Revoked CHL, no charges

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: Revoked CHL, no charges

Post by Chuck »

willbird wrote:As I see it they suspended his license due to the charges that were filed. The suspension SHOULD have ended when the charges were dropped.

But the Sheriff seems to have decided upon a perpetual suspension based not on statute but on his own gut feelings. To a degree he may be covering his rear end, if he is forced to reinstate then his hands are clean if something bad happens ??

Bill
Charges were never filed
PAge three of the police report says "Prosecution Declined"
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
User avatar
Mr. Glock
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 8965
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Re: Revoked CHL, no charges

Post by Mr. Glock »

Involuntary commitment to a mental hospital? This is a disqualification on the Fed 4473.
OFCC Patron, GOA, SAF, YouTube 2A Patreon, NRA Benefactor Life & Hot Stove League Member
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: Revoked CHL, no charges

Post by WY_Not »

Thought you also had to be ruled/adjudicated incompetent or deficient or whatever also. Just because you are committed involuntarily doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you.
Mr. Glock wrote:Involuntary commitment to a mental hospital? This is a disqualification on the Fed 4473.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Revoked CHL, no charges

Post by M-Quigley »

You are correct (unless they've changed the law when I was occasionally involved in the process with EMS and in hospital work) It's up to a 72 hr. hold to give the doc time to determine if he/she should recommend to a judge that the person be involuntarily committed. Most of the people I've seen on a 72 hr hold did not end up being involuntarily committed.

WY_Not wrote:Thought you also had to be ruled/adjudicated incompetent or deficient or whatever also. Just because you are committed involuntarily doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you.
Mr. Glock wrote:Involuntary commitment to a mental hospital? This is a disqualification on the Fed 4473.
User avatar
Mr. Glock
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 8965
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Re: Revoked CHL, no charges

Post by Mr. Glock »

I believe the 3 day red tag hold still exists, which is why the subject of the thread signed himself in for additional days. I think you generally get an option, sign in voluntarily because the staff think you should be here longer than 3 days or we (the staff) might have to take involuntary action (if they don't just release in 3 days). No one (on staff) wants to do that sort of paperwork if they can avoid it. Plus, most staff don't want to mark the record of the patient for life if they don't have to do so. Three days, a few short sessions with staff Doc and they need to make the call on the patient. It's not a great system.

Turning the topic slightly, I do find myself somewhat on the Sheriff's side on this one. Mental health is a larger issue in the US than most people realize, and the mental health system is truly broken in the US. LEOs deal with a lot of mentally ill folks too, so the Sheriff is not ignorant here. That said, the "Red Flag" extreme risk protection orders are a canard by the gun control lobby to ease confiscation of firearms, to normalize it, so to speak, that will be abused (and skips due process as well, an even bigger issue that caused the ACLU to get involved in a 2A issue).

But, at what point, has the mental health of a person declined to the point that they should not carry a gun in public? That is a question that really has not been addressed in this thread or, frankly, in pro-gun ranks in general. That is an unpleasant conversation that the pro-gun folks have avoided.

I'm not talking about if someone visits a therapist or takes a mental health medication. Many, many productive members of society do these things on a regular basis. But this fellow had a full break with reality, and shot an object that he, at the time, thought was something else. He didn't shoot a speaker in anger, he shot a psychotic apparition. That is the reality of psychosis. We can "excuse" a change in medication, and it may be valid, but we don't actually know this for fact. He could have just as easily shot his wife or a responding LEO, believing at the time it was something else during his break from reality.

Carrying a gun is a right. But it also in turn carries a social responsibility. As a society, we need to know when someone crosses that line from being a citizen with full rights vs a member of society (who no fault of their own) may suffer mental health issues that affect their ability to correctly and judisioulsy exercise their rights. Your rights stop at my nose, in other words.

Let us remember that mental health issues and psychotropic drugs have featured heavily in most recent mass shootings too.

Subject to due process, of course. He had a break with reality and used a gun highly improperly while in an alternate reality. In my mind, this meets the definition of not being fit to carry a firearm in society.

Personally, I'm not thinking I agree with him walking around with a concealed firearm.

Before anyone gets all up in arms (I understand this might be a contentious post), I'd ask you to carefully read this post and also consider your real/actual understanding of mental health issues in today's world.
OFCC Patron, GOA, SAF, YouTube 2A Patreon, NRA Benefactor Life & Hot Stove League Member
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: Revoked CHL, no charges

Post by djthomas »

^ +1

The biggest hurdle I see to having a productive conversation on the topic is that in many cases mental health is a highly subjective discipline with outcomes that can't be measured in days, weeks, or even years. A person's symptoms and diagnosis are very fluid. It's not like a broken arm where you go in, doc runs some tests and says "yep, arm's broken." You get a cast and six weeks later you're back in business.

And yet, when we're talking about rights, people (fairly) want there to be objective measurements as part of any due process to infringe upon those rights. Pass this test and your rights are restored, fail and we reevaluate in 30 days. Mental health just doesn't work that way. I don't doubt that people can be very productive members of society with the right treatment, but in most cases the need for treatment is lifelong and specific plans will change over time, and the need to transition sometimes causes dangerous situations at unpredictable times, as does the transition itself.

At what point is a person considered stable enough that they should be permitted to carry a concealed weapon in public again? My eye doctor told me I couldn't have Lasik until my eyes had been stable for at least two years. Does something like that apply here? I don't know but if your situation is such that you're one missed pill away being unable to discern reality I'd be lying if I didn't say it gives me pause.

I believe ERPOs have a place but the implementations fail to acknowledge the realities of a person in crisis. There has to be some liability protection for mental health professionals signing off that a person is back to normal.

I have no answers, only questions and concerns.
machinegunkelly
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:56 am
Location: redmencountry

Re: Revoked CHL, no charges

Post by machinegunkelly »

I agree with the previous 2 posts.
But it does beg the question of how close to the edge of the slippery slope do we as a society want to get. As a 2nd ammendment group we do not want it to be continued to be the red headed step child ? So in that vein if civil rights are revoked either temporarily or permanently, all should be revoked at the same time.
MGK
Last edited by machinegunkelly on Fri Mar 01, 2019 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
machinegunkelly
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:56 am
Location: redmencountry

Re: Revoked CHL, no charges

Post by machinegunkelly »

I agree with the previous 2 posts.
But it does beg the question of how close to the edge of the slippery slope do we as a society want to get. As a 2nd ammendment group do we not want it to be continued to be the red headed step child ? So in that vein if civil rights are revoked either temporarily or permanently, all should be revoked at the same time.
MGK
willbird
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 11446
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:19 am
Location: Exit 13 on the ohio Turnpike :-)

Re: Revoked CHL, no charges

Post by willbird »

Mr. Glock wrote: Turning the topic slightly, I do find myself somewhat on the Sheriff's side on this one. Mental health is a larger issue in the US than most people realize, and the mental health system is truly broken in the US. LEOs deal with a lot of mentally ill folks too, so the Sheriff is not ignorant here. That said, the "Red Flag" extreme risk protection orders are a canard by the gun control lobby to ease confiscation of firearms, to normalize it, so to speak, that will be abused (and skips due process as well, an even bigger issue that caused the ACLU to get involved in a 2A issue).

But, at what point, has the mental health of a person declined to the point that they should not carry a gun in public? That is a question that really has not been addressed in this thread or, frankly, in pro-gun ranks in general. That is an unpleasant conversation that the pro-gun folks have avoided.

I'm not talking about if someone visits a therapist or takes a mental health medication. Many, many productive members of society do these things on a regular basis. But this fellow had a full break with reality, and shot an object that he, at the time, thought was something else. He didn't shoot a speaker in anger, he shot a psychotic apparition. That is the reality of psychosis. We can "excuse" a change in medication, and it may be valid, but we don't actually know this for fact. He could have just as easily shot his wife or a responding LEO, believing at the time it was something else during his break from reality.

Carrying a gun is a right. But it also in turn carries a social responsibility. As a society, we need to know when someone crosses that line from being a citizen with full rights vs a member of society (who no fault of their own) may suffer mental health issues that affect their ability to correctly and judisioulsy exercise their rights. Your rights stop at my nose, in other words.

Let us remember that mental health issues and psychotropic drugs have featured heavily in most recent mass shootings too.

Subject to due process, of course. He had a break with reality and used a gun highly improperly while in an alternate reality. In my mind, this meets the definition of not being fit to carry a firearm in society.

Personally, I'm not thinking I agree with him walking around with a concealed firearm.

Before anyone gets all up in arms (I understand this might be a contentious post), I'd ask you to carefully read this post and also consider your real/actual understanding of mental health issues in today's world.
How can we say he had a psychotic break ?? Do we have any evidence to support that ?? He claims to have no memory of events.

We are hearing a second or actually third hand account of the events. The family of the individual perhaps shared what he did with him, he has no recollection, and he related it to the OP.

But we do not and should not IMHO let a Sheriff decide on a whim to not lift a suspension of a CHL based on his "feelings" or "comfort"...again IMHO. The conditions are in the statutes...the sheriff should follow those.

I have met folks who suffered from delusions, one person it was apparently temporary, he said he was 3 stories up on a building working as a brick masons tender, he needed a tool down on the ground and the idea just came to him "hey why not fly down and get it".....his internal critic said "holy shirt NO, I can't fly, I'll die". Whatever meds a MD had talked him into taking he ended up off them and never had any similar things happen in a decade since.

A lady I knew she had delusions that the people at her current job were making themselves look people at a past job where she was fired....that condition she has not recovered from, she is still in the grips of delusions like that and the meds that help some but have side effects that many folks dislike.

If the sheriff has grounds he should REVOKE the CHL not suspend it with no end to the suspension.

Bill
Have a great day today unless you have made other plans :-).
Post Reply