Is Depression a CCW Disqualifier?

I was having this issue when reading the question too. I was treated for ADD/ADHD as a child, even though I know know that I never needed that junk. I guess I should circle yes and explain the circumstances? I hope this wouldn't affect anything.

Mossberg Kid said:

All of this information and feedback is TREMENDOUSLY informative, insightful and helpful.

Click to expand...

Hey man no problem, that is why we are all here on MSP. We wouldn't be if we did not want to be a resource to are fellow 2A brothers/sisters. Plus I have been through this with my own app so I will definitely let you know how it goes. With all the info I just blasted out, I'm not too concerned about having to defend myself on an appeal if I am denied. Like I said, I put NO on the app asking about ever been treated, which was a mistake on my end from flying through the app, but I told the officer the truth when they asked so really would not make any sense to "lie/hide" on an app then tell the office the truth. His report is what goes to Pikesville anyways, the app is what he uses for his investigation, which is what i was told. Glad we can help.

OLM-Medic said:

I was having this issue when reading the question too. I was treated for ADD/ADHD as a child, even though I know know that I never needed that junk. I guess I should circle yes and explain the circumstances? I hope this wouldn't affect anything.

Click to expand...

I would. It sucks but that is not grounds to deny you. If they do, appeal it and use all the info I just posted showing why your rights have not only been violated, but your are also be discriminated against. They'll love that.

Certainly a lot to digest......so, is the general concensus still - answer "yes, see attached explaination"?

And the unintended answer is to never seek treatment or mention to any MD. And don't forfit your minor children's rights for life w/o their consent unless they are unambigiously Batshit crazy.

Biggfoot44 said:

And the unintended answer is to never seek treatment or mention to any MD. And don't forfit your minor children's rights for life w/o their consent unless they are unambigiously Batshit crazy.

Click to expand...

Not sure where to go with that but only you can ultimately decide what you circle. The stuff I posted, I feel, shows why they have no legal grounds to hold anything outside the law against you.

Since they deal with matters of critical import to the safety and general welfare , there should be similar safegards to be eligable to serve in the GA .

zoostation said:

I'll also add that, if you want a snapshot of how the current state administration feels about mental illness and firearms now, the MD Police Training Commission will not certify any retired officer on their range for a LEOSA permit if that individual has ever been treated by a psychiatrist at any time in their life, even if they were one year old and a psychiatrist saw them for five minutes. No exceptions, no explanations, a blanket denial, check "yes" here and you are done, go home. And I know for a fact it's been brought to their attention and complained about by at least one FOP lodge, and they won't change it. The directions apparently come from "up high." If they treat retired police that way, you know how the administration is going to treat law-abiding non-LEO citizens.

Click to expand...

I thought permits for retired Leos wad a federal thing, not a state thing?

Yes , BUT . Two key requirements are an ID specifing retired and an annual requalification. Some Depts refuse to issue any IDs for retirees , and some Depts and/ or state level Commisions add their own requirements on top for issueing "qualifications" .

AliasNeo07 said:

I thought permits for retired Leos wad a federal thing, not a state thing?

Click to expand...

It is but you have to qualify annually in either your home state or residence state. MPTC won't let anyone who checks "yes" to ever having seen a doctor on their application qualify with them.

These are also the same guys (MPTC) who Frosh wanted to put in charge of new training requirements for citizens here.

So... should the GF a) talk to her psychiatrist and then fill out the application? b) go to his office and get a copy of her records but not talk to him, and then fill out the application to the best of her ability? or c) consult an attorney first?

Mossberg Kid said:

So... should the GF a) talk to her psychiatrist and then fill out the application? b) go to his office and get a copy of her records but not talk to him, and then fill out the application to the best of her ability? or c) consult an attorney first?

Click to expand...

She should fill out the app. Be honest in her answers. She should not volunteer any more than is needed. No records unless they are asked for. That is just my opinion. She should also be a member of SAF. If she is denied a permit based on her history, perhaps they would consider representing her should legal actions be necessary.

Can you just not answer the question at all?

If that were possible, it's what I would do.

I'm also very interested in this, as i was just looking over the permit application today.

After my kid was born I had panic attacks for a short time, and was very briefly treated for anxiety (medication for about 3 months - 2 psychologist visits)

Do you think they would deny a permit based on that alone?
What would be the best thing to put in the explanation?

Walter said:

Can you just not answer the question at all?

If that were possible, it's what I would do.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It is unlikely they would ever find out, but if they do it is cause for revocation of your permit.

jdanna said:

Do you think they would deny a permit based on that alone?
What would be the best thing to put in the explanation?

Click to expand...

No, I do not think they would deny a permit based on this. They are looking for bigger issues.

To keep it simple, let me summarizes pretty much what Teratos and I have said already so folks don't have to keep asking the same questions.

1.) The application asks "have you EVER" not "are you currently" or "unless you have been released from care" or "only seen for xyz conditions"

2.) If you have EVER been treated (i.e. seen by a psychiatrist, your family doc, the ER, or voluntarily/involuntarily seen in a mental health ward of some kind, etc) for anything from ADD/ADHD, bipolar, depression, anxiety, PTSD, all the way up to and including schizophrenia, then technically speaking, you HAVE been seen and/or treated for a mental health condition, even if it was 30 years ago or for 1 day, doesn't matter. The law, as it is written, does not consider those factors. It is a yes or no question.

3.) YOU are the only one who can decide what to answer in your app. Teratos and I are simply here to give a medical perspective and help define the the medical terms in the app/laws. We are NOT lawyers and cannot one way or the other give you "legal advice"as to what you should circle on your app. It is your responsibility to interpret the information how you see fit and thus make your decision. I know I have gone out of my way to cite actual laws and policies to help shed light on the topic and not just rattle off random information, so I encourage you to read my previous posts

4.) Teratos and I have also explained that your records, release or not, are NOT 100% safe from the law if they come knocking with all the right documentation. Food for thought.

5.) There are repercussions for lying as stated in the application. Again, food for thought.

I hope this post helps answer 95% of the questions thus far and those to come and pretty and outlines how to approach these questions logically and truthfully. Feel free to post something if I did not hit on something you are looking for.

Again, neither I, nor Teratos are lawyers so please use this information at your own discretion, risks, etc.

EDIT: if you read the citations in my previous post, CCW laws in MD do not list mental health AT ALL as far as a disqualifications for a permit. Yes, the application does ask, but the application is not the law, it is just that, an application.

OLM-Medic said:

I was having this issue when reading the question too. I was treated for ADD/ADHD as a child, even though I know know that I never needed that junk. I guess I should circle yes and explain the circumstances? I hope this wouldn't affect anything.

Click to expand...

Read my post above. May be the same situation you were in.

I was diagnosed as depressed in my early teen years 13-16 or so. I saw s shrink and was on meds, and spent 3 days inpatient as a voluntary admission. My DR had said it was a good idea, but I later realized he was trying to bill my insurance was all. I've not been on anything since 17, have no issues and take no meds. I know I need to explain the No 18 about being treated, but what about No17, where it talks about confinement. I know wording plays a huge role here, was a voluntary check in such as that considered confinement or commitment?

thenoxus1 said:

I was diagnosed as depressed in my early teen years 13-16 or so. I saw s shrink and was on meds, and spent 3 days inpatient as a voluntary admission. My DR had said it was a good idea, but I later realized he was trying to bill my insurance was all. I've not been on anything since 17, have no issues and take no meds. I know I need to explain the No 18 about being treated, but what about No17, where it talks about confinement. I know wording plays a huge role here, was a voluntary check in such as that considered confinement or commitment?

Click to expand...

This is a question for a lawyer. Committed implies involuntarily so that would be a NO, in my book, but the "confined" business is something I am not sure how to approach and not sure how that could apply to you. It was not involuntarily so thats a start, but again, interpretation is key and I don't know what they mean by "confined."

It is redundant because they are essentially asking the same thing in question 18. Then again this law is almost 60 yo so go figure.

Yea the verbage threw me off and i wasn't sure. Thanks, I may jsut say yes and explain..