Friend denied FID because of...

[mikelets456 78]

She is prescribed adderoll. She is a med student, excellent grades, squeaky clean record. I told her to get a lawyer . Any suggestions?

[ECsandstar 28]

She needs to contact her doctor and have her doctor write a letter. My buddy in his teen years was prescribed some bs drug like xanax for "depression" or some nonsense and his doctor had to write a letter indicating that he was no longer on the prescribed drug and saw no reason to deny him an FID. Not sure if that'll work if shes still taking or being prescribed the drug.

[Damjan 73]

She is prescribed adderoll. She is a med student, excellent grades, squeaky clean record. I told her to get a lawyer . Any suggestions?

Where exactly did she say she was on adderall in the form? Or was there another form?

Or did she answer 26?

 

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/sts-033.pdf

 

Either way she will have to appeal the decision

[ChrisJM981 924]

Question 26 is so vague in an attempt to be PC that it causes all sorts of problems. IMO psychiatric conditions isn't the proper term. What they're trying to ask for are psychiatric disorders, and even that isn't what they're looking for. Mental illness. Oh no we can't use that term!

 

Such a BS question. Stuttering is a psychiatric disorder. Are they going to deny people firearms for stuttering too?

 

I'd love to hear their BS excuse why being prescribed Adderall makes you ineligible to get a FPID.

[Geek 4]

If she is still on Adderoll she has some sort of condition that is being treated.  To really understand what is going on here one should know the specific diagnosis in DSM V and whether she is stable.  Even if it is legal for her to obtain a FID, it may not be advisable.  You would really feel badly if you helped her through the process of getting a FID and then a few years down the road she used a gun on herself.

[ogfarmer 138]

http://njgunpermitattorney.com/2013/05/30/mental-health-expungement/

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Question 26 is so vague in an attempt to be PC that it causes all sorts of problems. IMO psychiatric conditions isn't the proper term. What they're trying to ask for are psychiatric disorders, and even that isn't what they're looking for. Mental illness. Oh no we can't use that term!

 

Such a BS question. Stuttering is a psychiatric disorder. Are they going to deny people firearms for stuttering too?

 

I'd love to hear their BS excuse why being prescribed Adderall makes you ineligible to get a FPID.

 

I think that's the whole point of Question 26... to be that "catch all" used to give those CLEO's leaning towards denial the ability to do so.  Notice that the question makes absolutely no distinction in re: age... It simply asks, "Have you ever..."  So pity the poor kid that was diagnosed with ADHD (perhaps unjustly by the school system at their convenience) and prescribed "Ritalin" or an equivalent...  They may not be on it any longer, after school, but they're stained with that diagnosis for the rest of their life (in NJ, at least).

 

I guess it's up to the CLEO of the given municipality, then.   I wonder how they're even able to vet that question.  Are they able to obtain Public School psychiatric records? Or records of private psychiatrists?  Are any of those collected by "county mental health/adjustor's offices?"  Are they able to obtain pharmacy records of prescriptions?

[Smoke Eater 0]

It ask at any hospital or mental health insitution right.... so if you see a dr at his office, and he diagnosises you with adhd and gives you ritalin you still can answer no. Now if you goto an out patient center like umdnj and they treat u, u need to say yes, if your commited you also need to say yes.

[DSD1026 48]

It ask at any hospital or mental health insitution right.... so if you see a dr at his office, and he diagnosises you with adhd and gives you ritalin you still can answer no. Now if you goto an out patient center like umdnj and they treat u, u need to say yes, if your commited you also need to say yes.

this is how I see that part as well...

[HBecwithFn7 296]

It ask at any hospital or mental health insitution right.... so if you see a dr at his office, and he diagnosises you with adhd and gives you ritalin you still can answer no. Now if you goto an out patient center like umdnj and they treat u, u need to say yes, if your commited you also need to say yes.

 

Two concerns.  1) What the "school district" might have to report to the County adjustor's (mental health) office; and 2) What the private psychiatrist or the pharmacy might have to report to the insurance companies, that (in turn) might have to report to the county adjustor's office. 

 

I think you might have to answer Yes, to Quest. 26.  I think that's exactly who they're trying to catch... young adults that had issues as kids...  And even if these things (pharmacy records, school records, etc.) don't have to be reported now, expect the anti-gunners to work it into the law  (or the feds) for NICS. 

[wooly bugger 1]

I don't think school districts are allowed to release the names of kids who receive counseling, and I KNOW that, except under certain circumstances of a patient being a danger to himself or others, outpatient psychiatrists and insurance compaines cannot release individual patient information, due to HIPAA.

 

I think the only circumstance in which your name would end up on a database is if you were involuntarily committed.

 

Otherwise, this seems to be a case of scout's honor, with zero enforcement mechanism.. If you have spent time in an inpatient ward for schizophrenia, that should probably be reported and is reasonable grounds for further scrutiny. If you've received outpatient counseling for depression or anxiety and have been prescribed meds, I don't think it's anyone's business, as long as you've never had suicidal or homicidal ideation and are clinically stable.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I don't think school districts are allowed to release the names of kids who receive counseling, and I KNOW that, except under certain circumstances of a patient being a danger to himself or others, outpatient psychiatrists and insurance compaines cannot release individual patient information, due to HIPAA.

 

I think the only circumstance in which your name would end up on a database is if you were involuntarily committed.

 

Otherwise, this seems to be a case of scout's honor, with zero enforcement mechanism.. If you have spent time in an inpatient ward for schizophrenia, that should probably be reported and is reasonable grounds for further scrutiny. If you've received outpatient counseling for depression or anxiety and have been prescribed meds, I don't think it's anyone's business, as long as you've never had suicidal or homicidal ideation and are clinically stable.

 

Fair enough... but that question (26) is worded precisely for a reason...  I just wonder for whom, exactly, it was written, and who they're targeting.  Or is it a "throw all against the wall and see what sticks..." sort of thing?

 

In any event, I can see HIPAA being easily changed to accommodate such reportings in the name of "gun violence safety."   I can see this getting on NICS.

[ALAN553 27]

not sure why she answered that question unless she has been admitted, voluntarily or involuntarily....if she is taking adderall for ADD she may have over volunterred info.  If she was never involuntarily committed to a psych unit or hospital, there should be no public record of this treatment....the use of this drug for that "illness" is SOP.  

[Smoke Eater 0]

If that was the case I would be denied for being prescribed ritalin when i was 10 after my parents got divorced and the family psych prescribed it to me. Its never came up. Even out patient services like carrier clinic didnt report to the county adjuster when my buddy went after a failed suicide attempt at 13 years old.. but his stay at umdnj did. All depends if they decide to submit it and if they have the files still I guess.

[magnawing 5]

ADHD, ADD, Asperger's, etc are NOT psychiatric or mental disorders...I've fought this battle with three different school districts because my son has Asperger's.  NJ and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the country has placed that erroneous definition onto anyone who takes ritalin, adderal or any other medication for these condition because the MSM said that Adam Lanza had Asperger's and that was why he shot up a school.  The Asperger's had no bearing on what he did...his mother's failure to accept and adapt to it did...

 

Just my .02 and I'll step off my soapbox...for now

[Smokin .50 1,907]

I'm not willing to paint with too wide a brush here.  I think SOME folks need to be denied.  I also think my OPINION about THIS particular case would hold more water after I did a personal interview myself, as well as take a peek at what ever records actually exist.  To speculate about any particular individual, here in this format, and without REAL information, is merely a waste of time.  To chat about the PROCESS, and about whom gets the awesome responsibility to say someone who has had treatment "is all better now", well, that is good forum fodder.  

 

Several folks I know (myself included) probably could have used some grief counseling (my brother died years ago at age 46) and didn't seek treatment for fear of answering such questions on a form.  Having a NEED for mind-altering drugs to behave rationally is another matter altogether.  

 

When certain people exhibit certain behaviors, there comes a time to intervene and go after any weapons in and around the home.  The Gun Community is already dealing with one too many Adam Lanza's.  The Process should be swift enough to prevent a tragedy, but still guarantee due process.  Like trying to sit comfortably on a razor blade, each Cog in the wheel wants to be sure that NO harm will come to the public should they approve a permit application.  Human response what it is, those in charge tend to fall-back on what's comfortable and SAFE.  Having a letter in the file stating that the treatment was a success, and that no further meds or treatment are REQUIRED in order for the applicant to be considered "Normal" (whatever THAT is!) would surely have a positive outcome given a look by a fair CLEO.

 

Anyway, with over 44 years behind the trigger, that's MY take on this.

 

Dave 

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I'm not willing to paint with too wide a brush here.  I think SOME folks need to be denied.  I also think my OPINION about THIS particular case would hold more water after I did a personal interview myself, as well as take a peek at what ever records actually exist.  To speculate about any particular individual, here in this format, and without REAL information, is merely a waste of time.  To chat about the PROCESS, and about whom gets the awesome responsibility to say someone who has had treatment "is all better now", well, that is good forum fodder.  

 

Several folks I know (myself included) probably could have used some grief counseling (my brother died years ago at age 46) and didn't seek treatment for fear of answering such questions on a form.  Having a NEED for mind-altering drugs to behave rationally is another matter altogether.  

 

When certain people exhibit certain behaviors, there comes a time to intervene and go after any weapons in and around the home.  The Gun Community is already dealing with one too many Adam Lanza's.  The Process should be swift enough to prevent a tragedy, but still guarantee due process.  Like trying to sit comfortably on a razor blade, each Cog in the wheel wants to be sure that NO harm will come to the public should they approve a permit application.  Human response what it is, those in charge tend to fall-back on what's comfortable and SAFE.  Having a letter in the file stating that the treatment was a success, and that no further meds or treatment are REQUIRED in order for the applicant to be considered "Normal" (whatever THAT is!) would surely have a positive outcome given a look by a fair CLEO.

 

Anyway, with over 44 years behind the trigger, that's MY take on this.

 

Dave 

 

I absolutely agree that some people should be "denied."  I also agree that a "responsible gun owner" would either eliminate or not accumulate an inventory of weapons or grant access to them in a household where there is a person with said issues living.  Perhaps it should be either a crime or involve a heavy civil penalty if such an owner allows access within that household, and they are subsequently used to commit a crime or inflict serious bodily injury, such as Newtown, etc.

 

But I also don't think that the question should be so broad in scope, either, as to give a CLEO a very easy facility for denial. For example, I would preclude any issues that happened prior to adulthood (under 18) unless the issue is still ongoing.  I also think that the question should be as limited in scope as is the ability for it to be vetted by standard means. Thus, if all a CLEO can do is inquire with the county adjustor's office or with court records, then the question should read something on the order of:

 

"Have you ever been committed, to a mental facility or adjudged mentally ill by a court, or anything for which a report had to be made to the county adjustor's office..."

 

not

 

"Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or psychiatric condition?"  

 

This makes me think they (CLEOs) can do more than just inquire at the county adjustor's office.

[Duppie 73]

I'm not willing to paint with too wide a brush here.  I think SOME folks need to be denied.  I also think my OPINION about THIS particular case would hold more water after I did a personal interview myself, as well as take a peek at what ever records actually exist.  To speculate about any particular individual, here in this format, and without REAL information, is merely a waste of time.  To chat about the PROCESS, and about whom gets the awesome responsibility to say someone who has had treatment "is all better now", well, that is good forum fodder.  

 

Several folks I know (myself included) probably could have used some grief counseling (my brother died years ago at age 46) and didn't seek treatment for fear of answering such questions on a form.  Having a NEED for mind-altering drugs to behave rationally is another matter altogether.  

 

When certain people exhibit certain behaviors, there comes a time to intervene and go after any weapons in and around the home.  The Gun Community is already dealing with one too many Adam Lanza's.  The Process should be swift enough to prevent a tragedy, but still guarantee due process.  Like trying to sit comfortably on a razor blade, each Cog in the wheel wants to be sure that NO harm will come to the public should they approve a permit application.  Human response what it is, those in charge tend to fall-back on what's comfortable and SAFE.  Having a letter in the file stating that the treatment was a success, and that no further meds or treatment are REQUIRED in order for the applicant to be considered "Normal" (whatever THAT is!) would surely have a positive outcome given a look by a fair CLEO.

 

Anyway, with over 44 years behind the trigger, that's MY take on this.

 

Dave 

Precisely..... With 2 or more of recent mass shooters reportedly on some form of mind or mood altering prescribed drugs perhaps a more focused approach and questions are in order... #26 while too broad exists as a CYA for CLEO's who have neither the time or inclination to delve deeper in order to make a honest and even decision.

[IronPriest 2]

If she is still on Adderoll she has some sort of condition that is being treated.  To really understand what is going on here one should know the specific diagnosis in DSM V and whether she is stable.  Even if it is legal for her to obtain a FID, it may not be advisable.  You would really feel badly if you helped her through the process of getting a FID and then a few years down the road she used a gun on herself.

 

Adderall is used for ADD/ADHD and if you go by the Wiki, then Narcolepsy, too.  The only way she'd turn the gun on herself is if she wasn't paying attention or fell asleep.

 

I get your concern, but being denied for a drug that helps you focus is a little over-reaching on the state's part.

[Silence Dogood 468]

Anyone who is going to answer #26 "yes" has to address the details at the time of the FPID application.   If you're going to answer "yes" then you need to submit a letter from the treating doctor (psychiatrist, etc.) stating that they are treating you for "x" condition and that you aren't a mental health danger to yourself and others.  This happens all the time for security guards and police officers who may be treated for one of these conditions and it should be no different for civilians.

 

Once you are denied you have to (a)  appeal to superior court and (b) state on any re-application that you have been previously denied.

[DC-Sportsman 0]

well said