Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: A tip offered for applicants with Mental Health history

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    0

    A tip offered for applicants with Mental Health history

    (Particularly relevant for those suffering with Depression and/or Anxiety)

    Hey guys, I know that this has been a topic covered at length, but when I filled out and submitted my application it didnt really seem like there was much about this idea in particular.

    I just wanted to mention that mid/late last year I submitted my application for my PAL/RPAL. At the time, in an attempt to help streamline/expedite the process, I did a fair bit of research on here and in discussions with others and decided to take a chance.

    I had read that many people who noted on their application that they do/did suffer from Anxiety and/or Depression, many (but not all) were requested to have a letter from their physician confirming they are under the supervision and treatment of a medical professional, and that in the doctor's opinion aren't a harm to themselves or others as a potential firearm owner.

    Given that I forsaw this as a possibility in my case, I figured I would enclose a letter from my physician with my application (before this was a potential request from the CFO) outlining that I was under their care and had been for X amount of time, that I was diagnosed with Anxiety & Depression, I do take medication. It also indicated I have never had violent or suicidal/homicidal ideations, nor did I have a history of alcohol or substance abuse, and that I never (in their opinion) posed a threat to myself or others should I become a licensed owner.

    I originally had composed a letter covering this all and offered it to my physician to sign off on, but they had preferred to write their own letter in their own words to achieve the same goal.

    Once my application reached the stage where I had a conversation with the CFO, they remarked that this letter certainly was a help in speeding up the processing time of my application and saved me the time, hassle and subsequent processing that would be involved in them getting to the 6 month mark, and THEN having to have me cover this step, only to be put back into the circuit of paperwork awaiting processing once I had done so. I totally understand how crazy wait times have become, mainly as a result of the pandemic, but I figured to anyone who is in the same or similar shoes, this might help a bit. Granted, perhaps you may encounter a CFO who thinks/feels otherwise, but the CFO I spoke with was glad that I had taken this step (for my sake) as it saved a step or two for all involved parties.

    For those whom are comfortable in being as open and transparent as I was with the CFO, I recommend considering this as part of your application process.

    Good luck and I look forward to engaging and learning a lot from all of you!

  2. #2
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    15,756
    In the threads about the New Hampshire license I've said essentially the same thing - i.e.: give them more than they expect.

    Not everyone agrees, of course, but you (and I) understand what I'm talking about.
    Kyle Defoor talks about Mindset:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPCqMo9TCg

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendell View Post
    In the threads about the New Hampshire license I've said essentially the same thing - i.e.: give them more than they expect.

    Not everyone agrees, of course, but you (and I) understand what I'm talking about.
    Yeah, I get that not everyone may be as open to sharing what is absolutely necessary, but given that his was a regular request for many people as part of the procedure, and you arent really providing any more info, just confirming it by way of a medical professional, I didn't find this a difficult extra step to take.

  4. #4
    CGN frequent flyer diabeticfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    The fields of Ontario
    Posts
    1,311
    I am a history graduate student with a focus on mental illness. This is something the anti-gun crowd is using as a scapegoat to get rid of our guns. For the most part, those affected with mental illness have been the ones entrusted to hold the line against Canada's enemies. PTSD, neurasthenia, combat stress; these are all mental illnesses that are/were commonly associated with soldiers. When talked about in a military context, these illnesses are discussed as the "highest honour of defence of the nation," but if the average citizen complained about these symptoms, they would have their firearms taken away faster than the government could come up with a new reason to confiscate rifles.

    My point is, mental health is a serious issue that the government does not spend enough time or money trying to understand.
    "The greatest honour history can bestow is that of the peacemaker."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •