FOID application denied

maestrachicago

New member
Hello all -

My FOID application was recently denied. I had one many years ago, but it expired.

My application was denied because of mental health treatment I received more than 5 years ago. The letter I received states that even though my treatment was more than 5 years ago, I have to have a mental health professional sign off on a form in order to get approval.

My concern is that I no longer have an established relationship with a therapist or mental health professional of any kind. It seems to me unlikely that someone who doesn't know me would put themselves on the line and sign off on a stranger.

I have never been suicidal or homicidal. I sought help for depression after a divorce. The treatment I received was through a local hospital. I wasn't hospitalized, but attended a therapy group at the facility. I imagine that they must report all individuals who receive treatment there.

These days I'm doing very well. My depression was related to my divorce, and I haven't experienced it since. Many of my friends hunt and go to shooting ranges. I'm interested in taking a gun class and pursuing things legally.

I also have safety concerns.

I'm a female living alone. I live in a pretty safe area, but I live right on the edge of a very dangerous part of Chicago. I was mugged at gunpoint a few years ago. At my job, I deal with a lot of people who have criminal backgrounds. These individuals come to us to get an education, often after brushes with the a law. Some have committed minor offenses, but many are more serious. They often attend classes while on house arrest. Because of the nature of my position, I often need to give them my name as a contact person. These days a simple Google search could give them my address. I don't think I'm in any real danger, but I'd like to be able to have a gun to protect myself. It would give me peace of mind.

I'm frustrated because my treatment was over 5 years ago, and yet the burden of proof now rests on my shoulders. I can certainly try making an appointment with a psychologist and asking them to sign off, but I'm concerned about what would happen if they choose not to sign. I don't know if I could simply try someone else, or if my application would be further denied for the future.

There's no real hurry, but I would love to pursue this at some point.

Any advice/words of wisdom would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks all.
 

Do you have a physician that you see on a routine basis? This is the Illinois law, notice both parts I put in bold:


(u) A person who has had his or her Firearm Owner's

Identification Card revoked or denied under subsection (e) of this Section or item (iv) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Section 4 of this Act because he or she was a patient in a mental health facility as provided in subsection (e) of this Section, shall not be permitted to obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, after the 5-year period has lapsed, unless he or she has received a mental health evaluation by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner as those terms are defined in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, and has received a certification that he or she is not a clear and present danger to himself, herself, or others. The physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner making the certification and his or her employer shall not be held criminally, civilly, or professionally liable for making or not making the certification required under this subsection, except for willful or wanton misconduct. This subsection does not apply to a person whose firearm possession rights have been restored through administrative or judicial action under Section 10 or 11 of this Act
 
It is crap like this that will keep people from seeking treatment for legitimate problems.

I'm good with keeping people with severe mental health issues from legally obtaining firearms. A person who is crazy enough to forego mental health treatment just to get a firearm is the epitome of someone we don't want to have a firearm in the first place. Eliminating mental health criteria just so such people can own a gun legally is crazy.

The better solution is to be certain that people have access to mental health services and evaluation services to help weed out those with continuing problems and those who have resolved their problems. That by the way was one of the benefits of Obamacare that so many crazy conservatives seem to hate.
 
Please list the benefits of Obamacare.

sinful nature is always hostile to God....

Obamacare, unlike the republicans "WeDon'tCare" expanded coverage for mental health care.

Attitudes and understanding of mental health care issues are changing in the United States, in part due to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Moving into its second year, we are seeing a shift in utilization and accessibility to behavioral services that benefit millions of Americans and can save millions of dollars. For those involved in delivering this care and to an estimated one in 17 Americans facing a serious mental health illness, this is welcome news and one that was overdue.

For too long, mental health care was in the shadows and coverage was inconsistent, despite the fact that about 50 percent of Americans experience a mental health episode during their lifetime, from depression or anxiety to chemical dependency or schizophrenia. The ACA changed that imbalance in coverage by putting mental health and substance abuse benefits on par with medical and surgical benefits. By law, coverage for cancer treatment would be the same for substance-abuse treatment. In addition, there would be no lifetime or yearly dollar limits for mental health care – recognition that services and recovery can take time and be expensive for patients and families.


This year, an estimated 3.7 million Americans with significant mental illnesses now have coverage and access to care through the insurance exchanges or extended Medicaid — they have moved from the shadows and into needed treatment.
But other well-known provisions of the ACA translate into mental health-related benefits. Given that teens and young adults encounter higher levels of behavioral issues (half of all mental health and substance abuse begins before high school and 75 percent develop before age 24), the under-26 provision allowing parents on their policies to continue providing coverage to their underage children has extended coverage to an at-risk population. Considering the cost of untreated mental illnesses on individuals, families and society, providing care to young adults will not only improve the quality and productiveness of lives but also save money.

According to the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health, the first-year impact of the ACA on younger adults is encouraging: Inpatient mental health care has increased while emergency room psychiatric care has dropped. Younger patients are getting services where and when they need it – rather than waiting for a crisis and visiting an ER. This improves the quality and delivery of care while reducing costs of treatment.
The pre-existing condition coverage includes mental health and substance abuse. What was frequently seen as a benefit for diabetics, heart disease or cancer survivors also includes individuals with behavioral health issues. The prospects of losing insurance was a barrier for people recovering — how could a patient move to a new job or new community and the next stage of their recovery if they faced the prospects of losing their insurance due to pre-existing conditions? That has been fixed.

Obamacare has been a huge help for mental health care

Unfortunately, the people who need the expanded mental health coverage the most are the ones who rile the loudest against it.

With apologies to Mark Ronson:

Don't believe me...just watch (the responses to this thread)
[h=1][/h]
 
I'm good with keeping people with severe mental health issues from legally obtaining firearms. A person who is crazy enough to forego mental health treatment just to get a firearm is the epitome of someone we don't want to have a firearm in the first place. Eliminating mental health criteria just so such people can own a gun legally is crazy.

The better solution is to be certain that people have access to mental health services and evaluation services to help weed out those with continuing problems and those who have resolved their problems. That by the way was one of the benefits of Obamacare that so many crazy conservatives seem to hate.

I am referring to crazy laws like the New York SAFE Act where people who voluntarily seek treatment for insomnia or depression have their firearms automatically confiscated be the state. Link Removed
 
I am referring to crazy laws like the New York SAFE Act where people who voluntarily seek treatment for insomnia or depression have their firearms automatically confiscated be the state. Link Removed


That is a poor example to support your position.

The problem in that case was not the SAFE Act - it was the hospital that "discharged [him] with a diagnosis of “depression, insomnia” and then returned a short time later for a 48-hour stay. The lawsuit says that during that visit, staff erroneously listed him as an “involuntary admission,”

The criteria for an involuntary admission is exactly the criteria that we would not one to possess firearms.

Involuntary admission can take place in one of three ways:


1. Medical certification, which requires that two physicians examine a person and certify that he or she needs involuntary care and treatment in a psychiatric facility.

This is sometimes known informally as a “two p.c.” shorthand for “two physicians certify.”

2. Certification by a director of community services, or an examining physician designated by the director of community services.


This certificate states that the person has a mental illness which is likely to result in serious harm to self or others and for which immediate inpatient care and treatment is appropriate.


3. Emergency admission based on the claim that the person has a mental illness which is likely to result in serious harm to self or others and for which immediate observation, care and treatment in a psychiatric center is appropriate.

The confiscation of his weapons occurred because the medical professionals treating him reported that he was a danger to himself or others to the extent that immediate observation, care and treatment was needed.

His injury was not caused by the Safe Act - it was caused by the mistake made by his medical professionals.

Gee, even when Faux News reports the facts its viewers just ignore the facts to make the story what they want the facts to be.

What would you have preferred? That they show up at his house and bring him some ammo?
 
maestrachicago, NavyLCDR's post in #2 above should help. I also STRONGLY recommend joining IllinoisCarry.com and sending a personal message to Molly B., the spokesperson for Illinois Carry. She has resolved numerous FOID and CCL issues for many people in a variety of situations.
 
I hope i'm not hijacking this thread , but couldn't find a FOID card appeal thread for my question , i'm guessing the answer to my question will be " how long is a piece of string" anyway , here goes . i was denied my FOID card because i put my I94 Number on my application instead of my permanent resident (AR#) , my denial said that i couldn't get a FOID card because of my 'non-immigrant' status , i did however , fill in an appeal for and sent it back to ISP , it's approaching 5 weeks now , just wondered if anyone would have an idea of how long it takes , seeing as it's a very straight forward appeal . many thanks
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,527
Messages
610,761
Members
74,965
Latest member
Roosince1911
Back
Top