Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 9044
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#46

Post by mojo84 »

What are the disqualifying mental illnesses and who determines who has those disqualifying illnesses? Does it matter to what degree someone must be ill with one of the illnesses to disqualify them from gun ownership?

These details need to be ironed out before an informed decision can be made about whether this is a good idea or not. We don't need another pass it so we can find out what is in it law.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

TexasCajun
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1554
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:58 pm
Location: La Marque, TX

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#47

Post by TexasCajun »

Calling the one organization equipped to fight this fight a sellout & applying that derogatory term to a group of Senators who are solidly on our side won't help. I haven't read the actual bill, but it seems to fit with Wayne LaPierre's initial statement (and subsequent statements) about tightening and enforcing current laws. Someone who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity or who is judged mentally incompetent to stand trial should be flagged by NICS & prevented from buying a weapon. The article basically says that this proposal would facilitate the inclusion of this information in the check system. Will it do anything to prevent an illegal sale or transfer? No. No law will do that because criminals don't adhere to laws. But it will make the current system better by including a check for information that would already prohibit the sale. When you say that this is unreasonable, you're helping the anti's with their gross over generalizations about us.
Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012
User avatar

KaiserB
Banned
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:11 pm
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#48

Post by KaiserB »

mojo84 wrote:What are the disqualifying mental illnesses and who determines who has those disqualifying illnesses? Does it matter to what degree someone must be ill with one of the illnesses to disqualify them from gun ownership?

These details need to be ironed out before an informed decision can be made about whether this is a good idea or not. We don't need another pass it so we can find out what is in it law.

That has ALREADY been defined. 30 seconds on Google will get you this:
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that:
(A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or
(B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;
(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs; or
(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):
(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization;
(2) psychiatric hospitalization;
(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;
(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; or
(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:
(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;
(B) bipolar disorder;
(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;
(D) dissociative identity disorder;
(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or
(F) antisocial personality disorder.
(f) Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a person who has previously been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d) or listed in Subsection (e) is not because of that disorder or condition incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person provides the department with a certificate from a licensed physician whose primary practice is in the field of psychiatry stating that the psychiatric disorder or condition is in remission and is not reasonably likely to develop at a future time.
(g) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a person who is at least 18 years of age but not yet 21 years of age is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a member or veteran of the United States armed forces, including a member or veteran of the reserves or national guard;
(2) was discharged under honorable conditions, if discharged from the United States armed forces, reserves, or national guard; and
(3) meets the other eligibility requirements of Subsection (a) except for the minimum age required by federal law to purchase a handgun.
(h) The issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun to a person eligible under Subsection (g) does not affect the person's ability to purchase a handgun or ammunition under federal law.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.03(a), 9.04(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 255, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 486, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146, Sec. 11.03, eff. September 1, 2009.
User avatar

LSUTiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#49

Post by LSUTiger »

OldGrumpy wrote:With a right to bears arms comes a responibility to insure that my right does not infringe on someone else's right to life. I personally see no problem with whatever provisions we can add that insures everything possible is done to keep the mentally incompetent from legally buying guns. True, they may get them by other means but let's not make it easy for them. I applaud Senator Graham for taking a stand on the side of reasonable responsiblity. His guidelines are very narrowly defined and does not leave "wiggle room" for liberal interpretations. :txflag: :patriot:
First step, pass a law. Second step, create "wiggle room". If the first step is not achieved the second step can't happen.

I am very fearful and certain that a some point in the future this will come back to bite us all. Mr. "I don't want your guns" now wants your guns. Mr. "I want to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people", will redefine everyone who owns guns and crazy, paranoid, delusional and in need of being disarmed.
RoyGBiv wrote:
Slowplay wrote: 1. Negotiate the best deal we can. Get in front of the issues. Get something in return for any ground given. How stupid does the administration look now that Uncle Joe says armed guards in schools is a good idea? The NRA was loudly ridiculed for suggesting this. Win. Similarly, the NRA has correctly pointed to the fact that nothing in the current mass of legislation proposed by the anti's will do any good at all. Here we have an example of something at actually tries to address keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Will this quell the anti's? Certainly not. Will it help us win the middle? That is the more important question. What have we given up? Argue "slippery slope" all you want... This is political reality. Deal.

and

2. Even after a bill is passed, even this Graham/NRA bill.... Nothing prevents us from arguing it to SCOTUS (except time and money) if we believe it's infringing. Just because we work to get the least onerous bill passed doesn't mean we give up the right to argue later that it's still unconstitutional.


1. You can't negotiate with terrorist (tyranny of our government). I define negotiation as in you give me something and I give you something. This is certainly not a win-win situation for us. More of a Win -Lose a little now and likely more in the future situation. We got nothing in return, thats what happens when you have a "reasonable compromise" and cave in to "political realism".

So when you have your rights taken away from you, are sitting in a mental institution or FEMA reducation camp because you were deemed crazy from some special government appointed panel for some bogus reason and disarmed an unable to fight tyranny, I hope you can deal.

2. The don't ask for permission but beg for forgiveness approach is not a strategty I want see used in this case. I don't trust the Supreme Court.
KaiserB wrote:
mojo84 wrote:What are the disqualifying mental illnesses and who determines who has those disqualifying illnesses? Does it matter to what degree someone must be ill with one of the illnesses to disqualify them from gun ownership?

.

That has ALREADY been defined. 30 seconds on Google will get you this:
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that:
(A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or
(B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;
(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs; or
(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):
(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization;
(2) psychiatric hospitalization;
(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;
(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; or
(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:
(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;
(B) bipolar disorder;
(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;
(D) dissociative identity disorder;
(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or
(F) antisocial personality disorder.
(f) Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a person who has previously been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d) or listed in Subsection (e) is not because of that disorder or condition incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person provides the department with a certificate from a licensed physician whose primary practice is in the field of psychiatry stating that the psychiatric disorder or condition is in remission and is not reasonably likely to develop at a future time.
(g) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a person who is at least 18 years of age but not yet 21 years of age is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a member or veteran of the United States armed forces, including a member or veteran of the reserves or national guard;
(2) was discharged under honorable conditions, if discharged from the United States armed forces, reserves, or national guard; and
(3) meets the other eligibility requirements of Subsection (a) except for the minimum age required by federal law to purchase a handgun.
(h) The issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun to a person eligible under Subsection (g) does not affect the person's ability to purchase a handgun or ammunition under federal law.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.03(a), 9.04(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 255, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 486, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146, Sec. 11.03, eff. September 1, 2009.
Once labeled a crazy always a crazy and pretty darned easy to get labeled that way.
Chance favors the prepared. Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.
There is no safety in denial. When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.
Sometimes I really wish a lawyer would chime in and clear things up. Do we have any lawyers on this forum?

recaffeination

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#50

Post by recaffeination »

It should be the same background check for Internet access, including smart phones. A reasonable restriction on the Bill of Rights is reasonable for the whole Bill of Rights or none of it.
User avatar

LSUTiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#51

Post by LSUTiger »

recaffeination wrote:It should be the same background check for Internet access, including smart phones. A reasonable restriction on the Bill of Rights is reasonable for the whole Bill of Rights or none of it.
Please, don't give any body and ideas!
Chance favors the prepared. Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.
There is no safety in denial. When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.
Sometimes I really wish a lawyer would chime in and clear things up. Do we have any lawyers on this forum?

K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 2574
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#52

Post by K.Mooneyham »

I cannot understand how folks cannot see the word ADJUDICATED in there. Not just because a doctor said so, or on some "list", but after going through COURT. I vehemently oppose simply slapping someone on a "list" or letting a doc make the call without any checks and balances.
User avatar

suthdj
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:49 pm
Location: North Ft Worth(Alliance area)

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#53

Post by suthdj »

KaiserB wrote:
suthdj wrote:I have no problem keeping the them form buying guns as long as due process is followed, however will this loss of right be forever or until cured(not controlled with meds) if not forever is there means to be removed from the NICS system or is this going to be like the no fly list? It needs to be figured out BEFORE we make it a law and see how it works.

The NICS reporting requirement has been a law for 20 years. NICS does not use the same mechanisms as the no fly list.
So it has been around longer and is a different kind of list so therefore it is better, sorry that is not good enough how will the people be protected from being on a list when not required to be, at what cost will it take to get removed, how many years etc... These need to be made clear BEFORE anything is allowed.
21-Apr-09 filed online
05-Sep-09 Plastic Arrived
09-Sep-13 Plastic Arrived
21-june-18 Plasic Arrived
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 9044
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#54

Post by mojo84 »

KaiserB wrote:
mojo84 wrote:What are the disqualifying mental illnesses and who determines who has those disqualifying illnesses? Does it matter to what degree someone must be ill with one of the illnesses to disqualify them from gun ownership?

These details need to be ironed out before an informed decision can be made about whether this is a good idea or not. We don't need another pass it so we can find out what is in it law.

That has ALREADY been defined. 30 seconds on Google will get you this:
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that:
(A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or
(B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;
(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs; or
(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):
(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization;
(2) psychiatric hospitalization;
(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;
(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; or
(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:
(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;
(B) bipolar disorder;
(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;
(D) dissociative identity disorder;
(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or
(F) antisocial personality disorder.
(f) Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a person who has previously been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d) or listed in Subsection (e) is not because of that disorder or condition incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person provides the department with a certificate from a licensed physician whose primary practice is in the field of psychiatry stating that the psychiatric disorder or condition is in remission and is not reasonably likely to develop at a future time.
(g) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a person who is at least 18 years of age but not yet 21 years of age is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a member or veteran of the United States armed forces, including a member or veteran of the reserves or national guard;
(2) was discharged under honorable conditions, if discharged from the United States armed forces, reserves, or national guard; and
(3) meets the other eligibility requirements of Subsection (a) except for the minimum age required by federal law to purchase a handgun.
(h) The issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun to a person eligible under Subsection (g) does not affect the person's ability to purchase a handgun or ammunition under federal law.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.03(a), 9.04(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 255, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 486, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146, Sec. 11.03, eff. September 1, 2009.

I'm trying to follow this on my phone between meetings and haven't had a chance to sit down at my computer to do much research.

Your condescending response let's me know that you are NOT the type of instructor I'll seek out for my renewal.

Thank you for the response nonetheless.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
User avatar

fickman
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1711
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#55

Post by fickman »

As long as they're only adding info about folks adjudicated by a judge, who then have due process and an appeals path. . . I'm OK with this.

Although I do hope the House adds a line that includes national reciprocity or something else that benefits our community and expands our 2A rights! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Native Texian
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 18503
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#56

Post by Keith B »

KaiserB wrote:
mojo84 wrote:What are the disqualifying mental illnesses and who determines who has those disqualifying illnesses? Does it matter to what degree someone must be ill with one of the illnesses to disqualify them from gun ownership?

These details need to be ironed out before an informed decision can be made about whether this is a good idea or not. We don't need another pass it so we can find out what is in it law.

That has ALREADY been defined. 30 seconds on Google will get you this:
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that:
(A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or
(B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;
(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs; or
(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):
(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization;
(2) psychiatric hospitalization;
(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;
(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; or
(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:
(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;
(B) bipolar disorder;
(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;
(D) dissociative identity disorder;
(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or
(F) antisocial personality disorder.
(f) Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a person who has previously been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d) or listed in Subsection (e) is not because of that disorder or condition incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person provides the department with a certificate from a licensed physician whose primary practice is in the field of psychiatry stating that the psychiatric disorder or condition is in remission and is not reasonably likely to develop at a future time.
(g) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a person who is at least 18 years of age but not yet 21 years of age is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a member or veteran of the United States armed forces, including a member or veteran of the reserves or national guard;
(2) was discharged under honorable conditions, if discharged from the United States armed forces, reserves, or national guard; and
(3) meets the other eligibility requirements of Subsection (a) except for the minimum age required by federal law to purchase a handgun.
(h) The issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun to a person eligible under Subsection (g) does not affect the person's ability to purchase a handgun or ammunition under federal law.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.03(a), 9.04(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 255, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 486, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146, Sec. 11.03, eff. September 1, 2009.
Uh, this is defined in Texas, NOT for Federal. The background check is Federal. You need to make sure you are quoting before you say it has ALREADY been defined.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 9044
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#57

Post by mojo84 »

Keith B wrote:
KaiserB wrote:
mojo84 wrote:What are the disqualifying mental illnesses and who determines who has those disqualifying illnesses? Does it matter to what degree someone must be ill with one of the illnesses to disqualify them from gun ownership?

These details need to be ironed out before an informed decision can be made about whether this is a good idea or not. We don't need another pass it so we can find out what is in it law.

That has ALREADY been defined. 30 seconds on Google will get you this:
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that:
(A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or
(B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;
(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs; or
(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):
(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization;
(2) psychiatric hospitalization;
(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;
(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; or
(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:
(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;
(B) bipolar disorder;
(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;
(D) dissociative identity disorder;
(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or
(F) antisocial personality disorder.
(f) Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a person who has previously been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d) or listed in Subsection (e) is not because of that disorder or condition incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person provides the department with a certificate from a licensed physician whose primary practice is in the field of psychiatry stating that the psychiatric disorder or condition is in remission and is not reasonably likely to develop at a future time.
(g) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a person who is at least 18 years of age but not yet 21 years of age is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a member or veteran of the United States armed forces, including a member or veteran of the reserves or national guard;
(2) was discharged under honorable conditions, if discharged from the United States armed forces, reserves, or national guard; and
(3) meets the other eligibility requirements of Subsection (a) except for the minimum age required by federal law to purchase a handgun.
(h) The issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun to a person eligible under Subsection (g) does not affect the person's ability to purchase a handgun or ammunition under federal law.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.03(a), 9.04(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 255, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 486, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146, Sec. 11.03, eff. September 1, 2009.
Uh, this is defined in Texas, NOT for Federal. The background check is Federal. You need to make sure you are quoting before you say it has ALREADY been defined.

Keith, I was just reading this for fourth time and trying to ascertain what you just mentioned. You beat me to it.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
User avatar

Purplehood
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4638
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#58

Post by Purplehood »

JALLEN wrote:Like almost all proposals aimed at "doing something," this one doesn't seem to promise any real effectiveness.

This law won't stop "some dude" who stole my pistol from selling it to the perp who got caught with it, having bought it for $200, no background check, no paperwork, no ten day wait, probably not even a cancelled check. The perp was good and ineligible, underaged, a prison record already. They weren't going to use an FFL, NICS or any other formality, and don't give a flip what the Legislature wants, Congress wants or anything else.

This and similar transactions, the ones we really do want to stop, will go on unimpeded, while some otherwise lawful transfers will be stopped.
That ain't the point, sir. This law addresses an issue other than 'some dude' stealing your pistol. I fully agree that there are loopholes. I fully agree with less laws being better. But I also agree with the need to stop mentally-ill people from getting firearms. This is a valid method to prevent it.
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07

MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#59

Post by MeMelYup »

People have no problem with convicted fellons loosing rights. Why would there be a problem with court mandated psychiatric treatment being reported, as long as it is deemed they are a viable threat to themselves or the public? Certain schizophrenia should be reported also.
Personally I think that a convicted fellon once they have completely served and fullfiled all obligations of their conviction and are "clean" should be able to petition the court for reinstatement of all rights. The same for psychiatric patients.
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 9044
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

#60

Post by mojo84 »

K.Mooneyham wrote:I cannot understand how folks cannot see the word ADJUDICATED in there. Not just because a doctor said so, or on some "list", but after going through COURT. I vehemently oppose simply slapping someone on a "list" or letting a doc make the call without any checks and balances.
Can you help me out by providing a link to what you are referring?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”