2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Douglas Snyde on February 01, 2018, 07:09:41 PM
-
Hey, there. I'm new to this forum and I'm not familiar with Hawaiian laws? Is treatment for depression an automatic disqualifier for gun permits in Hawaii? If so that's BS, because not even Canada automatically disqualifies people for this reason.
Thanks a bunch.
-
Hey, there. I'm new to this forum and I'm not familiar with Hawaiian laws? Is treatment for depression an automatic disqualifier for gun permits in Hawaii? If so that's BS, because not even Canada automatically disqualifies people for this reason.
Thanks a bunch.
Only a doctor can answer that. Factors would include the cause of the depression, the type of treatment, and what kind/s of prescription medications you might be taking.
If your doctor will sign the HPD letter saying you're cleared to own, possess and use firearms and ammunition, that's all HPD requires -- assuming your patient records would be flagged during a gun permit background check.
-
Only a doctor can answer that. Factors would include the cause of the depression, the type of treatment, and what kind/s of prescription medications you might be taking.
as a physician I would sign the clearance form unless the patient said "yes" to 11f on the 4473 ATF form (committed to a mental institution - which does not allow one to purchase a firearm anyway) or was actively suicidal. Beyond that, in my opinion, the constitution does not give me authority to take away a constitutional right if someone had a history of depression.
Plus, physicians have no training to know who is going to kill someone with a firearm and who isnt. One of my patients in Oregon stabbed a healthcare worker to death. I had no idea he was going to do that. Yes, sometimes it is obvious like a poorly controlled schizophrenic patient or someone with severe mental disabilities, but most of the time I wont have any better of an idea than anyone else.
-
as a physician I would sign the clearance form unless the patient said "yes" to 11f on the 4473 ATF form (committed to a mental institution - which does not allow one to purchase a firearm anyway) or was actively suicidal. Beyond that, in my opinion, the constitution does not give me authority to take away a constitutional right if someone had a history of depression.
Plus, physicians have no training to know who is going to kill someone with a firearm and who isnt. One of my patients in Oregon stabbed a healthcare worker to death. I had no idea he was going to do that. Yes, sometimes it is obvious like a poorly controlled schizophrenic patient or someone with severe mental disabilities, but most of the time I wont have any better of an idea than anyone else.
Not a physician, but I would also add -- if the patient is on medication which has possible side effects including thoughts of hurting themselves or others, or thoughts of suicide, I'd be less likely to expect a clearance letter from his doctor.
Maybe switching treatment/meds to something with fewer such known side effects could be tried, and if successful, then sign the letter?
-
Not a physician, but I would also add -- if the patient is on medication which has possible side effects including thoughts of hurting themselves or others, or thoughts of suicide, I'd be less likely to expect a clearance letter from his doctor.
Maybe switching treatment/meds to something with fewer such known side effects could be tried, and if successful, then sign the letter?
I still dont feel that is reasonable as a reason to take away a right. Due process only. I cant admit a patient against their will into a hospital for their own protection without a second physician agreeing and then a judge agreeing within 2 days.
This is also permanent. what is a person's appeal process to restore their right to own a firearm? What if their mental health issue gets completely better?
It is more difficult to take away someone's right to drive for medical reasons than take away their second amendment rights in this state.
Change it up a little and consider if it wasnt for firearms and it it was for the 6th amendment - right to a trial by jury. What if a doctor could say "your medication side effects or your mental health issues exclude you to a right by trial by jury. You wont get a defense attorney, you dont know your charges and you go straight to jail for ever." Do you think a doctor should have that power?
I dont want a crazy person shooting up a school. But it is completely unreasonable to make a physician or a psychologist in charge of whether a right is taken away.
-
I still dont feel that is reasonable as a reason to take away a right. Due process only. I cant admit a patient against their will into a hospital for their own protection without a second physician agreeing and then a judge agreeing within 2 days.
This is also permanent. what is a person's appeal process to restore their right to own a firearm? What if their mental health issue gets completely better?
It is more difficult to take away someone's right to drive for medical reasons than take away their second amendment rights in this state.
Change it up a little and consider if it wasnt for firearms and it it was for the 6th amendment - right to a trial by jury. What if a doctor could say "your medication side effects or your mental health issues exclude you to a right by trial by jury. You wont get a defense attorney, you dont know your charges and you go straight to jail for ever." Do you think a doctor should have that power?
I dont want a crazy person shooting up a school. But it is completely unreasonable to make a physician or a psychologist in charge of whether a right is taken away.
Our permit process doesn't care about due process. It's all about the HPD policies and procedures. We have people being denied for simply seeing a counselor for diabetes or depression counseling (no meds) 30 years ago. Guilty until you find a doctor to prove you're innocent.
HPD will deny you for whatever reason their policies tell them to. It's then up you you to try (in vain) to go above their heads, and then sue for violating your rights. That's not due process. Due process would allow a hearing prior to having to file a civil suit.