Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Post questions about RI law and obtaining a carry permit here.

Re: Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Postby Blast54 » Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:51 am

justharry wrote:s and filled out medical records release forms for my primary care physician and several local hospitals. The detective stated that it may take the doctors several weeks to respond but as long as the medical records came back clean - he was looking for psychiatric issues - there were no apparent disqualifying factors. This could all be wrapped up soon, about eight months total.


I would have asked him where in the statute it says I have to release medical records and refused such request. I believe you just gave them the excuse they are looking for. Another reason to delay/deny your permit only this time blaming it on waiting for a doctor's response.

Bill
Blast54
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Postby SirSqueeboo » Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:57 am

It's been a while since I've been in the field, but per law medical offices/hospitals must release records within 30 days of the request. Also, they can charge for this if it's for non-medical reasons. For instance, last I knew RIH charges 10 cents per page.

But you opened a pandora's box giving the police free access to your medical records. Most people don't know this, but you can limit what a request is for. You could have filled it out and written something to the affect of "only information pertaining to psychiatric treatment". Since there is none, they wouldn't send anything or what they did send would be heavily redacted. You just let the police look into confidential data, and if seven years ago your doctor noted " Feels depressed after death of uncle", they've got you.
NRA Benefactor Member
SAF Life Member
Official Texas Recruiter

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
SirSqueeboo
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:09 am

Re: Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Postby n1bsbri » Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:37 pm

Even if you allow access to records of psychiatric treatment, that's a whole different (lower) standard than has been established by the GCA 1968. This was just recently hashed out here in RI with the mental health committee advising on the State reporting to NICS. There was a lot of concern on both sides of the table for improper use and interpretation of psychiatric records, and protecting the privacy of patients.

justharry, do you have copies of the releases you signed? Would you mind sending them to me (redact any personal info)? You can PM me if you want to, I would like to see what the Chief is asking for.

The standard for a federally prohibited person is:

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-mental-health-reporting/

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits any person from selling or otherwise transferring a firearm or ammunition to any person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.”1 Such persons are prohibited from possessing firearms.2

According to federal regulations, a person has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court, board, commission or other lawful authority has determined that he or she, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: 1) is a danger to himself, herself, or others; or 2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.3 The term “adjudicated as a mental defective” explicitly includes a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetence to stand trial.4

Federal regulations define a person as “committed to a mental institution” if a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority has formally committed the individual to a mental institution.5 The term is defined to include involuntary commitments, but does not include persons who are admitted to a mental institution voluntarily or for observation.6 The term includes commitments for mental defectiveness, mental illness, and other reasons, such as drug use.7
“What New England is, is a state of mind, a place where dry humor and perpetual disappointment blend to produce an ironic pessimism that folks from away find most perplexing”― Willem Lange
User avatar
n1bsbri
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:56 pm

Re: Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Postby justharry » Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:35 pm

I do not object to disclosing my medical records in exchange for the privilege of carrying a loaded firearm concealed on my person. No matter that we believe it is a Right, the reality is the legal system has established stipulations we must abide by to carry lawfully.
justharry
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:28 am

Re: Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Postby newportri » Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:51 pm

I would personally never have signed the form because it is none of their business. I would have liked to see a denial letter saying that he has no proof that you are a suitable person because you refused to sign medical release forms, that would have been a slam dunk in court.
This is just another hoop you have to jump through and they are trying to delay this even further.
....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Check out our website here:
http://www.rifol.org/
newportri
 
Posts: 4633
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:51 am

Re: Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Postby n1bsbri » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:06 pm

I understand, justharry. Best wishes for a successful outcome.

newportri, this is just more indication of where we are going with permitting in RI. We may get our wish for shall-issue, but the applicant will have to have a squeaky clean record, and meet a bunch of other new qualifications to be successful. It works fine for that sub group of people who can meet the standard, but it leaves a lot of people out.

I'm against moving the bar that direction, if an applicant is qualified (ie, not disqualified by being a PP), they should get the permit.
“What New England is, is a state of mind, a place where dry humor and perpetual disappointment blend to produce an ironic pessimism that folks from away find most perplexing”― Willem Lange
User avatar
n1bsbri
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:56 pm

Re: Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Postby newportri » Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:06 pm

The requirements are in the statutes and the court has rules that the licensing authorities is the "finder of facts". This means that he cannot expect that the applicant proves himself/herself beyond what is in the statutes to determine if a license should be issued. The Chief cannot deny an applicant based on something he doesn't know. If there was a scenario where the police almost daily reports to the same address after calls of domestic disturbances, then I guess you can argue that the applicant is not suitable and that the Chief was a "finder of fact" since they most likely have this information in their dispatch logs.

Having said that, I have yet to hear anyone being denied in RI (under 11-47-11) because they were not suitable. They always fail to "demonstrate a need", which is not even a requirement :?
....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Check out our website here:
http://www.rifol.org/
newportri
 
Posts: 4633
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:51 am

Re: Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Postby n1bsbri » Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:45 pm

newportri wrote:...

Having said that, I have yet to hear anyone being denied in RI (under 11-47-11) because they were not suitable. They always fail to "demonstrate a need", which is not even a requirement :?

I guess that was my concern. If the "magnum opus" solves the problem of proper showing of need, we just sprung a leak on the other side of the boat. Its name is "suitability".

That new anti-gun consortium already used that argument in the House hearings this year. They were stating that 11-47-11 was essentially already may-issue since the Chiefs have discretion over who is suitable. Last year, the NK Chief telegraphed this angle in his testimony, saying that he treated 11-47-11 as may-issue.
“What New England is, is a state of mind, a place where dry humor and perpetual disappointment blend to produce an ironic pessimism that folks from away find most perplexing”― Willem Lange
User avatar
n1bsbri
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:56 pm

Re: Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Postby Blast54 » Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:22 pm

justharry wrote:I do not object to disclosing my medical records in exchange for the privilege of carrying a loaded firearm concealed on my person. No matter that we believe it is a Right, the reality is the legal system has established stipulations we must abide by to carry lawfully.

It is not the laws ( legal system) that I have the problem with, it is when the chiefs think they can make their own stipulations where the problems lie. Good luck with your endeavor if you continue to follow this path. It should be interesting what comes next.
When you have time, look into the "psych test requirements" we argued for years against. Another requirement by the chiefs that was not even available... but required when they were allowed to make their own rules/laws.
Blast54
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: Smithfield Permit, Police Chief Stalling

Postby newportri » Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:58 pm

That's very true what Blast54 is saying. After they have the medical records and don't find any disqualifying information, they will probably add another "requirement". Or, he could just deny you saying you don't demonstrate a need, but why would he need your medical records if you don't demonstrate a need.
The reason we got rid of the psych test on many applications was because we refused to give in to the Chiefs.
....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Check out our website here:
http://www.rifol.org/
newportri
 
Posts: 4633
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:51 am

PreviousNext

Return to Legal Questions / Carry Permits

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest