Psychiatric treatment left off application

[mojo84]

I think you have a valid point. However, it is really up to him, his family or his close friends to address this with him. If his illness is serious enough that he should lose his rights, they should be the ones to step up to take the necessary steps to get him adjudicated to not be qualified and capable. By the way, we do not know if he has already discussed this with his doc and it was determined he was not a threat to himself or others.

Just the fact he has an illness and it is being treated with medication is not sufficient to assume he is incapable of exercising his rights to have own and carry guns. There are many people that have mental and physical illness that sounds bad but isn't anywhere near the point of needing to lose their rights.

If you go down that slippery slope of just assuming people with an illness is incapable of exercising their rights, what about chronic pain sufferers and those that have bad attitudes or those that are fed up with the government or those that consider themselves sovereign citizens or those that have are forgetful but some consider it to be dementia etc.?

People's family and friends along with their physicians are the ones that should initiate the legal proceedings to have one adjudicated incapable of exercising their rights. Or, in the event of one committing a crime and it is then discovered they have serious mental illness that justifies them losing their rights, the state should take the steps to have them properly adjudicated.

[ScottDLS]

I think you have a valid point. However, it is really up to him, his family or his close friends to address this with him. If his illness is serious enough that he should lose his rights, they should be the ones to step up to take the necessary steps to get him adjudicated to not be qualified and capable. By the way, we do not know if he has already discussed this with his doc and it was determined he was not a threat to himself or others.

Just the fact he has an illness and it is being treated with medication is not sufficient to assume he is incapable of exercising his rights to have own and carry guns. There are many people that have mental and physical illness that sounds bad but isn't anywhere near the point of needing to lose their rights.

If you go down that slippery slope of just assuming people with an illness is incapable of exercising their rights, what about chronic pain sufferers and those that have bad attitudes or those that are fed up with the government or those that consider themselves sovereign citizens or those that have are forgetful but some consider it to be dementia etc.?

People's family and friends along with their physicians are the ones that should initiate the legal proceedings to have one adjudicated incapable of exercising their rights. Or, in the event of one committing a crime and it is then discovered they have serious mental illness that justifies them losing their rights, the state should take the steps to have them properly adjudicated.

[R DAVIS]

It really isn't fair for the OPs original post to have been removed. Without knowing the issue, it's impossible to have a logical and intelligent discussion of the subject. Perhaps this thread should be locked in fairness to all who are trying to opine without being able to be privy to the full story. I understand why some may take exception to someone being denied a CHL without good cause. I agree with that, but it just isn't the issue in this instance.

The OPs post stated he had not (truthfully) answered the question about being under psychiatric treatment, even though he IS. (For personality disorder/anxiety, serious enough to require medication to control)

Here is the relevant question on the CHL application form.
"Have you ever been treated and / or admitted to a facility or drug, alcohol and / or psychiatric care; OR been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control or intellectual ability; OR pleaded innocent by reason of insanity; OR been found mentally incompetent; OR had court-ordered outpatient treatment?
Yes
No
*If YES, please complete and attach CHL-78C." (Bold print is mine for emphasis)

The OP was asking: If he had answered the question in the affirmative, would his permit likely be denied. You can see that this has nothing to do with adjudication, or the type of drugs he has been prescribed. It is not about his friends, family, or his constitutional rights.

It is about answering the question truthfully so the state can do it's job to determine if he is disqualified. He would need to complete and attach form CHL-78C, to help the state make that determination. You can see that there IS a system in place to determine his eligibility, he just need to comply with the requirement to truthfully complete the information on the form.

[mojo84]

Thanks for the lecture.

The fact he omitted it should be enough to disqualify him from getting a CHL. My point about the other is that just because he is under psychiatric care and taking medication doesn't mean he should be automatically disqualified like some seem to think.

As with many discussiins, my comments were in response to some of the subsequent comments that were posted and were not directly in response to the OP.

Bottom line, his question cannot be answered on here with the limited info he provided.

How was your comments directly related to the op or were they also directed at subsequent posts?

[R DAVIS]

Mojo 84:

I agree with all you said. I was not meaning to "lecture", and mean no disrespect or even disagreement with any of the posts. Not everyone commenting on this thread is on the same page, since the original post was deleted.


My last post was simply to make the point that many who posted here were unaware of the original issue.
As far as being able to answer his question: you are correct.

For the record, here is the pertinent part of form CHL-78C:

"TREATMENT HISTORY INFORMATION * USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY.
Indicate any history or information, of treatment and/or diagnosis received by, commitment to, or residence in:
a drug or alcohol treatment center licensed to provide drug or alcohol treatment under the laws of this state or another state; OR a psychiatric hospital; OR
a mental institution following an adjudication as a mental defective or court ordered commitment or treatment (per 18 U.S. Code § 922(g) (4)); OR court ordered outpatient treatment; OR
a physician for a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or
intellectual ability. (per Texas Government Code § 411.172(d)(1))."

I think that because he is under treatment for a condition requiring medication to control, he should have completed and submitted this form.

For what it's worth, I imagine this would be a disqualifying condition for a CHL. I can't image too many situations more stressful than having to make a split second decision regarding taking a human life.

Respectfully,
R. Davis

[gljjt]

Anxiety requiring medication to control, and immediate access to a deadly weapon on a moments notice, is not a good combination.

It's that a professional, medical opinion, because it isn't necessarily true. Anxiety does not necessarily lessen your judgement or impulses. Ever had a seriously ill family member or a child out late in bad weather or financial difficulties or a big project at work or ???. Those generate anxiety, but it doesn't necessarily impact judgement or response, either on or off medication. People sometimes have times in their life where medication can help with their ability to enjoy life, not fret, and be more content. Sure there are people with psychiatric disorders that should not sound guns. But to say "Anxiety requiring medication to control, and immediate access to a deadly weapon on a moments notice, is not a good combination." Simply is not an accurate statement.

[mojo84]

"TREATMENT HISTORY INFORMATION * USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY.
Indicate any history or information, of treatment and/or diagnosis received by, commitment to, or residence in:
a drug or alcohol treatment center licensed to provide drug or alcohol treatment under the laws of this state or another state; OR a psychiatric hospital; OR
a mental institution following an adjudication as a mental defective or court ordered commitment or treatment (per 18 U.S. Code § 922(g) (4)); OR court ordered outpatient treatment; OR
a physician for a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability. (per Texas Government Code § 411.172(d)(1))."

I think that because he is under treatment for a condition requiring medication to control, he should have completed and submitted this form.

I agree, he should have completed it.

For what it's worth, I imagine this would be a disqualifying condition for a CHL. I can't image too many situations more stressful than having to make a split second decision regarding taking a human life.

Just because he has an illness, it doesn't automatically disqualify him unless it causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment.

See where I bolded the words adjudicated and court ordered commitment or treatment. He didn't say anything about either being the case. Therefore, that is one of the reasons I posted my comments using those terms.

I see you are new to the forum. Welcome. There is a lot of good info here.

[mojo84]

I think we all need to be careful about focusing in on the scary sounding words such as anxiety, depression, mood and intelligence etc. Those all come in varying degrees and not all degrees warrant the loss of someone's rights as not all degrees of the conditions cause one to be a danger to themselves or others.

We don't want to fall into the same type of trap as the media and be scared of all the scary black military automatic assault weapons with armor piercing bullets.

See what I did there?

[cb1000rider]

I agree that rights shouldn't be taken without adjudication.

I agree that a point-in-time diagnosis or some past historical treatment shouldn't necessarily be disqualifying in perpetuity. I would say a history of mental illness or treatment should warrant digging a little deeper and perhaps require the applicant to provide more information. I might go so far as to require a medical opinion in the face of a prior diagnosis.

Lying should disqualify.

There are some people that shouldn't be allowed to carry due to life long (incurable) mental health conditions. It's unfortunate. I think that the diagnosis of an MD is probably pretty strong evidence even in the face that some people may be incorrectly labelled. What's the right answer? Hand out licenses anyway? Require formal adjudication in every single case? Both of those answers have some pretty serious negative consequences if they're wrong.

I do however believe that if you're under the influence of prescription medication that has been shown to impair judgement or critical thinking, that you should be disqualified. That means if you're on a long term prescription for something in the "not good" list - no license until that status changes. And that's a pretty big list of medications - not all mental health related. There are those that are absolutely shown to impair judgment and those that have a possible side effect of impairing judgment. Certainly some people will be unhappy. My understanding is that there are medications that provide the patient absolutely no indication of impaired judgment/motor function - these are the ones that scare me (as a patient) the most...

[rentz]

I think we all need to be careful about focusing in on the scary sounding words such as anxiety, depression, mood and intelligence etc. Those all come in varying degrees and not all degrees warrant the loss of someone's rights as not all degrees of the conditions cause one to be a danger to themselves or others.

We don't want to fall into the same type of trap as the media and be scared of all the scary black military automatic assault weapons with armor piercing bullets.

See what I did there?

yup, just because someone may be on medicine for anxiety or depression doesnt mean they are mentally ill...there is a large degree there to those diagnosis's. ex... under a lot of pressure at work, cant sleep, feel overwhelmed? Here's an antidepressant / anxiety prescription

having intense moodswings or suicidal thoughts and being prescribed medication is very different than being under stress and being prescribed medication. The medical industry prescribes these pills in very large volumes for a large variety of issues, just being on them doesnt mean its a danger.

at the end of the day as much as i'd like screening for mental illness (im talking true whackadoos here) I don't want the govt prying into peoples medical records.

[Taypo]

I think we all need to be careful about focusing in on the scary sounding words such as anxiety, depression, mood and intelligence etc. Those all come in varying degrees and not all degrees warrant the loss of someone's rights as not all degrees of the conditions cause one to be a danger to themselves or others.

We don't want to fall into the same type of trap as the media and be scared of all the scary black military automatic assault weapons with armor piercing bullets.

See what I did there?

This is why the CHL process includes a medical board for situations like this, right? I'm not saying the guy doesn't deserve a CHL either, but I sure would like someone capable of making a judgement about his mental state to take a look. I'm firmly in the camp that it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to mental issues.

Skipping that stuff in his application is a red flag to me.

[ScottDLS]

It really isn't fair for the OPs original post to have been removed. Without knowing the issue, it's impossible to have a logical and intelligent discussion of the subject. Perhaps this thread should be locked in fairness to all who are trying to opine without being able to be privy to the full story. I understand why some may take exception to someone being denied a CHL without good cause. I agree with that, but it just isn't the issue in this instance.

The OPs post stated he had not (truthfully) answered the question about being under psychiatric treatment, even though he IS. (For personality disorder/anxiety, serious enough to require medication to control)

Here is the relevant question on the CHL application form.
"Have you ever been treated and / or admitted to a facility or drug, alcohol and / or psychiatric care; OR been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control or intellectual ability; OR pleaded innocent by reason of insanity; OR been found mentally incompetent; OR had court-ordered outpatient treatment?
Yes
No
*If YES, please complete and attach CHL-78C." (Bold print is mine for emphasis)

The OP was asking: If he had answered the question in the affirmative, would his permit likely be denied. You can see that this has nothing to do with adjudication, or the type of drugs he has been prescribed. It is not about his friends, family, or his constitutional rights.

It is about answering the question truthfully so the state can do it's job to determine if he is disqualified. He would need to complete and attach form CHL-78C, to help the state make that determination. You can see that there IS a system in place to determine his eligibility, he just need to comply with the requirement to truthfully complete the information on the form.

I believe you are misinterpreting intent of the treated and facility being bolded on the CHL-78. If you read the entire section it leads one to believe that the treatment for psychiatric or drug abuse took place in a "facility". This is borne out by the CHL-78C which has a box for the Facility name, with Facility seeming to refer to an inpatient(hospital) or residential facility. Further, the LAW that lays out the disqualifiers speaks specifically to inpatient and residential drug/alcohol treatment OR a specific psychiatric diagnosis of SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT. (Not the chiropractor giving you Cymbalta for nerve pain.... )

Have you ever been treated and / or admitted to a facility for drug, alcohol and / or psychiatric care;
OR been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause
substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control or intellectual ability; OR
pleaded innocent by reason of insanity; OR been found mentally incompetent; OR had court-ordered
outpatient treatment?

Also, the RENEWAL forms don't address anything beyond the conditions specifically mentioned in the law either. Since we don't have the OP posting (I believe it got nixed around the time of the site upgrade...), I can't comment on whether the OP should have answered NO on the ORIGINAL CHL-78A.

On the other hand, we are talking about people who will be "walking around with a loaded gun" so we don't want 'em whacked out on Tylenol, or buying an assault weapon with a giant "clip"..... oh wait, they can do that without a full psych workup from the Texas Board of Medical Examiners...we need a new law!

[MeMelYup]

On the other hand, we are talking about people who will be "walking around with a loaded gun" so we don't want 'em whacked out on Tylenol, or buying an assault weapon with a giant "clip"..... oh wait, they can do that without a full psych workup from the Texas Board of Medical Examiners...we need a new law!

Now you have done it. You know the MDA Texas people read this site. Why are you goving them ammunition for the 2017 legislative session?