Terry was told he needs another medical clearance letter in order to get his ccw.

Despite having, and buying guns and providing said letter over the years. HPD says he needs a more recent letter.

Terry voluntarily sought alcohol treatment in 2015 and no longer drinks.

Terry has a curio and relics FFL.

Not only is his 2a violated, but his 14th amendment as well (due process). HPD is saying he is guilty without having any evidence and Terry must prove his innocence. One is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Attys Alan Beck and Kevin O'Grady are representing Terry.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The bizarre medical clearance scheme needs to be done away with.  HI politicians think they can legislate their way into a safer society-it’s not that simple.

How old is his old letter? If it was from a decade ago I could see it being reasonable but if it was just last year then that would seem a little excessive. Is it just a second opinion type thing to verify he is not an addict anymore? I don't understand how the addiction factors in, did he mention it on an application previously?

How old is his old letter? If it was from a decade ago I could see it being reasonable but if it was just last year then that would seem a little excessive. Is it just a second opinion type thing to verify he is not an addict anymore? I don't understand how the addiction factors in, did he mention it on an application previously?

Are you serious?  Read the OP again.  Feel free to ask for help with comprehension.

Terry voluntarily sought alcohol treatment in 2015 and no longer drinks.

If it was from a decade ago I could see it being reasonable

If you get a letter saying you are no longer at risk pertaining to owning guns, what do you believe the expiration for that letter should be?  3 years? 5 years?  Whatever the person at the firearms section desk says it should be?  Is there anything in the statute that says there are expiration periods for clearance letters?

Absent any EVIDENCE that's uncovered during the background check, such as a DUI charge/conviction, there's no logical justification for requiring another letter.  It must be assumed that the original problem was treated successfully based on the first letter, or else the doctor is lying or incompetent.

One clearance letter per disqualifying mental health issue is sufficient -- forever, as long as there are no further documented problems related to that issue.

How old is his old letter? If it was from a decade ago I could see it being reasonable but if it was just last year then that would seem a little excessive. Is it just a second opinion type thing to verify he is not an addict anymore? I don't understand how the addiction factors in, did he mention it on an application previously?

For a 2nd time, u suggest alan beck would take on a lawsuit that wont win. FYI, he's still undefeated. Like 10-0

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Are you serious?  Read the OP again.  Feel free to ask for help with comprehension.

Not needed. The questions I asked weren't answered in the original post. Maybe you need help with reading comprehension?

If you get a letter saying you are no longer at risk pertaining to owning guns, what do you believe the expiration for that letter should be?  3 years? 5 years?  Whatever the person at the firearms section desk says it should be?  Is there anything in the statute that says there are expiration periods for clearance letters?

Absent any EVIDENCE that's uncovered during the background check, such as a DUI charge/conviction, there's no logical justification for requiring another letter.  It must be assumed that the original problem was treated successfully based on the first letter, or else the doctor is lying or incompetent.

One clearance letter per disqualifying mental health issue is sufficient -- forever, as long as there are no further documented problems related to that issue.

Too many unknowns and I am not going to just make an assumption like you seem to be. There could be half a dozen different reasons why the first letter was insufficient. Thus my question trying to get a better understanding

For a 2nd time, u suggest alan beck would take on a lawsuit that wont win. FYI, he's still undefeated. Like 10-0

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I never suggested they wont win.

How old is his old letter? If it was from a decade ago I could see it being reasonable but if it was just last year then that would seem a little excessive. Is it just a second opinion type thing to verify he is not an addict anymore? I don't understand how the addiction factors in, did he mention it on an application previously?

The fact that he needs any medical clearance for a constitutional right is never reasonable.

How old is his old letter? If it was from a decade ago I could see it being reasonable but if it was just last year then that would seem a little excessive. Is it just a second opinion type thing to verify he is not an addict anymore? I don't understand how the addiction factors in, did he mention it on an application previously?

Here's the link to the complaint  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Opv8Si4gC7yXsloDs60nL9ftdUq484xm/view?usp=sharing

An old letter clearing a person for a disqualifying condition should be good regardless of age.  If they are cleared, then they are cleared from that point forward.  If the problem later reappears then it would be a new diagnosis requiring a new letter.

The fact that he needs any medical clearance for a constitutional right is never reasonable.

I am on the fence on that question.
 

Here's the link to the complaint  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Opv8Si4gC7yXsloDs60nL9ftdUq484xm/view?usp=sharing

An old letter clearing a person for a disqualifying condition should be good regardless of age.  If they are cleared, then they are cleared from that point forward.  If the problem later reappears then it would be a new diagnosis requiring a new letter.

Thanks Zippz.

I am trying to figure out what justification HPD is giving or arguing for an additional letter.

The complaint mentions it as exhibit 3 but the exhibits don't seem attached so I can't see if that gives a reason.

Thanks Zippz.

I am trying to figure out what justification HPD is giving or arguing for an additional letter.

The complaint mentions it as exhibit 3 but the exhibits don't seem attached so I can't see if that gives a reason.

I grabbed this off PACER and not sure if it'll charge me for it, so I didn't download the exhibits.  I don't think they're important anyways.

It's the Government's burden to prove their allegations to deny this constitutional right.  Not the applicant's burden to prove they are cleared.  Mayor Blangiardi has a decree with HPD to  scrutinize every CCW application to the fullest extent and make it difficult to get them approved for whatever reason.  Normally they can put up all these roadblocks because they know people ordinarily wouldn't sue them over it.  When they get sued, they settle it, losing a token amount of money, knowing they would lose in court.  But overall, the county has nothing to lose by doing things this way.

I never suggested they wont win.

SWOOOOOSSSHHHHHHH X2

I am trying to figure out what justification HPD is giving or arguing for an additional letter.

SWOOOOOOOOSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH of the year.

SWOOOOOOOOSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH of the year.

Ok drama queen

Ok drama queen

Hahahha swoooosh x3.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Update:

A 2nd plantiff has been added (Cobb).

He owns multiple guns, but his clearance letter was from a doctor who's certification expired. Dr's license had expired, no mention of why. Retirement is common.  He was told to get a clearance letter from a doctor who is licensed.  State law says nothing about this being required.

Update:

A 2nd plantiff has been added (Cobb).

He owns multiple guns, but his clearance letter was from a doctor who's certification expired. Dr's license had expired, no mention of why. Retirement is common.  He was told to get a clearance letter from a doctor who is licensed.  State law says nothing about this being required.

I was pondering that issue earlier. I wonder if the issue is that the city wants someone who is currently a doctor who can testify in court if the city gets sued as opposed to some retired or deceased doctor that wont show up to court.

Update:

A 2nd plantiff has been added (Cobb).

He owns multiple guns, but his clearance letter was from a doctor who's certification expired. Dr's license had expired, no mention of why. Retirement is common.  He was told to get a clearance letter from a doctor who is licensed.  State law says nothing about this being required.

So sad.  Someone is addicted with a medical condition and is cured.  Then the doctor retires and the condition comes back again.

This is like the military firearms training memos.  When you leave the military you suddenly forget all that firearms training you had before.

I was pondering that issue earlier. I wonder if the issue is that the city wants someone who is currently a doctor who can testify in court if the city gets sued as opposed to some retired or deceased doctor that wont show up to court.

Has the city ever been sued in a way like you're wondering about since they began requiring clearance letters?

What if said symptoms came back 2 days after the letter was written?  Sounds like a daily clearance letter would be needed, so you know the city doesn't get sued.