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

[MikePal]

. Your discussions with your doctors (with certain exceptions) remain private.

That theory about privacy isn't true....take for example an eye test. If the optometrist finds your vision isn't good they are required by law to 'pull your license'. There are a few guys around here that are too scared to get their eyes checked because the local Dr does just that.

Same with a medical condition that will affect your driving.

Physicians and optometrists are required to report any patient who may be suffering from a medical or visual condition that may impair their driving. Police may also report drivers who they feel may be medically unfit to drive.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/saf...tandards.shtml

Like I said earlier, it's just a matter of time before mental health professions will be required by law to submit their concerns/finding to the RCMP in regards to firearms ownership.

And from the point of view as a citizen, I know a couple of guys who don't have and shouldn't have easy access to guns...they may not agree...but they're in no position to be objective.

[MikePal]

To support my above statement:

On Sept 1, 2008 Québec's gun control legislation, Bill 9, came into force. The legislation is dubbed Anastasia's Law in memory of 18 year old Anastasia DeSousa, who was killed during the Sept 2006 Dawson College shooting. The law bans the possession of firearms in schools and daycare centres, and on public and school transportation. Under the new rules, teachers, gun club owners, and public transit and health-care workers are also required to report suspicious behaviour relating to firearms, even if it contradicts doctor-patient or any other confidentiality.4

Health services are provincially regulated and would need to be approached one province at a time. This has been problematic in light of the privacy issues surrounding mental health, which also needs to be further addressed. An example of the types of existing unresolved mental health issues is represented by the Ontario Medical Association (OMA). 5

Prior to 2003, the OMA Forms Committee initiated discussions with the Chief Firearms Office to review and revise the process of information collection from physicians whose patients were identified as potentially "high risk" for possession of a firearm. While the content of the form was successfully revised, the process for obtaining the firearms licence remains an issue. The process for obtaining a Firearms licence involves:

Completion of an application form by the applicant, which is then reviewed by officials in Miramichi, New Brunswick
Most of the patients referred to physicians for an opinion will be high-risk patients whose problems are clearly identified either through the applicant screening process or reference interviews.
The physician's report is very often used as a stop mechanism, thus preventing high-risk individuals from obtaining a firearms licence. Not only does government place physicians in a difficult position by requesting confidential and potentially damaging information on their patients, but government also refuses to pay for the form, leaving physicians to collect fees for their services from patients - and possibly placing physician safety in jeopardy.
The OMA is seeking timely resolution to this matter, and is prepared to resume negotiations. Physicians are requested not to complete the "Firearms Office Authorization for Release of Medical Information Form" until further notice.

If you read thru the link below you can see the work already in place making Public Safety trump Privacy concerns.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-.../pg9-5-eng.htm

[trimmer21]

To support my above statement:



If you read thru the link below you can see the work already in place making Public Safety trump Privacy concerns.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-.../pg9-5-eng.htm

As far as I can see,none of these "recommendations" were ever enacted. Most of them wouldn't pass a Charter challenge. They're far too intrusive. This is the type of draconian legislation we need to guard against if we believe in a free and democratic society. There's simply no excuse.

[Crawdad Six]

I totally understand the need for this. I shake my head at the leniency of the U.S firearms regulations in some states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no variance state-to-state as far as applying to purchase a firearm. Every firearms purchase requires you to fill out a federal form 4473, which includes a section relating to mental illness/incapacity. I would argue that U.S. firearms background checks are just as intensive, if not more so, than Canada's. Canada requires a background check for a PAL that is good for 5 years. The U.S. requires a background check for every firearms purchase, at the time of purchase.

Regarding the U.S. mental health section (11 f.) on the background check, here's the relevant section:

"A determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs."

Canada would do well to remove the ambiguity from its current process. Right now, the decision is in the hands of general practitioners with unknown agendas and little to no training in diagnosing or treating mental health issues. Requiring a legal finding of mental incapacity should be required as grounds for refusal, not just hoping your GP doesn't use his position to foist his political beliefs on his patients.

Musky, the fact that your doc won't even discuss the matter with you tells you all you need to know, which is that you need a new doctor, PAL application or no. You're the customer. Vote with your feet.

[welsh]

The U.S. requires a background check for every firearms purchase, at the time of purchase.

Untrue. This is required only for purchases from FFL holders.

Also, US background checks rule out only those people who have been adjudicated mentally unfit. In some states this will screen out only those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Neither do background checks affect possession; the system assumes that mental health status never changes.

It's a poor model.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[Crawdad Six]

Untrue. This is required only for purchases from FFL holders.

Also, US background checks rule out only those people who have been adjudicated mentally unfit. In some states this will screen out only those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Neither do background checks affect possession; the system assumes that mental health status never changes.

It's a poor model.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

You think any model you didn't design, build and paint is "a poor model."

Where do you get this stuff about the law assuming mental health (or conviction) status never changes? If you've been adjudicated as mentally defective, you are not allowed to possess firearms, even if they were previously acquired. Same as with felony convictions.

Guy that shot up the church in Texas? Was legally forbidden to possess firearms due to his Bad Conduct Discharge from the Air Force. He was also forbidden to murder all those folks by state and federal law. Turns out criminals don't care about laws forbidding criminal acts. You're fooling yourself if you believe you can perfect humanity through regulation.

[welsh]

Where do you get this stuff about the law assuming mental health (or conviction) status never changes?

The assumption that mental health status does not change is inherent to a system where background checks apply only at time of sale.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[Crawdad Six]

Anyway, to return to the original topic:

Musky, my PAL is currently processing, as well. Who knows how long it will take to approve or even if it will BE approved? I've been here seven years but I'm not a citizen. I could get rejected for any or no reason, I guess.

So here's what I decided: Control the things you can control.

That means I went out and got me a crossbow and some bolts. If the worst comes to pass, I'll still be able to enjoy hunting in Canada. I can always go south of the border to get my fill of shooting.

[OldNewGuy]

Guy that shot up the church in Texas? Was legally forbidden to possess firearms due to his Bad Conduct Discharge from the Air Force. He was also forbidden to murder all those folks by state and federal law.

Can't comment on the aspects of this as relating to Canada, but it was reported a day or so ago that the U.S. Air Force, in their infinite wisdom, neglected to report the history of this violent individual to the authorities which regulate firearm purchases in the U.S.A. following the BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge) as they were required to under U.S. law. If they had done so, the shooter would not have been able to purchase firearms from any FFL dealers (but still would have been able to purchase privately). I presume there is more than a little sweat within Air Force command ranks about that oversight, since it's pretty much guaranteed that several high-dollar lawsuits will be forthcoming in the litiginous environment there.

Of course, the major disparity there is a lack of a PAL-type system such as Canada's, where each individual is checked prior to being able to purchase legally whether from dealers or privately - other than the gang-bangers who buy smuggled.

[Bearpaw]

without your pal, would you still be able to gun hunt by sharing a gun with someone who has their pal? For example there are new hunters on this board who have pals, but nobody to teach them well like how your father taught you. Would you be willing to be a mentor like this?

Also, what is the real worst part of this? Is it losing the inherited firearms? Is it the family momentos that would be lost? Is that where the real value of your family's hunting tradition is? Or is it not being able to hunt with a gun which may be your only option of putting good meat on the table? could it be your pride clouding your better judgement on what to do here?

And what are we honestly weighing this against? An anti hunter doctor who doesn't even know you? A doctor who knows you long and well along with the issues at stake? General Public safety? Firearms rights in Canada?

It just seems like there's so much more questions that need to be addressed here