See a Psychologist & Lose Your Guns/CHL?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bart Roberts is a law student and another pro-RKBA lawyer in the making. :cool:

Tell him hes better off without that medicine. Took that stuff and it made me feel like a mindless drone and gave me seroius anger problems, even more than usual that is.
Because everyone reacts to medications in the same way and proper dosage is never adjusted for? :rolleyes:
 
Sam,
I'm not a lawyer either but Bart's info above is consistent with my understanding and info gained during recent CHL class. You might want to obtain the booklet titled "Texas Concealed Handgun Laws" issued by the Texas Dept of Public Safety (LS-16). The info referenced above by Bart is taken from pages 3-4 of this booklet under section GC #411.172 as noted. In addition, the CHL Application Form (pg 3) asks:
18. *Indicate any history during the preceding five years, of treatment received by, commitment to, or residence in:
a) a drug or alcohol treatment center, or
b) a psychiatric hospital.
* Please provide letter from physician for current status of treatment.


As noted by Bart, this all ties to the eligibility requirement that a person be capable of exercising sound judgment with respect tothe proper use and storage of a handgun.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB
 
18. *Indicate any history during the preceding five years, of treatment received by, commitment to, or residence in:
a) a drug or alcohol treatment center, or
b) a psychiatric hospital.
* Please provide letter from physician for current status of treatment.

Obviously, they don't want you to seek ANY "treatment" other than in a doctor's free-standing office. Go near a "center" or a "hospital," and you rights are gone. Better to stay sick and untreated.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in ... mood, ... .

If you are in a "bad" mood, stay away from doctors. Unless you are non-functional, I'd stay away from treatment in any event. Most MD's don't know any more about mental illness than I do while most psychiatrists are vehemently anti-gun and just looking for a chance to "diagnose" you out of your rights.
 
I know someone in Indiana that is Bi-polar.
He's on meds, and has been without an episode for over 15 years.
All he had to do was get a note from his doctor for the Chief of Police, and he was good to go.
 
Obviously, they don't want you to seek ANY "treatment" other than in a doctor's free-standing office. Go near a "center" or a "hospital," and you rights are gone. Better to stay sick and untreated.


<snip>

If you are in a "bad" mood, stay away from doctors. Unless you are non-functional, I'd stay away from treatment in any event. Most MD's don't know any more about mental illness than I do while most psychiatrists are vehemently anti-gun and just looking for a chance to "diagnose" you out of your rights.

Oh, jiminy christmas.

Excuse my pointing out that this is the same person who lives "in the Midwest" but declaimed on the topic of Texas CHL law. Wrongly.

The OP was asking about ADD, not bipolar or one of the other major disorders. Because of that, none of the above is relevant to his question.

Beyond that, it scares me to see someone who thinks it is better to "stay sick and untreated" for a major disorder such as bipolar. A person on their meds, and who STAYS on their meds, is as safe as anyone else with a gun. A person who is really bipolar (and this is something of a "diagnosis du jour" and thus probably overused these days) may very well NOT be safe without their meds. The sad thing about this post is that the patient's own assessment of whether or not they're "non-functional", especially if they're in a major manic episode, is likely to be totally inaccurate.

If you have serious mood swings, do not be afraid to get treatment because of the idea that you might conceivably at some point lose your RKBA. That makes as much sense as a diabetic or epileptic refusing to get treatment because being a diabetic or epileptic might possibly impact them getting a driver's license. If you need treatment, you need treatment. Worry about the other stuff when THAT 800 pound gorilla is tamed.

Springmom
 
Beyond that, it scares me to see someone who thinks it is better to "stay sick and untreated" for a major disorder such as bipolar. A person on their meds, and who STAYS on their meds, is as safe as anyone else with a gun. A person who is really bipolar (and this is something of a "diagnosis du jour" and thus probably overused these days) may very well NOT be safe without their meds. The sad thing about this post is that the patient's own assessment of whether or not they're "non-functional", especially if they're in a major manic episode, is likely to be totally inaccurate.

If you have serious mood swings, do not be afraid to get treatment because of the idea that you might conceivably at some point lose your RKBA. That makes as much sense as a diabetic or epileptic refusing to get treatment because being a diabetic or epileptic might possibly impact them getting a driver's license. If you need treatment, you need treatment. Worry about the other stuff when THAT 800 pound gorilla is tamed.

Very well said. I agree 100%. There is no shame in seeking help when someone sincerely needs it. It doesnt make them any less "normal"... in fact, its admirable and responsible that they realize it, and are willing to do something about it.

If you are in a "bad" mood, stay away from doctors. Unless you are non-functional, I'd stay away from treatment in any event. Most MD's don't know any more about mental illness than I do while most psychiatrists are vehemently anti-gun and just looking for a chance to "diagnose" you out of your rights.

This is one of the most idiotic things I've read in a while.

First, all med students receive the same core education in all fields. It isnt until your final year and intership/residency that you begin to specialize. A surgeon or dermatologist isnt going to be as well versed as a psychiatrist, but they certainly will not be ignorant on the subject.

Second, doctors dont care about the politics of individual patients. They care about the helping and healing a patient, they dont care whether or not Joe Smith owns a gun or hugs trees.
 
Insanity...

I will be quite honest.

Insanity (yes the real deal) runs in my family and I feel it's bite every day.

However, I love my guns and the ones they could protect, so I have something to focus my attention on and this is one of the primary things I learned about treating mental illness in my advanced Psych classes. Give the person with the problem a means of working out the problem before it controls them and half the battle is won. To this day (I am 32) I have yet to see a "mental health professional" because I am afraid of losing my firearms and I do not fear my actions while in prossesion of them even when I am starting to lose it because the message going through my head is, "do not permanently screw your chance of owning your favorite toys".
 
I would think these would be questions to ask the therapist. The therapist would be the only one to release records to whatever authority was authorized to review them. Presumably the therapist will be familiar with when records can be released, and may have dealt with this issue in the past.
 
This is my understanding of NY law.

Confidentiality between client and therapist (psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed social worker) can only be broken with consent of the client or to intervene in order to prevent suicide or homicide. Confidentiality can also be broken without client consent in cases of ongoing child abuse. The prevention of ongoing domestic violence may also be an involuntary suspension of confidentiality - this one probably varies from state to state.

Breaking confidentiality in this way is potentially risky for the therapist - if they make a bad judgment call, they could lose their license or destroy rapport with other clients.

Some examples, "I am going to shoot myself tonight at 7:30 pm using my BFG in my living room." - confidentiality will be broken and you might well not be allowed to leave the therapist's office. However, "I have images of hurting myself pop into my head and I want help making them go away. ... I promise to call you or an emergency line if I need more help with this before next session." - no report is going to be made - if confidentiality was broken over this the therapist would be liable for a large sum of money in the ensuing breach of privacy lawsuit.

I know this may not exactly fit the topic at hand, but this is what I can remember from the Ethics seminar I took in college while studying psychology at the undergrad level. I also remember the date I was on that lasted until 3 am 2 hrs from campus the night before the 8 am final for this same class, but that's a different story. :evil:
 
This does make me wonder, on all these different state CHL applications, most say something about being in a mental institution. Now, do the states only see it being relevant if someone is put into such an institution by court order? I mean if someone checked into one for clinical depression, would it be brought up on a background check or even matter as far as the license goes?
 
I am a lawyer. Prior to that, I was a fmaily therapist. I am not familiar with Texas law, but can give some general observations in regards to carry laws and how they relate to people with mental health issues. Most of these laws are very poorly written, especially the ones that use language like "substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control or intellectual ability." The Texas statute at least tries to clarify what that is, but it does not say that those issues are the only conditions that would prevent a person from getting a CHL. Under that statute, the authorities could make a case for not granting a license to a person with AD/HD, which can cause problems with impulse control.

In my experience, the legislature seems mostly concerned with seriously mentally ill people, but I wanted to point out that statutes like this leave plenty of room for denying a CHL to a mentally ill person.

The Texas rules of CHL's are more restrictive. They might, indeed, catch this guy or his wife. Sam Adams contact the TSRA to arrange a consultation with a Texas "gun" lawyer.

I would second this advice. I also have some ideas as to the best way to get confidential treatment, but that is OT. PM me if you are interested.
 
I work on a locked acute care Mental Health unit at a hospital here in Texas, and I have a CHL. I am not a lawyer, but in my experience:

1) Would voluntarily going to a psychologist for an evaluation hurt his ability to own a firearm, or to have a CHL? - No

2) Ditto #1, except would her going to a psychologist impact his rights? - No

3) If a drug such as Ritalin was prescribed for him or his wife, would that hurt his ability to own a firearm, or to have a CHL? - No

4) What about other drugs that are more powerful than Ritalin? - No. you would be amazed at what kind of prescription drugs many "normal" people (including CHL holders and cops) are taking

5) What would be the effect if his wife is diagnosed as bipolar? - She might have trouble getting a CHL... BUT, if she IS bipolar, getting treatment is far more important than a CHL and will have much more impact on her (and his) quality of life.

I would also recommend talking to a lawyer familiar with TX gun laws if she is indeed bipolar.
 
So when these applications ask about such a history, are they only asking for when a court actually committed someone into such a facility?
 
So when these applications ask about such a history, are they only asking for when a court actually committed someone into such a facility?

Depends on what application you are talking about... if you are asking about a CHL application, it depends on the state. For example, the question on the Texas state CHL that LHB1 listed asks about a much broader range of treatment than the actual Texas statute addresses. For that application, you would need to provide more information than whether a court committed someone into such a facility.

The federal level is concerned only with two things:
1) Have you been adjudicated mentally defective?
2) Have you been committed to a mental institution?

27 CFR 178.11 defines "committed to a mental institution" as:

27 CFR 178.11 said:
A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

So at the federal level, unless a court has officially declared you mentally ill, you are eligible to possess firearms. You can be voluntarily committed, seek treatment, etc. and it won't impact your ability to possess firearms at the federal level. States may have different rules.
 
Thanks again, everyone - there are some real high-quality posts here. That's what's great about THR...lots of knowledge and a great willingness to share it to help others.
 
I would think these would be questions to ask the therapist. The therapist would be the only one to release records to whatever authority was authorized to review them. Presumably the therapist will be familiar with when records can be released, and may have dealt with this issue in the past.
That is a HUGE assumption to make, and I can assure you that it is by no means a sure bet.

Many years ago, after the breakup of a relationship, I had some questions about my ... relating ability, shall we say. So I went to a friend who was a clinical psychologist and arranged to take a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). No "treatment" or "therapy," I just wanted to see where I fell relative to the rest of the world. The test itself is just a computerized multiple-guess exam that was adminsitered at a central testing facility and the report sent back to the guy's office.

The report was that I was (and probably still am) more conservative in some ways than much of the population. Okay, that confirmed what I had suspected so I thanked him and asked for a copy of the test report.

First, he wasn't happy to let me out the door. He wanted to sign me up for group therapy so he could "adjust" my attitudes to fall within "statistical norms." (That meant, in essence, that he wanted to make me less ethical than I am so I could "fit in." Bad choice.)

Then ... he refused to give me a copy of my own test report. He cited some state statute and said he couldn't give me that information. Naturally, I checked. Turns out the statute in question (a) specifically applied to psychiatrists, and didn't even mention clinical psychologists; and (b) said that psychiatrists could not release patient records to third parties without the patient's consent. So, aside from not even applying to him, since as the patient I was not a third party and by asking for the report I had clearly given my consent for him to release it to me, this dude was VERY far off base.

Because he "was" (past tense) a friend, I chose not to sue him. I arranged through another doctor friend to have the report transferred to a different psychologist, who simply handed it to my second friend, who in turn handed it to me.

They don't always know the rules and laws under which they operate. Assume NOTHING.

This entire discussion reminds me that this topic was discussed here just a few weeks ago. In that thread, the suggestion was made that anyone seeling therapy, counseling, whatever, should go to a therapist/psychologist out of town, use an alias, and pay cash. Many people decried this as foolish, but I think it's a perfectly valid consideration. I don't happen to believe in the efficacy of psychology and psychiatry so it's extremely unlikely that I'd ever go see one professionally, but if I were to do so I believe that's exactly what I would do. The nanny state is encroaching, and records which may be sacrosanct today will be open to inspection by any number of "authorities" before you know it.
 
"that is my understanding as well....just a diagnosis or taking medication does not necessarily make you ineligible."

If it did, millions of people with existing CHL would be ineligible.
 
The feds require "adjudication" by someone (not necessarily a court) BUT many states have lower triggers for loss of gun rights.

You must check both.
 

If you are in a "bad" mood, stay away from doctors. Unless you are non-functional, I'd stay away from treatment in any event. Most MD's don't know any more about mental illness than I do while most psychiatrists are vehemently anti-gun and just looking for a chance to "diagnose" you out of your rights.


This is one of the most idiotic things I've read in a while.

Sorry, Doc, but the bold statement is an accurate reflection of my experience in 30 years of law practice. The Village proctologist (an MD, by the way) knows less about mental illness than I do.
 
I think the answer is "not yet." If you'd asked in the middle 80's whether a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction would affect your right to own arms and suggested future fears, you would have been called paranoid -- people would have pointed to the "no ex-post-facto" wording in the constitution as a protection.

The Lautenberg came along.

I'd say "maybe, someday." After all, we do ex-post-facto gun restrictions now...
 
In every case, it never once mattered. And I doubt it ever could.

You mean in their ability to be safe gun owners - or the "legality" of them being gun owners?

If it's the latter, stay vigilant to goings on in Federal AND State government. The antis would have to be VERY stupid to not see a new way to chip away at gun owners' rights. I can easily imagine (especially in my "progressive" state) things getting to the point of just seeing a doctor for anxiety or taking ANY kind of antidepressant or anti-anxiety med making one unable to legally carry or maybe even OWN a firearm!
 
Quote:
From what I understand, the only way his mental health (perceived or otherwise) would affect the legality of his owning firearms or holding a CHL would be if he was involuntarily committed, or if he was adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court-appointed psychologist.
Slightly off topic, but related issue on mental health and being committed: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55778
Note that a 16 year old girl was involuntarily committed to a mental institution because she was home-schooled.
...just days after court officials confirmed, as WND reported, a teen in another ... state who was taken to a psychiatric hospital because she was homeschooled has been returned to her family.
 
Most mental health doctors are very anti gun. They after all are in a line of work where every evil should be tameable and recognizing and diagnosing and treating any "evil" will make it go away. That any criminal is just the misguided soul etc who needs treatment. A tool that could kill someone merely experiencing treatable psycological problems and attacking you because of them is going to be seen as a bad thing by them.

They are more likely to subscribe to the attitude that someone should reason with the criminal attacking you, after all thier training tells them that is the solution for every problem, when in reality some situations require force. So a psychologist is more likely to be anti-gun than the rest of society in general.
If they suddenly realize they actualy have the power to help reduce the prevelance of the evil tools used to kill, they will be more likely to use that authority.

Remember these people make a living diagnosing a disorder and treating it through counseling and medication. It is a business. I know while they are in training in college they diagnose eachother and everyone they know with something routinely, even themselves. It is what they do.

Even if treatment for a non or minor issue will not directly impact your RKBA, it paves the road for it down the road by giving the foundation of being mentaly unwell.

Also keep in mind what is currently the law can change and still effect you retroactively with things on a medical record. After the Virginia Tech incident many people are looking at this exact subject for ways to increase its ability to impact RKBA. So what would be okay now may not be what is okay in a year or two.

I think the answer is "not yet." If you'd asked in the middle 80's whether a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction would affect your right to own arms and suggested future fears, you would have been called paranoid -- people would have pointed to the "no ex-post-facto" wording in the constitution as a protection.

The Lautenberg came along.

I'd say "maybe, someday." After all, we do ex-post-facto gun restrictions now...

Exactly.
 
I don't know about Texas, but in Tennessee I can't get a handgun carry permit because I'm bipolar...but my gf CAN! :neener:

http://www.state.tn.us/safety/handgun/qualifications.htm
...
Shall not have been adjudicated as mental defective; has not been committed to or hospitalized in a mental institution; has not had a court appoint a conservator for the applicant by reason of a mental defect; has not been judicially determined to be disabled by reason of a mental illness, development disability or other mental incapacity; and has not, within seven (7) years from the date of application, been found by a court to pose an immediate substantial likelihood of serious harm, as defined in Title 33, Chapter 6, Part 5, because of mental illness;...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top