buckstalker1187

The following is a letter thatI sent to the general council of the NRA. I have still not heard a response from them.

If you might know of someone that could help, please let me know.

The description of the incident is long....im sorry. but please take the time to read it.



On February 5, 2007 I began a 6-week training academy to become a correctional officer at the Wyatt Federal Detention Facility in Central Falls Rhode Island. I was to undergo 8 hours of training per day, Mondays though Fridays. After visiting several of the housing units inside the prison with my training officer and fellow recruits, I realized the job was not suited for me and that it could have great effects on my peace of mind and happiness later on in my career. With plenty of thought and careful considerations, my decision was final. On February 15, 2007, I reported to the Wyatt Detention Facility dressed in plain street clothes and handed in all my paperwork for resignation in the training academy.

When the training officer and the Sergeant asked me about the reason or reasons for my resignation, I honestly told them the truth. I said that I could feel the pressures from the prison building up even before I finished the academy. I knew that if I could sense these issues this early in the academy, it would only get worse if I was to continue and make a career as a correctional officer. I told them that I would never want to put my peace of mind or well being on the line for a job. I also said that I would never want to jeopardize the happiness of my family because of problems that I might bring home from a day’s work inside of the prison. When they asked me what I thought could be the possible outcomes if I was to stay in the academy to become a correctional officer, I told them that I would rather drop out of the academy now instead of continuing and possibly becoming so depressed that I could end up hurting someone or even myself.
To me there is no job or money value that you should put your peace of mind on the line for. I am aware and was also made aware by one of the captains at the detention facility that law enforcement has high divorce rates and also carries with it plenty of domestic violence also, whether spousal abuse or even public violence. After hearing my reasons of resignation, she agreed with and supported my decision to drop out of the academy. She said that a job in law enforcement is not for everyone and it can “sometimes” change people’s personalities in a bad way. She also told me that if I was feeling warning signs of possible future anxiety or stresses, then it was indeed time for me to resign and that the job was not for me.

I honestly felt glad to have resigned from a career that could have made me a statistic like so many law enforcement officers have become. I thought it more important to bring to the surface a potential problem than to hide it away like many apparently do, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many law enforcement officers that are involved with numerous domestic incidents or divorce rates to be so high in that field.

Within a short time of giving this statement to the officers in charge at the detention facility, I was taken to Memorial Hospital in Pawtucket, Rhode Island by my Sergeant, where I was to be evaluated medically to see if I was stable.( I was told that this was standard procedure for the prison to do this anytime someone says they could "potentially" harm themselves or others.) I told the doctors and nurses that I felt fine and appreciated their concerns. I was given blood tests and urine samples for labs and evaluated by nurses and a doctor.

In the process of waiting for my final evaluation, (2) officers from the Pawtucket police department arrived at the hospital and they approached me. They told me that the city of Pawtucket prohibits anyone that “ MIGHT” be an unstable person to posses a firearm and that I would have to turn in my (3) firearms that were secured and locked at my home in Pawtucket. They asked me if I had any problems with turning in my firearms and they also told me that after I was discharged medically, I would be able to pick them up at the station. Within a couple minutes of their last statement, I became under the impression that if I didn’t hand over my firearms that they would take them away anyways. I cooperated with the officers and told them that I would turn in my firearms under the assumption that I would get them back after being medically discharged.

After full completion of my examinations, I went to the Pawtucket police dept. to make an appointment with detective Jeff Allen. After many attempts to make actual contacts other than voice messages, the timeframe of more than a week passed before a date of March 7, 2007 @ 2:30 pm was established. (I was informed via voicemail by Detective Jeff Allen that on that date I would be able to pick up and take home my firearms.)

When I arrived at the police station on March 7, 2007, I met with Detective Allen. After speaking with Detective Allen for a short time period, I was informed that the city of Pawtucket was again enforcing a new law that would deny me my right to take my firearms. I was told that regardless of my spotless background check with no criminal charges, “ not even a speeding ticket” and also that none of my firearms had been stolen or involved in a crime, I would be refused the right to remove my firearms from the custody of the Pawtucket Police department without a special court order and that I would have to hire a lawyer to get my guns back.

I personally do not feel that I should have to hire a lawyer and PAY to get my firearms back. I did not commit any crimes to have them taken from me, neither have I ever committed a crime, felony or misdemeanor which ever inhibited me of purchasing a firearm. I feel that I am actually being punished by having my second amendment rights taken away. I think it pure folly that I can lawfully go to any local gun store and purchase a firearm without hassle….but if I try to go to the police department to get my guns back, they wont give them to me.

Through some basic research, I have found that Rhode Island gun laws allow law enforcement agencies to confiscate firearms “ AFTER” and only “ AFTER” a person is medically diagnosed as being mentallyincompetent or criminally insane,( by a medical Dr. only.)

As stated in “§ 11-47-6Mental incompetents, drug addicts, and drunkards prohibited from possession. – No person who is under guardianship or treatment or confinement by virtue of being a mental incompetent, or who has been adjudicated or is under treatment or confinement as a drug addict, or who has been adjudicated or is under treatment or confinement as an habitual drunkard, shall purchase, own, carry, transport, or have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm. Any person affected by the provisions of this section, other than a person who has been pronounced criminally insane by competent medical authority, after the lapse of a period of five (5) years from the date of being pronounced cured by competent medical authority, may, upon presentation of an affidavit issued by competent medical authority to the effect that he or she is a mentally stable person and a proper person to possess firearms, make application for the purchase of the firearm(s).”

This section states that no person “ by virtue” of being mentally incompetent or that has been adjudicated of being mentally incompetent shall purchase, own, carry, transport, or have in their possession or control any firearm.

VIRTUE - by reason of or because of.
ADJUDICATED – to be pronounced by a judicial sentence.

I was never diagnosed by the doctor to be mentally incompetent neither was I ever pronounced by a judicial sentence to be mentally incompetent or criminally insane. And according to this section, the only person who can pronounce someone criminally insane is “ COMPETENT MEDICAL AUTHORITY” And the only person who can pronounce someone “cured” is a “ COMPETENT MEDICAL AUTHORITY” And the only person that can issue an affidavit to state that a person is mentally stable to posses firearms after he was pronounced mentally incompetent is a “ COMPETENT MEDICAL AUTHORITY”

I was never diagnosed as mentally unstable or criminally insane, I was diagnosed with temporary depression. And I can still go to any gun store and purchase a firearm without hassle. The Pawtucket Police department prematurely confiscated my firearms, “without good cause or criminal reasons”. And they are not giving them back. My firearms were taken from me because of my honesty to admit that a career as a correctional officer was not the career for me, and that I had concerns to keep my happiness and well being.

On the police report (which is attached to this document) I noticed my sergeant from the detention facility told the police that I may have been homicidal or suicidal. I was admitted into the hospital at 11:04 am on February 5, 2007 and medically discharged by Dr. Jagminas under the diagnosis of depression on February 5, 2007 at 2:05 pm.

That is a time frame of about 3 hours. I don’t think they would have released me if they thought I was homicidal. I believe that the officers at the Pawtucket police department acted solely on the ASSUMPTION of my Sergeant at the detention facility ( that I may be homicidal) And not on the actual diagnosis of a medical Dr. (LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO UNDER RHODE ISLAND LAW) As stated in § 11-47-6 of Rhode island state law that :

The only person who can pronounce someone criminally insane is “ COMPETENT MEDICAL AUTHORITY” And the only person who can pronounce someone “cured” is a “ COMPETENT MEDICAL AUTHORITY” And the only person that can issue an affidavit to state that a person is mentally stable to posses firearms after he had been pronounced mentally incompetent is a “ COMPETENT MEDICAL AUTHORITY”

Obviously the sergeant at the detention facility was not “ COMPETENT MEDICAL AUTHORITY” otherwise he could have given me a diagnosis right at the detention facility instead of taking me to a hospital where he KNEW that was the proper place that I needed to go in order to be properly diagnosed.

I also think it strange that the 2 officers from the Pawtucket police department didn’t ask the Sergeant to give me my official medical discharge. While just hours before they relied on HIS diagnosis of me being “homicidal” for the purpose to take away my firearms.


Also, if you read the police report, you will notice the times the officers were at my house (ready to take my guns) was BEFORE I had been medically diagnosed. (WHICH IS ALSO AGAINST RHODE ISLAND LAW) They had no solid grounds of a lawful reason to take my firearms away ( but they where at my door to take them while I was at the hospital) NOTICE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT EVEN GOING TO ASK ME TO TAKE MY FIREARMS AWAY, THEY RESPONDED TO MY HOUSE IN PAWTUCKET ( FIRST) WITH THE HOPES THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE THERE TO GIVE THEM MY GUNS.THEY ALSO KNEW THAT I WOULD NOT BE THERE TO ASK ME FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT I WAS BEING TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL BY MY SERGEANT FROM THE DETENTION FACILITY.

The report also states that the officers handed over my firearms to their detective Jeff Allen where Allen was to perform a firearms check through the NCIC. The background checks came out clean, were never stolen or used in a crime. ( UNDER RHODE ISLAND LAW, FIREARMS (MUST) BE RETURNED TO THEIR LAWFUL OWNER AFTER A NCIC CHECK HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AND NO THEFT OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE FIREARMS. AND THE ONLY REASON THAT FIREARMS CAN BE HELD IS IF THEY ARE NESSESARY FOR EVIDENCE IN A CRIME OR A CIVIL MATTER THAT EITHER THE ATTOURNEY GENERAL OR A JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT MUST APPROVE OF FIRST. )

§ 11-47-22Forfeiture and destruction of unlawful firearms.(b) When a firearm is lawfully seized, confiscated from or turned in by any person, it shall be placed in the custody of the superintendent of state police or the chief of police in the city or town in which it was seized, confiscated or turned in to. The officer who takes custody of the firearm shall promptly ascertain, using available record keeping systems, including, but not limited to, the National Crime Information Center, whether the firearm has been reported stolen and if stolen shall notify the reporting law enforcement agency of the recovery of said firearm. If the police department in the city or town in which the firearm was seized or confiscated has not been notified by a justice of the superior court or the attorney general that the firearm is NECESSARY AS EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL OR CIVIL MATTER, IT SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE LAWFUL OWNER.


The background check on my firearms through the NCIC came back clean, so I KNOW it is not being held for any criminal or civil matters.

SIMPLY PUT; THE PAWTUCKET POLICE DEPARTMENT UNLAWFULLY TOOK MY FIREARMS AND ARE UNLAWFULLY NOT GIVING THEM BACK!!!!!


According to national and Rhode Island state laws on a website provided by ATF state laws, these are the only reasons why a person cannot lawfully posses a firearm.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm


AND I DO NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THESE CATEGORIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]
Yes, a person who –
(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
(2) Is a fugitive from justice;
(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;
(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
(10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.
Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.
[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32]



UPDATE:


As of Monday March 12, 2007 I contacted the Pawtucket Police dept. in attempt to gain information as to the reasons of my firearms being held. I asked to speak to the head officer in charge and was transferred to his phone line by another officer. When I spoke to the lieutenant I made him aware that I knew that it was against Rhode Island State law To confiscate or make a citizen turn in his firearms if : he has not committed a felony or crime punishable up to 1 year in prison or is under the influence of any illegal drug…..ect…ect…ect…. I told him that I knew it was also against the laws of Rhode Island to take away or deny the rights of firearms to someone who has not been diagnosed by a “ PROFFESIONAL MEDICAL AUTHORITY “ as someone who is criminally insane or someone who is mentally incompetent.
He told me that he was aware of the law and the city of Pawtucket is holding my firearms due to the fact that my diagnosis from the doctor at the hospital was not a specific enough diagnosis. He said the diagnosis does not properly eliminate me from being a “ MENTALLY INCOMPETENT” or person with some other “DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY” that could make me a“ THREAT TO SOCIETY OR MYSELF.”

I told him that I had been diagnosed and discharged from the hospital with the diagnosis of depression. He told me that the discharge from the hospital was NOT a valid medical discharge that discharged me from depression, but was ONLY a discharge to get me out of the hospital!!!
He also told me that the diagnosis of “depression” MIGHT fall under the definition of mentally incompetent and that I would have a hard time proving that I do not fall under such a category. He told me that I have every right to follow up on this and take action in a court of law.

After looking up the definition of “mentally incompetent”, I was not surprised to find that the word “depression” was NOT at all in the definition to describe someone mentally incompetent.

Here is the actual medical definition of the word “mentally incompetent” and the website that I found it on.
http://www.mega.nu/webconst/section_Definition_of_Mental_Incompetence.html

“An individual is defined as mentally incompetent if he is manifestly psychotic or otherwise of unsound mind, either consistently or sporadically, by reason of mental defect, among which are retardation, schizophrenia or other acute hallucinatory and delusory defects of mind, certain types of epilepsy and other seizure disorders which render the individual coordinated and mobile but of unsound mind, bipolar disorder which results in sporadic psychosis (but not simply mild or moderate bipolar disorder), and other disorders which consistently or sporadically render the individual starkly incapable of maintaining awareness of and responsibility for his actions.”

I also found what the state of Rhode Island considers “mentally incompetent” under Rhode Island law mentally incompetent is defined as:

§ 40.1-5.3-3Competency to stand trial.
(5) "Incompetent" or "incompetency" means mentally incompetent to stand trial. A person is mentally incompetent to stand trial if he or she is unable to understand the character and consequences of the proceedings against him or her or is unable properly to assist in his or her defense;

I also found the definition for “developmental disabilities” under Rhode Island laws.

CHAPTER 40.1-26
Rights for Persons with Developmental Disabilities
SECTION 40.1-26-2
§ 40.1-26-2Definitions.

(8) "Developmental disability" means a severe chronic disability which is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of impairments; is manifested before the person attains age twenty-two (22); is likely to continue indefinitely; results in substantial functional limitations in three (3) or more of the following areas of major life activity: self-care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living, economic self-sufficiency; and reflects the person's need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary or generic care, treatment, or other services which are of life long or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
I also noted that this section has the definition for competence

§ 40.1-26-2Definitions.

(6) "Competent" means the ability to understand the likely risks and benefits of a procedure or plan when the risks and benefits are presented to the participant in a manner most likely to be understood by the participant in light of his or her cognitive abilities and learning style.

I have also found the definition of “likelihood of serious harm”
CHAPTER 40.1-5
Mental Health Law
SECTION 40.1-5-2
§ 40.1-5-2Definitions

(7) "Likelihood of serious harm" means:
(i) A substantial risk of physical harm to the person himself or herself as manifested by behavior evidencing serious threats of, or attempts at, suicide;
(ii) A substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by behavior or threats evidencing homicidal or other violent behavior; or
(iii) A substantial risk of physical harm to the mentally disabled person as manifested by behavior which has created a grave, clear, and present risk to his or her physical health and safety.
.
(8) "Mental disability" means a mental disorder in which the capacity of a person to exercise self control or judgment in the conduct of his or her affairs and social relations, or to care for his or her own personal needs, is significantly impaired.

I have also found through some research in Rhode Island law that it is impossible for me to have been found to have “the likelihood of serious harm”, due to the fact that I was released from the hospital. By the doctor giving me discharge from the hospital, he showed that he felt I was no threat to myself or the general public.

CHAPTER 40.1-22
Developmental Disabilities
SECTION 40.1-22-16
§ 40.1-22-16Discharge. – The director or the superintendent or official in charge of any facility, on having his or her reasons noted on the client's record, may discharge any client:
(1) Who, in his or her judgment, is substantially improved.
(2) Who, in his or her opinion, is not developmentally disabled.
(3) Who is not substantially improved but whose discharge, in his or her judgment, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the client.


CHAPTER 40.1-5
Mental Health Law
SECTION 40.1-5-11

§ 40.1-5-11Discharge – Recertification. – (a) The official in charge of any facility or his or her designated agent, on having his or her reasons noted on the patient's records, shall discharge any patient certified or admitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, when:
(1) Suitable alternatives to certification or admission are available;
(2) The patient is, in the judgment of the official, recovered;
(3) The patient is not recovered, but discharge, in the judgment of the official, will not create a likelihood of serious harm by reason of mental disability.


Just because I was admitted into a hospital under the “pretenses” of the sergeant from the prison that I might be suicidal or homicidal, does not mean that I was diagnosed as such. However, I am being treated as such by the Pawtucket police department, which again is breaking ANOTHER law by doing so.

CHAPTER 40.1-5
Mental Health Law
SECTION 40.1-5-5

§ 40.1-5-5Admission of patients generally – Rights of patients – Patients' records – Competence of patients. – (a) Admissions. Any person who is in need of care and treatment in a facility, as herein defined, may be admitted or certified, received, and retained as a patient in a facility by complying with any one of the following admission procedures applicable to the case:
(1) Voluntary admission.
(2) Emergency certification.
(3) Civil court certification.
f) Rights of patients. No patient admitted or certified to any facility under any provision of this chapter shall be deprived of ANY constitutional, civil or legal RIGHT, SOLEY BY REASON OF SUCH ADMISSION or certification nor shall the certification or admission modify or vary any constitutional or civil right, including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, the right or rights:
(1) To privacy and dignity;
(2) To civil service or merit rating or ranking and appointment;
(3) Relating to the granting, forfeiture or denial of a license, permit, privilege or benefit pursuant to any law;
(4) To religious freedom;
(5) To be visited privately at all reasonable times by his or her personal physician, attorney, and clergyperson, and by other persons at all reasonable times unless the official in charge of the facility determines either that a visit by any of the other persons or a particular visitation time would not be in the best interests of the patient and he or she incorporates a statement for any denial of visiting rights in the individualized treatment record of the patient;
(6) To be provided with stationery, writing materials, and postage in reasonable amounts and to have free unrestricted, unopened, and uncensored use of the mails for letters;
(7) To wear one's own clothes, keep and use personal possessions, including toilet articles, to keep and be allowed to spend a reasonable sum of money for canteen expenses and small purchases, to have access to individual storage space for his or her private use, and reasonable access to telephones to make and receive confidential calls; provided, however, that any of these rights may be denied for good cause by the official in charge of a facility or a physician designated by him or her. A statement of the reasons for any denial shall be entered in the individualized treatment record of the patient;
(8) To seek independent psychiatric examination and opinion from a psychiatrist or mental health professional of his or her choice;
(9) To be employed at a gainful occupation insofar as the patient's condition permits, provided however, that no patient shall be required to perform labor;
(10) To vote and participate in political activity;
(11) To receive and read literature;
(12) To have the least possible restraint imposed upon the person consistent with affording him or her the care and treatment necessary and appropriate to his or her condition;
(13) To have access to the mental health advocate upon request;
(14) To prevent release of his or her name to the advocate or next of kin by signing a form provided to all patients for that purpose at the time of admission.

(h) Competence. A person SHALL NOT, SOLEY BY REASON OF his or her ADMISSION or certification to a facility for examination or care and treatment under the provisions of this chapter thereby BE DEEMED INCOMPETENT to manage his or her affairs, to contract, to hold, or seek a professional, occupational, or vehicle operator's license, to make a will, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. Neither shall any requirement be made, by rule, regulation, or otherwise, as a condition to admission and retention, that any person applying for admission shall have the legal capacity to contract, it being sufficient for the purpose, that the person understand the nature and consequence of making the application.

I have done plenty of research on Rhode Island laws and know my rights as a firearm owner. I don’t feel I should have to pay for a lawyer to get my guns back. I don’t need a lawyer or a court order to buy a firearm from a gun store, so I don’t feel I need one to lawfully get them back from the Pawtucket police department either.

I have committed NO crime nor did I do anything for my guns to be rightfully taken away.