• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Who's still waiting in Everett MA

LenS said:
Do you mean that no law like this exists?


MGL C. 140 S. 131
Click to expand...

You are the LAST person I would argue legal matters with but DMH has written a letter to the MSP saying they will co-operate with mental health inquires but in practice the requests are ignored, no response is ever given. They don't even acknowledge that a request has been made. There is nothing, short of a court order, that can coerce DMH to release the information.

This goes back to HIPPA overriding State regulation. HIPPA is a ball buster.

I have a Psychiatrist as a personal reference. They can go straight to the source! [rofl]
 
Last edited:
Rick8325 said:
Argh. Took me 4-5 months to receive mine in the mail. 1 month of that was just to get my paperwork in because Silva is a PITA to get a hold of. Told me to come in on 6 different days and each time I showed up I was informed he wasn't in. Ended up going one night when he was in and there was about 30 people waiting. I got there 45 minutes early and was still #30 on the bottom of the sign in sheet. All I know is that when it's time for my renewal in a few years, I'll be residing in a new town.

Good luck with your situation.
Click to expand...

I was probably there with you that night. Last year i started trying to meet with silva on september 3rd 2011, i got the same run around, they had me come in and then they would tell me he was not there. And finally november 9th 2011 i got to meet and fill out my info on the computer.
 
I just had my interview today the officer said it would probably be a couple of months the stack of new applications that they had was a mile high I'm hoping I don't have to wait a long time but I feel like those odds aren't very good
 
agaldo81 said:
I was probably there with you that night. Last year i started trying to meet with silva on september 3rd 2011, i got the same run around, they had me come in and then they would tell me he was not there. And finally november 9th 2011 i got to meet and fill out my info on the computer.
Click to expand...

I put mine in back in 2010. Just think, if you're still in Everett by the time you have to renew, he'll probably be retired!
 
Scarecrow said:
The only way I could see them getting around the HIPAA violation would be if it was on the books as a law that "anyone applying for a LTC can have their records reviewed at DPH as part of the review for suitability". Since a law like that is so invasive as to be akin to a body cavity search, I don't think it exists.
Click to expand...

That won't even work. A state law simple moves it into the realm of a civil rights violation at the Federal level. You gonna loose that one. The reason why you are gonna loose that one is that if they can do it for mental health, they can do it for HIV or Sickle Cell or MS or..... and there are just two many "protected classes" there. You are not gonna win that one.
 
LenS said:
Do you mean that no law like this exists?


MGL C. 140 S. 131
Click to expand...
This is why I said "I don't THINK it exists." I am no Ma law scholar, and am not even a resident of that state, I just sympathize with the crappy situation you guys have to deal with. I'm actually quite surprised they even pushed that law into being, as HIPAA is a bastard. The only way that I could see it being enforceable is if the courts order DPH to release the records on every single case, or DPH replies back to the police chief with a single "yes" or "no" answer with no further explanation, and even that is pushing dangerously close to a HIPAA violation.
FreeWillie said:
You are the LAST person I would argue legal matters with but DMH has written a letter to the MSP saying they will co-operate with mental health inquires but in practice the requests are ignored, no response is ever given. They don't even acknowledge that a request has been made. There is nothing, short of a court order, that can coerce DMH to release the information.

This goes back to HIPPA overriding State regulation. HIPPA is a ball buster.
Click to expand...

This. Also, is it the Department of Mental Health, or the Department of Psychological Health?
FreeWillie said:
That won't even work. A state law simple moves it into the realm of a civil rights violation at the Federal level. You gonna loose that one. The reason why you are gonna loose that one is that if they can do it for mental health, they can do it for HIV or Sickle Cell or MS or..... and there are just two many "protected classes" there. You are not gonna win that one.
Scarecrow said:
The only way I could see them getting around the HIPAA violation would be if it was on the books as a law that "anyone applying for a LTC can have their records reviewed at DPH as part of the review for suitability". Since a law like that is so invasive as to be akin to a body cavity search, I don't think it exists.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Last edited:
March 6th I went in filled out paperwork, handed in my letters
Last week of april my check was cashed
May
June
July
Aug

So I'm somewhere in between 5-6 months waiting time, which I hear is par for Everett (however not sure Why)

I've been in contact with Agaldo

Let's do something about this.
 
FreeWillie said:
You are the LAST person I would argue legal matters with but DMH has written a letter to the MSP saying they will co-operate with mental health inquires but in practice the requests are ignored, no response is ever given. They don't even acknowledge that a request has been made. There is nothing, short of a court order, that can coerce DMH to release the information.

This goes back to HIPPA overriding State regulation. HIPPA is a ball buster.
Click to expand...

No argument from me. Just reporting what is really required and happening.

BTW, what I quoted was a 1998 MA law. HIPAA came later than that.

I also suspect that by signing the form for our LTC, we are giving away our rights for them to do all these checks. I recall words to that effect on the ME and FL permit applications. Don't recall if it is on the MA form or not but that is sort of pro forma whenever we have to sign forms for damn near anything.


Scarecrow said:
This is why I said "I don't THINK it exists." I am no Ma law scholar, and am not even a resident of that state, I just sympathize with the crappy situation you guys have to deal with. I'm actually quite surprised they even pushed that law into being, as HIPAA is a bastard. The only way that I could see it being enforceable is if the courts order DPH to release the records on every single case, or DPH replies back to the police chief with a single "yes" or "no" answer with no further explanation, and even that is pushing dangerously close to a HIPAA violation.
Click to expand...

The police chief doesn't get details from DMH, just a "hit" or "no hit". If a "hit" they deny the person unless the applicant produces an Affidavit from an MD with magic words on it (cured).

I'm not part of the "system" checking this stuff, but my sources report that DMH is cooperating by getting back to the PDs with "yes" or "no" info in a timely manner.

Nobody's going to take them to court on DMH checks, as they will never get their LTC (or FID) and I wouldn't bet that the courts would find for the plaintiff. I would expect a ruling that it is "too important to public safety" to protect MH info from the decision process of arming someone with a firearm . . . and thus carve out a legal exception even w/o permission of an applicant.

My Wife works with HIPAA, so I get an earful every so often. However I've been in some of the largest, most respected hospitals in Boston and could easily view HIPAA sensitive info if I was so inclined, once found an open wireless from some surgical floor (since 3 hospitals were within spitting distance, no idea which one it was), have watched personal medical records thrown in regular trash . . . in fact my PCP finally removed his shredder from the office, he didn't bother to use it anyway! [sad]
 
Sigma214 said:
I just had my interview today the officer said it would probably be a couple of months the stack of new applications that they had was a mile high I'm hoping I don't have to wait a long time but I feel like those odds aren't very good
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ dude, will you stand up for yourself already? It's people like you that make these guys realize they can stomp all over us.

I'd have been on the phone with a lawyer the day after their deadline was up.
 
LenS said:
I've been in some of the largest, most respected hospitals in Boston and could easily view HIPAA sensitive info if I was so inclined, once found an open wireless from some surgical floor (since 3 hospitals were within spitting distance, no idea which one it was), have watched personal medical records thrown in regular trash . . . in fact my PCP finally removed his shredder from the office, he didn't bother to use it anyway! [sad]
Click to expand...

Holy crap... our DSS would have my testicles for earrings if that happened. They are trying to push us into separating the behavioral health information out of the rest of the record and store it in a different room entirely!

I'm shredding post-it notes that don't even have personal information on them("Pt had md appt on this day. Call for update") in the off chance that I wrote something sensitive on that same pad, and the information might be retrievable, since HIPAA violations are dealt with faster than homicides are around this place.
 
Can't we just have an entirely different system like every other state, including CA, that doesn't require this totally convoluted process just to possess for home and "sporting" purposes? Seriously it's as though we are essentially leasing our rights and possessions for 6 years at a time. If they want these checks and balances in regards to "carry" then fine, but the background check in place every time you purchase should more than suffice for those outside of wanting to concealed carry. Hopefully the Hightower case changes something.
 
Supposedly 5-6 Months is par for this town (SMH) Theoretically mine should arrive any week. Needless to say i'll be relocating towns, and probably states as well.
 
Jesse C. Cohen said:
It's unbelievable what Everett is doing. Even other law enforcement agencies are shaking their heads in disgust. It is practices like these that take away from the many licensing officers in other departments who do their jobs with courtesy and efficiency.
Click to expand...

+1

I agree with you Jesse. Have you met with anyone yet? There are guys waiting from 2 months-11months. "The LTCs are being reviewed by the state. No he's not in today, he's on vacation for the next couple of weeks." I have heard it all from these guys that are getting the run around by this city. I am very happy I got my unrestricted LTC and I shouldn't complain but this is downright bullshit.

Thanks for all your hard work Jesse. You know we stick together as a family and NES helps its own.
 
Originally Posted by Jesse C. Cohen, Esq.
It's unbelievable what Everett is doing. Even other law enforcement agencies are shaking their heads in disgust. It is practices like these that take away from the many licensing officers in other departments who do their jobs with courtesy and efficiency.
Click to expand...

+2
 
Last edited:
FreeWillie said:
You are the LAST person I would argue legal matters with but DMH has written a letter to the MSP saying they will co-operate with mental health inquires but in practice the requests are ignored, no response is ever given. They don't even acknowledge that a request has been made. There is nothing, short of a court order, that can coerce DMH to release the information.

This goes back to HIPPA overriding State regulation. HIPPA is a ball buster.

I have a Psychiatrist as a personal reference. They can go straight to the source! [rofl]
Click to expand...

i practice medicine for a living and i CANNOT EVER 100% reveal ANY INFO to ANYONE at ANY time. I cannot unless the patient gives me verbal consent, but written is preferred. i get yelled at all the time by spouses and parents. but, I will not reveal anything. I will not even say anything to the GOV, and they ask. I simply say it is confidential. they accept that. But, they try. The "trying" part is what concerns me. they will actually ask in their paperwork. unless the patient says I can, i will not. i imagine that this is what goes on in the LTC process. just tripping up a worker into releasing info that a file may exist can lead to denial based on that lovely "suitability" thing.
 
Last edited:
Jesse C. Cohen said:
Interesting point. Virtually anything can be used to determine suitability.There are many departments that will ask if the applicant takes medication or sees a psychiatrist. This exceeds the police department's authority. It doesn't stop them from asking. Because nobody (except for firearms attorneys and NES scholars) knows that they have no right to ask the question or to expect an answer. The legislature when enacting Ch. 140 sec. 131 contemplated the issue of mental illness and decided that only if someone was committed to a mental institution should that affect their eligibility to be issued and LTC.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. This should be a sticky to help people wanting to get their LTC's not to get blindsided into putting down a medication or ANYTHING medical related when they don't have to. I suppose most people would think that not disclosing it would be fraud and would just put everything down. This is just aggravating more than anything and it's despicable what some towns do. Granted some towns give out ALP LTC's without any issues and within a month but that isn't the case with some of these inner cities.
 
IMHO, people tend to incriminate themselves because they are either scared, threatened, or lack the IQ to think complex situations through. the PD knows these tactics well. jails are filled with people that, well, got caught! keeping one's mouth shut goes a long way.

...and i aint even an attorney!

that said, i think a lot of PDs are not out to get you. they just want to see good people in their town enjoy life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

i will play devil's advocate for a second. what if someone had a DMH report and it was indeed for mental instability. what if they are "treated" but not 100% taking meds, etc. they are your neighbor. you have kids. his/her marriage is rocky and he/she lost their job. THEY HAVE A GUN because we want to defend their freedoms so their past never made it to the LTC process. i see situations like this play out daily in my job. the greater good versus the individual case that scares me. it is really tough. sometimes i actually think the Chief reviewing each case is indeed better (ducking from people throwing things at me). again, we live in an imperfect world and MA is not a part of Free America. i don't have all the answers.
 
Do they have to respond to that letter or can they just ignore it? If they can just ignore it then may be worth buying a full page add in the Globe and reprinting it there.
 
MightyGreek said:
Do they have to respond to that letter or can they just ignore it? If they can just ignore it then may be worth buying a full page add in the Globe and reprinting it there.
Click to expand...

They can and likely will ignore it (probably with glee!).

The sheep could care less and all that a full page Globe ad (assuming the Globe would even accept such an ad) would accomplish is to drain the GOAL treasury.
 
Last edited:
LenS said:
They can and likely will ignore it (probably with glee!).

The sheep could care less and all that a full page Globe ad (assuming the Globe would even accept such an ad) would accomplish is to drain the GOAL treasury.
Click to expand...

That's kinda what I figured. Just trying to think of ways to get it out into the public that they are purposely ignoring the issue and not following their own laws. The Globe could ignore it too but come on now, I can be hopeful! [rofl]
 
Jesse C. Cohen said:
No offense, but that's like saying why don't we just do away with the 4th Amendment and do warrantless searches on houses that we think might have illegal narcotics. Sure, the "greater good" may be served when the police raid a drug dealer's house, but the Bill of Rights are not written for the "greater good". We have a Fundamental Right to Bear Arms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

What makes a chief of police qualified to make judgments on mental illness treatment and compliance with prescribed medicine? The Massachusetts Legislature did not intend for the chief to make decisions on this basis.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't have all the answers. But, I was just throwing it out there. I use training and judgement all the time in my job. In fact, I can strip someone of their freedom with a section order if I personally feel they are a threat to themselves and/or others. Our world is filled with maybes and unknowns. We have rights, absolutely. But we also have a duty to protect others and sometimes that means stepping on someone's rights.

please do not take that as anti-gun or anti-freedom. I am 99% in favor of the GOV leaving us alone. I am ONLY talking about the few cases that we must recognize as potentially dangerous. This is where I think MA is trying to use suitability as a defense. I do not agree if it is because the PD dislikes you shirt so they deny an LTC. The fall down drunk who has no statutory disqualifies that has shown to be unstable, well, we need to use our heads.
 

Similar threads

Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
2
Views
238
dfritz
D
SD shooting in Chicopee, MA
Replies
1
Views
211
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
MA compliant uppers - in Mil or shipped to MA
2
Replies
30
Views
866
Lxpony
Lxpony
Turkey Hunting in MA
Replies
29
Views
570
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Are lower 80% prohibited in MA...yet?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
EJFudd
EJFudd
Back
Top Bottom