I have to reach out to members. Here it is.

[tcsgamer]

No, the question is whether in the past five years you have suffered from, been diagnosed with, or been treated for depression or a behavioral or emotional disorder.

This is a question of fact. Whether the facts are relevant is not for the applicant to decide.

You are counselling people reading this thread to commit an offence.


Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

I would disagree with the black and white argument that you are proposing...these types of issues don't work that way so engaging with systems that treat it as such is not helpful, and that is precisely the problem.

Again....going by what we have with the OP, this may not be a disorder at all (...that is the technical term being disputed here,...), but simply a man needing better tools to cope with the stress of his job which he never got from either work nor from his GP. Is it an offence to council being more discerning about whether that is the case apart from the avenues he's looked to already (i.e. RCMP, Medical, work...all of which know nothing of the issue, really), I would argue that it is not. Also....as I've stated...maybe after getting a deeper look at the issue, he...and his councilor...may determine he shouldn't have a firearm, that is certainly an outcome he'd have to accept.

Regardless, I wish the OP the best with this.

[lifeOfBarney]

you go to another doctor...........you are well spoken

Agreed. Find another doctor. Your doc might be against hunting and shooting.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

[welsh]

I would disagree with the black and white argument that you are proposing...these types of issues don't work that way so engaging with systems that treat it as such is not helpful, and that is precisely the problem.

You would disagree, and you would remain wrong.

The application for a PAL does not ask the applicant to make judgment calls regarding his fitness. It asks the applicant to answer questions of fact.

Whether a person has been treated for or diagnosed with a disorder is a question of fact. If the answer is yes -- say, if I was diagnosed 4 years ago as clinically depressed -- and I answer "No," I commit an offence. My own judgment as to my current fitness to own a firearm is not relevant, and neither is the judgment of any other person. If the fact is true, you must answer "Yes."

The grey area and the judgment calls follow, but the judgments are not the applicant's to make. You may feel that the people called on to make those judgments are ill qualified, but that doesn't change the question of fact.

Advising someone to lie on the application is unhelpful. You are suggesting he should expose himself to a five-year jail sentence to avoid paperwork hell.

Incidentally, you should look up S.464 of the Criminal Code. You may find it instructive.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[rick_iles]

You would disagree, and you would remain wrong.

The application for a PAL does not ask the applicant to make judgment calls regarding his fitness. It asks the applicant to answer questions of fact.

Whether a person has been treated for or diagnosed with a disorder is a question of fact. If the answer is yes -- say, if I was diagnosed 4 years ago as clinically depressed -- and I answer "No," I commit an offence. My own judgment as to my current fitness to own a firearm is not relevant, and neither is the judgment of any other person. If the fact is true, you must answer "Yes."

The grey area and the judgment calls follow, but the judgments are not the applicant's to make. You may feel that the people called on to make those judgments are ill qualified, but that doesn't change the question of fact.

Advising someone to lie on the application is unhelpful. You are suggesting he should expose himself to a five-year jail sentence to avoid paperwork hell.

Incidentally, you should look up S.464 of the Criminal Code. You may find it instructive.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Unfortunately for the OP, this is the case. The question IS black or white, there is no grey area. I highly doubt that anyone from the CFO’s office, AFO or PFO would approve a similar application. They are just not going to take that chance.....IMHO, the OP’s only option at this point is to take up bow hunting in the short term. If after a few years of no issues, another attempt at obtaining a licence can be made.

[tcsgamer]

/sigh.

The statement that is clearly causing trouble is this:

"If you would have asked me at the time, I would have recommended against putting that information in the form, with the following in mind..."

There are two ways of going about that objective...:
1) fill out the form, omit the information.
2) wait...don't fill out the form in the first place.

I have no idea why the assumption is the former when the later is also applicable...but that is the internet for you: always assume the worse of the other person. Nowhere on my response do I say "lie on the form", as Welsh hamfistedly assumes. I assume that the OP is a moral agent and can make a decision between 1) and 2) on his own.

Lastly, and this is where I will sign off on this issue because Welsh is clearly determined to be uncharitable in assuming criminal intent on my part (seriously...wow...this forum certainly lives up to its reputation of wild swing and misses...): The OP has not specifically said anything about whether not he was diagnosed with any disorder (again...that is a key word) at all, only that he got, and I quote: "I have sought counselling through work programs and my doctor..." due to "stress at work". Getting "counseling at work...and my doctor" and being "diagnosed with a disorder" are not the same things in both the medical and legal sense...not even close.

Have a good day, all...and again: Good luck, sir. I do highly recommend that sight that I linked.

[welsh]

1) fill out the form, omit the information.

Knowingly omitting information is the same offence as giving a false answer.

In any case, the question is Yes/No. You can't really leave the fact out.

2) wait...don't fill out the form in the first place.

The PAL expires. You can only wait so long. The police will give latitude for an expired PAL if you are stuck in paperwork hell, but knowingly allowing it to expire to avoid providing potentially disqualifying info....

Neither is a practical option. The only "coulda woulda shoulda" solution is to get your ducks in a row before sending in the renewal, and then send the form in early (because you know renewal will take longer) with a doctor lined up to take care of the additional paperwork. But this doesn't help the OP, who may not own a functioning time machine.

The OP has not specifically said anything about whether not he was diagnosed with any disorder....

The OP did, however, answer the question in the affirmative. I'm operating under the bold assumption that he's more familiar with the facts of his case than you are. If he felt he had to answer Yes then I'll take his word for it.

Every time I see a thread like this, be it for mental health or job loss or whatever, someone always suggests giving a false answer or leaving that info out ... that is very bad advice, and yet there it is, for the next guy who has a similar problem to read.



Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[seabast]

Once in a while not following the rules is the only option. I can't remember the last time I was asked my PAL by a CO....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MikePal]

I can't remember the last time I was asked my PAL by a CO....

They don't ask, they don't care...they say that is the RCMP's responsibility, not theirs....I didn't argue

[trimmer21]

Once in a while not following the rules is the only option. I can't remember the last time I was asked my PAL by a CO....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Police will certainly ask for it. The very last thing any firearm owner wants to do is to get caught in a lie. If it's found that someone failed to disclose or outright lied to get/keep a PAL,they'll wish they hadn't in very quick order. After that,the ramifications will be permanent and very far-reaching.

[justinj]

Although I don't know the extent of the original poster's mental health or history, I find this situation troubling. Being denied access to cross the border, hunt or take a particular job etc. seems like it would be a deterrent for many people from seeking medical attention for their mental illness, which could make things worse for that individual. In this day and age, where we have made great strides in diagnosing and treating mental health it seems odd that you could potentially be denied some sort of privilege because you ticked a box in a form stating that you have an anxiety disorder.

IMO it should be up to the doctor to flag any serious concerns - they should be required to back it up with a patient's medical history, rather than just 'err on the side of caution.'

That said, I am unaware of any law that gives the RCMP access to your medical records without a warrant. I have read that when someone calls 911, you are basically calling the police, and that incident (say, a mental breakdown) could be accessible in a database. Your discussions with your doctors (with certain exceptions) remain private.