TexasCHLforum.com

R DAVIS wrote:..........

What makes you say that? The fact that the op posted something similar to another forum member who was recently removed? In a state withover 20 million people, 2 people can't have a similar situation without being called a troll?

Javier730 wrote:

R DAVIS wrote:..........

What makes you say that? The fact that the op posted something similar to another forum member who was recently removed? In a state withover 20 million people, 2 people can't have a similar situation without being called a troll?

"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows"- Bob Dylan (Subterranean Homesick Blues)

Shai Hulud wrote:

suthdj wrote:Here's question I would ask, how would you be off of your meds?

Not sure...but I don't really see that as a valid question. How would a type 1 diabetic be off his meds? Point is I don't go off my meds.

So you're saying you have an inexhaustible supply that cost you nothing, point is most people that have had problems were off their meds or not on them at all.

suthdj wrote:

Shai Hulud wrote:

suthdj wrote:Here's question I would ask, how would you be off of your meds?

Not sure...but I don't really see that as a valid question. How would a type 1 diabetic be off his meds? Point is I don't go off my meds.

So you're saying you have an inexhaustible supply that cost you nothing, point is most people that have had problems were off their meds or not on them at all.

To clarify...My point was just that there are a variety of medical conditions where, if someone stops taking their prescribed medications, it can greatly compromise that person's mood and judgment, yet as a society we don't curtail people's rights for having many of these conditions. I mentioned diabetes specifically because there have been quite a few crimes committed by diabetics attributed to hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Courts have generally ruled if the crime is a result of the diabetic deliberately stopping taking insulin, for example, it is not a valid defense. In other words, society recognizes that some people are mentally fine as long as they follow the instructions of their physician, yet are potentially dangerous if they do not. But society does not legally discriminate against diabetics (as far as I know). And I don't mean to pick on diabetics--there are many potentially dangerous conditions besides mental disorders (e.g., high blood pressure). But it seems mostly those with mental disorders who are discriminated against.

The fact that someone *could* stop taking medications which *might* make him or her dangerous does not strike me as a valid reason to curtail second amendment rights, unless it's known in advance the probability of stopping the medications is high and/or the probability of ceasing medication making the patient dangerous is high.

To answer your question, I don't have an inexhaustible supply of free medications obviously, though with my insurance they're almost free and I don't see my physician suddenly stopping refills. In the unlikely event this did happen, I have about a month's worth stockpiled and would immediately find another physician, or, if forced, taper my supply until I can.

I suppose it's possible I randomly decide to stop taking medications or can't get them anymore. And it's (barely) within the realm of possibility this would substantially impair my judgment, mood, etc., to the point where I shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun. However, I already own guns. So... if this unlikely scenario came to pass, and my judgment is super impaired, would it make any difference to anybody if I had a CHL?

Anyway, I'm happy to debate this further, though it's not why I started the thread--I don't want to appear trollish, as evidently I do to some people. I'm satisfied with the advice I've received about getting a letter from my physician and consider my initial questions more or less answered.

To the OP, your question is legitimate.

I have a family member who is in his early 50's has been diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome for most of his life and has been on medication to control his "tic's"-repetitive head, neck and arm motions. I am not sure exactly what the classification of Tourette's is but I don't think it's psychiatric but neurologic???

Other than his tic's he a normal person.

He owns firearms, has all his life and has no criminal record, has recently purchased another handgun and was thinking of getting his CHL in Louisiana.

Not knowing if he would be disqualified due to his Tourette's/medication, I did not want to discourage him from trying to get it. But it did make me wonder hypothetically would he be able to get it in TX.

I am not concerned in the least over him owning firearms or having a CHL.

I don't think tic's and "impulse control" are the same thing, and other than that the meds issue and how it affects him are the only thing that I can see that might apply to his case, of course, I'm not his doctor and I don't have all his medical records. All I can say to him is apply and see what happens and see what other hoops he might have to jump through to get it.

TX CHL Eligibility

(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.

Javier730 wrote:

R DAVIS wrote:..........removed image

What makes you say that? The fact that the op posted something similar to another forum member who was recently removed? In a state withover 20 million people, 2 people can't have a similar situation without being called a troll?

I object to this on three grounds. First, R DAVIS is himself a fairly new member, so he should learn to hold his tongue until he's proven himself. Second, the OP gave no indication that he was trolling other than the fact that it is a controversial subject. Controversial subjects do not automatically mean troll. Finally, I object to the image. It was grossly huge and a much smaller image would have communicated the same message.

The standard on this forum since I've been a member has been to treat new members with respect and courtesy until they prove they cannot behave themselves. It's worked well, and I see no reason to change it simply because the subject matter is controversial.

In answer to your original question: NO

Now run along and troll some other forum.

troll or no troll, we can't help him he has to have a Dr. diagnosis and submitted with his CHL app. We can't approve or deny his CHL License. BTW, his opinion regarding what curtail or not his 2ndA right is not here to be discussed as it does not matter for his case. DPS is the only one who can decide on his CHL Licenses.

It is over, next topic please.

Beiruty wrote:troll or no troll, we can't help him he has to have a Dr. diagnosis and submitted with his CHL app. We can't approve or deny his CHL License. BTW, his opinion regarding what curtail or not his 2ndA right is not here to be discussed as it does not matter for his case. DPS is the only one who can decide on his CHL Licenses.

It is over, next topic please.

FWIW, I don't necessarily think he's a troll but there seems to be an uptick in "Am I eligible?" posts, especially regarding drugs/mental questions. I'm a relative newcomer, so I don't know if its a cyclical thing but I'd suspect that some of the troll cries are coming from folks that are seeing the same types of posts on a near daily basis. Especially when those posts seem to garner a good number of views and often end up in a disagreement.

Maybe the reason that I am suspicious of these types of first posts is that I am a not person who would post my medical history in a public forum.

Specifically, I would not discuss a medical diagnosis or name any prescription drugs that I am taking or had previously taken. YMMV.

WildBill wrote:Maybe the reason that I am suspicious of these types of first posts is that I am a not person who would post my medical history in a public forum.

Specifically, I would not discuss a medical diagnosis or name any prescription drugs that I am taking or had previously taken. YMMV.

OTOH, hundreds of people are willing to expose the intimate details of their lives on national TV.

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:Maybe the reason that I am suspicious of these types of first posts is that I am a not person who would post my medical history in a public forum.

Specifically, I would not discuss a medical diagnosis or name any prescription drugs that I am taking or had previously taken. YMMV.

OTOH, hundreds of people are willing to expose the intimate details of their lives on national TV.

Very true!

WildBill wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:Maybe the reason that I am suspicious of these types of first posts is that I am a not person who would post my medical history in a public forum.

Specifically, I would not discuss a medical diagnosis or name any prescription drugs that I am taking or had previously taken. YMMV.

OTOH, hundreds of people are willing to expose the intimate details of their lives on national TV.

Very true!

Or on facebook and tweeter.

mlindab296 wrote:I have Type I Bipolar Disorder so I know I'm not eligible to carry a concealed--or any other type of--weapon, but I have a right to defend my life like everyone else. What weapon am I legally allowed to carry in public for self defense?

Situational awareness is the one weapon you need to have. Any other weapon is your back up.

Adios

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79554&hilit=profanity