• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Am I Eligible for chp if I had some social anxiety and phobia issues?

jcman01

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1
Location
Virginia
I had some social anxiety and phobia issues, and voluntarily sought the help of a psychiatrist, to help me work through them. Basic "did you hate your mother" type stuff. Does this mean that I am not eligible to receive a permit to carry? I live in Virginia. Thanks for any advice and input
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
I had some social anxiety and phobia issues, and voluntarily sought the help of a psychiatrist, to help me work through them. Basic "did you hate your mother" type stuff. Does this mean that I am not eligible to receive a permit to carry? I live in Virginia. Thanks for any advice and input

Keep in mind that IANAL or a psychiatrist! This is strictly a layman's view of your situation. Most places I have held a permit usually use the terms "adjudged" and/or "committed" on their applications, and (as of today, anyway) there is still "doctor-patient confidentiality" (the shrink can't narc on you, unless you admitted to performing serious criminal acts.

Unless you admitted yourself to a mental health facility, then you weren't "adjudged or committed" in the English language, and I don't believe it would be wrong of you to answer "No" on any forms. It would be a different story if the question is "Have you ever engaged the services of a mental health professional?" From what you say, the truthful answer would then be "Yes." Good luck, and PAX...
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
there is still "doctor-patient confidentiality" (the shrink can't narc on you, unless you admitted to performing serious criminal acts.

I agree he's probably eligible but just to clear up Doctor Patient Confidentiality...HPPA sends all records into a central Database now. Homeland Security is now taking responsibility for those records and using them to weed out security threats.

As more mental health disclosure laws are passed, they will be used more to determine eligibility to pass background checks I think.

A lot of Doctors organizations are protesting Homeland Security's involvement.

There is NO Doctor/Patient confidentially anymore.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I agree he's probably eligible but just to clear up Doctor Patient Confidentiality...HPPA sends all records into a central Database now. Homeland Security is now taking responsibility for those records and using them to weed out security threats.

As more mental health disclosure laws are passed, they will be used more to determine eligibility to pass background checks I think.

A lot of Doctors organizations are protesting Homeland Security's involvement.

There is NO Doctor/Patient confidentially anymore.

And so ends people needing help actually seeking help.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I agree he's probably eligible but just to clear up Doctor Patient Confidentiality...HPPA sends all records into a central Database now. Homeland Security is now taking responsibility for those records and using them to weed out security threats.

As more mental health disclosure laws are passed, they will be used more to determine eligibility to pass background checks I think.

A lot of Doctors organizations are protesting Homeland Security's involvement.

There is NO Doctor/Patient confidentially anymore.
That sounds pretty ominous. Where'd you hear that?

ETA: It is possible that DHS is doing this for those who signed consent forms as part of the application process for a security clearance. It's certainly more cost effective than having to obtain records from an applicant's health care providers.

Not to say that the gov't is all that careful when perusing an applicant's records though.
 
Last edited:

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
That sounds pretty ominous. Where'd you hear that?

ETA: It is possible that DHS is doing this for those who signed consent forms as part of the application process for a security clearance. It's certainly more cost effective than having to obtain records from an applicant's health care providers.

Not to say that the gov't is all that careful when perusing an applicant's records though.

If you have been to the doctor or hospital in the last 10 or so years, you will have had to sign a HIPAA form in order to receive care. That form is what allows the government to access your medical records.
The HIPAA Administrative Simplification standards adopted by Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) apply to any entity that is

  • a health care provider that conducts certain transactions in electronic form (called here a "covered health care provider").
  • a health care clearinghouse.
  • a health plan.
An entity that is one or more of these types of entities is referred to as a "covered entity" in the Administrative Simplification regulations. The DLTs for determining who is a covered entity are at http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-...IPAAGenInfo/Downloads/CoveredEntitycharts.pdf

Things will get even worse under "ObamaCare", since the government will then become a "health plan" provider. BOHICA!
:( Pax...
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
That sounds pretty ominous. Where'd you hear that?

ETA: It is possible that DHS is doing this for those who signed consent forms as part of the application process for a security clearance. It's certainly more cost effective than having to obtain records from an applicant's health care providers.

Not to say that the gov't is all that careful when perusing an applicant's records though.

Don't you read the news?:p

Doctors have been raising almighty hell about it for a month.

HIPPA is old news and they've been putting everyone's information in that for years.
There's no consent form, that's where the records are stored now.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
You are not eligible if you have been 1) determined by a court to be mentally incompetent for any reason; 2) involuntarily detained for psychological or psychiatric treatment following a period of observation pursuant to a temporary detention order; or 3) voluntarily committed for psychological or psychiatric treatment. If you understand that you have a biochemical deficiency or psychological disorder that requires treatment of some kind, and you want to have a firearm, you should consult your psychologist or psychiatrist about why you want it, how you intend to use it, and what will be the likely outcome of your being in possession of a firearm in situations in which you have not been able to continue your treatment, whether pharmacological or otherwise. If you feel that there is a risk that you could become unable to control your actions and that you might be tempted on such occasions to use the gun improperly, then you should, as part of your regime of discipline, decide not to have a gun. Your having a gun in such situations will ramp up the severity of the outcome in ways you won't believe, and society will not understand what happened to you or why. And really won't care what happens to you. So please, even if you are legally eligible, make a wise choice.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
You are not eligible if you have been 1) determined by a court to be mentally incompetent for any reason; 2) involuntarily detained for psychological or psychiatric treatment following a period of observation pursuant to a temporary detention order; or 3) voluntarily committed for psychological or psychiatric treatment. If you understand that you have a biochemical deficiency or psychological disorder that requires treatment of some kind, and you want to have a firearm, you should consult your psychologist or psychiatrist about why you want it, how you intend to use it, and what will be the likely outcome of your being in possession of a firearm in situations in which you have not been able to continue your treatment, whether pharmacological or otherwise. If you feel that there is a risk that you could become unable to control your actions and that you might be tempted on such occasions to use the gun improperly, then you should, as part of your regime of discipline, decide not to have a gun. Your having a gun in such situations will ramp up the severity of the outcome in ways you won't believe, and society will not understand what happened to you or why. And really won't care what happens to you. So please, even if you are legally eligible, make a wise choice.

Nothing there sounds unreasonable - "committed" being the operative word. Pax...
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
If you have been to the doctor or hospital in the last 10 or so years, you will have had to sign a HIPAA form in order to receive care. That form is what allows the government to access your medical records.

Things will get even worse under "ObamaCare", since the government will then become a "health plan" provider. BOHICA!
:( Pax...
Who told you that. The HIPPA form doesn't give the gov't access to your records. The whole system describes what people who handle patient medical records must do to assure patient privacy. And yes, there are provisions in the law that allow for access under certain conditions. BTW, I'm already on Medicare.:D

Don't you read the news?:p

Doctors have been raising almighty hell about it for a month.

HIPPA is old news and they've been putting everyone's information in that for years.
There's no consent form, that's where the records are stored now.
I haven't seen anything in the news about doctors complaining about the issue. Could you point me to a source?

I'm aware of HIPPA. Every doctor my wife and I have seen (and that's a bunch) doesn't like the system because it actually encumbers their ability to exchange patient information with each other (e.g. a specialist reporting his findings to the patient's primary care physician) because each and every such disclosure requires the consent of the patient. Even spouses must have consent forms on file to share records with each other. And it involves paper. And secure electronic systems.

AFIK, HIPPA is administered by HHS. I was questioning the involvement of DHS. The "consent form" I was referring to has to do with an applicant for a (gov't) job allowing the employing agency to conduct a background check. Is DHS doing that for civil service now?
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Who told you that. The HIPPA form doesn't give the gov't access to your records. The whole system describes what people who handle patient medical records must do to assure patient privacy. And yes, there are provisions in the law that allow for access under certain conditions. BTW, I'm already on Medicare.:D


I haven't seen anything in the news about doctors complaining about the issue. Could you point me to a source?

I'm aware of HIPPA. Every doctor my wife and I have seen (and that's a bunch) doesn't like the system because it actually encumbers their ability to exchange patient information with each other (e.g. a specialist reporting his findings to the patient's primary care physician) because each and every such disclosure requires the consent of the patient. Even spouses must have consent forms on file to share records with each other. And it involves paper. And secure electronic systems.

AFIK, HIPPA is administered by HHS. I was questioning the involvement of DHS. The "consent form" I was referring to has to do with an applicant for a (gov't) job allowing the employing agency to conduct a background check. Is DHS doing that for civil service now?

Here's a piece of it. You have to dig a little more to get Homeand Security's role in it. Look at the recent Congressional hearings about extending parts of the Patriot Act.

http://huelskamp.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3636

This time, America is learning about the federal government’s plan to collect and aggregate confidential patient records for every one of us.
In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.
(See Proposed Rule: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, Volume 76, page 41930.Proposed rule docket ID is HHS-OS-2011-0022
The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict.
It’s par for the course with the federal government, but abstract terms are used to distract from the real objectives of this idea: no matter which “option” is chosen, government bureaucrats would have access to the health records of every American - including you.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Who told you that. The HIPPA form doesn't give the gov't access to your records. The whole system describes what people who handle patient medical records must do to assure patient privacy. And yes, there are provisions in the law that allow for access under certain conditions. BTW, I'm already on Medicare.:D
Did you overlook this - HIPAA.JPG
Under Medicare the government is already your primary insurer. Congratulations, and BOHICA. ;) Pax...
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Here's a piece of it. You have to dig a little more to get Homeand Security's role in it. Look at the recent Congressional hearings about extending parts of the Patriot Act.

http://huelskamp.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3636

This time, America is learning about the federal government’s plan to collect and aggregate confidential patient records for every one of us.
In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.
(See Proposed Rule: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, Volume 76, page 41930.Proposed rule docket ID is HHS-OS-2011-0022
The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict.
It’s par for the course with the federal government, but abstract terms are used to distract from the real objectives of this idea: no matter which “option” is chosen, government bureaucrats would have access to the health records of every American - including you.
Thanks.

Although Sebelius' is only proposing, aggregate health data collection has been authorized (and even required) under HIPPA for a while.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/De-identification/guidance.html

Supposedly, it's been to determine things like the effectiveness of medical care and perhaps weigh it against the cost. My own experience has been that medical insurance companies, who do get details of one's health records, aren't bashful about telling you what they'll cover, and in at least one case, declined coverage for a procedure that Medicare did cover. (At the time, we weren't eligible for Medicare.)

As we all know, the cost of medical care can erupt quite unexpectedly in a very short time. With (good) insurance, one can concentrate on dealing with the medical problem(s). Without it, or with inadequate coverage, the problems magnify. Insurance companies have already altered their strategies to compensate for the ACA, and not to the benefit of policy holders. Medicare, which must cover everyone eligible, is also looking to control its costs.

Medical care providers aren't bashful about asking for payment either. I developed computer software for an attorney who only did debt collection. His largest segment of collectibles was medical debt, and he wasn't chasing insurance companies.

Do I care of the government collects all my medical data? Not really. Our medical bills get paid. However, finding physicians who'll take new Medicare patients is becoming harder.

Anyway, let's return this thread to its original path.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
And so ends people needing help actually seeking help.

No, a lot of them will go anyway. Many don't actually realize what's being done to us and many more have the "I don't have anything to hide" mentality......which is exactly why the Government is getting away with these things.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Gil223 said:
as of today, anyway there is still "doctor-patient confidentiality" - the shrink can't narc on you, unless you admitted to performing serious criminal acts.
I'll ask a psychiatrist I know, to be sure, but I've been told that they can only break confidentiality if the patient admits to wanting to harm him/herself or others. Basically, they'd be preventing harm.

If their Tuesday 1pm patient admits to being the reincarnation of Dahmer & stewing his roommate, that completed murder wouldn't allow them to run to the police. If he said he was planning (or wanted) to have his neighbor over for dinner, then disclosure would be allowed to prevent a murder.

user said:
You are not eligible if you have been
1) determined by a court to be mentally incompetent for any reason;
2) involuntarily detained for psychological or psychiatric treatment following a period of observation pursuant to a temporary detention order;
or 3) voluntarily committed for psychological or psychiatric treatment.
#1 is part of the federal law, but I'm not familiar with 2 & 3. Are those VA laws? Do they only apply to getting a carry license, or does VA also have more stringent rules about firearms possession? Because voluntarily getting treatment for a disease shouldn't be a factor.

you should consult your psychologist or psychiatrist about why you want it, how you intend to use it, and what will be the likely outcome of your being in possession of a firearm in situations in which you have not been able to continue your treatment
Maybe it's different in VA, but around here finding any sort of medical professional who hasn't drunk the koolaid about "all guns are evil" is difficult. Finding one who's actually willing to rationally discuss the lawful possession & use of firearms is next to impossible. :uhoh:
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I'll ask a psychiatrist I know, to be sure, but I've been told that they can only break confidentiality if the patient admits to wanting to harm him/herself or others. Basically, they'd be preventing harm.

If their Tuesday 1pm patient admits to being the reincarnation of Dahmer & stewing his roommate, that completed murder wouldn't allow them to run to the police. If he said he was planning (or wanted) to have his neighbor over for dinner, then disclosure would be allowed to prevent a murder.


#1 is part of the federal law, but I'm not familiar with 2 & 3. Are those VA laws? Do they only apply to getting a carry license, or does VA also have more stringent rules about firearms possession? Because voluntarily getting treatment for a disease shouldn't be a factor.


Maybe it's different in VA, but around here finding any sort of medical professional who hasn't drunk the koolaid about "all guns are evil" is difficult. Finding one who's actually willing to rationally discuss the lawful possession & use of firearms is next to impossible. :uhoh:
There is a practicing psychiatrist who OC's and posts on here. My optometrist is a member of my gun club. Works out well when I see him for my annual eye exam, as he adjusts my prescription for shooting.

.
 
Top