Hey guys, Isaac here again. It's time for another update on my lawsuit. We're deep in the document discovery phase, and it's been quite a ride. The state's requests have been frankly overreaching, asking again for my medical records, exhaustive details on firearm purchases, and a deposition. My lawyer's pushback was firm, stressing that this case critiques the SAFE Act Office's procedures and their reporting to NICS, not about me.

Our document requests to the state have been comprehensive, focusing on internal communication about my case, the criteria for Certificate of Relief decisions, and the qualifications of the panel members--these are the people who review the CORs. But here's the kicker – the state refused to provide any documented training or criteria for the Certificate of Relief process. This was called out by my lawyer, who essentially said that by not providing these records, we will have to assume that the state makes decisions on the COR without any training, criteria, or any documents for the matter, meaning they operate on how they feel about a person rather than basing it on any objective criteria.

Regarding the panel members, the state's response was evasive and unconvincing. They claim that revealing even basic information about them poses a risk. This argument doesn't hold water. Knowing a panel member's professional background or title, primarily since these people determine whether or not your civil rights are terminated, hardly poses a real risk. It feels like a smokescreen to avoid scrutiny. The only thing the state did provide was an email chain (with every single name and title blocked out). This showed us that these panel members are internal Office of Mental Health employees, not random community picks as we thought. This raises serious concerns about potential biases in their decision-making.

The state's approach to my medical records has been particularly concerning. They intend to scrutinize my medical history during the deposition, records dating back to my sophomore year of high school. My lawyer and I have argued that these old records are irrelevant to the case. This lawsuit isn't about my medical history; it's a challenge against the SAFE Acts' policies and procedures. Even if we were to get into the thick of my mental health history, why would what I said to my therapist ten years ago have any bearing on who I am today? The Assistant Attorney General seems to be twisting this into an 'as applied' challenge, arguing that because I provided my records initially (as in, when I submitted my COR), I indirectly gave them voluntary consent to dig through my entire history during the deposition.

This tactic appears to be an attempt to divert the case into a probe of my personal history, attempting to portray me as unfit to own firearms, which is a misleading and unjust diversion from the real issues at stake. It feels inherently unfair and contradictory how the state handled the provision of my records. They implied that not submitting these records would lead to an automatic dismissal of my application for relief. Yet, now they argue that my compliance under pressure equates to voluntary consent. This twisted logic suggests that by trying to avoid immediate disqualification, I've unknowingly given them free rein to scrutinize every detail of my medical history during the deposition/trial. This is misleading and breaches the boundaries of what should be permissible in this process.

Imagine a driver being pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Suspecting the driver might have been speeding, the officer asked to check the vehicle's GPS history. Knowing they have nothing to hide but also aware that refusing could lead to further complications or even a ticket, the driver reluctantly agrees. However, instead of just checking for recent speeding, the officer scrutinizes every place the driver has been for the past six months, questioning them about each location and why they were there. It essentially coerces compliance by implying a threat of application denial, then exploits that forced compliance to claim unfettered access to and interrogation about personal information.

The big question remains: why is the state asking for these records again? My take? They lost them and are now scrambling. It's a glaring example of bureaucratic disarray and lack of transparency.

Stay tuned for more updates as we navigate this complex legal battle.

This campaign is unpublished.

GiveSendGo