If I gave bad advice to someone I can get sued for it.  If the police do it and you get arrested, nothing happens to them.

Just a reminder that police are not the best source for getting information on the firearm laws.  I had a patient today who had something in his history that would have caused him to unknowingly lie on the 4473 background check form.  He had called the firearm division to ask about it they told him to "just get a note from your doctor and it will be fine"

Physicians cant overrule federal laws and even if a police officer says it is fine to technically lie on a 4473 form just because "you have a note from your doctor" it is still illegal. 

This is the second time in a row that a patient came to see me as recommended by the firearms division and it was wrong advice. 

If I gave bad advice to someone I can get sued for it.  If the police do it and you get arrested, nothing happens to them.

Can I ask what the particular item it was that would disqualify the individual permanently and would be medically related?

Police get sued all the time though, I think your impression that nothing happens to cops who give bad advice is inaccurate.

Police are allowed encouraged to lie. It's one of the perks of the job. Even the weatherman tries his best to guess correctly.

Police are allowed to lie. It's one of the perks of the job. Even the weatherman tries his best to guess correctly.

Im trying to be careful about privacy to not share too much but yes, they basically said you could answer this questions with a "no" on the 4473 form as long as they got a note from me (which is absolutely wrong)

"Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"



Yes cops rarely go to jail, but when a citizen wins a judgement against the police, it is us the tax payers who pay for it, not the officer.  I pay for my own malpractice insurance, If I get sued it is used against me if I try to get a license in any state, it is published publicly for anyone to see even if it is settled without judgement.  I dont get paid leave if someone sues me or the board of medicine subpoena's me about a complaint. 

The whole reason I require people to fly from Oahu to see me to do a firearm clearance letter is malpractice.  I am not protected if I do it over the phone like I want to.  Everyone knows good and well that if one of the patient's I clear shoots someone I'm going to be dragged through the media as the one responsible. 

Cops have absolutely no real risk to doing a job badly.  Until they are required to personally pay for "malpractice insurance,"  then I wont be convinced otherwise.

They are allowed to lie about some things, not all things.

Of course no names and no details about his story which would identify him/her.

I see what you mean about that question, obviously a doctor cannot rewrite history and make it so the individual never went to a mental institution.
On a side note, is a "no" to that specific question on the 4473 a permanent disqualified? For example, say someone was committed to a mental institution for a temporary mental health issue decades ago does it matter whether the person has a clean bill of health with no reason to believe there will be further issues? Or does checking that box yes just force someone in the government to do a little more digging into the person's case before it can be approved?



I think cops who have gone to trial and nearly gotten convicted for a justified shooting might beg to differ though. A rise in insurance premiums is the least of worries for the officer who shot Michael Brown (Hands up don't shoot). And while they may not pay insurance, they do pay union dues which serves as a form of insurance.

Question 11.f. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority
that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a
danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include:
(1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not
guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Committed to a Mental Institution: 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 commitment for
mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use.
 
The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

EXCEPTION: Under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective
or committed to a mental institution in a State proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if the person has been
granted relief by the adjudicating/committing State pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also, a person
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of Federal Government
is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by
the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring
by the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of
the initial adjudication/ commitment; or (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability,
without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as
a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/
committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities program. Persons who fall within one of the above
exceptions should answer "no" to question 11.f. This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a Federal department or agency does
not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found
incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Of course no names and no details about his story which would identify him/her.

I see what you mean about that question, obviously a doctor cannot rewrite history and make it so the individual never went to a mental institution.
On a side note, is a "no" to that specific question on the 4473 a permanent disqualified? For example, say someone was committed to a mental institution for a temporary mental health issue decades ago does it matter whether the person has a clean bill of health with no reason to believe there will be further issues? Or does checking that box yes just force someone in the government to do a little more digging into the person's case before it can be approved?



I think cops who have gone to trial and nearly gotten convicted for a justified shooting might beg to differ though. A rise in insurance premiums is the least of worries for the officer who shot Michael Brown (Hands up don't shoot). And while they may not pay insurance, they do pay union dues which serves as a form of insurance.

This was an involuntary admission.  Meaning 2 physicians have to agree to hold a patient against their will when they are a risk of harming themselves and then a judge has to agree within a certain time frame.  It gets recorded in the state's court records and then is supposed to be submitted to the background check database (many states fail to report them)

When I had patients in oregon who had firearms and needed to be admitted for psychiatric issues I made sure they were safe and then strongly advised them to make sure the hospitalization was voluntary so they would not lose their firearm rights down the line.  I've not had any patient lose rights because of a hospitalization and none of my patients have committed suicide with a firearm.  I might be lucky with that but I've also had people open up to me when they knew I was not going to make the police take away their firearms.

like "are you a cop"?

This was an involuntary admission.  Meaning 2 physicians have to agree to hold a patient against their will when they are a risk of harming themselves and then a judge has to agree within a certain time frame.  It gets recorded in the state's court records and then is supposed to be submitted to the background check database (many states fail to report them)

When I had patients in oregon who had firearms and needed to be admitted for psychiatric issues I made sure they were safe and then strongly advised them to make sure the hospitalization was voluntary so they would not lose their firearm rights down the line.  I've not had any patient lose rights because of a hospitalization and none of my patients have committed suicide with a firearm.  I might be lucky with that but I've also had people open up to me when they knew I was not going to make the police take away their firearms.

like "are you a cop"?

So with what you have said and Flapp provided, it would seem that you as a doctor could be a step in the process towards having the person get their firearms back however you by yourself do not have the power to change the appropriate answer on the form with just a clearance letter.