CC mental health form question

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

See what I mean, Skel? Talk about picking apart everything based on one post... you've just seen the master in action! Nothing better to do all day than to trawl the internet forums and denigrate others - there's a whole lotta projection goin' on around here!

 

[WalkingWolf]

See what I mean, Skel? Talk about picking apart everything based on one post... you've just seen the master in action! Nothing better to do all day than to trawl the internet forums and denigrate others - there's a whole lotta projection goin' on around here!

I see you are from Wi, as such I doubt you know jack about the process of applying for a CHP, or the laws of NC.

The OP is a hot button political issue, and there are paid trolls everywhere trying to embarrass gun owners. Post election first time poster hot button topic, yea I am suspicious, don't like it, pound sand.

Maybe the OP should stick around, and let us see if he is for real, but I have seen this shtick before.

 

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

I see you are from Wi, as such I doubt you know jack about the process of applying for a CHP, or the laws of NC.

The OP is a hot button political issue, and there are paid trolls everywhere trying to embarrass gun owners. Post election first time poster hot button topic, yea I am suspicious, don't like it, pound sand.

Maybe the OP should stick around, and let us see if he is for real, but I have seen this shtick before.

You're right, I don't know jack about the laws of NC, just as you don't know jack about the laws of WI. Re-read my posts in this thread, and you'll see that I never once referenced those laws - I was referring to the way forum members treat newbies, which leaves a lot to be desired. Sure, let's treat anyone we don't know with suspicion and disdain because they might not be on the level... then wonder why nobody wants to post here except the same old regulars. Guilty until proven innocent, is that how it works?

Looks to me like we don't need paid trolls to embarrass gun owners... some gun owners are doing a great job of that without any help from others!

 

[WalkingWolf]

You're right, I don't know jack about the laws of NC, just as you don't know jack about the laws of WI. Re-read my posts in this thread, and you'll see that I never once referenced those laws - I was referring to the way forum members treat newbies, which leaves a lot to be desired. Sure, let's treat anyone we don't know with suspicion and disdain because they might not be on the level... then wonder why nobody wants to post here except the same old regulars. Guilty until proven innocent, is that how it works?

Looks to me like we don't need paid trolls to embarrass gun owners... some gun owners are doing a great job of that without any help from others!

You do know that the OP claims to be from NC? Talk about an embarrassment! You certainly did not need any help on that.

 

[Skeletor06]

http://ddi.wayne.edu/ddmi_articles/psychiatric_effects_of_medications_2005.pdf

Page 67 of the link lists side effects of diuretics as: confusion, lethargy, sedation, anxiety, depression, delirium, sleep disturbances.

It also lists ACEI medications, which are also used for BP. Side effects include depression, mania, hallucination, and delirium.

You're right, the form asks for you to sign a release. The release states, exactly:

I hearby authorize and require any and all doctors, hospitals or other providers who have ever provided physical or mental health or substance abuse treatment or care to me, including without limitation the providers named below to release to the Sheriff of the above named county any and all records concerning my physical capacity, mental health, mental capacity or substance abuse that the sheriff may reasonably request in connection with my application for a concealed handgun permit.

It also has a place to list names and contact info for your doctors and hospitals. The form seems to say it wants contact info for any doctors, who have ever treated you, for anything, physical or mental, ever. If I don't add my pediatrician, am I omitting required info? If not, then why does it use the words "any and all", and "ever provided". I don't know. Hence, my original question.

I am not a troll, just curious about the requirement here.

 

[solus]

You're right, I don't know jack about the laws of NC, just as you don't know jack about the laws of WI. Re-read my posts in this thread, and you'll see that I never once referenced those laws - I was referring to the way forum members treat newbies, which leaves a lot to be desired. Sure, let's treat anyone we don't know with suspicion and disdain because they might not be on the level... then wonder why nobody wants to post here except the same old regulars. Guilty until proven innocent, is that how it works?

Looks to me like we don't need paid trolls to embarrass gun owners... some gun owners are doing a great job of that without any help from others!

again have gun...the gauntlet was thrown and you, yes you, not a newbie, were asked where i misspoke reqarding the information provided to the thread's OP!

alas some have the ability to read statues from any state, etc., to at least begin a viable dialogue...wait...i missed a intro from any of your posts on this thread attempting any type of beginning of dialogue but rather a tirade on someone's commentary.

step up, or step off, as you say...your posts leave a lot to be desired...

ipse

 

[Skeletor06]

I'll tell you where you misspoke. In your first post.

You stated "looking at greene county's release, it does not ask nor require you provide provider information." However, Greene County uses the same form, which has the same requirement, that I have already posted several times. I won't bother doing so again but key words follow:

"any and all doctors", "ever provided", "without limitation", "physical or mental health or substance abuse treatment"

That leads me to believe that it wants me to give them my private provider information, along with info for the guy who fixed my leg when I was 10 years old. I doubt they want that, so I asked for clarification. If they DO want me to provide that info, then I won't apply for a permit, because I don't agree with the request.

You have falsely attributed statements to me (in violation of forum rule #16) and have repeatedly ignored my attempts to draw attention to them:

1) that I used a GP for treatment (I never said that, and in fact use a psychiatrist).

2) that I was going to use an out of state permit to purchase a pistol (never stated that either).

3) that I believe the process for a CHL and a PPP are equal (they're not, hence the question that started this thread).

You also provided your own "diagnosis" that I am unfit to be around guns, due to my statement that I have a well-controlled, treatable mental illness. You may have a college degree in Psych, but that doesn't give you the right to make that determination. Thankfully.

Finally, I noticed you never responded to my links regarding hypoglycemia and its psychiatric sequelae. If those don't worry you, then I have no idea why my illness should, whether it's controlled or not.

I'm not saying people with DM shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Quite the opposite. Well-treated DM isn't dangerous to anyone, and neither is well-treated mental illness.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Don't ask for clarification ... object to the query ... seems too broad so I agree with ya. They can ask any ? that they want, it does not mean a ? cannot be objected to. I object to ? routinely ... usually with success.

 

[OC for ME]

MH prior restraints are anti-liberty.

 

[marshaul]

Who gives a damn if he is a troll? It's not my job to vet every human before he exercises his rights. Nor would I presume to do so.

As for giving fuel to the antis, let 'em sit and spin.

The upcoming 2A fight is likely to be over no-fly lists, anyway.

 

[WalkingWolf]

MH prior restraints are anti-liberty.

I would tend to agree with this, but many gun owners believe in government control, and most of the non gun owning public. At this critical moment in history I am trying to be careful about the battles I get involved in. After inauguration I may sing a different tune.

 

[OC for ME]

...

The upcoming 2A fight is likely to be over no-fly lists, anyway.

...many types of lists, me thinks...

 

[marshaul]

...many types of lists, me thinks...

Perhaps.

It occurs to me that these type of prior restraint regulations are fundamentally ineffective (I base this on the empirical evidence provided by the entire history of government). Nothing has yet changed the longstanding reality that government can only act simultaneously effectively and justly after the fact. That is, government still only works as a reactive instrument, if it is to respect rights at all and still function. Pro-active enforcement has yet to start working reliably.

If we – even implicitly or in passing – depend on the efficacy of such regulation to avoid giving the antis the casus belli they need, then we are doomed to failure.

No. The rights of free individuals cannot be held hostage to the actions of other individuals. This can never be allowed to happen. This is the line in the sand that must never be crossed.

 

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

You do know that the OP claims to be from NC? Talk about an embarrassment! You certainly did not need any help on that.

I'm fully aware that he says he's from NC - absolutely no embarrassment on my part... Perhaps you'd like a mirror?

I see that your reading comprehension hasn't improved over the years, otherwise my words would make sense to you. Here, I'll make it easier - let me quote myself:

Re-read my posts in this thread, and you'll see that I never once referenced those laws - I was referring to the way forum members treat newbies, which leaves a lot to be desired.

And before you go spouting off that my post was off topic since I wasn't discussing the laws of NC, perhaps you should review your own post history - I can quickly point out many of your posts which were much farther OT.

From past history I know that you simply love to argue with nearly anyone, but I have a job and a life, therefore I don't have the time or energy to devote to arguing with forum busybodies. So in an effort to avoid dragging this thread even further off topic, I will just concede. You win; congratulations! Say what you will about me, but I will no longer reply. Go and tell all your friends that you won an argument on the internet, and let them deify you for it... :lol:

Have a nice day; have a nice life.

 

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

again have gun...the gauntlet was thrown and you, yes you, not a newbie, were asked where i misspoke reqarding the information provided to the thread's OP!

alas some have the ability to read statues from any state, etc., to at least begin a viable dialogue...wait...i missed a intro from any of your posts on this thread attempting any type of beginning of dialogue but rather a tirade on someone's commentary.

step up, or step off, as you say...your posts leave a lot to be desired...

ipse

Solus...



Never mind, it just ain't worth it. I have better things to do with my life.

As I said a moment ago, have a nice day; have a nice life.

 

[FreeInAZ]

Wow! What a:

https://youtu.be/FHX1VxL8rag


______ this thread has become.

 

[solus]

"From past history I know that you simply love to argue with nearly anyone, but I have a job and a life, therefore I don't have the time or energy to devote to arguing with forum busybodies..."

said so well have gun...shame, again you do not heed your own words...

you walk in, belittle everyone by casting dispersions toward members coupled with a condescending attitude, yet when challenged to put up or shut up and contribute something viable, you take your customary pose as you put your hand to your mouth with a look of, why you picking on me expression.

you did nothing whatsoever to further the discussion, except chasting forum members...all the while thinking the stink you smell is us...nawllll aint us!!!

ipse

 

[davidmcbeth]

I would tend to agree with this, but many gun owners believe in government control, and most of the non gun owning public. At this critical moment in history I am trying to be careful about the battles I get involved in. After inauguration I may sing a different tune.

I just tell people this : if a person is a freeman then all rights are afforded to that person regardless of anything else.

No exceptions. None. Niff. Nill.

I think most (90%) people LIKE gov't control .. as long as if they gov't is not trying to control them .. but otherwise,,,,go go go.

 

[Skeletor06]

Perhaps.

It occurs to me that these type of prior restraint regulations are fundamentally ineffective (I base this on the empirical evidence provided by the entire history of government). Nothing has yet changed the longstanding reality that government can only act simultaneously effectively and justly after the fact. That is, government still only works as a reactive instrument, if it is to respect rights at all and still function. Pro-active enforcement has yet to start working reliably.

If we – even implicitly or in passing – depend on the efficacy of such regulation to avoid giving the antis the casus belli they need, then we are doomed to failure.

No. The rights of free individuals cannot be held hostage to the actions of other individuals. This can never be allowed to happen. This is the line in the sand that must never be crossed.

This. I feel like this forum is ostensibly based around that idea, so I was surprised at the level of vitriol I received in response to my OP. People want to legally and safely carry guns openly. As long as they're not waving them around or threatening anyone, then whether someone else takes offense or is worried shouldn't matter. People don't have a right not to be offended or worried. People who safely open carry are asking to be judged on their individual actions alone and not on the perceptions of other people, which are based in their worldview regarding purely hypothetical situations. That's the level of respect and courtesy I was hoping would be afforded when I asked my question.

 

[Grapeshot]

This. I feel like this forum is ostensibly based around that idea, so I was surprised at the level of vitriol I received in response to my OP. People want to legally and safely carry guns openly. As long as they're not waving them around or threatening anyone, then whether someone else takes offense or is worried shouldn't matter. People don't have a right not to be offended or worried. People who safely open carry are asking to be judged on their individual actions alone and not on the perceptions of other people, which are based in their worldview regarding purely hypothetical situations. That's the level of respect and courtesy I was hoping would be afforded when I asked my question.

That is the level you should continue to expect.