According to chicago.suntimes.com, the Chicago Police Department is looking to create mandatory “employee assistance programs . . . appropriate to assist officers exposed to trauma, those who are involved in shootings, domestic violence and other stressors that have an impact on officer health and wellness.” Aside from the $3m price tag, and who gets to suck on that particular taxpayer tit, there’s one small problem . . .
“In speaking to a lot of officers, they are under the misconception that, should they seek some type of mental counseling services, that they are in jeopardy of losing their F.O.I.D. card, which we all know is a requirement of being a police officer and being able to carry a gun,” [former CPD officer and West Side Ald. Chris] Taliaferro said.
[Chief of the Chicago Police Department’s Bureau of Organizational Development Barabara] West replied, “That’s one of the things the reform effort is moving toward: To make sure that officers know that it’s strictly confidential, that they’re aware of all the programs we have. That they can seek the service and not feel that there will be some type of repercussions toward their careers in the future.”
Taliaferro noted that there is a box that must be checked when an F.O.I.D. is renewed. It asks applicants whether they have sought mental health treatment.
“Are you working with the state to ensure that, when an officer has to check that box, he won’t lose his F.O.I.D. card?” the alderman said.
West replied, “We will make sure we go to the state and indicate to them these are the things we are trying to reform. … We do want to make sure they are given the service without jeopardizing their careers.”
Fraternal Order of Police official Rich Aguilar urged the Police Department to clear up, what he called a “great miscommunication out there.”
“We need to get the word out to officers that going to EAP in and of itself is not going to jeopardize their job. Any officer that is treated in an out-patient capacity has absolutely no fear of losing his F.O.I.D. card. It only becomes an issue when they become an in-patient and there’s a solution for that, too,” Aguilar said.
So if you’re a Chicago police officer and you seek mental health treatment, even if it’s in-patient, you’ll be in no danger of losing your gun rights. If you’re not a Chicago police officer and you seek mental health treatment, especially if it’s in-patient, your gun rights can go bye-bye. For at least five years.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think anyone should face the loss of their gun rights without due process, period. But police are civilians. They should not enjoy any special protections for their gun rights.
And make no mistake: the possibility of losing gun rights is a serious disincentive for any gun owner with mental health care issue to seek help. Consider the law in New York [via smartgunlaws.com]:
A “mental health professional” in New York (including physicians, psychologists, registered nurses or licensed clinical social workers) is required to report to the New York Director of Community Services if, in their exercise of reasonable professional judgment, they determine that a person they are treating is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”
That information, limited to names or other non-clinical identifying information, must then be given to the New York Department of Criminal Justice Services for the sole purpose of determining if the person is ineligible to possess firearms under state or federal law.
In short, the same gun rights protections about to be afforded Chicago police officers seeking mental health care should be extended to all Americans. Anything less is a disgrace to the concept of equal protection under the law.
This is a bunch of crap. I believe that if someone is willing to reach out for help because they know they’re having a hard time with something they shouldn’t lose their second amendment rights or any of the Bill of Rights or constitutional rights that’s just crappy and stupid. That’s labeling everybody as it you need help you’re a nut job more Chicago liberal-left political correctness I claim a big BS. And I do agree police officers are civilians they are no different than the people they serve and protect. End of story. There should be no car belts civilian police officers and then rip the constitutional rights from a normal person also a civilian because they ask for some help. I wonder if you go for marriage counseling if that would also take your Firearms identification card or food or whatever the hell that stupid Chicago card crap is. I get it all the time at our shop guys from Chicago as soon as they come through the front doors they got this card in the air the first time I saw it I was like what’s this guy doing and he’s like here’s my Ford card I’ve got it who wants to check it and I was like hey you’re in a free state Florida the gunshine state you don’t need that b******* here period LOL car belts in any way are loopholes that’s a one person is better than the other person for no other reason than employment give me a break.
so cops don’t have to wear their ford car belts either? damn, now that pisses me off.
instead of asking for help, non- leo’s just drink harder. brilliant.
of course, cops do the same, this tries to help with the high police suicide rate. but it should be extended to everyone.
NOTHING in Chiraq makes my blood boil. Aldermen(and Aldergals) have long enjoyed the right to carry guns. And f##k the non-connected. Chicago cops are connected. I’m happy I haven’t lived in Chicago in 29years. As far as “mental health” self-medicate. That is all…
Obviously these clowns have never heard of doctor-patient privilege. The state has no business demanding this information. Any doctor who releases it is getting hit with a malpractice suit a mile wide and the records in question will be suppressed so fast it will make your head spin.
…and you…youd better get rid of those Gophers, or i’ll be looking for a new greenskeeper…is that CLEAR!??!?!
Seaking from a therapy background, confidentiality is a must. Its the only way for a patient to break down the walls and get to the root of the problem and start making progres to resolution.
In other news, a new Rap song has been released as the theme song for government carve-outs. It’s called, “Some animals are more equal than others”. You are required to buy your copy on govTunes by June 1st or face a
penaltytax of 3% of your total income. Because FYTW.
Can that be used as an angle to attack the obvious un-constitutionality of that BS law?
I agree. Due process for ALL civilians.
Cops are civilian law enforcement – nothing more, nothing less.
What’s the problem? Everyone knows cops are special and part of the protected class. They are “serving” their communities through hard work, sacrifice and risking their lives on a daily basis with shit for pay. They just want to go home safely to their families at the end of their shift. Who do you call when the bad guys show up?
Don’t you “civilians” “BACK THE BLUE”???
Not crazy ones. A crazy person with authority and a gun isn’t a good combo. They should be under a lot more scrutiny than the average gun owning citizen. If the government wants to disarm a civilian which cops are they can use due process. But you don’t need due process to fire a crazy person.
You…. Do realize that a person can be critical of something they support right? A complicated thought for some.
“Who do you call when the bad guys show up?”
Followed by Serv-Pro.
Everyone should memorize:
* Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
* Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
* Police not assigned as bodyguards have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.
Police don’t protect individuals. They draw chalk outlines around individuals who cannot or will not protect themselves. Anyone who tells you different is a LIAR.
When there are criminals in your house and you call the Chicago PD (if they show up) you now have MORE criminals in your house.
If I had the Vice Lords in my house, I wouldn’t consider calling the Black Gangster Disciples as a “solution”.
Because a LEO with mental health issues carrying a Glock in public for a full time job is far less of a danger to the public than a Fudd with mental health issues carrying his deer rifle in the woods two weekends a year…
“All animals are equal, but *some* animals are more equal than others.”
Using phrases like “which we all know” is just a bad usage of the English language. If we all know it, why are you wasting my time mentioning it?
If there is a valid reason that a person shouldn’t have a gun, then that reason goes double for that person not being allowed to be a cop. If you can’t be trusted with a gun, then you definitely can’t be trusted with a gun and a badge.
“But police are civilians. They should not enjoy any special protections for their gun rights.” “Disgrace to the concept of equal protection under the law.” Two sets of laws depending on your political class is disgusting and un-American.
Exactly. I’ve been preaching this for “in common usage.”
Police are civilians if a firearm is in common usage for police that means it’s in common usage for every other civilian.
Look up the Webster’s definition of civilian and you will find cops do not fit into it (CIVILIAN: 2.one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force). Just because saying it fits the anti-cop narrative of the TTAG doesn’t make it true.
You done did poked the bear.
It doesn’t matter that you are right that cops are not civilians under the dictionary definition.
What happened to the concept of a “civil servant” working for the “civil service”? I spent years in the Army and knew I wasn’t a civilian, being subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, etc. I also spent years as a “peace officer” but never lost sight of my civilian status, that I was a civil servant. I’m definitely NOT “anti-cop” but spend a considerable amount of time training good men and women who wear a badge and a gun.
But there are myriad legal definitions. Here are a few.
Look at the US Labor Department definition of civilian:
Civilian noninstitutional population (Current Population Survey)
Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who do not live in institutions (for example, correctional facilities, long-term care hospitals, and nursing homes) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
Or the Red Cross definition:
Rule 5. Definition of Civilians
Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
Or turn to U.S. Code › Title 5 › Part III › Subpart A › Chapter 21 › § 2101:
(1) the “civil service” consists of all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services.
Finally, although non-official, thus says Wikipedia about federal civilians::
The United States federal civil service is the civilian workforce (i.e., non-elected and non-military, public sector employees) of the United States federal government’s departments and agencies.
There are plenty more if you care to do a bit of research. Anyway, Webster isn’t 100% accurate with their definition.
Do you live in SC? I recently talked with someone who matches your description of yourself. Long odds chance, just thought I’d throw it out there and see.
Good post by the way.
That’s the really infuriating thing- in trying to treat the “epidemic of gun ownership by ‘crazy people'”, they completely forget that said “crazy people” will be a lot more likely to seek treatment if they’re not disenfranchised for half a decade afterwards.
Dems are so focused on “prevent law-abiding people from owning firearms” that they exacerbate the very “problem” (record low violent crime rates, up until the moment that the media decided to try to start race riots on slow news days… and then on fast news days) they’re trying to solve.
Clear case of fourteenth amendment. Just bring it to the supreme court. And bring the LEOSA as well. And whatever law police uses to buy armored trucks and machine guns. I want that rights. I have the RIGHT to enjoy those rights as well.
You can buy an armored truck whenever you want. You just have to pay for it (and, depending on where you live, pay high taxes on the tonnage involved), and potentially get a CDL if the vehicle is large enough (just like you do with an RV above a certain size, or to tow a boat above a certain size).
Are you demanding that the APC company give you a free car?
Actually, that goes for machine guns as well, to a lesser extent. If you really wanted to, you could buy the transferrable Mk19 for $300k and then buy ammo at $200.01/rd or whatever it costs after tax stamp. That’s state-dependent, though, and in some places (like CT) you would have had to have had the thing decades ago.
That said, unless I’m mistaken, police officers cannot personally own post-86 class 3 weapons, though their departments can.
Don’t bother him, he’s too busy demanding his ‘rights’ that he already has (but doesn’t understand).
Honestly doesn’t really make my blood boil at all. It’s all too typical of the corrupt democrat crime syndicate nationwide. My blood pressure is high enough as it is so I stopped letting shit like this bother me. And really, what’s in the wrong here isn’t what police are getting, it’s that the rest of the population doesn’t get afforded the same protection. I would like to think TTAG is above needing a cheesy click bait title though.
As part f the hiring all depts. have you sign a release that gives them access to all your medical records . So there is not really any Dr. / Pt. privilege for cops .
The reason given is it allows them to screen new hires for past injuries that preclud them from being hired, and once on the job allows them to see if guys get hurt off the job, seek treatment , then later try to,pass it off as on the job .
Except that’s not really what most EAPs, including the one described are. They’re specifically short-term sessions to talk to therapists, and they handle a range of issues including stress and marital troubles. In fact, one of the goals of a lot of these EAPs is to keep the employee from needing long-term therapy by addressing the issue at hand quickly before it becomes a big problem where one would need long term psychological care. Participating in an employer EAP wouldn’t make you ineligible for a FOID in any case. Sorry you got your panties in a bunch for nothing.
This is worth making ‘blood boil’? It’s not even a legal carve-out. It’s a CPD official and local politician saying (2) they want to ‘indicate’ to the state that something should be reformed and (2) to convince officers that they are not going to be boned when the department forces them to go to some sort of mandatory healthcare. Whether #2 is correct or not actually isn’t clear by the article, to be honest… if it was correct then I don’t see why #1 would be necessary.
What happens when someone checks “yes” on that box normally? What information do they then have to provide? Do they automatically lose the FOID card or something?
Anyway, nice use of a scaarrrryy photo up top (it’s cold in Chicago, btw) and incendiary headline
Anything related to counseling, mental health, etc, is going to go on permanent record and follow your ass around. Military, LEO, private, it doesn’t matter, its a stigma, it will stick, and hamper future employment opportunities.
Sometimes talking up friends strictly off record is the only help available without jeopardizing your employment. That or bear with it. More often or not, people just need someone that will listen and take their side than anything else.
That’s just utterly incorrect all around. Literally none of that is true other than that last sentence (which is only half true). EAP is there exactly to provide an employee someone to listen to them in a constructive manner. EAPs are subject to HIPAA privacy as much as anything else.
Just one more reminder that to Chicago cops, this is Shanghai circa 1942, they’re the Imperial Japanese Army, and the rest of us are just lowly Chinese. Next week they’ll demand legislation authorizing them to slap anyone who doesn’t bow to them.
Don’t forget that in 1996, the Chicago lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police went nationwide on National Public Radio to demand that convicted wife beaters be allowed to own, possess and carry firearms… but only if they also carried badges.
“A few bad apples”? Sometimes there are bad orchards, and the Chicago PD is the worst of the worst.
Does this mean Dick Wolf’s Chicago PD TV series is completely detached from reality?
Haven’t posted on this one yet…Let to check my emails…
1.) Ban ALL POLICE UNIONS !!! (Re: Fraternities, Guilds, Associations, all Unions!!!)
2.) Full independent Civilian review boards nationwide….
3.) Remove all “carve-outs, special privileges, protections, etc…” in every state…Under equal protection clause….