PDA

View Full Version : Anger Management Courses and CCWs


50calgal
01-04-2011, 9:21 PM
I am a professional woman who reads these threads on occasion. I have a concern I have not seen posted here.
I would like to obtain a CCW, but am concerned that I had participated in an anger management course with my husband. It was not court ordered. It was just something we did together for our relationship. It was through my health insurance.
So the question is: will this anger management course show up on my medical record and prevent me from qualifying for a CCW?

This may be no big deal for a sit down course. My concern really lies from this blog; that the powers that be look for any reason to deny. I have an otherwise good clean record. What do you think?

E Pluribus Unum
01-04-2011, 9:24 PM
I am a professional woman who reads these threads on occasion. I have a concern I have not seen posted here.
I would like to obtain a CCW, but am concerned that I had participated in an anger management course with my husband. It was not court ordered. It was just something we did together for our relationship. It was through my health insurance.
So the question is: will this anger management course show up on my medical record and prevent me from qualifying for a CCW?

This may be no big deal for a sit down course. My concern really lies from this blog; that the powers that be look for any reason to deny. I have an otherwise good clean record. What do you think?

I very seriously doubt it. There is no place on the DOJ form for medical issues short of being addicted to drugs, being declared mentally ill, et cetera.

thrasherfox
01-04-2011, 9:28 PM
If they don't ask, don't offer the information.

If the question is asked, don't lie about it.

I just kind of look at that one as a black and white one (from my perspective anyway)

Window_Seat
01-04-2011, 9:54 PM
What Thrasherfox said... DADT. I've never been asked (when applying for CCW) if I had ever been through AM. I wouldn't imagine it being in their "category" of "moral character".

Salute v. Pitchess (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16111191278700729423&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) should be enough to discourage the issuing authority to make an such an excuse if it's not part of the application.

Erik.

Paindoc
01-04-2011, 9:54 PM
If a hospital or doctor gives out such information without your signed consent, you will be so rich after the lawsuit that you can hire private bodyguards for the rest of your life. Can you say "HIPPA"?

voiceofreason
01-05-2011, 2:42 AM
If they don't ask, don't offer the information.

If the question is asked, don't lie about it.


+1


Even if it was court ordered, if your record is clean, you haven't done anything wrong.

That you went voluntarily (not ordered by the court)... does not affect you.

voiceofreason
01-05-2011, 2:44 AM
If they don't ask, don't offer the information.

If the question is asked, don't lie about it.


+1


Even if it was court ordered, if your record is clean, you haven't done anything wrong. (unless it was part of a plea deal for a crime in which you were convicted for- which isn't the case)

Wherryj
01-05-2011, 7:57 AM
If a hospital or doctor gives out such information without your signed consent, you will be so rich after the lawsuit that you can hire private bodyguards for the rest of your life. Can you say "HIPPA"?

There always seems to be the "government" exclusion to HIPPA. Medicare can pretty much take any info that they want from any patient, whether the patient is on Medicare or not.

However, I haven't ever seen that medical records have been allowed as required for a CCW, etc., so it probably wouldn't be an issue.

sasc40cal
01-05-2011, 8:03 AM
I am in the medical arena in a sense and have a very good working knowledge of HIPPA. With HIPPA your privacy is protected. It would be very difficult for someone to find out about your doctor appoitments let alone counseling sessions.

As far as an exclusion for the governemnt as others mentioned here, this is true about medicare and medical, but the information that is shared is generally about settlements due to malpratice settlements and dollar ammounts.

I would not worry about it and would not offer it up to anyone. They wont ask becasue they wont know unless you tell them.

RipVanWinkle
01-05-2011, 8:20 AM
I am a professional woman who reads these threads on occasion. I have a concern I have not seen posted here.
I would like to obtain a CCW, but am concerned that I had participated in an anger management course with my husband. It was not court ordered. It was just something we did together for our relationship. It was through my health insurance.
So the question is: will this anger management course show up on my medical record and prevent me from qualifying for a CCW?

This may be no big deal for a sit down course. My concern really lies from this blog; that the powers that be look for any reason to deny. I have an otherwise good clean record. What do you think?

I very seriously doubt it. There is no place on the DOJ form for medical issues short of being addicted to drugs, being declared mentally ill, et cetera.

I would be careful about circumstances like this. There are several places in the DOJ form that might pertain to the situation that 50calgal describes.

For example, there is what I would call a "garbage can" question, #10, on the Applicant Clearance Questions section of the DOJ form:

10. Have you witheld any fact that might affect the decision to approve this license?

This is as close to "Catch 22" as one can get without appearing completely ridiculous, since there is no way for the applicant to know what "fact might affect the decision to approve this license?" That decision is the prerogative of the sheriff, consequently only the sheriff can properly answer the question. If you answer "no" and the sheriff subsequently unearths some "fact" that she/he opines would have affected her/his decision (say, Anger Management Treatment, for example) your application would be denied forthwith.

Answering "yes" to the question could require you to incriminate yourself, even though you can't possibly know what criteria the sheriff will use in arriving at a decision, and would certainly result in denial of your application. In either case you might be subject to felony prosecution if the sheriff decides that you were not being truthful on any of the questions in the application.

Another ambiguous question can be found in the Investigatorís Interview Notes section of the application:

2. Have you ever been in a mental institution, treated for mental illness, or been found
not-guilty by reason of insanity ?

The first clause could be construed as requiring a yes answer if you had ever visited or worked in a mental institution. I assume it means "have you ever been a patient in a mental institution?"; but more to the point, for example, could an outpatient clinic be classified as a "mental institution" and could an "anger management course" be categorized as treatment "for mental illness"? The fact that the course was paid for through health insurance might be interpreted by a sheriff as evidence that both of these questions could be answered affirmatively. No doubt this is all fodder for "expert testimony".

Common sense would lead me to conclude that you and your husband were having difficulties with anger, or the expression thereof, and took practical steps to reduce this irritation in your otherwise amicable relationship. I think that's a very reasonable course of action in general, laudable even. That a fundamental human emotion like anger, in and of itself, might be considered a "mental illness" is patently ridiculous insofar as none of us can possibly avoid it and it has important adaptive value. But we're not dealing with common sense when applying for a CCW permit and many other bureaucratic procedures, hence my recommendation to proceed with caution and consult with authorities. I'm not sure there is an answer to your specific question!

Check out the discussion here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=353890

Crom
01-05-2011, 8:24 AM
What do you think?

I don't think it's anything to worry about. The fact that you took the AM class proves nothing. Who's to say you didn't take it for academic purposes? Personal development? Life learning skills?

Billy Jack
01-05-2011, 8:34 AM
I am a professional woman who reads these threads on occasion. I have a concern I have not seen posted here.
I would like to obtain a CCW, but am concerned that I had participated in an anger management course with my husband. It was not court ordered. It was just something we did together for our relationship. It was through my health insurance.
So the question is: will this anger management course show up on my medical record and prevent me from qualifying for a CCW?

This may be no big deal for a sit down course. My concern really lies from this blog; that the powers that be look for any reason to deny. I have an otherwise good clean record. What do you think?

My firm does investigations for hospitals of staff and patients and we are well versed in HIPPA as well as how mental health related issues affect. I have also reviewed literally thousands of CCW files. If you want accurate intel. contact us through the website listed below. Many of the posts thus far are opinions and not supported by fact or law.

All contacts are confidential and will not be posted here or anywhere else.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Beelzy
01-05-2011, 9:08 AM
"They" will discover it sooner or later.

wildhawker
01-05-2011, 9:14 AM
Can someone show me where such would be prohibiting?

The OP should apply and worry not about voluntary relationship therapy.

Chris J
01-05-2011, 9:23 AM
I'm inclined to think that having voluntarily taken an anger management class might be a plus with regards to applying for a CCW permit. I wouldn't bring it up on the paperwork or interview. But if asked, I'd spin my answer as my not having any history if anger issues, but wishing to understand such issues better so I could avoid them in the future or recognize their manifestation in others.

I.e., I'm much less likely to use a gun in anger than the average person, thanks to my voluntary education.

(Understand, that's just my casual take on it. I am no expert -- I don't have a CCW and don't plan to apply for one soon.)

mtptwo
01-05-2011, 9:25 AM
If you get denied your ccw, try yelling at them. ;)

jaq
01-05-2011, 9:29 AM
If a hospital or doctor gives out such information without your signed consent, you will be so rich after the lawsuit that you can hire private bodyguards for the rest of your life. Can you say "HIPPA"?

It's HIPAA - not HIPPA.

infamous209
01-05-2011, 9:35 AM
I wouldnt tell them because it was voluntary AM. It would definitely be a problem if it was court ordered. If they ask I would tell them it was strictly to better your marriage and not for aggression issues. I think you need to look at the questions and base it off what you feel is right, not what we think is. If you feel you were not in a mental institution then you werent, and if you feel you did not need AM because of aggression issues then you are not hiding anything.

E Pluribus Unum
01-05-2011, 9:44 AM
I would be careful about circumstances like this. There are several places in the DOJ form that might pertain to the situation that 50calgal describes.

For example, there is what I would call a "garbage can" question, #10, on the Applicant Clearance Questions section of the DOJ form:



This is as close to "Catch 22" as one can get without appearing completely ridiculous, since there is no way for the applicant to know what "fact might affect the decision to approve this license?" That decision is the prerogative of the sheriff, consequently only the sheriff can properly answer the question. If you answer "no" and the sheriff subsequently unearths some "fact" that she/he opines would have affected her/his decision (say, Anger Management Treatment, for example) your application would be denied forthwith.

Answering "yes" to the question could require you to incriminate yourself, even though you can't possibly know what criteria the sheriff will use in arriving at a decision, and would certainly result in denial of your application. In either case you might be subject to felony prosecution if the sheriff decides that you were not being truthful on any of the questions in the application.

Another ambiguous question can be found in the Investigatorís Interview Notes section of the application:



The first clause could be construed as requiring a yes answer if you had ever visited or worked in a mental institution. I assume it means "have you ever been a patient in a mental institution?"; but more to the point, for example, could an outpatient clinic be classified as a "mental institution" and could an "anger management course" be categorized as treatment "for mental illness"? The fact that the course was paid for through health insurance might be interpreted by a sheriff as evidence that both of these questions could be answered affirmatively. No doubt this is all fodder for "expert testimony".

Common sense would lead me to conclude that you and your husband were having difficulties with anger, or the expression thereof, and took practical steps to reduce this irritation in your otherwise amicable relationship. I think that's a very reasonable course of action in general, laudable even. That a fundamental human emotion like anger, in and of itself, might be considered a "mental illness" is patently ridiculous insofar as none of us can possibly avoid it and it has important adaptive value. But we're not dealing with common sense when applying for a CCW permit and many other bureaucratic procedures, hence my recommendation to proceed with caution and consult with authorities. I'm not sure there is an answer to your specific question!

Check out the discussion here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=353890

Again.... I see no question on the form which would require disclosure. Voluntary anger management classes are a self-edification issue and is completely healthy.

Anti-Hero
01-05-2011, 9:59 AM
How can all these HIPAA experts not even know the correct acronym? ;)

wildhawker
01-05-2011, 11:28 AM
"This question is deceptive. It purports to be limiting, but in fact it is virtually boundless when analyzed. Given this question's vagueness and that the entirety of this application is subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code section 6250, et seq.) and the California Supreme Court’s decision in CBS v. Block (42 Cal.3d 646, 725 P.2d 470, 230 Cal.Rptr. 362), I respectfully decline to provide any additional information in response to this question and instead choose to exercise my right to remain silent (guaranteed to me by Amendment 5 to the United States Constitution) and my right to privacy (guaranteed to me by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution)."

Glock22Fan
01-05-2011, 11:33 AM
How can all these HIPAA experts not even know the correct acronym? ;)

For the same reasons, perhaps, that many of us don't know the difference between "site," "sight" and "cite."

If you can't get those write (hic!), what chance do you have with some weird acronym?

RipVanWinkle
01-05-2011, 12:29 PM
Again.... I see no question on the form which would require disclosure. Voluntary anger management classes are a self-edification issue and is completely healthy.

I have no disagreement with you on this. The problem is that neither you, nor I, nor any other prospective applicant happens to be the sheriff. If we were answering question #10 on the DOJ application form,

10. Have you witheld any fact that might affect the decision to approve this license?

, we might answer "NO" in good faith, in the sincere belief that having taken "voluntary anger management classes {that} are a self-edification issue and is completely healthy", and therefore would not be a "fact that might affect the decision to approve this license." But it is up to the sheriff to determine what constitutes such a "fact". The form has already gone through the statutory conditions disqualifying one from gun ownership: this question goes farther than that.

If the sheriff later finds that the applicant has taken such a course and answered question #10, "NO", he might have a different opinion. He might reason that the course, or therapy, was paid for by medical insurance, and medical insurers are not in the habit of paying for treatments that do not address actual pathological medical conditions; so the applicant has, or had, a pathological condition that could affect the sheriff's decision to approve the license. Therefore he might conclude that we had indeed "witheld (a) fact that might affect the decision to approve this license". On this basis alone he could deny the license, without getting into any further details about the anger management course. The logic of the question invites this kind of interpretation, deliberately.

With 58 independent sheriffs making these kinds of decisions it's not unreasonable to expect something like this to occur. The solution to this problem is to confine the questions on the application to direct inquiries about the statutes that would disqualify one from gun ownership, but as it stands now the process goes much farther than that. All of this is purely hypothetical as there is no access currently to the sheriffs' decision making processes. It may be of no practical consequence. :p

wildhawker
01-05-2011, 12:33 PM
There's no downside to not supplying the (immaterial) info. Under a discretionary system, the way you dress could constitute bad moral character. The question is (until we win in Richards): "is the standard equally applied?"

RipVanWinkle
01-05-2011, 12:35 PM
"This question is deceptive. It purports to be limiting, but in fact it is virtually boundless when analyzed. Given this question's vagueness and that the entirety of this application is subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code section 6250, et seq.) and the California Supreme Courtís decision in CBS v. Block (42 Cal.3d 646, 725 P.2d 470, 230 Cal.Rptr. 362), I respectfully decline to provide any additional information in response to this question and instead choose to exercise my right to remain silent (guaranteed to me by Amendment 5 to the United States Constitution) and my right to privacy (guaranteed to me by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution)."

There 'ya go! :hurray: