Novant Health reporting drug tests to Meck Sheriff?

The only way a Psychiatrist can notify Law Enforcement is if they believe the subject is about to or has committed a serious crime.

But then the guy probably signed a waiver for medical information when he applied with the Sheriff and it was a part of the initial vetting.
 
I
J R Green said:
The only way a Psychiatrist can notify Law Enforcement is if they believe the subject is about to or has committed a serious crime.

But then the guy probably signed a waiver for medical information when he applied with the Sheriff and it was a part of the initial vetting.
Click to expand...

Or is a court appointed psychiatrist giving required information back to the judicial system for a case. Like an ongoing custody battle, said he lost three kids.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
Ok so read the letter so let's go to the statue listed in the letter and possibly find a possible answer:


(h) The sheriff shall revoke any permit upon the occurrence of any event or condition subsequent to the issuance of the permit, or the applicant's subsequent inability to meet a requirement under this Article, which would have resulted in a denial of the application submitted to obtain the permit if the event, condition, or the applicant's current inability to meet a statutory requirement had existed at the time of the application and prior to the issuance of the permit. The following procedures apply to a revocation:

(1) The sheriff shall provide written notice to the permittee, pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4(j), that the permit is revoked upon the service of the notice. The notice shall provide the permittee with information on the process to appeal the revocation.

(2) Upon receipt of the written notice of revocation, the permittee shall surrender the permit to the sheriff. Any law enforcement officer serving the notice is authorized to take immediate possession of the permit from the permittee. If the notice is served by means other than by a law enforcement officer, the permittee shall surrender the permit to the sheriff no later than 48 hours after service of the notice.

(3) The sheriff shall insure that the list of permits which have been revoked is immediately updated so that any potential transferor calling to check the validity of the permit will be informed of the revocation.

(4) A permittee may appeal the revocation of a permit pursuant to this subsection by petitioning a district court judge of the district in which the permittee resides.

(5) Any person who willfully fails to surrender a permit upon notice of revocation shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

(i) A person or entity shall promptly disclose to the sheriff, upon presentation by the applicant or sheriff of an original or photocopied release form described in subdivision (5) of subsection (e1) of this section, any court orders concerning the mental health or capacity of the applicant who signed the release form. (1919, c. 197, s. 3; C.S., s. 5108; 1959, c. 1073, s. 2; 1969, c. 73; 1981 (Reg. Sess., 1982), c. 1395, s. 1; 1987, c. 518, s. 1; 1995, c. 487, s. 2; 2006-39, s. 1; 2006-264, s. 4; 2008-210, s. 3(a); 2009-570, s. 7; 2010-108, s. 4; 2011-2, s. 1; 2011-56, s. 2; 2011-183, s. 13; 2011-268, s. 10; 2013-369, s. 17.2(a); 2013-389, s. 2; 2014-115, s. 23.5(a); 2015-195, ss. 10(d), 11(c), (f), (j); 2016-77, s. 9(a).)


So to me it looks like they issued the permit possibly before getting the medical release back that you have to fill out and found something that disqualified the person once it came back. Seems like it must be a fairly common thing to have an entire sub section in the statute. So it seems like those issues were before his permit was issued.
Don't know this to be truth but it seems more plausible than the hospital just sending over random dudes medical records.
Click to expand...

This seems more likely than the story he is telling. I am 100% sure that there is more to the story. I do not work in healthcare but the wife does. She has a Masters in Healthcare Admin and knows this stuff inside and out. It is her job. She looked at thist story and immediately said. That dog don't hunt. There is a criminal or mental health component that the guy is not disclosing.
 
J R Green said:
The only way a Psychiatrist can notify Law Enforcement is if they believe the subject is about to or has committed a serious crime.

But then the guy probably signed a waiver for medical information when he applied with the Sheriff and it was a part of the initial vetting.
Click to expand...

Even with the waiver he would have had to disclose some large issue where he was going to harm someone else or himself for a Psychiatrist to have flagged him so the mental health check would have matched him up. Again there is more to the story then what we are getting. My money is on a restraining order and a threat against the mother of his children.
 
wvsig said:
Even with the waiver he would have had to disclose some large issue where he was going to harm someone else or himself for a Psychiatrist to have flagged him so the mental health check would have matched him up. Again there is more to the story then what we are getting. My money is on a restraining order and a threat against the mother of his children.
Click to expand...
Or he's being red flagged?
 
wvsig said:
Even with the waiver he would have had to disclose some large issue where he was going to harm someone else or himself for a Psychiatrist to have flagged him so the mental health check would have matched him up. Again there is more to the story then what we are getting. My money is on a restraining order and a threat against the mother of his children.
Click to expand...

I would think that more than just pieces of paper would be confiscated if this was the case.
 
SnowRooster said:
I


Or is a court appointed psychiatrist giving required information back to the judicial system for a case. Like an ongoing custody battle, said he lost three kids.
Click to expand...
Common mistake is people believe the "courts" and the Sheriffs depart have a symbiotic relationship. They don't, in fact the courts share almost zero information with the sheriffs department's. Now then most stuff is public information but the sheriffs department would have to send an employee to search that data base. It's just not something they would do for a permit unless there were serious issues.
 
Last edited:
Mike Overlay said:
I would think that more than just pieces of paper would be confiscated if this was the case.
Click to expand...

Maybe but there is something else at play. A Psychiatrist is not going to report someone who tells them that they are self medicating by smoking pot unless there are other issues at play. Again my guess is that the pistol permits and the CHP are the tips of the iceburg with this one. It just does not add up.
 
Cowboy said:
Common mistake is people believe the "courts" and the Sheriffs depart have a symbiotic relationship. They don't, in fact the courts share almost zero information with the sheriffs department's. Now then most stuff is public information but the sheriffs department would have to send an employee to search that data base. It's just not something they would do for a permit unless there were serious issues.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is a greater issue at play here which he is not disclosing.

In the end the take away is don't got to the DR. Don't talk to Psychiatrist. Read over every waiver you ever sign and if you have to self medicate just drink yourself to death like a good red blooded American. :D
 
Last edited:
wvsig said:
Exactly. There is a greater issue at play here which he is not disclosing.
Click to expand...

If so it would have said in that letter. They would have to put the why according to statute. This letter was pretty clear that he simply admitted to being a daily user and testing positive BEFORE being issued his permit. I would say that they issued the permit before getting the medical records he had signed a release for during the process. Probably just going through checking records and matching them up and found it. If not someone sent a request For them to take a second look at it and verify. But it's clear to me that these issues were before his permit was issued.
 
Cowboy said:
If so it would have said in that letter. They would have to put the why according to statute. This letter was pretty clear that he simply admitted to being a daily user and testing positive BEFORE being issued his permit. I would say that they issued the permit before getting the medical records he had signed a release for during the process. Probably just going through checking records and matching them up and found it. If not someone sent a request For them to take a second look at it and verify. But it's clear to me that these issues were before his permit was issued.
Click to expand...

I agree but I am willing to bet it has to do with the custody of the 3 kids and their mother. He applied and got/has the permits. She knows he smokes pot. Knows he has medical and that he was seen at Novant. Also knows he sees a shrink. Calls sheriff or better yet has her lawyer call the sheriff and report him. They do a second check etc.... and his permits get revoked.
 
Last edited:
wvsig said:
I agree but I am willing to bet it has to do with the custody of the 3 kids and their mother. He applied and got/has the permits. She knows he smokes pot. Knows he has medical and that he was seen at Novant. Also knows he sees a shrink. Calls sheriff or better yet has her lawyer call the sheriff and report him. They do a second check etc.... and his permits get revoked.
Click to expand...

anything is possible but being Mecklenburg I'd bet money on just being behind.
 
Cowboy said:
anything is possible but being Mecklenburg I'd bet money on just being behind.
Click to expand...

Also we have no proof that the admission on 5/24/19 actually involved a shrink. We are taking his word on it. Could have been a traffic stop. We don't know. Anyway without full disclosure we will never know. Like I said before if it went down the way he portrays it he can sue the shrink and Novant. My bet is he doesn't because he can't win because of details we are not privy to.
 
Last edited:
Also the guy admits to smoking pot on Instagram which is in violation of NC and Federal law if he is going to own, purchase and carry a firearm. Clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.
 
11B CIB said:
I asked, just for you

8UDF7uB.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm calling now he doesn't have a CCP. One I have never heard anyone call it concealment. Two the sheriffs department would have done both at the same time, not to mention he doesn't need a purchase permit with his CCP
upload_2019-10-2_22-33-38.gif
 
Cowboy said:
...not to mention he doesn't need a purchase permit with his CCP
Click to expand...

My thoughts EXACTLY! Also, HIPAA DOES allow release of records without patient approval (thanks in part to rules enacted with the ACA). If a doctor thinks their patient's mental state will cause them to be a danger to themselves or others, they may report this in order to prevent harm to others...

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
I'm calling now he doesn't have a CCP. One I have never heard anyone call it concealment. Two the sheriffs department would have done both at the same time, not to mention he doesn't need a purchase permit with his CCP
View attachment 158381
Click to expand...

So it’s not possible to have gotten a purchase permit then obtain your carry permit afterward?

Which is what happened. The lab work that took his sample was in March 2019, his admission to a psychiatrist was in May of 2019 and this letter revoking his purchase permit is 9/30/19. Read his statement:

8WEije5.jpg


Clearly he had the purchase permit already and applied for his Carry permit between the date on the letter and May of 2019

And this IS government we are talking about here. Just like two or three times earlier, it’s easily cleared up by asking rather than jumping to conclusions to fill in the blanks. The guy has answered every question I’ve posed to him so far

Pistol permit revocation is covered under a different law than carry permits (G.S. 14-404 vs G.S. 14-415.18) It would definitely have to be on a separate page the way that one is laid out and there’s probably more red tape with revoking a carry permit vs a purchase permit.

jodyisaacs said:
My thoughts EXACTLY! Also, HIPAA DOES allow release of records without patient approval (thanks in part to rules enacted with the ACA). If a doctor thinks their patient's mental state will cause them to be a danger to themselves or others, they may report this in order to prevent harm to others...

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If he was deemed a danger to himself or others, his guns would’ve been taken and he possibly would’ve been taken for observation etc. He’s still got his guns and he wasn’t committed or whatever.
 
wvsig said:
I am still calling bullshit. There is more to the story. Hospitals only release this kind of info when they are subpoenaed. There is solid case law where this info is protected. Hospitals and Drs are not in the law enforcement business. They avoid this type of thing like the plague. They will only disclose when presented with a subpoena. They have been sued and lost for stuff like this. There is a mental health component or another legal issue at play here. I assume losing 3 kids means he lost custody. I am willing to bet there is a custody or restraining order involved. There was a legal reason why this info was accessed and the permit & CHP were revoked. If it was real he would be contacting a lawyer not posting on Instagram.

I would bet there is a legal case where his drug use was brought into question along with the guns. I am willing to bet that the mother of the children tipped off law enforcement about the positive test and drug use. We can get all indigent about it but if he is a daily user of pot then he is in violation of both the pistol permits and his CHP. In addition he has also probably lied on his 4473.

PS the letter shown in the original post is not the letter shown later. The formatting is completely different.

dKKODQB.jpg


8cZyZem.jpg
Click to expand...


His three kids died in utero while his wife was pregnant. Once again instead of assuming and filling in the blanks with whatever supports a false narrative, I asked

And yes, the front page doesn’t match the second. But look at the top corner. It’s stapled and folded over. It was a cover sheet type thing. Look at the thumb. It’s his wife’s thumb, and he took the second photo of the full story when he got home.

There’s no custody issue, there’s no ex. The woman texting him in the first photo is his wife.
 
Still makes me wonder what sort of “your papers please” he authorized the medical provider to hand over to the sheriff’s dept when he applied for his CHP?

The absolute conclusive validity of a random drug panel is something that also seems suspect in terms of automatic rights denial, setting aside the whole shrink part.
 
Dang, with some of the people posting in this thread you would think WE are gun owners worst enemies. Some of you are so full of fear that something like this COULD happen to you that you will suppose all kind of ill intent on a person you have never met to try and invalidate his story. Makes me want to puke.
 
NoNameHaveI said:
Dang, with some of the people posting in this thread you would think WE are gun owners worst enemies. Some of you are so full of fear that something like this COULD happen to you that you will suppose all kind of ill intent on a person you have never met to try and invalidate his story. Makes me want to puke.
Click to expand...
What I was thinking as well.
 
NoNameHaveI said:
Dang, with some of the people posting in this thread you would think WE are gun owners worst enemies. Some of you are so full of fear that something like this COULD happen to you that you will suppose all kind of ill intent on a person you have never met to try and invalidate his story. Makes me want to puke.
Click to expand...

What makes me puke is someone who lies on the pistol permit app, their CCP app and 4473 form when they purchase guns and then tries to play the victim card. I believe that daily use of marijuana is a disqualification for these 3 thinks.

I could careless if people smoke pot but this guy knew going in he had misrepresented himself on those forms.
 
Last edited:
wvsig said:
What makes me puke is someone who lies on the pistol permit app, their CCP app and 4473 form when they purchase guns and then tries to play the victim card. I believe that daily use of marijuana is a disqualification for these 3 thinks.

I could careless if people smoke pot but this guy knew going in he had misrepresented himself on those forms.
Click to expand...
Roger that, lying on an unconstitutional form about something that shouldn’t be illegal in the first place worse than infringing on someone’s second amendment rights, at least you own it man, I’ll give you that.
 
wvsig said:
What makes me puke is someone who lies on the pistol permit app, their CCP app and 4473 form when they purchase guns and then tries to play the victim card. I believe that daily use of marijuana is a disqualification for these 3 thinks.

I could careless if people smoke pot but this guy knew going in he had misrepresented himself on those forms.
Click to expand...

Once again, all assumptions

His marijuana use may have been prior to purchasing his guns (which may also have been private sales or given to him by family, not documented via 4473), and he could’ve stopped smoking and then gone the route to get his carry permit. The info given to his psychiatrist was about PAST USE coping with the in utero death of three kids. If you’re going to make all kinds of assumptions and build a false narrative, at least be positive or give the benefit of the doubt (since he’s obviously got NO problem answering questions which have proved several of these false assertions wrong so far).
 
11B CIB said:
So it’s not possible to have gotten a purchase permit then obtain your carry permit afterward?


It actually is possible since it happened to me. I went down and picked up two purchase permits and my CHP was sitting in a folder in the back. After she gave me my permits I asked about the status of my CHP application and she went into the back and brought out a folder. Inside was my CHP that she then handed to me. A week later I got a postcard in the mail telling me to come down and pick up the CHP.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I mentioned this before when it happened. A few years ago my Dad had his yearly blood tests and check up with his Doctor. A few weeks later the State of NY Health Dept calls him to discuss the elevated lead levels in his blood. He laughed and told them after 50 years of casting lead bullets and shooting he’d be shocked if his lead levels weren’t elevated.

His Dr is a shooter, but somehow that data went from the Dr/lab to the State.

Nothing is private any more.
 
NoNameHaveI said:
What a great point, red flag laws, magazine capacity laws, banned rifle features, assault weapons bans, all laws that should be followed that we should just shut up and do nothing about.
Click to expand...

You can shut up if you want but the only way to stop unjust laws that we have in this country is to vote and voice your opinions.

We are a nation of laws. The above things you mentioned are an infringement on the second.
So hell no.

Not sure sucking smoke is protected in the constitution.
 
Tailhunter said:
Not sure sucking smoke is protected in the constitution.
Click to expand...
grungewehr39 said:
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?????
Click to expand...
I've been trying to keep the issue of Uncle Stupid trying to legislate MJ, which wasn't a power expressly granted out of this but ... Hypothetically speaking, what if someone goes to a foreign country, not just a state that one could argue is still under US jurisdiction, where it is perfectly LEGAL to use. Supposedly it remains detectable for several weeks or months.
 
Last edited:
Tailhunter said:
You can shut up if you want but the only way to stop unjust laws that we have in this country is to vote and voice your opinions.

We are a nation of laws. The above things you mentioned are an infringement on the second.
So hell no.

Not sure sucking smoke is protected in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Funny thing about that US constitution, it doesn't limit what Citizens can do, it limits what Government can do. Pretty sure the 4th amendment covers medical papers, and it may even cover rolling papers. What the 2nd amendment DOESN'T cover is a paper permission slip from a Sheriff stating you may keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
Tailhunter said:
You can shut up if you want but the only way to stop unjust laws that we have in this country is to vote and voice your opinions.

We are a nation of laws. The above things you mentioned are an infringement on the second.
So hell no.

Not sure sucking smoke is protected in the constitution.
Click to expand...
I think you might have unintentionally sailed right past the point, he didn’t loose the right to smoke anything, he lost his right to conceal carry or purchase a firearm, which is to use your phrase “an infringement on the second” so why is your response to one infringement “it’s the law” but other infringement “hell no”? Seems like if the law doesn’t affect tailhunter it doesn’t matter to tailhunter, some of us worry about ALL infringement not just the ones that affect us directly.
 
When they first started making pot legal in states I said this would come to bite gun owners/buyers in the butt. The following question is on the Form 4473 and the answer choices are Yes or No. If you are a user and answer Yes, you will be denied. If you are a user and answer No, you committed perjury to purchase a gun. And, if you buy pot from a legal seller in a legal state, they know who you are.

11e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
 
NoNameHaveI said:
I think you might have unintentionally sailed right past the point, he didn’t loose the right to smoke anything, he lost his right to conceal carry or purchase a firearm, which is to use your phrase “an infringement on the second” so why is your response to one infringement “it’s the law” but other infringement “hell no”? Seems like if the law doesn’t affect tailhunter it doesn’t matter to tailhunter, some of us worry about ALL infringement not just the ones that affect us directly.
Click to expand...
His illegal unprotected actions brought on his loss.
Again where in the constitution is his right to smoke?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom