Can you still purchase a gun if you were denied a chl?

[Watchman323]

I am thinking about getting a chl. I don't have any run in with the law. My record is clean. I own a few guns and a few silencers already. But I am taking a few meds. If I apply for a chl and get denied because of my meds, will that affect me from purchasing a gun in the future? I did a search on this forum, read through over 20 pages and still can't find answer. I searched the web and nothing (maybe I searched the wrong turn). I call DPS and talked to an instructor, both said they don't know.
Thank you

[G.A. Heath]

It depends on why you are taking the medication. If you are taking medication due to an involuntary confinement at a mental health facility then the answer is no. Otherwise the answer ranges from Yes to maybe to I do not know...

[Feed&Guns]

As an FFL, I can tell you the good, the bad, and the ugly of this. (Disclaimer: this is not legal advice but rather my understanding of the laws...geez, why do we have to put disclaimers like this)

Your question is "CAN you still purchase a gun?"

Yes.

IF you buy a gun from an FFL, you fill out the 4473. We then (since you don't have a CHL) run a background check on you using the FBI's NICS. It's basically a database of bad people. Honestly, I don't know what's in there, but criminal history certainly is. It MIGHT also have flags for terrorist watch lists, etc. I had a good girl delayed 10 days before she got a "proceed" (got it in 3 days, though, because of Brady law stuff) and the only thing she could guess is because she had identity theft in the last 10 years. So it's not just criminal background on NICS apparently.

There is a big push (and I'm partially okay with this) to tie in mental health records to the NICS. It's a slippery slope, but I don't THINK they have anything officially tied in. It's an honesty thing. You sign the 4473 saying you have no mental issues (basically). Not exactly air tight. If you've been adjudicated as mentally deficient, you can't get one...but, again, I think you have to admit to that on the 4473. Not sure if it pops on NICS. Then the FFL says "sorry, can't sell it to you." And then, maybe, alerts the ATF that you tried to purchase it. We have a soft obligation to report suspicious stuff. Guy walks in, says "I need a gun cause my wife left me and that bitch is gonna pay." I say, "I need you to fill out this form 4473." Then I tell him "sorry, it came back denied." Then I have a (not legal, but moral) obligation to inform the ATF/local po-po and I have that guys info now. Kind of a sticky situation. So if you ask me if you can buy a gun in my store because you're on some mind altering drugs, I'll probably do the same with you. I'm not obligated to sell you a gun.

Yes, part 2. The gun show loophole.

Sorry fellow NRA lifers, but this is one the libs might have right. CAN you buy a gun? Sure. Any non-FFL holder can sell their personal wares at their leisure. Sure, there is criminal liability for selling a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. But if you go to a gun show or armslist or whatever and you say "I have your asking price, in cash, for that gun on your table, Mr. Private Citizen" he's going to sell you that gun. That's the "gunshow loophole" the libs get crazy about. Of course, they say it because they are finding any angle to more gun control regardless of the sensibility.
Otherwise, they'd back off the SBR/Silencer NFA requirement that is just asinine. But there is some logic disconnect to why I, as an FFL, have to do a background check but Jimmy Gunguy at the gunshow doesn't.


No, morally.

As with the CHL, it's an additional crime to have a gun when you are impaired. When you get your CHL, you will learn that "impaired" doesn't mean "blow a 0.8". It means "not in your normal mindset". If you take a prescription med and it clouds your judgment, makes you slightly lucid, or otherwise alters your mindset, you SHOULDN'T have a gun. When I decide I'm going to have a beer (I drink the thick stuff), the gun goes out of the holster and into a drawer. If you decide to leave your gun in the car when you go to the bar and you get pulled over for DWI, you are "in possession of a firearm while impaired" and it's an additional charge. So, if you are taking some serious meds, you shouldn't have a gun on you...in my not-so-humble opinion.

Finally, "I asked the DPS..."

DPS doesn't determine gun ownership laws. That's federal (mostly). They aren't familiar with gun buying laws. Call your local ATF branch maybe. When you buy a gun from an FFL (FEDERAL firearms license), we run the background through FBI systems, again, federal. I think some states have a state system too, or you pay a state fee for background checks too. Not in Texas though. DPS is involved in CHLs, which, conversely, FBI doesn't have anything to do with. Now, DPS might run a NICS check to see if you pop in another state, but DPS is still state police for a state issued license.

[G.A. Heath]

As an FFL, I can tell you the good, the bad, and the ugly of this. (Disclaimer: this is not legal advice but rather my understanding of the laws...geez, why do we have to put disclaimers like this)

Your question is "CAN you still purchase a gun?"

Yes.

IF you buy a gun from an FFL, you fill out the 4473. We then (since you don't have a CHL) run a background check on you using the FBI's NICS. It's basically a database of bad people. Honestly, I don't know what's in there, but criminal history certainly is. It MIGHT also have flags for terrorist watch lists, etc. I had a good girl delayed 10 days before she got a "proceed" (got it in 3 days, though, because of Brady law stuff) and the only thing she could guess is because she had identity theft in the last 10 years. So it's not just criminal background on NICS apparently.

There is a big push (and I'm partially okay with this) to tie in mental health records to the NICS. It's a slippery slope, but I don't THINK they have anything officially tied in. It's an honesty thing. You sign the 4473 saying you have no mental issues (basically). Not exactly air tight. If you've been adjudicated as mentally deficient, you can't get one...but, again, I think you have to admit to that on the 4473. Not sure if it pops on NICS. Then the FFL says "sorry, can't sell it to you." And then, maybe, alerts the ATF that you tried to purchase it. We have a soft obligation to report suspicious stuff. Guy walks in, says "I need a gun cause my wife left me and that bitch is gonna pay." I say, "I need you to fill out this form 4473." Then I tell him "sorry, it came back denied." Then I have a (not legal, but moral) obligation to inform the ATF/local po-po and I have that guys info now. Kind of a sticky situation. So if you ask me if you can buy a gun in my store because you're on some mind altering drugs, I'll probably do the same with you. I'm not obligated to sell you a gun.

Yes, part 2. The gun show loophole.

Sorry fellow NRA lifers, but this is one the libs might have right. CAN you buy a gun? Sure. Any non-FFL holder can sell their personal wares at their leisure. Sure, there is criminal liability for selling a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. But if you go to a gun show or armslist or whatever and you say "I have your asking price, in cash, for that gun on your table, Mr. Private Citizen" he's going to sell you that gun. That's the "gunshow loophole" the libs get crazy about. Of course, they say it because they are finding any angle to more gun control regardless of the sensibility.
Otherwise, they'd back off the SBR/Silencer NFA requirement that is just asinine. But there is some logic disconnect to why I, as an FFL, have to do a background check but Jimmy Gunguy at the gunshow doesn't.


No, morally.

As with the CHL, it's an additional crime to have a gun when you are impaired. When you get your CHL, you will learn that "impaired" doesn't mean "blow a 0.8". It means "not in your normal mindset". If you take a prescription med and it clouds your judgment, makes you slightly lucid, or otherwise alters your mindset, you SHOULDN'T have a gun. When I decide I'm going to have a beer (I drink the thick stuff), the gun goes out of the holster and into a drawer. If you decide to leave your gun in the car when you go to the bar and you get pulled over for DWI, you are "in possession of a firearm while impaired" and it's an additional charge. So, if you are taking some serious meds, you shouldn't have a gun on you...in my not-so-humble opinion.

Finally, "I asked the DPS..."

DPS doesn't determine gun ownership laws. That's federal (mostly). They aren't familiar with gun buying laws. Call your local ATF branch maybe. When you buy a gun from an FFL (FEDERAL firearms license), we run the background through FBI systems, again, federal. I think some states have a state system too, or you pay a state fee for background checks too. Not in Texas though. DPS is involved in CHLs, which, conversely, FBI doesn't have anything to do with. Now, DPS might run a NICS check to see if you pop in another state, but DPS is still state police for a state issued license.

Regarding Yes Pt.1: It is already required to a degree that states report those who have been adjudicated mentally defective or involuntarily committed to a mental health hospital. Some states actually do it, while others do not, and still others do only partial reporting. If I am not mistaken Texas is one of the states that report most if not all required mental health data to the NICS database.

Regarding Yes Pt.2: The "Gun Show Loophole" is about the biggest piece of nonsense I have ever seen. In fact the phrase "Closing the Gun Show Loophole" is code for criminalizing Private transactions. Essentially it would create a distributed and unavoidable registry for all firearms LEGALLY transferred after the effective date of such legislation. If my brother in law wants to go dove hunting with me and didn't bring his shotgun we would have to go to an FFL so I could transfer him one of mine or he could purchase another (which would not happen as it would result in his murder by my sister), and then go back to the same FFL after we are finished so he could transfer it back to me. We would find ourselves at the mercy of the FFL for fees and later even the government who could require a NICS fee be assessed under new legislation. Not to mention the risk of a "DELAY" or a false "DENY" if one or both of us didn't have our CHL with us. A delay or false deny would ruin/prevent our impromptu dove hunting trip. Sorry, the liberals didn't get this one right it's just another burden on law abiding gun owners that would do absolutely nothing to prevent crime.

Regarding No: Regarding the concept that it is a crime to have a gun when you are impaired, that may not be the case here. It all depends on the nature of the impairment and how it affects his thinking/judgement. His medication may not impair his thinking or judgement, and if that is the case he is perfectly legal to own/possess a firearm.

Regarding Finally, "I asked the DPS...": I agree to a degree. Depending on who was asked at the DPS they may not know the federal laws, or they may be an expert on them. One of the requirements for a CHL is that you have to meet the requirements to purchase a handgun from an FFL unless you qualify for a military exemption that lowers the age for a CHL to 18, then the age requirement is waived in that requirement as well (only for getting a CHL).

[jb2012]

I think the "gun show loophole" should be re named to "private party loophole." The same laws regarding sales of firearms apply to any gun transaction whether you are a citizen, or FFL, in any location. Sorry to do a light high jack! Just wanted to add that.

[G.A. Heath]

I think the "gun show loophole" should be re named to "private party loophole." The same laws regarding sales of firearms apply to any gun transaction whether you are a citizen, or FFL, in any location. Sorry to do a light high jack! Just wanted to add that.

If we are going to rename it then we need to rename it the private party exemption, it's NOT a loophole.

[JALLEN]

I think the "gun show loophole" should be re named to "private party loophole." The same laws regarding sales of firearms apply to any gun transaction whether you are a citizen, or FFL, in any location. Sorry to do a light high jack! Just wanted to add that.

If we are going to rename it then we need to rename it the private party exemption, it's NOT a loophole.

Maxim of jurisprudence: One man's exception is another man's loophole. Code of the West, Ch. 7 Sec 405

[flechero]

Well there isn't much of a loophole around here... it's hard to find pvt parties selling at our local gunshows. It's almost all dealers. That's my rub, they pitch is as all sales at a show are check free... which in reality, VERY FEW are.

[allisji]

the way that I read the original question is this.

"If I am currently able to fill out the 4473 form completely and honestly and pass the federal instant background check to purchase a firearm, but then am denied a CHL because of prescription medication for psychiatric treatment (I assume this is psychiatric treatment since the OP was nonspecific), will I still be able to pass the federal instant background check to purchase a firearm."

My answer would be theoretical, and not ethical or legal in nature.

I would not anticipate any sharing of information from the CHL background check to the federal background service. If you answer the questions the same way on the 4473 form then you should still pass the instant background check to purchase a firearm. Most treatments and diagnoses should not prohibit one from being able to own a firearm. If you could become suicidal or violent if you lose your prescription or your insurance ceases to cover your treatment, you stop taking it for whatever reason, then you really need to consider whether or not you should own a firearm. You may want to look into other means of self-defense.

[steveincowtown]

A
There is a big push (and I'm partially okay with this) to tie in mental health records to the NICS....Yes, part 2. The gun show loophole...Sorry fellow NRA lifers, but this is one the libs might have right.

<facepalm>

[LSUTiger]

There is a big push (and I'm partially okay with this) to tie in mental health records to the NICS. It's a slippery slope, but I don't THINK they have anything officially tied in. It's an honesty thing. You sign the 4473 saying you have no mental issues (basically). Not exactly air tight. If you've been adjudicated as mentally deficient, you can't get one...but, again, I think you have to admit to that on the 4473. Not sure if it pops on NICS. Then the FFL says "sorry, can't sell it to you." And then, maybe, alerts the ATF that you tried to purchase it. We have a soft obligation to report suspicious stuff. Guy walks in, says "I need a gun cause my wife left me and that bitch is gonna pay." I say, "I need you to fill out this form 4473." Then I tell him "sorry, it came back denied." Then I have a (not legal, but moral) obligation to inform the ATF/local po-po and I have that guys info now. Kind of a sticky situation. So if you ask me if you can buy a gun in my store because you're on some mind altering drugs, I'll probably do the same with you. I'm not obligated to sell you a gun.

Yes, part 2. The gun show loophole.

Sorry fellow NRA lifers, but this is one the libs might have right. CAN you buy a gun? Sure. Any non-FFL holder can sell their personal wares at their leisure. Sure, there is criminal liability for selling a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. But if you go to a gun show or armslist or whatever and you say "I have your asking price, in cash, for that gun on your table, Mr. Private Citizen" he's going to sell you that gun. That's the "gunshow loophole" the libs get crazy about. Of course, they say it because they are finding any angle to more gun control regardless of the sensibility.
Otherwise, they'd back off the SBR/Silencer NFA requirement that is just asinine. But there is some logic disconnect to why I, as an FFL, have to do a background check but Jimmy Gunguy at the gunshow doesn't.


.

I'm gonna have to agree with you that tying mental health records to NICS is a slippery slope and disagree with you that it should be done. In theory, it sounds good but in practice it is nothing more than a gun control scheme disguised as "common sense", IMHO. Once any kinda of mental health record, no matter how innocuous gets tied to NICS you can bet that the person will be denied forever.

We let criminals out of jail after their "rehabilitation" all the time but you can never be released from having a mental history even though you are truly rehabilitated.

The way the current laws are written is that if you ever sought counseling for anything (marriage counseling, kids brought to principles office, took medication for any number of legit reasons etc. etc....)you will be denied. Then you have to rely on a medical professional to do the right thing and say that you are all right. Not many in the medical establishment are willing to risk doing the right thing.

The other unintended consequence is that some people won't want to seek help if they know they need it because their records will no longer be private. So you have lots of good people who have done nothing wrong who are afraid to get help because they will be branded a "crazy" by the medical establishment and government.

The answer is simple end gun free zones, let people exercise their freedom and liberty and 2A right uninfringed and let natural selection take its course. The population of truly bad people will get thinned out.

As for as the "gun show loophole", I'm all for it. I'm not willing to give an inch thinking the libtards are going to back off on anything especially scary NFA items like SBR and Suppressors. Whoever thinks that compromising with the antis will gain the Pro 2A cause anything is seriously misguided. Their goal is total disarmament/gun confiscation, our goal is "shall not be infringed", the two could not be more polar opposite.

The FFL (not a dig on FFL's but it's a gun control mechanism) is the government's last way to control firearms sales before they happen, private sales, they have no control. So I'm ok with that, you know not giving up freedom and liberty for "security".

[allisji]

Well there isn't much of a loophole around here... it's hard to find pvt parties selling at our local gunshows. It's almost all dealers. That's my rub, they pitch is as all sales at a show are check free... which in reality, VERY FEW are.

This, I think is appropriate. I don't see why gun shows should allow non FFL's to sell guns at a gun show. Dealers pay money for their table or booth at the show and wouldn't want to have to compete for sales with private individuals. I would think that Gun Shows would prefer to have a policy to ban sales that are not by authorized dealers paying for a spot at the show. Easy solution for private individuals to complete private sales at a gun show would be to step into the parking lot to make the transaction, however you would run the risk of being kicked out or banned from the show if staff or security suspected you of displaying your gun for sale or trade to other private patrons of the gun show.

This is why the gun show loophole is pretty much phony. It's really not easy to purchase a gun without a background check, except to arrange a private sale from an individual. I suppose that the federal government could try to ban private sales. That would be very unfortunate.

[NotRPB]

Liberal Dictionary
loophole: Synonym: Freedom

Usage:
1)We need to stop the private sales of used pianos loophole, someone may drop a piano on someone and having a database of serial numbers would stop that from occurring, except when the piano was one of the 7,000 to 10,000 STOLEN pianos hoarded by this guy, or any drug dealer or other street-corner salesman of stolen property viewtopic.php?f=83&t=80133

Alternate usage:
2) We need to stop the private sales of used dishwashers loophole, someone may drop a dishwasher on someone and having a database of serial numbers would stop that from occurring, except when the dishwasher was one of the 7,000 to 10,000 STOLEN dishwashers hoarded by this guy, or any drug dealer or other street-corner salesman of stolen property viewtopic.php?f=83&t=80133

[Pariah3j]

I'm gonna have to agree with you that tying mental health records to NICS is a slippery slope and disagree with you that it should be done. In theory, it sounds good but in practice it is nothing more than a gun control scheme disguised as "common sense", IMHO. Once any kinda of mental health record, no matter how innocuous gets tied to NICS you can bet that the person will be denied forever.

We let criminals out of jail after their "rehabilitation" all the time but you can never be released from having a mental history even though you are truly rehabilitated.

The way the current laws are written is that if you ever sought counseling for anything (marriage counseling, kids brought to principles office, took medication for any number of legit reasons etc. etc....)you will be denied. Then you have to rely on a medical professional to do the right thing and say that you are all right. Not many in the medical establishment are willing to risk doing the right thing.

The other unintended consequence is that some people won't want to seek help if they know they need it because their records will no longer be private. So you have lots of good people who have done nothing wrong who are afraid to get help because they will be branded a "crazy" by the medical establishment and government.

The answer is simple end gun free zones, let people exercise their freedom and liberty and 2A right uninfringed and let natural selection take its course. The population of truly bad people will get thinned out.

As for as the "gun show loophole", I'm all for it. I'm not willing to give an inch thinking the libtards are going to back off on anything especially scary NFA items like SBR and Suppressors. Whoever thinks that compromising with the antis will gain the Pro 2A cause anything is seriously misguided. Their goal is total disarmament/gun confiscation, our goal is "shall not be infringed", the two could not be more polar opposite.

The FFL (not a dig on FFL's but it's a gun control mechanism) is the government's last way to control firearms sales before they happen, private sales, they have no control. So I'm ok with that, you know not giving up freedom and liberty for "security".

[Feed&Guns]

I'm gonna have to agree with you that tying mental health records to NICS is a slippery slope and disagree with you that it should be done. In theory, it sounds good but in practice it is nothing more than a gun control scheme disguised as "common sense", IMHO. Once any kinda of mental health record, no matter how innocuous gets tied to NICS you can bet that the person will be denied forever.
...
As for as the "gun show loophole", I'm all for it. I'm not willing to give an inch thinking the libtards are going to back off on anything especially scary NFA items like SBR and Suppressors. Whoever thinks that compromising with the antis will gain the Pro 2A cause anything is seriously misguided. Their goal is total disarmament/gun confiscation, our goal is "shall not be infringed", the two could not be more polar opposite.

The FFL (not a dig on FFL's but it's a gun control mechanism) is the government's last way to control firearms sales before they happen, private sales, they have no control. So I'm ok with that, you know not giving up freedom and liberty for "security".

I guess my contention is that it should all be equal and fair. (I'll give you a few seconds to regain your composure and pick yourself up off the floor).

If the idea of having FFLs do background checks is for public safety, then the law should be "all sales of guns require NICS". If not, then NOBODY should be required to do them. From a free market perspective, it puts sellers on a level playing field. They handicap businesses in the commerce sector. (Which is what they like, I'm sure).

And I agree that the mental health thing is irreversible. And I also like what you said about "it might discourage people from getting help." But, I think that's giving crazies too much credit.

The solution, like you mentioned, is to arm everybody (or allow them to be). Then, if somebody goes "crazy", there are other non-crazies around to fix the problem. Also, as for "rehabilitation", what is the recidivism rate? Isn't it pretty high? Rehab doesn't really work. Many if not most crimes are committed by ex-cons. It's just in their blood. Someone who used to be crazy probably still has crazy lurking somewhere. Just as "gun free zones" don't prevent mass shootings (but rather enable them!), "no crazies with guns" won't solve the problem of crazy people with guns.

In fact, my biggest complaint is that more people with their CHL don't carry daily. My wife, mother, and close friend are three such people...and we own a gun store. Go figure. I ask them "When will you start carrying?" Response: "If I go somewhere I think I might need it." My Response: "Maybe you shouldn't go there."

So my real feeling is that FFLs shouldn't have to do background checks either if private sales don't have to. And SBRs and silencers should be off the NFA list for sure. I show people in our store my 9.5" Sig 300AAC and hold it up to my Tavor 16.5" 5.56. The Tavor is actually shorter overall length. Tavor: no NFA. SIg: yes NFA.

Many if most of the gun laws are simply illogical and ineffective.