I asked FT about it and he gave me some good info, but wanted to let you guys know/see what you guys think.

I took a friend down to HPD yesterday for his permit to acquire. He told me in the car that he went to a doc when he was 16 (he's in his early 40's) for depression, the doc gave him some pills that didn't work and he never saw a psych again. I thought he was diagnosed with it so I told him to be as honest as possible on his app. It turns out he was not "diagnosed as having any significant behavioral or emotional disorder" (per HRS 134-7 denial requirments) at all. Just a consultation. I should've asked but I assumed he was diagnosed, so it's my fault for telling him to be as honest as possible.

At the end of the application process, he was told, very politely and nonchalantly (I was there to see that part), the guy who booked him hands hims a paper and says he requires a medical waiver once he comes back in 2 weeks to pick up the permit. He was told he just needs to see any ol' doctor.

Well I dropped him off at home and he texts me 30 minutes later that he's contacted 3 doctor's offices and they all want to drug test him, then send him to a psych for an eval; and only then will they sign it off for him. The registrar HAD to know that, but made it sound like it's something he can do in his sleep. Needless to say, he's not willing to jump all those hoops.

After talking with FT and texting my friend back, I basically told him we need to stick to our guns on this one and call them out on enforcing unwritten policy. However...my friend has a severe case of The Sheep. Worse than me. He doesn't want to cause any trouble or bring any attention to himself, despite being pissed.

So here's the facts:

He has NOT been diagnosed with any behavioral or emotional disorder
He indicated in his app that he wasn't diagnosed with depression after that one-time consultation with a psychiatrist
He is told he is required to turn in a medical waiver when he returns to pick up his permit

It may be interesting to note - he has effectively been discouraged from firearm ownership in Hawaii and he has lost all respect for the local department.

I told him he still needs to go pick it up and see what happens. Hell I'll go with him again too.

That's terrible news for your friend. 

But I'm confused.  Doesn't he have a regular physician he sees?  As far as I know the medical waiver form doesn't have to be a from a psychiatrist, just his regular MD doctor.  If he's calling up random doctors asking for a free pass on a mental health evaluation of course they are going to say no; The legal ramifications for a doctor agreeing to something like that would be monsterous.  If he's not in a particular rush to get his firearm, there's nothing to stop him from getting a new doctor, seeing him for a few appointments for various ailments, and then having him sign the note. 

Edit: I thought the HPD normally mails the note to your physician?  If they just gave him a paper to fill out, (and in no way shape or form do I advocate doing this) what's to stop him from filling it out himself? 

He does not have a regular doctor. He has no car, so the most accessible medical facility for him is a clinic in waikiki.

I do agree with you as to why doctors would be apprehensive about signing a medical waiver. I can just imagine a stranger calling and asking for a mental waiver. The paper he received indicates on the bottom that doctors who sign a waiver have absolutely no risk of liability though (which makes no sense to me....why would you require a note from a MD if it holds no value?).

I believe it was more of a info sheet more than a official sign-the-dotted-line sheet.

This is slightly off-center ffrom the OP though. The point I'm getting at is, they threw him an obstacle which he can't/won't/shouldn't have to negotiate, and I'm questioning the legitimacy of said obstacle.

HRS 134-7 b, 3, which is what this most probably falls under - should not affect him. He has no medical diagnosis on record regarding mental or behavioral disorder. Basically it was volunteered information (again...my fault. I thought he was already diagnosed, so at that moment honesty was the best policy). Can the department claim a firearm permit denial based on department policy rather than any written statues?  Is this particular department allowed to make decisions based on personal judgement?

If they refuse to give him a permit, my next advice to him is to fill out another application. "Correctly" this time. If they deny him during that 2 weeks on grounds of medical illegibility when there's nothing on medical record to deny him for....that would be HUGE.

This is what's happening:
2 week background check - which, presumably, includes any medical history checks (but he has no assigned MD, so...meh)
He was told to get a medical waiver when he returns to pick up the permit

This has zero to do with HPD.  Don't you think some doctors might find it odd that you want to see them only to get a firearms clearance?  Don't you think those doctors might be wondering why this person isn't seeing their regular doctor for this basic clearance.  I think that probably raises some red flags to the doctors that he is trying to get to sign off on the forms.  I am no doctor but I am smart enough to think that something might be suspicious.  Plus I would have zero past history on this patient to come to some type of frame of reference for clearing them.  As a professional medical practitioner it might seem logical to have some testing done before clearing someone of something that I have no medical history about.  When they said any doctor at the HPD, I am sure they meant his own doctor and not specifically a psychiatrist.  Is it possible that you confused what was said?  In any event, I don't think how you can expect any doctor to take on liability, risking their own practice and livelihood without some type of reasonable findings to back their decision for a clearance.

This has zero to do with HPD.  Don't you think some doctors might find it odd that you want to see them only to get a firearms clearance?  Don't you think those doctors might be wondering why this person isn't seeing their regular doctor for this basic clearance.  I think that probably raises some red flags to the doctors that he is trying to get to sign off on the forms.  I am no doctor but I am smart enough to think that something might be suspicious.  Plus I would have zero past history on this patient to come to some type of frame of reference for clearing them.  As a professional medical practitioner it might seem logical to have some testing done before clearing someone of something that I have no medical history about.  When they said any doctor at the HPD, I am sure they meant his own doctor and not specifically a psychiatrist.  Is it possible that you confused what was said?  In any event, I don't think how you can expect any doctor to take on liability, risking their own practice and livelihood without some type of reasonable findings to back their decision for a clearance.

You need to read the post. I even said I agree why doctors would be apprehensive in signing anything. You missed the point entirely and you missed the point in my clarification post entirely.
 
Please read more carefully. Highlighted some stuff to make it easier to read.

Wow, that really sucks for your friend. I hope everything works out. In all reality, they police can deny the registration and it would probably take a lawsuit to overturn the decision.

I haven't seen anything in the statutes where a waiver would be required especially if he checked off that he wasn't diagnosed with anything. A doctor isn't even required to get a permit to acquire, so yes, I agree that it is enforcing unwritten law. HPD can't do that. You can't have a "policy" that goes against written law.

I would just go down the retrieve the permit. If they said anything about not giving the permit, I would just tell the truth: never been diagnosed.

Again, they might make him jump through the hoops, but it doesn't mean it's right.

You know what, that HPD office sometimes works like a "ROADBLOCK". They do different random stuff all the time. Some people take photo's while I haven't ....yet. I've seen them (while waiting) ask random people why they're buying the guns they are buying. A few people say "Collecting" while others say "Hunting". To fit 2 rifles in one case, I took them down as receivers once to register. The guy asked me if I bought the rifles as a "Whole Rifle" or "Receivers". None of my buddies ever got asked that question before. I'd say just go down and try to pick it up...The worst that can happen is the guy will say "No". But if it's "Yes", then it's all good......Good Luck with that pick up, and keep us updated..

He does not have a regular doctor. He has no car, so the most accessible medical facility for him is a clinic in waikiki.

I do agree with you as to why doctors would be apprehensive about signing a medical waiver. I can just imagine a stranger calling and asking for a mental waiver. The paper he received indicates on the bottom that doctors who sign a waiver have absolutely no risk of liability though (which makes no sense to me....why would you require a note from a MD if it holds no value?).

I believe it was more of a info sheet more than a official sign-the-dotted-line sheet.

This is slightly off-center ffrom the OP though. The point I'm getting at is, they threw him an obstacle which he can't/won't/shouldn't have to negotiate, and I'm questioning the legitimacy of said obstacle.

HRS 134-7 b, 3, which is what this most probably falls under - should not affect him. He has no medical diagnosis on record regarding mental or behavioral disorder. Basically it was volunteered information (again...my fault. I thought he was already diagnosed, so at that moment honesty was the best policy). Can the department claim a firearm permit denial based on department policy rather than any written statues?  Is this particular department allowed to make decisions based on personal judgement?

If they refuse to give him a permit, my next advice to him is to fill out another application. "Correctly" this time. If they deny him during that 2 weeks on grounds of medical illegibility when there's nothing on medical record to deny him for....that would be HUGE.

This is what's happening:
2 week background check - which, presumably, includes any medical history checks (but he has no assigned MD, so...meh)
He was told to get a medical waiver when he returns to pick up the permit

Uh wait a minute.....

Maybe I am slow but those 2 statements in red lead me to believe that you checked off certain areas on the application.  The HPD guys gave you the medical release forms to have filled out and it is somehow their fault?  It reads to me as if you guys marked off some type of psychological issue on the application.  This would seem to dictate that the onus of proof otherwise lies in your friends hands from that point on.  If you don't like the process by all means fight it.  Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you guys actually checked off on the application?  However the second statement in red seems to show that you checked off one thing and that if you apply again, you will check off something different.  Even if you were to go back later and say "hey guys I mistakenly checked the wrong thing, because when I checked I really wasn't officially diagnosed with anything".  Should they just take your word for it, or again should the onus of proof now lie upon your friend?  I might also be concerned about submitting another application and marking different items without proof.  It is a sworn legal document. 

I am not saying that I like the entire process, or even the firearms laws in this state, but I am not thinking that this is something where some HPD Officer working the firearms registration desk, or the entire HPD is trying to be some obstacle for owning a weapon.  Quite honestly the guy behind the counter could care less how many guns your friend owns.  They just want to make sure they are done at quitting time just like anyone else.  It is safe to say that while the HPD tends to side with the overall current political vibe of the state, in reality they could care less how many guns your friend owns provided he doesn't claim to be unstable and is following current laws.  It would also be unwise to think that your average Police Officer necessarily agrees with the Administrations or Departments views on this topic either.

Surf, what you must understand is that within the concepts of prior restraint, I don't have to prove I am eligible to possesses this weapon or firearm.  The legal burden lies with the state to reject it.

If you ask me, "Have you had Counseling?", to which I respond yes, that doesn't mean you can force me to go and get a clearance from a doctor. Just because we went and saw a doctor or took some medication doesn't mean you were diagnosed with a disorder.  That is the problem.

A man saw a doctor at the age of 16 -- and is now 41, why on earth legally or through common sense, should he have to get a written approval from anyone to say he is ok?  This is not a guilty before innocent country -- even though it tends to seem like it.

The question should be re-asked or discussed, and while it is a legal document, many people don't understand the language or questions presented and don't know how or what to answer.  To compound that problem, many officers fail to understand the law as written and the language and facts presented to them.

Uh wait a minute.....

Maybe I am slow but those 2 statements in red lead me to believe that you checked off certain areas on the application.  The HPD guys gave you the medical release forms to have filled out and it is somehow their fault?  It reads to me as if you guys marked off some type of psychological issue on the application.  This would seem to dictate that the onus of proof otherwise lies in your friends hands from that point on.  If you don't like the process by all means fight it.  Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you guys actually checked off on the application?  However the second statement in red seems to show that you checked off one thing and that if you apply again, you will check off something different.  Even if you were to go back later and say "hey guys I mistakenly checked the wrong thing, because when I checked I really wasn't officially diagnosed with anything".  Should they just take your word for it, or again should the onus of proof now lie upon your friend?  I might also be concerned about submitting another application and marking different items without proof.  It is a sworn legal document. 

I am not saying that I like the entire process, or even the firearms laws in this state, but I am not thinking that this is something where some HPD Officer working the firearms registration desk, or the entire HPD is trying to be some obstacle for owning a weapon.  Quite honestly the guy behind the counter could care less how many guns your friend owns.  They just want to make sure they are done at quitting time just like anyone else.  It is safe to say that while the HPD tends to side with the overall current political vibe of the state, in reality they could care less how many guns your friend owns provided he doesn't claim to be unstable and is following current laws.  It would also be unwise to think that your average Police Officer necessarily agrees with the Administrations or Departments views on this topic either.

I agree with you in that if he did indeed check that he has been diagnosed, then the scrutiny he is receiving is deserving. I'll have to double check with him if he checked "YES" on any of them. I've owned up to that error repeatedly. He did put in a box somewhere that he has NOT been DIAGNOSED with anything. Once again, I agree with you that if he checked YES, then my blame is misplaced and I am wrong.

Regarding applying again - he checks NO he has not been DIAGNOSED with anything on 2nd application. On WHAT GROUNDS can they legally deny him? Answer that. They will do a medical background check (again) and discover that he has no diagnoses of mental or emotional disorders (again). So then, how is he to be denied according to the statues of the state? Oh, I "think" he's crazy, so I'll deny him?

Regarding the attitude of employees - Have you ever asked for something free? Discount? People DO care to a small degree. People will defend what their job stands for, and will uphold policies set forth. Your assessement that no one cares is a little naive, especially regarding a position(s) that has power over other people. What does an employee do when general policy/attitude is "keep guns off the street"? Take the SHOPO president's attitude just as a small example.

Checking now if he checked the YES box on anything lol.

Surf, what you must understand is that within the concepts of prior restraint, I don't have to prove I am eligible to possesses this weapon or firearm.  The legal burden lies with the state to reject it.

If you ask me, "Have you had Counseling?", to which I respond yes, that doesn't mean you can force me to go and get a clearance from a doctor. Just because we went and saw a doctor or took some medication doesn't mean you were diagnosed with a disorder.  That is the problem.

A man saw a doctor at the age of 16 -- and is now 41, why on earth legally or through common sense, should he have to get a written approval from anyone to say he is ok?  This is not a guilty before innocent country -- even though it tends to seem like it.

The question should be re-asked or discussed, and while it is a legal document, many people don't understand the language or questions presented and don't know how or what to answer.  To compound that problem, many officers fail to understand the law as written and the language and facts presented to them.

Your missing my point.  I am reading that Dregs friend may have checked a block stating that he had some type of issue.  Even Dregs stated that he is not sure.  Only his very last post after mine he stated that he did not state to have a mental disorder.  This is still not clarified.  If he checked that he had some type of issue, why blame the HPD for wanting the guy to show that he is no longer under care for any psychological or addiction to illegal substances?  You guys are putting the cart before the horse.  Clarify the issue before condemning anything.  We still don't know what the guy actually checked and neither does Dregs.

Quote from: Surf on March 12, 2011, 02:47:15 PM

Uh wait a minute.....

Maybe I am slow but those 2 statements in red lead me to believe that you checked off certain areas on the application.  The HPD guys gave you the medical release forms to have filled out and it is somehow their fault?  It reads to me as if you guys marked off some type of psychological issue on the application.  This would seem to dictate that the onus of proof otherwise lies in your friends hands from that point on.  If you don't like the process by all means fight it.  Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you guys actually checked off on the application?  However the second statement in red seems to show that you checked off one thing and that if you apply again, you will check off something different.  Even if you were to go back later and say "hey guys I mistakenly checked the wrong thing, because when I checked I really wasn't officially diagnosed with anything".  Should they just take your word for it, or again should the onus of proof now lie upon your friend?  I might also be concerned about submitting another application and marking different items without proof.  It is a sworn legal document. 

I am not saying that I like the entire process, or even the firearms laws in this state, but I am not thinking that this is something where some HPD Officer working the firearms registration desk, or the entire HPD is trying to be some obstacle for owning a weapon.  Quite honestly the guy behind the counter could care less how many guns your friend owns.  They just want to make sure they are done at quitting time just like anyone else.  It is safe to say that while the HPD tends to side with the overall current political vibe of the state, in reality they could care less how many guns your friend owns provided he doesn't claim to be unstable and is following current laws.  It would also be unwise to think that your average Police Officer necessarily agrees with the Administrations or Departments views on this topic either.

I agree with you in that if he did indeed check that he has been diagnosed, then the scrutiny he is receiving is deserving. I'll have to double check with him if he checked "YES" on any of them. I've owned up to that error repeatedly. He did put in a box somewhere that he has NOT been DIAGNOSED with anything.

Regarding applying again - he checks NO he has not been DIAGNOSED with anything on 2nd application. On WHAT GROUNDS can they legally deny him? Answer that. They will do a medical background check (again) and discover that he has no diagnoses of mental or emotional disorders (again). So then, how is he to be denied according to the statues of the state? Oh, I "think" he's crazy, so I'll deny him?

Regarding the attitude of employees - Have you ever asked for something free? Discount? People DO care to a small degree. People will defend what their job stands for, and will uphold policies set forth. Your assessement that no one cares is a little naive, especially regarding a position(s) that has power over other people.

Checking now if he checked the YES box on anything lol.

Again, I think we are jumping the gun by placing blame without all the facts.  Your first couple posts reads as if you guys answered with questions that would require further follow up from a doctor.  Then you state things are not exactly clear.  See where this has gone?  Simple clarification is not unreasonable before making negative assumptions. 

As for you question about the second application.  Don't even go there until you know exactly what he checked on his first visit.  "IF" your friend did indeed check that he had some type of issue and then re applies and swears in his statement otherwise, conflicting his first application, don't you see how he could be denied or that there could be an issue?  At the least in the eyes of the law I cannot see how it would be fault of any agency to deny him if his statements conflict.  It would now be at the least your friends burden of proof and not the state since he screwed up in the first place.  If indeed he did actually check something he shouldn't have.  Even if he made a "good faith" mistake and really doesn't fit into any category that would deny him, if he checked it, it now becomes his burden of proof.  He should have had his ducks in a row and had these points clarified before going in.  If you can't see that point, there is nothing more I can add. 

As you mention if he checked yes on anything then lol on him.  But again you guys need to not put the horse before the cart.  It does no good to continue the derogatory comments about the HPD or any organization without the all the facts.

Ok so clarification: He has checked NO in every box. Next to the related question and checked NO, he placed a question mark. In the box below that asks you to explain, he put down his voluntary (not committed) single visit to a psych that resulted in NO diagnosis. Once again, he checked NO in EVERY. SINGLE. BOX. Without a doubt.

So then, what legal reason would they REQUIRE he acquire a waiver first?

I agree it was a stupid thing to do. Don't volunteer any information. But even so, he has not reached any legal threshhold where he is required to get a waiver. Yet they're asking him for one. My question is the validity of this obstacle.

Like FT says, they're only human. They can make mistakes or not understand something. So we will go to pick it up and we'll see how it goes.

I would definitely attempt to get clarification on the matter.  Not trying to make any misdirection, but like you say, they are human also.  I also agree that it was very stupid and I can easily see how that can get you denied.  Just look at the FFL form.  What do you think would happen at a gun dealer if you added information like that?  I am not sure if you have noticed but there are also quite a few new faces behind the counter at the firearms registration desk.  Again no excuses for those guys, but it is what I have seen there.  Hope things work out for him.

Again, I think we are jumping the gun by placing blame without all the facts.  Your first couple posts reads as if you guys answered with questions that would require further follow up from a doctor.  Then you state things are not exactly clear.  See where this has gone?  Simple clarification is not unreasonable before making negative assumptions. 

As for you question about the second application.  Don't even go there until you know exactly what he checked on his first visit.  "IF" your friend did indeed check that he had some type of issue and then re applies and swears in his statement otherwise, conflicting his first application, don't you see how he could be denied or that there could be an issue?  At the least in the eyes of the law I cannot see how it would be fault of any agency to deny him if his statements conflict.  It would now be at the least your friends burden of proof and not the state since he screwed up in the first place.  If indeed he did actually check something he shouldn't have.  Even if he made a "good faith" mistake and really doesn't fit into any category that would deny him, if he checked it, it now becomes his burden of proof.  He should have had his ducks in a row and had these points clarified before going in.  If you can't see that point, there is nothing more I can add. 

As you mention if he checked yes on anything then lol on him.  But again you guys need to not put the horse before the cart.  It does no good to continue the derogatory comments about the HPD or any organization without the all the facts.

I did start off shaky here, I admit and do apologize for that.

Further clarification has been made. The clarification stands with everything I've said so far.

The thing about the firearm acquiring process is that it's not a beauracracy. You don't examine it and make opinions and deny depending on how you feel about the person. Is there not a reason for a half-month background check and signing a release of medical records? Explain how they can legally deny him? (have you read HRS 134?) Is a note in a box in a previous application EVIDENCE that you HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED, despite no records showing in the extensive half-month process?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, NO means NO, YES means YES. There's nothing in the statues regarding applying for acquiring that allow them to make a decision regarding a consitutional right based on opinion or a feeling they have about a person.

Actually, after reading through HRS 134-2, it looks like permits to acquire are "may issue", and as such can just be denied. Someone tell me I'm wrong about that.

Quote from: Surf on March 12, 2011, 07:58:04 PM

Again, I think we are jumping the gun by placing blame without all the facts.  Your first couple posts reads as if you guys answered with questions that would require further follow up from a doctor.  Then you state things are not exactly clear.  See where this has gone?  Simple clarification is not unreasonable before making negative assumptions. 

As for you question about the second application.  Don't even go there until you know exactly what he checked on his first visit.  "IF" your friend did indeed check that he had some type of issue and then re applies and swears in his statement otherwise, conflicting his first application, don't you see how he could be denied or that there could be an issue?  At the least in the eyes of the law I cannot see how it would be fault of any agency to deny him if his statements conflict.  It would now be at the least your friends burden of proof and not the state since he screwed up in the first place.  If indeed he did actually check something he shouldn't have.  Even if he made a "good faith" mistake and really doesn't fit into any category that would deny him, if he checked it, it now becomes his burden of proof.  He should have had his ducks in a row and had these points clarified before going in.  If you can't see that point, there is nothing more I can add. 

As you mention if he checked yes on anything then lol on him.  But again you guys need to not put the horse before the cart.  It does no good to continue the derogatory comments about the HPD or any organization without the all the facts.

I did start off shaky here, I admit and do apologize for that.

Further clarification has been made. The clarification stands with everything I've said so far.

The thing about the firearm acquiring process is that it's not a beauracracy. You don't examine it and make opinions and deny depending on how you feel about the person. Is there not a reason for a half-month background check and signing a release of medical records? Explain how they can legally deny him? (have you read HRS 134?) Is a note in a box in a previous application EVIDENCE that you HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED, despite no records showing in the extensive half-month process?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, NO means NO, YES means YES. There's nothing in the statues regarding applying for acquiring that allow them to make a decision regarding a consitutional right based on opinion or a feeling they have about a person.

As 2aHawaii suggests you might want to read 134 more closely and look at 134-2, sections (b) (c) and especially (d) "The chief of police of the respective counties may issue permits to acquire firearms".

I am not an attorney, but that little word "may" as stated in law has a lot of bearing.  Again it is your friends right to contest this. 

Again I will state that I my personal feelings differ quite a bit about firearm laws and regulations, particularly those within this state.

Very well! That is definitely a game changer if interpreted such. To me it looks like a limited list of people the COP is eligible to grant acquire permits to, rather than a limited list and choice of grant or deny. But it is definitely not a shall, as is used in other parts of that section, and definitely IANAL. Glad you guys noticed this! I stand corrected where I am wrong.

The chief would need to articulate in writing such denial, he would be severely beaten in court should a person even file the complaint. That is if the person has not been diagnosed or adjudicated.


I thought I would add, that while that clause reads "may", it is shall. Heller holds that firearm ownership is a fundamental right of United States Citizenship.  Should someone go against that, a writ of mandate to the court will quickly and expeditiously clear those issues.

I see your point. I think to reinforce the point, I wanted to add that CCW permits may be denied/issued based on a certain criteria - despite this criteria being subjective and opinion-based. Even if the permit to acquire may be denied/issued, this time it's based on written records.
 
And, I've read through the whole post again. I haven't seen a single deragatory comment regarding the HPD from me. I am questioning the firearm department's accuracy, not calling names to the entire police department. Please don't read it as deragatory.
 
In person, it sounded like he checked NO in all boxes, but upon stimulating conversation here, I realized I did not ask nor heard him say for 110% sure that he has checked NO.
 
So here are the facts:
He checked NO in all boxes
Wrote in the explanation box that he had a single visit to a psych 25+ years ago and no diagnoses
They told him to get a mental health waiver by the time he picks up the permit
Statutes state he only needs a mental waiver if he has ever been medically diagnosed with severe mental or emotional disorders
 
 
Will update on how it goes!

I just thought of something. There is the possibility that the firearms desk person misread the form. As the comments box is for justifications on YES's, that person may have scanned the form, saw the comments, and figured something was marked as yes.

Similar to the form 4473, if you fill out something wrong or in the wrong place, they will deny your application.