On 2017-09-22, Kristin Rajala wrote:
Aloha,
I received a request to complete an evaluation and form indicating that an individual is no longer affected by anxiety for which they received treatment twice in the past. This is related to the firearm application on which they honestly indicated that they had received treatment twice for anxiety. The individual is willing to release previous records.
Has anyone else encountered this form, and if so, how have you handled these requests? The form indicates that you either certify that the applicant is no longer affected by the mental disease, or indicate that you are unable to certify the applicant's fitness to possess a firearm. As a clinical psychologist I feel capable of indicating that a patient is not affected by a clinically significant mental health issue, but do not feel capable of certifying whether or not they are fit to possess a firearm.
Are there any forensic psychologists or others who have recommendations around how to handle such a request?
I would love to hear others' thoughts.
Mahalo,
Kristin Rajala, PsyD
=======================
On 2017-09-23, Jim Spira replied:
Personally, unless I had seen the patient on a regular basis, I would not feel qualified to say they were free of mental illness, let alone certify that they were qualified to possess or carry firearms; certainly not after a single examination.
Jim Spira PhD
Life Fellow, American Council of Forensic Examiners
=======================
On 2017-09-23, Dennis Donovan replied:
IMO, the first question involves whether if there is set criteria to help you determine what exactly being “fit to possess a firearm” means and the second is how you reliably measure whether or not this person meets the criteria. Just because the law sets a standard doesn’t mean that it can be measured by psychology, particularly if it is vague. Lawyers and legislators write the law, we don’t. My point is that without set measurable criteria, you may be taking on the responsibility to some degree of defining for yourself and drawing the line between who should have guns and who shouldn’t. If City and County or the state has set measurable criteria (or if you can find accepted measurable criteria) I imagine you can do this with guidance from someone who has done this work before. However, even if one doesn’t have a mental disorder, is this person responsible and organized enough to ensure that the gun will always be locked up? Children and teenagers in the home can be inquisitive and resourceful, *hit happens and while not likely, you could conceivably be drawn into it.
From simply risk management and risk/rewards points of view, I wouldn’t do this work. Would your insurance carrier want you to do this?
Sorry for the negative and perhaps over the top response,, but there is a lesson here. I believe that “Forensics” has higher standards than general clinical practice. It is the interplay of psychology and law in multiple settings. Think legal insanity,child custody, and a multitude of civil and criminal competencies such a making a will, testifying, consenting to treatment,etc. Once you step into the arena you need to think like a lawyer, as you might be called upon to defend yourself in court. Remember, you stepped into this voluntarily, thereby announcing to the world that you have the training and expertise to do this work at a high level. You are more apt to be sued/disciplined for faulty process than you for your opinion if you followed the correct process. At least check to see if there is any literature on the subject., it is a good habit to get into. I think well meaning psychologists write letters frequently that they shouldn’t.
Dennis Donovan
=======================
On 2017-09-23, June Ching replied:
I agree with everyone's recommendations about caution in staying within your area
of expertise due to clinical and forensic implications. What are Hawaii's statutes for these evaluations? I came across a suggested reference in the area from a D42 posting but have not read it myself:
August 2015 article in Professional Psychology and Practice by Pirelli et al. that reviews strategies and considerations in conducting a firearms forensic assessment. It was very thorough and identifies a number of important considerations. It was entitled:
June
=======================
On 2017-09-23 , Harold Hall replied:
Aloha All and Kristen: Everything that Dennis said is right on target. I would like to add that the spirit and intent of the legal statue tacitly requires a determination as to whether the applicant will show substantial dangerousness as a result of owning a firearm. As such, there is an inherent obligation for the examiner to conduct a comprehensive violent risk assessment. The minimum standards for a VRA are extensive and time-consuming as well as requiring demonstrated expertise in violence prediction and related forensic issues. The applicants are never happy if you find substantial risk. Best advice: stay far away from these evaluations and think very hard about referring the applicants to colleagues. No forensic experts that I know, whether board certified or not, take these very “dangerous” cases. Mahalo, Harold Hall
======================
on 2017-09-23, Michael Bridge replied:
I have referred clients in the past to the NRA as it is my understanding
that any MD can give them the clearance.
No one needs a gun and I have two.
Michael Bridge
