TexasCHLforum.com

If you are an absolutist and oppose any control on gun sales, then you certainly should oppose this one.

However if you believe like I do that people who have committed violent felonies in the past or have been committed to an mental institution shouldn't be able to legally buy guns, this bill is not that bad. Under the bill, only people who have been committed to a mental institution are placed on the lists. A doctor could not by himself simply put you on the list. There also seem to be some provisions for getting off the list although they are not very clearly spelled out.

stroo wrote:
violent felonies

The law doesn't keep just violent felons from legaly posessing firearms. It keeps all felons. Even the guy in Alaska who is a felony poluter because one of his staff cut a pipeline with a back hoe. Even the guy I grew up with that comitted a paper work violation of the banking laws. And many others.

Since the 1968 gun control law passed, MANY new felonys have been added to the books. Many without a basis in the 10 Comandments. Many that aren't Violent.

As to keeping 'crazy people' from owning guns.
What do you think will grounds for being commited 40 years from now?
Wanting to own a gun?
Not beliving man is responsible for 'climate change'?
Voting for the Wrong political party?


Now Aberto Gonzales wants the AG's office to keep someone from owning a firearm because the AG 'says' they are a 'terrorist'?


Maybe be I am an absolutist because I think with 20,000 gun laws on the books, we have too many.

Update on another thread:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 8007#88007

tomneal wrote:

stroo wrote:
violent felonies

As to keeping 'crazy people' from owning guns.
What do you think will grounds for being commited 40 years from now?
Wanting to own a gun?
Not beliving man is responsible for 'climate change'?
Voting for the Wrong political party?

The Russians and Chinese have charged that any who disagree with them as crazy, and had them sent to institutions to reprogram them. I've Heard folks claim with utmost sincerity that "liberalism is a mental disorder" in fact I believe there is a best seller out by the title authored by Michael Savage. I know people who believe he is crazy. Everyone knows that us Libertarians are certainly crazy.

I agree that Libertarians are crazy!!

The bill does not apply to "crazy" people. It applies to people who have been committed to a mental institution. When you can be committed to a mental institution for "Wanting to own a gun?
Not beliving man is responsible for 'climate change'?
Voting for the Wrong political party?", you will have far larger problems to deal with than gun control.

Again, if you take an absolutist position, the bill is bad one. I don't. I believe every right has limits including the 2nd Amendment. If you have proved yourself dangerous to society, you shouldn't have a right to a gun anymore.

Until the 1968 gun law
even violent felons (like bank robbers) got their guns back when they got out of prison.

Our country survived.


This change in our gun laws is being prompted by the shootings at Virginia Tech.

The biggest failior at VT was the HIPPA laws. Cho's parrents weren't notified that he was 'crazy' until he was dead.
There needs to be at least one HIPPA exception for family.

(HIPPA is the law that prevents Doctors from talking about patents with out their permission. )

HIPAA (Health Information Portability and Accountability Act) is a hindrance in cases like this.
it makes my daily life, well, less than pleasant.

I agree that was the biggest failure in the VT shooting.
that, and the guy was nuts.

As a libertarian, I oppose ALL laws that disarm anyone.

In this case, this IS a compromise. The bill not only mandates and funds the states to include people into NICS that are already supposed to be there, it clarifies the rules as to who should be. It also adds the ability to be removed from NICS, something currently NOT available.

Actually the biggest failure in the VT shooting was society's failure to imprint on any but a few of the victims and potential victims a self defense attitude. If a few more of them had been willing to fight back, with or without firearms, there would not have been as many killed. We as a society are really falling down on this count and the bill does nothing to address this.

I knew i had seen another article on this and found it:

http://origin.denverpost.com/ci_6105190

This article points out some items that concern me, but i may be reading it incorrectly.

Under the deal, states would be given monetary enticements to keep the federal database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions.

People with minor infractions in their pasts could petition states to be removed from the database, and about 83,000 military veterans in the system for alleged mental health reasons would have a chance to clean their records.

Does this mean there are expected to be many more people with minor infractions and/or military veterans with "alleged mental health issues", or does it mean these people are already mistakenly in the system?

Inquiring minds want to know.

tomneal wrote:

What's to stop mentally ill people from getting guns the same way criminals do?

What's to stop the government and the medical profession from deciding that owning guns is a mental illness?

Thank you, well put, this is exactly what bothers me about this. The AMA has already shown itself unworthy of our trust: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... i_n8956652