FID and Mental Illness

Joined
May 4, 2019
Messages
3
Likes
5
Location
North Attleboro, MA
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Hey all! I'm interested in learning to hunt, but am wondering how feasible it would be for me to actually get an FID.

I have bipolar and an anxiety disorder. I have no history of violence or suicidal behavior, and have never gotten in trouble with the law. My psych issues are very well managed with medication, therapy, and lifestyle factors.

Here's where things get tricky... last fall I went through a bit of a rough patch and my anxiety became unmanageable. My psychiatrist and I decided that the best course of action was for me to go inpatient for a bit, just to get my medications sorted. I spent a few days in a psychiatric ward (voluntarily), got my medications straightened out, and was able to move on with life.

I've heard that Massachusetts doesn't like giving FIDs/LTCs to people who have had any sort of psychiatric hospitalizations, regardless of circumstance. Is it still possible to get an FID despite having a past psychiatric hospitalization, or should I just not bother? If it IS possible to get an FID, are there any additional hoops I'll need to jump through?

Thank you!
 
If the PD is made aware of your voluntary treatment, I'm certain that they would petition the court for a denial and that the Mass marsupial judges would agree with the PD. That said, nothing in MGL requires you to provide them with your medical history. And as of today, records of voluntary treatment are not legally accessible to LE. Those that get denied are usually those that volunteer info or answer "additional questions", providing that info to the PD.
 
you are only LEGALLY disqualified if you were confined against your will IIRC.

With a LTC there is that "suitability" thing, and they can deny you for chewing gum.

A FID is different story.

If asked if you were confined I would answer NO.

The question you want to ask yourself is do you really think it is a good idea to have a gun at this point?

Remember your Doctor, if he/she finds out, can have the cops on your doorstep to confiscate them... so never tell anyone you have a FID or firearms if you plan on keeping them.

Try fishing.... catch and release... very peaceful.

and NO I am not kidding.
 
I don't see why you couldn't get an FID just because you have some mental health issues. After all, they give them to democrats.
But in all seriousness, I'd ask your psychiatrist if he or she thinks it would be a good idea. If so, ask him or her for a letter of recommendation.
 
I don't see why you couldn't get an FID just because you have some mental health issues. After all, they give them to democrats.
But in all seriousness, I'd ask your psychiatrist if he or she thinks it would be a good idea. If so, ask him or her for a letter of recommendation.
BAD idea! Most docs (of all types) seem to be indoctrinated that gun ownership is a very bad thing. Also a letter of recommendation from a psychiatrist will open pandora's box with the local PD. Don't do this.

Fair enough to ask yourself if you feel it is smart to own guns or not and proceed on that basis.
 
Thank you for the feedback!

I only see my psychiatrist once every few months. We don't really have a close relationship, and I'm unsure of his position on firearms in general, so I'm very hesitant to bring this up with him.

My therapist (who I've been seeing for years and have a good relationship with) feels that I'm fit to own a firearm. Again, I don't have any history of self-harm or violence.

I looked over the FID application again. I might ask a lawyer for clarification on what legally qualifies as "committed", and proceed from there.
 
I am not a lawyer, but I can say with reasonable certainty that "committed" is an admission to a hospital or other medical facility against your will.

In the bad old days we called them "pink slips" as the paperwork from the courts came on pink paper.

It has to be court ordered.

If you were free to check out, even against medical orders, you were not "committed"
 
With a LTC there is that "suitability" thing, and they can deny you for chewing gum.

A FID is different story.
Not so. Suitability is very much a real thing with an FID, the process is just a little different as the CoP has to file, the court will still agree. Also, if there is anything that they will deny unsuitable for an LTC, they will also file to deny an FID. This is because the standard for suitability is the same for an FID as an LTC, so if they give you the FID and then deny as unsuitable for an LTC there will be a good case to appeal.
 
Welcome to the forum! Glad you have been able to sort out a proper course of meds to maintain your mental health. So many people with such issues face serious challenges in order to do that.

Len2A's responses give you some solid information. Voluntary admission is not accessible to LEO's and not pertinent to your application. Might not be a bad idea to check with a 2A familiar lawyer, but up to you. The wording in the application question is a little vague- might be intentional to smoke out information that really isn't the state's business. No section 12 / temporary order when admitted? I've heard of that happening to people who admit voluntarily because the medical professionals think it's necessary. Don't answer, but if yes I'd definitely discuss with a lawyer. Seems like that would be a 'no' anyway in your case. Awesome that your therapist gives you the thumbs up- you really should be good to go.


What type of hunting are you interested in? If birds, shotgun is of course the only way to go. If something else and you have trouble with the FID (doubtful that you will have trouble), as before mentioned bowhunting is a great way to get into hunting. Certainly more challenging but definitely rewarding. Seems that you are new to firearms? Simply practicing to improve your skills for the next hunt can be very Zen-like and is a good way to reduce stress.
 
BAD idea! Most docs (of all types) seem to be indoctrinated that gun ownership is a very bad thing. Also a letter of recommendation from a psychiatrist will open pandora's box with the local PD. Don't do this.

Fair enough to ask yourself if you feel it is smart to own guns or not and proceed on that basis.
Right on. Remember, the more you keep your mouth shut, the less things will come back and bite you. Jack.
 
Right on. Remember, the more you keep your mouth shut, the less things will come back and bite you. Jack.

This.

Make sure that you know what the actual questions are and answer those questions. I have seen licensing officers “paraphrase” the questions making them more encompassing than they actually are.

Bob
 
OP- read Lens's posts closely. your medical history is not relevant. anything you voluntarily disclose will not be used in any way except to deny you a right. further if you voluntarily sought treatment you are not a federally prohibited person. as Len points out, any discussions about 2A or firearms with psychiatrist will be a turd sandwich.
 
Make sure that you know what the actual questions are and answer those questions. I have seen licensing officers “paraphrase” the questions making them more encompassing than they actually are.
Huh?

In Massachusetts, "the actual questions" are
the sentences that come out of the licensing officer's mouth,
as well as those which appear on the application form,
which end in question marks.

If an interviewer asks a question "Q1"
which is different from but superficially resembles
a question "Q2" on the application form,
and the applicant decides to just pretend they were asked Q2
and doesn't respond with the true answer for Q1,
then they've lied during the application process.

And if the discrepancy is ever discovered -
even after several renewal cycles -
they're at least going to get their license revoked.

At least.
 
Huh?

In Massachusetts, "the actual questions" are
the sentences that come out of the licensing officer's mouth,
as well as those which appear on the application form,
which end in question marks.

If an interviewer asks a question "Q1"
which is different from but superficially resembles
a question "Q2" on the application form,
and the applicant decides to just pretend they were asked Q2
and doesn't respond with the true answer for Q1,
then they've lied during the application process.

And if the discrepancy is ever discovered -
even after several renewal cycles -
they're at least going to get their license revoked.

At least.

I had an experience with my wife where the questions asked were not the questions that are on the licensing for which is printed out and signed by the applicant.

For example (because I was there and I remember it):

Question #4:
Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any criminal case?

The question she was asked was “Have you ever been in court?”

A very different question which could have a very different answer.

This was her third or fourth renewal and she knew the questions so she got him back on track by calling him on it. She brought a copy of the application to the appointment.

He was an a**h***. Especially to women.

When she went up to the window and said that she was here for her LTC appointment the first words out of his mouth were “Women don’t need guns. What do you need a fun for?”

He didn’t last long in the department.

Bob
 
Huh?

In Massachusetts, "the actual questions" are
the sentences that come out of the licensing officer's mouth,
as well as those which appear on the application form,
which end in question marks.

If an interviewer asks a question "Q1"
which is different from but superficially resembles
a question "Q2" on the application form,
and the applicant decides to just pretend they were asked Q2
and doesn't respond with the true answer for Q1,
then they've lied during the application process.

And if the discrepancy is ever discovered -
even after several renewal cycles -
they're at least going to get their license revoked.

At least.


Interesting thought process, but where are you getting this idea?

LO: "Have you ever interacted with the police in a negative way?"
You: "I have never been arrested or appeared in court for any criminal offense."

Where is the lie? You answered the question on the application while semi ignoring his wording trying to trap you. This is just an easy example, but could be done the same way throughout the application process. I'm sure some licensing officers would take offense and give you some crap about it, or even refuse to put the application through and cause you headaches. But they can't do anything to you for answering the question printed rather than the question asked.
 
I had an experience with my wife where the questions asked were not the questions that are on the licensing for which is printed out and signed by the applicant.

For example (because I was there and I remember it):

Question #4:
Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any criminal case?

The question she was asked was “Have you ever been in court?”

A very different question which could have a very different answer.

This was her third or fourth renewal and she knew the questions so she got him back on track by calling him on it. She brought a copy of the application to the appointment.
Agreed, she did the right thing.

If I was ever asked that it could be interesting! First time I ever remember being in court was when my folks bought a house (I was 7 yrs old IIRC), the closing was at the Land Court in Dedham. Before I bought my house I visited the Land Court and did my own title search, jury duty 3 times, sued a contractor in small claims court, etc. I could bore him to death with factual answers (even excluding times I was in a courthouse as a Constable). He'd end the idiotic questioning in short order.
 
I had an experience with my wife where the questions asked were not the questions that are on the licensing for which is printed out and signed by the applicant.
Interesting thought process, but where are you getting this idea?

Did I somehow miss the Massachusetts law providing that
only the questions on the state application form can be used to determine suitability?


First time I ever remember being in court was when my folks bought a house (I was 7 yrs old IIRC), the closing was at the Land Court in Dedham. Before I bought my house I visited the Land Court and did my own title search, jury duty 3 times, sued a contractor in small claims court, etc. I could bore him to death with factual answers (even excluding times I was in a courthouse as a Constable). He'd end the idiotic questioning in short order.
Yahbut if you got some notion that they asked the "wrong" question;
say, "Have you ever been in court?",
you wouldn't answer with a flat "No.", would you?
 
Did I somehow miss the Massachusetts law providing that
only the questions on the state application form can be used to determine suitability?



Yahbut if you got some notion that they asked the "wrong" question;
say, "Have you ever been in court?",
you wouldn't answer with a flat "No.", would you?


Did I somehow forget the part of mass law where I have to answer any question some cop feels like asking me? They can ask whatever they want, the only answers they will get are to the questions on the application. Did you miss the video about not talking to the police?
 
Did I somehow forget the part of mass law where I have to answer any question some cop feels like asking me? They can ask whatever they want, the only answers they will get are to the questions on the application. Did you miss the video about not talking to the police?
I still think that "I have a gun and I know how to use it!"
is a pretty funny summary of how not to break the ice at a traffic stop.

But I'll allow as to how "Am I under arrest, or am I free to go?"
must be a pretty epic ice-breaker at a Mass LTC interview.
 
Even if you get an FID, how would you deal with the 4473 question 11f when you go to buy a gun?

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
 
Even if you get an FID, how would you deal with the 4473 question 11f when you go to buy a gun?

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
No is the right answer. Voluntary is not a commitment.
 
Even if you get an FID, how would you deal with the 4473 question 11f when you go to buy a gun?

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

No is the right answer. Voluntary is not a commitment.

Also, no adjudication involved.

ad·ju·di·cate
[əˈjo͞odəˌkāt]
judge · adjudge · try · hear · examine · arbitrate · decide on · decide · settle · resolve · determine · pronounce on · give a ruling on · sit in judgment on · ·
referee · umpire
  • pronounce or declare judicially.
    "he was adjudicated bankrupt"
 
I still think that "I have a gun and I know how to use it!"
is a pretty funny summary of how not to break the ice at a traffic stop.

But I'll allow as to how "Am I under arrest, or am I free to go?"
must be a pretty epic ice-breaker at a Mass LTC interview.

Yeah, I am not saying it would go easy just that there is nothing requiring you to answer additional questions. However I would guess in most cases they are not trying to trip you up too badly, and simply paraphrasing the questions leaving you in a fine place if your answer is directly to the question and just a little out of synch with what they actually asked.
 
Yeah, I am not saying it would go easy just that there is nothing requiring you to answer additional questions.
Yahbut Massachusetts is a "may issue" state,
so there's nothing requiring them to
issue you a license.


The mechanism of "may issue" is that no issuing authority
has to give a license to someone they consider "unsuitable".
And any interview question that could conceivably help determine
whether or not an applicant is "suitable" will pass judicial muster.


However I would guess in most cases they are not trying to trip you up too badly, and simply paraphrasing the questions leaving you in a fine place if your answer is directly to the question and just a little out of synch with what they actually asked.
A really thin example of my concern:

It took a Federal lawsuit to establish that
lawful permanent resident aliens are entitled to LTCs.
So yeah, responding to "are you a US citizen?" with
"I'm a legal permanent resident, and here's my Green card"​
is rather responsive.

In an interview that's taken an adversarial tone,
I have to wonder whether or not,
"No; I'm a legal permanent resident, and here's my Green card"​
may be more prudent.

(Thin: that's all laid out in question #1 nowadays,
and it's the one question that doesn't ask for written elaboration).


Trying to skate around a question by re-enacting Bill Clinton's deposition
probably isn't fooling anybody. At best, they'll re-ask, and/or probe deeper.
At worst, if the interviewer tells their chief, "he gave evasive answers",
I think we know how this is going to end.


Does anyone with a better memory of their LTC interview(s)
than I recall of mine, remember how deep it went?

I don't even recall my interviewers orally "double checking"
the answers to any of application questions 2-15. For example,
"so you definitely never ever renounced your US citizenship?", LOL.
(Maybe they ask that if you show up wearing a "Ché" T-shirt).
But all my answers were "no".

Has anyone ever answered one of those questions "yes",
and had their written excuse be so crystal clear and adequate
that the interviewer didn't even touch base on the issue?
 
Alan, you are being over-dramatic. If you politely stand yourground for unwarranted intrusions, they will usually back down and no reprecussions occur. To wit: former chief tried to push for a list of what applicants owned upon renewal. A former Sgt (who had left to become chief elsewhere, retired and moved back into town) refused, as my Wife and I both did as well. He backed off and none of us ever had a problem.
 
Huh?

In Massachusetts, "the actual questions" are
the sentences that come out of the licensing officer's mouth,
as well as those which appear on the application form,
which end in question marks.

If an interviewer asks a question "Q1"
which is different from but superficially resembles
a question "Q2" on the application form,
and the applicant decides to just pretend they were asked Q2
and doesn't respond with the true answer for Q1,
then they've lied during the application process.

And if the discrepancy is ever discovered -
even after several renewal cycles -
they're at least going to get their license revoked.

At least.

Protip, to anyone reading....

If your police department is actually this awful (eg, making attempts to intentionally trying to mindf*** you during the LTC interview) you might as well consider your LTC marked for death, anyways.

Most of them just read the shit you wrote on the form and convert it into the computer, and any dialogue consists of verifying what you wrote on the paper, etc (in case they can't read your writing or something, etc).

Most LTC "interviews" in decent towns don't involve f***y rhetoric/trick questions.

-Mike
 
Alan, you are being over-dramatic. If you politely stand yourground for unwarranted intrusions, they will usually back down and no reprecussions occur. To wit: former chief tried to push for a list of what applicants owned upon renewal. A former Sgt (who had left to become chief elsewhere, retired and moved back into town) refused, as my Wife and I both did as well. He backed off and none of us ever had a problem.
Len, with all due respect, you can't compare these situations, well connected and with LE background, with what the average citizen experiences if they push back.
 
Len, with all due respect, you can't compare these situations, well connected and with LE background, with what the average citizen experiences if they push back.
I doubt even 1% of applicants had the guts to challenge his BS. Most folks are afraid of authority and meekly go along. But I'm pretty sure that if anyone challenged him, he would have backed down.
 
Back
Top Bottom