Advice needed on LTC appeal

[E5RANGER375]

Before I went through MEPS for Army service, my recruiter told me not to tell the doctors sh*t. If you tell them then it will or could hurt your chances of entering for service. being the dumb kid I was, when i sat in the doctors office for my private one on one interview, he asked if I had any health issues or illness etc. and I told him I was recovering from a cold. he asked me are you feeling better? and i said yes. so then he said so if its not an issue why are you bringing it up? If your talking about it then maybe its an issue? uh, uh, uh, uh, .......

he was right. for a minute, i thought a simple cold was going to keep me from my dream. I made it through fine.

basicly what we are dealing with here in Indiana is people who think they have the power to grant us our rights afforded to us at birth. the right to bear arms is one of them. of coarse since we dont want to be in jail, we abide by the law, and get our LTCH even though its unconstitutional. But what you did was give them a reason, to say no. you gave some pencil pusher the power over you that he or she wanted, and so they used it. its like speaking to a cop when you should have kept your mouth shut. There was no problem but you now created one. you probly thought that you had nothing to hide so you would go ahead and be totaly up front. same reason people let cops search their cars, even though they are handing over their freedom everytime.

you need to write a letter for appeal, and then start the process. I think you will maybe get to go infront of a board for an interview. i would recomend taking a lawyer.

good luck. I wish you the best. I hope you posting your story here will help other people to see the importance of not disclosing anything to the government thats none of their business, and basicly thats everything.

 

[-ski-]

Per my own intuition and the recommendations of some on this thread, I've retained an attorney experienced in this area. I meet with him next week. After the appeal is resolved, I will post on the process and outcome, in the hope that others will benefit. The words I've gotten is that we are looking at a minimum of about 8 weeks or so to go through the process of appeal, if it's on the short side. Thanks again for the feedback and encouragement.

-ski-

 

[pig957]

Good Luck, I hope this is resolved quickly in your favor.

 

[sparkyfender]

Keep us posted.

My girlfriend answered "yes" to that same question, and now has thrown the whole getting her License application process under the bus. {I should have warned her about the question in advance.}

No, she is not a threat to herself or others.
Yes. She submitted a letter from her health care proffessional, but it was worded in a way that makes me think the caregiver was trying to throw a wrench into the works. An anti-gun doctor? Yes. That is what I am thinking.

Good luck in your quest.

I shall follow your progress with interest, as I fear we may be doing the same thing shortly.

 

[JoshuaW]

Keep us posted.

My girlfriend answered "yes" to that same question, and now has thrown the whole getting her License application process under the bus. {I should have warned her about the question in advance.}

No, she is not a threat to herself or others.
Yes. She submitted a letter from her health care proffessional, but it was worded in a way that makes me think the caregiver was trying to throw a wrench into the works. An anti-gun doctor? Yes. That is what I am thinking.

Good luck in your quest.

I shall follow your progress with interest, as I fear we may be doing the same thing shortly.

That seems to be the feeling I get from the doctors, which is going to be an issue for my girlfriend as well. I bet if she pushed more, she could get it. I also think that they dont want to have a chance of being liable for anything, but Im not sure how that works.

I think the ISP needs to simplify the appeal for mental health. Its not like that question is an instant disqualification, you can still get it. They need to provide a forum for appeal, and possibly a free evaluation. There needs to be a consistent standard, not the luck of the draw or whoever has the money or resource to pursue it. The OP has enough money to retain a lawyer, and that is great. He should have a smooth(ish) appeal, and it should be fast. The rest of us? Not so lucky.

 

[downzero]

The interesting thing is, that due to the government's own stupid privacy laws, if you answered "no" to that question and lied, they might never know...

I'm not telling anyone to lie, but it seems like they're forcing people to lie when they word the question that broadly and then reject everyone who checks "yes" without further thought.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

My girlfriend answered "yes" to that same question, and now has thrown the whole getting her License application process under the bus. {I should have warned her about the question in advance.}

No, she is not a threat to herself or others.
Yes. She submitted a letter from her health care proffessional, but it was worded in a way that makes me think the caregiver was trying to throw a wrench into the works. An anti-gun doctor? Yes. That is what I am thinking

Not necessarily anti gun, but possibly anti-lawsuit. If your GF was involved in a shoot and it somehow came out that the Dr. recommended that she be issued a LTCH, it could open them up to a lawsuit.

Or he/she could be an anti.

 

[Gunpowder]

Seems that was a long time ago and you could have said no. Don't have the form but I think it refers to immediate period of time. Would be nice if they said (last (x) years, etc. Many people take depression medicine or have in the past from their regular doc. Not all of those are for psychiatric reasons. Diagnosed as a schizophrenic or seeing a "psychotherapist or psychiatrist professional then you would have to check yes.

 

[88GT]

Not necessarily anti gun, but possibly anti-lawsuit. If your GF was involved in a shoot and it somehow came out that the Dr. recommended that she be issued a LTCH, it could open them up to a lawsuit.

Or he/she could be an anti.

I can't imagine the Doc's letter has anything remotely related to a recommendation FOR an LTCH. If anything, it would be strictly limited to the doctor's professional evaluation of the individual's mental state and capacity.

Has the mental illness question always been on the application? I don't remember it. EDIT: I think the questioning has changed. When I applied, I think it said "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally ill?" or some similar verbiage.

 

[88GT]

It takes an honest man to tell the truth. It takes a man of character to tell the truth when the truth will deprive him, and a lie could so easily go unnoticed. Nice to know there are still people out there who feel the way you do. Repped.

I weighed not responding to this because I don't want to be seen as bashing the character of the man in question, but there's a level of stupidity involved as well when the truth will deprive you of your only legal avenue to carry a firearm for self defense.

The idea that the individual is somehow better for not lying and relegated to inferior methods of the protection of his life is NOT necessarily a good thing.

I despise the whole premise of the LTCH from the standpoint that we can keep bad things from happening by screening the applicants up front. If we had a functional penal system in this country, those at risk of repeating violent behavior would already be incarcerated. Which only leaves convicting the innocent before they do anything wrong by arbitrarily judging their past against subjective and moving standards.

I know it wasn't your intent, but applauding the OP for answering truthfully belies an approval of the process as legitimate and valid. The correct answer should be "What the %^($ business of it is the state's if I've sought outside neutral help to work through my issues?" Meanwhile the man who's drowned his issues at the local bar five nights a week can answer that he's never sought treatment for depression, still get his license to drive a motor vehicle, and be more of a threat to life by a factor of 10 I'm sure.

What a crock of .

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I can't imagine the Doc's letter has anything remotely related to a recommendation FOR an LTCH. If anything, it would be strictly limited to the doctor's professional evaluation of the individual's mental state and capacity.

If a Dr. were to write a letter stating that in their opinion the the person posed no threat to themselves or others, imo that would be a recommendation for the person to be issued one. At least in the eyes of a lawyer.

Or for instance, the Dr. stated that the person was a possibly a danger to themselves or others, would be a recommendation that the person not be issued.

Or the Dr. stated that the person was under care and as long as he followed medical advice he may not be a threat.

First one for, second one against, third wishy washy. At least that's my

 

[sparkyfender]

If a Dr. were to write a letter stating that in their opinion the the person posed no threat to themselves or others, imo that would be a recommendation for the person to be issued one. At least in the eyes of a lawyer.

Or for instance, the Dr. stated that the person was a possibly a danger to themselves or others, would be a recommendation that the person not be issued.

Or the Dr. stated that the person was under care and as long as he followed medical advice he may not be a threat.

First one for, second one against, third wishy washy. At least that's my

I consider what the doc wrote for my girlfriend as VERY wish-washy, and open to different interpetations.

I am really thinking "rejection" but I hope I am wrong.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I consider what the doc wrote for my girlfriend as VERY wish-washy, and open to different interpetations.

I am really thinking "rejection" but I hope I am wrong.

Wish her the best of luck from me.

 

[JoshuaW]

If a Dr. were to write a letter stating that in their opinion the the person posed no threat to themselves or others, imo that would be a recommendation for the person to be issued one. At least in the eyes of a lawyer.

Or for instance, the Dr. stated that the person was a possibly a danger to themselves or others, would be a recommendation that the person not be issued.

Or the Dr. stated that the person was under care and as long as he followed medical advice he may not be a threat.

First one for, second one against, third wishy washy. At least that's my

Maybe the OP can answer this one for, since he is in the field. How would one go about asking for a general "letter stating that the person is not a danger to themselves or others". I imagine flat out asking for one might be odd (especially a doctor that one hasnt seen before/in a long time), but maybe there is a different way to phrase it that would seem less odd.

And to sparkyfender, best of luck from me. We (my girlfriend and me, not multiple personalities ) are preparing for a similar situation soon. She hasnt applied yet.

 

[sparkyfender]

Wish her the best of luck from me.

Thank you very much!

 

[sparkyfender]

Maybe the OP can answer this one for, since he is in the field. How would one go about asking for a general "letter stating that the person is not a danger to themselves or others". I imagine flat out asking for one might be odd (especially a doctor that one hasnt seen before/in a long time), but maybe there is a different way to phrase it that would seem less odd.

And to sparkyfender, best of luck from me. We (my girlfriend and me, not multiple personalities ) are preparing for a similar situation soon. She hasnt applied yet.

Thanks, JoshuaW............ Best of luck to you as well.

 

[Chuck26287]

I weighed not responding to this because I don't want to be seen as bashing the character of the man in question, but there's a level of stupidity involved as well when the truth will deprive you of your only legal avenue to carry a firearm for self defense.

The idea that the individual is somehow better for not lying and relegated to inferior methods of the protection of his life is NOT necessarily a good thing.

I despise the whole premise of the LTCH from the standpoint that we can keep bad things from happening by screening the applicants up front. If we had a functional penal system in this country, those at risk of repeating violent behavior would already be incarcerated. Which only leaves convicting the innocent before they do anything wrong by arbitrarily judging their past against subjective and moving standards.

I know it wasn't your intent, but applauding the OP for answering truthfully belies an approval of the process as legitimate and valid. The correct answer should be "What the %^($ business of it is the state's if I've sought outside neutral help to work through my issues?" Meanwhile the man who's drowned his issues at the local bar five nights a week can answer that he's never sought treatment for depression, still get his license to drive a motor vehicle, and be more of a threat to life by a factor of 10 I'm sure.

What a crock of .

No. My applauding the OP for answering truthfully was very specifically worded to not make ANY reference to nature of the situation, but to simply state that when a man finds himself faced with telling the truth, when he knows it may deprive him of something he wants, or lying to get what he wants, the man who still tells the truth, in my opinion, is exhibiting a high level of character.

You are completely ignorant as to whether I approve of the particular process and my comment on the OP's character neither legitimizes nor validates anything.

 

[-ski-]

OK, I'm going to give you the rest of the story on this thread. Back in September 2010, I met with Bryan Lee Ciyou, to get started on the appeal. He was excellent in his approach, and we put together a whole binder full of information for the Board to "supplement" my original application. The approach was one to buttress my application in such a way that it would be very difficult to argue against my suitability for a LTCH.

I did have a brief psychological eval done, which came out clean. We sent verification that my treating psychologist from 19 years earlier was indeed dead. We sent copies of Ohio mental health records law, showing that after seven years, records can be destroyed, justifying why I couldn't produce any records.

Then we submitted all sorts of things that indicated from other parties that I was not impaired, such as my license from the State Board of Psychology, my contract work with federal agencies to perform fitness for duty evaluations, etc. So, in went my professional resume. The whole binder was more than an inch thick. The point was to provide additional information to clarify why I was a suitable person for an LTCH.

In the end, last March, almost a year after I originally applied, the board reconsidered my application and granted the LTCH. I did not have to go through the appeals process.

Here's where having an excellent attorney really helped. Bryan Lee Ciyou knows the law around LTCH and the adminstrative process very well; he's handled hundreds of cases in the area. He also knows the people involved in the process. He was a top-notch advocate for me.

This was not a cheap process; in all, with the psychological evaluation and everything, it cost me over $3K to go through the process to get the LTCH. It's worth having. And it was good to see that the process works, at least if one has the money and perseverance.

It was also good to get to know Bryan. If I am ever in a situation where I need an attorney in a firearms/self-defense situation, I know who I will call. The guy is competent, and I've dealt with quite a number of attorneys in the past, some as an expert witness, and few of them have impressed me.

-ski-

 

[ATM]

Congratulations!

Sorry you had to go through all of that to receive permission to exercise what should be your fundamental right, but kudos to both you and Mr. Ciyou for your determination and success.

 

[db1959]

Thats good news. Rep for inbound for you. How many would have the tenacity to stick with it and get there LTCH?