went to renew it five years later, they had implemented a medical form that you have to sign to give them access to pull your medical records. And Louisiana is not the only state that's implemented that. There are several others I know that have implemented that. And so that in itself, but to me, but they I don't know.

SPEAKER_02 21:24

They can't pull you out roadside, take you to the hospital and draw your blood.

SPEAKER_01 21:28

No. So I don't know.

SPEAKER_02 21:29

There's already been an encroachment on HIPAA, on the the medical privacies that we that we have.

SPEAKER_01 21:36

Well, it won't be encroachment if you sign it.

SPEAKER_02 21:38

Right. But just requiring you to sign it in order to enact your Second Amendment, I believe is an encroachment on your privacies. The problem is, but I I'm not gonna argue that point. The problem is this is now setting up for the roadside traffic stop. Well, you're carrying a firearm, you're coming with me, we're going to the hospital and gonna we're gonna draw your blood because I think that you're under, I think you've taken something today. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 22:00

I mean, what do you what do you do as the person who's pulled over when they tell you that? You get in the car and you go to the hospital. I'm not saying again it's right or wrong. I'm saying you go to the hospital and you draw your blood. The problem is I will need a warrant.

SPEAKER_02 22:13

So the problem is they would need a warrant in order to draw your blood without your consent. If you consent, they can have it just like a search. But they would need a warrant of your excuse me, of your person to draw your blood without consent. But then we look at red flag laws. Typically, historically, law enforcement needs a warrant to walk into your house and remove your firearms from from from your dwelling, from your possession. A warrant is based on probable cause and a sworn testimony of law enforcement. Red flag law orders or warrants or whatever you want to call them, they're not based on probable cause. They're not based on evidence, they're based on hearsay.

SPEAKER_00 22:52

So if my neighbor know what a red flag law is, we'll we will likely cover that in another show. So hang out.

SPEAKER_02 22:59

Exactly. So this is setting up for my neighbor calling the cops saying, I smelled a strong odor of a substance I believe to be marijuana coming from their dwelling, and then cops showing up saying, Give me all your guns. Your neighbor said you were smoking wheat.

SPEAKER_00 23:12

This this is my fear as it relates to this this I I agree. And I'm not saying that a lack of current enforcement of laws makes new potential legislation better. But I can tell you right now, here in Virginia, for those listening, medical marijuana cards are obtainable here. Marijuana is also now a lawful substance recreationally. And I can tell you right now, when I drive around, yeah, on the state level, I can tell you right now, when I drive around, that is obvious a lot of people are smoking and driving. I don't see too many of them pulled over. So while I do understand your thought process and wholeheartedly agree with you, Wheeler, I don't see much in the way of enforcement in that matter currently. However, just because laws may or things may not get enforced doesn't mean we should promote additional, additional restrictions. But yeah, uh it seems at least here there's a much failure to to enforce what you know what it, you know, regardless of if it's regardless, it you can't be a user while under the influence of a vehicle, and that's just kind of my point. I I don't really see that happening right now. So I agree with you, but I'm not sure that it's a it's a sound of an argument or concern is what maybe we make it out to be. I guess it really just depends on the region and the state, right?

SPEAKER_02 24:31

I mean that's fair. 100%, I'll give you that. That's fair. The problem is the legal, um legal structure for those significant violations that may not happen immediately would still exist. So eventually the states are are going to begin to crack down with these red red flag laws. Just because a state passes a red flag law or an emergency risk protection order where law enforcement can come in on a judge's order based on hearsay and take all of your firearms, and then you have to argue how you need to get your guns back. Just because those exist or those are put in place doesn't mean they're immediately enforced, doesn't mean they're immediately enacted. The problem arises 10, 15 years down the road when these laws have been on the books, everyone's forgot about them, and all of a sudden the uh state, county, or national push to enforce this begins.

SPEAKER_01 25:24

Let me ask you guys something. Pushing it or not pushing it, and we're all gonna give in just a second, we're gonna give our opinions on not the fact of the laws and stuff, just your personal opinion as a firearms carrier, as an instructor, as a person, if people who are what they call habitual drug users should be able to carry a firearm. But let me let me read this to you from an application, and in almost every I've got a few non-resident permits, every application that I've filled out has had the same question. So let me read it to you, and you tell me if it takes care of the lawsuit that's going on right now. It says, Are you an individual who is a habitual drunkard or who is addicted to or an unlawful user of marijuana or a stimulant, depressant, or narcotic drug? Does that, if if let's look at Jody back in 2005, right after my car accident in a wheelchair, prescribed medication in pain, would I check that box as yes?

SPEAKER_00 26:26

Well, the the earnest, right, as they say, is is on you. And all of us have seen that question, if not exactly worded like that, very similar to that, many a times. And anyone who's bought a gun, got a concealed carry permit, they've seen that question. It's on 4473s, your background check format at the gun store. And that question, or again, one at similar nature structured, you know, similar fashion, is on every concealed permit form. So to answer your question, I would say at that time, if you're being truthful, it would be a yes. Well, how would it be a yes?

SPEAKER_01 26:57

Hear this, hear this though. How would it be a yes when it says who is addicted to at that point? I wasn't addicted to anything because I'd literally just been prescribed. I wasn't addicted, who is addicted to or an unlawful user of, I was not unlawfully using because I was prescribed by a doctor, marijuana or a stimulant, depressant, or narcotic drug. I wasn't addicted to it, and I wasn't an unlawful user. So to me, the answer, if I'm reading the question right, and I look at my life in that time, was I in any condition to carry a firearm? Absolutely stinking not. No. Let me tell you something. You guys would not want me standing next to you carrying a firearm back in that time. Honestly, it was unsafe, no training. I don't really want that person. Do you have your rights for the second amendment? Yeah, sure. Go carry your gun. Just not around me and my family.

SPEAKER_00 27:45

Well, and that ultimately is the issue with a lot of these things, right? Right? Like that it relies on you being honest, right? Or anyone filling out these forms.

SPEAKER_01 27:54

So if they want to fix, if they want to, if they want to go after habitual, it's literally the change of a question that would make it illegal for me to say no in that time. Lawful or unlawful, user of a stimulant, a narcotic drug, marijuana.

SPEAKER_00 28:09

This is like many things concerning the law, man, right? One welcome to public opinion. It depends. And it depends who you ask. I mean, that's I'm not saying I want to. What's your thoughts, Wheeler?

SPEAKER_02 28:21

I mean, the problem is the only way to enforce this standard or enforce the question on the on that form would be to it would be to exploit mass in-home surveillance, either that or regular drug tests or regular blood tests or regular hair follicle tests, in order to get a an illicit substance or altering substance profile on every single person that that possesses a gun. Now, are there people that believe that's going to happen? Yes. Am I one of those? No, I don't believe that that's going to happen. My concern is it just it lays that groundwork.

SPEAKER_01 28:54

Where does so the medical background check form that I now have to fill out in Louisiana? I'm gonna be honest with you, shame on me. I haven't looked into it enough as I probably should have. But wouldn't you do you think on those medical forms they're looking more at mental health and not physical health? Because we mental. Because to me, if they're looking at at prescriptions and things like that that I'm currently prescribed, then it seems like if I lie on a concealed carry application, that is a crime, correct? It's a state document. I can't lie on it if I lie on it as a criminal charge. So if I said there's just so much gray area, if I said no, I'm not a user or addicted to these, and they ran my medical background and saw that I've been taking oxycotton for four years, they wouldn't have issued me a permit.

SPEAKER_00 29:43

I'll just go on and say this right now, uh, if if you don't mind, Jody. Here's how I feel about current society and and all the legislation is coming down the pipe. We should take, we we should take a day to talk about my my new, relatively new home state of Virginia because we've got some bad news comingwealth coming from our cabinet.

SPEAKER_01 30:01

Commonwealth. Yeah, call it Commonwealth, dude. It's not a state, it's the Commonwealth of Virginia.

SPEAKER_00 30:06

I live in an independent city, so there you go. But what what my my perception is y'all certainly, or I would hope, remember a classic Tom Cruise Flick minority report. While I am a staunch advocate of crime prevention in in various areas of our society, I also still believe that you're not a criminal until you actually commit a crime. And what I feel like is that the longer we exist, right, as a society, more legislators get their hands involved in our day-to-day activities. I truly feel each and every day like we are getting more and more to a minority report style of a society when it comes to crime prevention, and that you didn't commit a crime, but you're still a criminal. Like this hasn't happened yet, but you're you're still going to going to jail. And I've got a problem with that. I've got a real problem with that. And that's that's how it is sensing. That's how it feels to me in our current, again, uh society and the way things are.

SPEAKER_01 31:08

Man, that's a slippery slope. Hey, first of all, I want to apologize to Tom Cruise because I have not seen that movie. I have heard about it. But just because you said that, now I'm going to go watch that movie. It's a good one. Maybe I'll just do a Tom Cruise binge day and watch all of his his movies. Hey. You know, I think I think there's so many slippery slopes. Every way that you look at this, even with even with what you said, I agree with, right? I don't think you should, I think you need to commit a crime before you're considered a criminal. I just think there's so much gray area in what is a crime. We got freedom of speech, right? I can say what I want. It's our first amendment right to say whatever I want. No, because you can't say bomb on an airplane. You can't say gun in a movie theater.

SPEAKER_02 31:53

That reminds me of a story of a guy that was uh using the facilities at an airport airport, and he gave a courtesy warning. Everybody else in the facilities said, Y'all might want to leave. I'm about to blow this place up. Y'all know what I'm talking about. Cop showed up about 10 minutes later and uh busted the door to so did he commit a crime?

SPEAKER_00 32:09

Well, that happened at a Home Depot too, or a Lowe's, one of the two.

SPEAKER_01 32:13

Yeah, I think I think it was. That's where so much if there's so much gray area for for me.

SPEAKER_02 32:18

Jody, how controversial do you want me to go? Because I'll go there. I mean, we don't have to go, we don't have to go crazy controversial. All right, I think that I'll keep I'll keep it light. I'll keep it light. So with the advertising state that we are in, with massive companies that sell medication being able to advertise on that level, the constant push for prescription to solve every problem, eventually, we are going as a society to get to the place where every single person is legally prescribed some type of materially impairing or materially altering substance that they need in order to function. At that moment, it is no the the Second Amendment is no longer valid. You may not possess a firearm simply because you've been prescribed medication by your doctor to solve concerns, to solve medical problems. So the further we go down this rabbit hole, the less people are by letter of law actually in legal possession of a firearm.

SPEAKER_01 33:29

When are we gonna when are we gonna realize that our rights don't hang on the second amendment? Everybody wants to, everybody wants to, that's that's the internet cowboys, right? They want to scream out, well, it's my second amendment right to carry my gun wherever I want. Okay, well, technically that's what the second amendment says, but is it infringed? Yeah, just like every one of our amended rights in some way, shape, or form is infringed. So, I mean, I I I agree, you know, with what you're saying. What bothers me, what bothers me more is just that us as human beings obviously are not smart enough as a collective group to make the right choice. And so that's where I feel like the government comes in and feels like they have to regulate things in order to protect us.

SPEAKER_00 34:12

My favorite thing limits, obviously. Hold hold up before I forget, you know, as a staunch Second Amendment advocate myself, I am going to take this time to poke at the Second Amendment crowd is yeah, it's an important amendment. But if you ask them to name another amendment, there's a good chance they couldn't. So I'm just gonna throw that out there. So, in agreement with you, everybody gets hung up on that amendment. They know they know the first amendment, freedom of speech, religion, all those wonderful things, right? Second amendment, keep and bear arms, but in their mind, that's all that exists. There's only two, and that's what we're fighting for at all times. And that's it. At all times. That's all we talk about. Nothing else matters. That's all we talk about. No, nothing else matters. No, no, no, not a right to a speedy trial or anything else like that. It's just no, it's it's first to second amendment to hell with the rest of them. That's all they care about. Because that's all they know about.

SPEAKER_01 34:59

I almost said that. If I had a different hat on, I would say the only thing in life that matters is the Second Amendment. I'm gonna put that hat on. I'm gonna take it off, go put it down. But let's get back to the question and we'll wrap this thing up. Yates, by definition, do you think an habitual drug user should be able to carry a firearm? Well, you can define habitual however you want.

SPEAKER_00 35:21

However you want. Well, that's the thing. That's what I was getting at. You're you are also in that question asking me to define an a habitual drug user.

SPEAKER_01 35:29

Yeah. At the end of the day, that's what I mean. If you get in a courtroom of 12 people, right, you got attorneys that are talking, trying to get those 12 people to think of the word habitual in one way or the other. So you define it how you want.

SPEAKER_00 35:41

I'm not sure I can today, Jody, but you want my personal opinion on the matter. Here is ultimately where I stand. It's at the time of the event, right? Or the the accused event. And that is, we'll keep it simple, right? Motor vehicle operation, carrying a firearm. If you are under the influence and it's measurable, which is still, there's no what are we looking at here? What's the what's the threshold of impairment? But as long as you are not under the influence, i.e., impaired at that time, I got no problems with any of it personally. But we still are lacking a lot of definition here. And again, measurables uh in identifying what is impairment, what level of intoxication. You look at alcohol, every state has has a measurable level of impairment, period. What is that for various narcotics, marijuana, all these other controlled substances? And how do you how do you test these things right without without compromising or infringing on on the rights of the citizens? So with your question, sadly comes a lot of other questions that I would have to answer. And and I don't have full and complete answers at this time, but for me, I look at the time of the accused act or what was the party doing at that time when when they were under the influence. And for me, is I look at it as influence and possession andor operation is how I look at it. And as long as we're not impaired at that moment, I have no personal qualms or issues. Do what you want to do. I believe as a society that we become far more controlling of the actions of others. Yes, drugs are not good for you, but you know what? That that to a degree is a choice, just like I know that McDonald's is not good for me. But you know what? Every once in a while you gotta wheel in for that Big Mac and large fry. You know, we're not we are not outlawing those, right?

SPEAKER_01 37:28

So you don't biggie size your meal. You don't biggie size, you don't biggie size.

SPEAKER_00 37:33

Hey, listen, man. I would if they'd let me. They don't do it anymore. All right.

SPEAKER_01 37:36

Bro, I remember when it used to be 39 cents to biggie size your meal. I'm that old. That was awesome. I'll accept that answer, though. I think it's a good answer. We'll accept it. Mr. Wheeler, what you got?

SPEAKER_02 37:46

All right, let's go. I believe that 18 USC 922 G3, which is any user of an unlawful user of a controlled substance, cannot possess a firearm. I think that needs to be amended and completely changed. My opinion is that if you are substantially and materially impaired at the moment of the incident, that should be the violation of a federal statute. I don't think that it should be limited to controlled substances. Any knowledgeable drug addict can walk into an elementary school and stay high as long as they want to, just from the things inside of an elementary school. Those are not controlled substances, kids can buy them, but they still can materially and substantially impair a person. In addition, alcohol is not a controlled substance under the law. Yes, it's controlled by age, but no, it's not listed under the it's not classed as a narcotic. So there are vastly more incidents involving alcohol impairment than there are narcotic impairment. And you could say because of the availability of alcohol, potentially, but still, I don't think limiting it to narcotics is allowable. And I actually agree with the Fifth Circuit's decisions to limit that statute to impairment at time of incident. So I guess I'm singing the chorus of what Yates just said, but I do think any type of substantial or material impairment at time of incident should be a violation of that federal statute, and you should not be allowed to be in possession of a firearm at that time. And I don't think that we should limit possession outside of those times, other than let's say a convicted drug trafficker.

SPEAKER_01 39:27

That one I'll get past. I don't know, man. I can tell you, they come in handy in trafficking, they might need them sometimes more than we do.

SPEAKER_02 39:34

But no, they might use them sometimes more than we do, but they don't need them. True.

SPEAKER_00 39:38

Good answers. Good way to sum that up, Wielder. Good way to sum it up.

SPEAKER_01 39:42

I'm uh I'm kind of t I'm I'm torn on this because even what you say with impairment is just proof of impairment to me. Yeah, you said it shouldn't go to jail until you've proven you're a criminal. Yeah. How about you shouldn't get your gun? You shouldn't not be able to carry a gun if let me let me let me let me retract that.

SPEAKER_00 40:03

Well, you can't without probable cause, right? That that's the big thing what I'm hearing about.

SPEAKER_01 40:08

But yeah, how do you choose how do you prove, better yet, impairment? From so yeah, well, pain from a law medication.

SPEAKER_02 40:18

From a law enforcement perspective, it is doable. Every law enforcement officer out of the academy in most states is able to conduct standardized field sobriety tests to pop anyone driving under the influence of alcohol specifically. In order to make an arrest based on probable cause for driving under the influence of any substance other than alcohol, you must go through drug recognition expert training. That specific certification is very difficult to obtain and it's very uncommon, even in large agencies. I worked for an agency with about 350 um law enforcement officers. There were about four or five that were DREs, drug recognition experts. Those were the only people that if I were to pull someone over for suspicion of DUI and they had a bunch of pill bottles, they were the only person that could conduct a field sobriety test and testify to that test. So I think the solution would be simply if you're graduating as a law enforcement officer from an academy, you need to be able to identify, quantify, and prove in a court of law impairment of substances other than alcohol.

SPEAKER_00 41:25

Well, that's a whole other conversation right there. And it goes back to various legislators of these states and their viewpoints in enacting such laws as are they then going to provide the resources, i.e., the funds, to these departments to send their officers to get that training. And the answer we already know is no. Training gets cut. Yeah, yeah. So then we lead to again this massive enforcement problem. And we got this thing on the books that questionable one, should it be there? And then two, does it carry any weight? That that is ultimately our our problem is the funding is lacking across the country for law enforcement. And I'll just leave that at that. That that maybe we could get some additional law enforcement experts, personalities on here to talk more in depth on that. And no, this is not an anti-police uh talking point or segment. It is simply that many things exist on the books for our law enforcement officers, our men and women, to enforce, but yet then the same politicians who are tasked with laying out their the annual budgets do not allocate the resources for them to actually perform their job to the best of their abilities. They just don't have the training, the expertise, the experience. And it's it is an unfortunate reality because there are many things that our officers should have additional training on that not only work to improve officer safety, public safety, and certainly don't infringe on the rights of the citizens. It is there are many, I believe, such initiatives. Again, another talking point for later in in resources and funds that we could allocate to our local departments that would benefit society and also appease those who, you know, maybe are a little anti-law enforcement because we know those people exist.

SPEAKER_02 43:07

So I'll just say if you want if you want what if you want less law enforcement involved shootings, triple the training budget.

SPEAKER_01 43:14

Yeah. We got we got definitely got some topics out of this one today. I'm gonna I'm gonna wrap it up with this. And Matt, you know, I what you said with with uh officers going through tons of training to to be able to tell those things outside of just uh somebody who's intoxicated with uh through alcohol, I know of obviously one thing, it's your your dilation of pupils, right? Of course, depending on on what type of drug you're on, could go very small, could go very big. But I can tell you in the days when I was a habitual user legally, you would have a police officer who was trained would have looked at me at any point in the day and looked at my pupils and seen very small dilated pupils, which is typically what a pain medication will do to your pupils. They could probably test me. I still don't know. How you prove intoxication outside of obvious reasons. Alcohol's easy to prove, in my opinion, as far as that's what we're talking about. That's how we make you go through.

SPEAKER_02 44:09

That's why we use the term material impairment because you can have a very high tolerance. Um, let's say someone has been an alcoholic for 20 years and their blood alcohol content is a.12, which is pretty high. They could theoretically be less materially impaired than someone who has never touched alcohol, has one drink, and is at a.03.

SPEAKER_01 44:31

Yeah, I get that. But I'm just saying you can tell the 0.03, the number you just gave me is the blood alcohol level, right? So how are you gonna do that?

SPEAKER_00 44:40

In most states, is you're you're not under the influence, you're not impaired.

SPEAKER_01 44:43

But if I take a pain, if I take a pain, yeah, if I take pain medication right now, is there a scale that's gonna tell me, oh, you're 0.03?

SPEAKER_02 44:51

The only way to do that scale would be a blood test. But even if someone doesn't provide a breath sample for driving under the influence, there are still standardized field sobriety tests, the walk and turn, the one leg stand to hold your arms out and touch your nose. There's things that you can do to demonstrate this person is materially impaired, whether or not their blood alcohol content is super high or super low. It's the same way with any other narcotic. They're not the same tests necessarily. I'm sure some of them are similar. I was never a DRE, I never went to that school, but there are specific tests to determine whether or not someone is materially impaired. And I think that's the key term. Doesn't matter if you're currently taking it, it doesn't matter as much if you're currently taking it, it matters whether or not you have faculty over your body.

SPEAKER_01 45:37

I don't like it. I don't like it, and I I wish that we were smarter as a human race and gun totent, Second Amendment, law-abiding citizens to make the decision to not carry a gun when we feel like we're too intoxicated to not carry a gun. If we would just do that, we wouldn't, you know what? If we just did that, we wouldn't have this podcast. How fun would that be? It wouldn't be fun at all. So thank you to those of us. I lived in that boat for a long time. I paddled out there. That was me 100%. But anyway, we're gonna wrap this up. It's been a great uh call today. I appreciate you two joining me. Uh, we'll have another episode coming out soon. We don't know the topic yet. We're gonna wait to hear from you guys what you want to hear. Again, Mr. Matt Wheeler and Yates Crawford, Jody Piku here, again, sponsored by Kangaroo Carry, the best holster you will never see. Go to Kangaroo Carry.com. Right now they're running a sale, uh, 30% off all of their old inventory, and they're pre selling some of their new holsters that are coming out. Use coupon code KC30. We appreciate y'all listening. Stay safe, stay concealed. Go be great, go be great. Don't suck.

SPEAKER_00 46:45

Like it, like, don't like and subscribe.