TexasCHLforum.com

tvone wrote:or my ex-wife who wanted to skin me alive and roast me over a fire. The type of person who says "I want to kill xyz" and you know they mean it.

You NEVER know if they mean it.

tvone wrote: That's a first!

I'll need to pass that around to the people I work with. They all think I'm a Neo-Con sitting on the right of John Birch.

Your starting to lean liberal on the gun issues and you lean neo-con on other issues. Basically you're more or less like Bill O'Reilly.

You can have various opinions that are in various political spectrums. That's what centrists are. Just because you have some neo-con views doesn't mean you have to follow every neo-con view. Now, it doesn't mean that you're being logical.

As someone else said, we don't live in a Utopia. I'm a firm beleiver in my personal responsibility to protect myself and my family. There are those who by choice (criminals) or the mentally impaired(and here, I'm talking certified insane, NOT DEPRESSION, NOT WACKY, NOT ECENTRIC!)
that lose the right to possess a firearm.

Once again, how do we decide who's really mentally impared? Way too subjective.

Instead of worrying about what mentally impared person can buy a gun and who cannot, just shoot the bastard when he comes after you with a gun.

You're already in more than a few databases...got a SS#, bank account, email, insurance, own a vehicle, property, credit cards, etc

That does justify databases. I have a problem with PUBLIC databases, not private databases used for business purposes. We don't need any public databases at all.

Without some gov't, you're left with anarchy.

And what does this have to do with government databases?

We can have a perfectly good government that does not operate on databases at all.

Geister wrote:

As someone else said, we don't live in a Utopia. I'm a firm beleiver in my personal responsibility to protect myself and my family. There are those who by choice (criminals) or the mentally impaired(and here, I'm talking certified insane, NOT DEPRESSION, NOT WACKY, NOT ECENTRIC!)
that lose the right to possess a firearm.

Once again, how do we decide who's really mentally impared? Way too subjective.

Instead of worrying about what mentally impared person can buy a gun and who cannot, just shoot the bastard when he comes after you with a gun.

You're already in more than a few databases...got a SS#, bank account, email, insurance, own a vehicle, property, credit cards, etc

That does justify databases. I have a problem with PUBLIC databases, not private databases used for business purposes. We don't need any public databases at all.

Without some gov't, you're left with anarchy.

And what does this have to do with government databases?

We can have a perfectly good government that does not operate on databases at all.

No one said a public database. The public does not have access to the information that's found in a NICS.

Our present form of gov't and it's support of our populace couldn't survive in modern times without computerized database without creating thousands of new gov't jobs to manual handle all of the information necessary to process SS checks, tax checks, and others. In this day with our growing population, database management saves millions of your tax dollars every day.

"Just shoot the jerk" is not an answer. As someone else said, the time to stop a plane crash is not 50 feet from the ground.

Let's narrow the grey area then. To be put on the list takes a court order from a judge after a hearing. 3 independent dr. reviews. Appeals if necessary.

Here's who I believe shouldn't have a firearm:
Violent felons
The insane
Minors

(Edited for 10 year old daughter rule. GH)

Discuss the issue, not the poster. This is obviously an emotional issue and that's fine. I'll post my thoughts on it below, but again, discuss the issue, not the poster.

I don't like a database for several reasons already mentioned. I'll add anther from a lawyer's perspective. I can see a doctor feeling pressured to add someone's name to "the list" just to avoid potential liability if the person later killed someone. I can also see an attorney advising his doctor client to do so to avoid liability.

Whatever the standard may be today, if a person isn't enough of a threat to be removed from society, then there should be no prohibition on owning a gun. There are numerous ways to kill without using a firearm, so I believe it is a hollow contention that denying such a person a gun will make society safe. Fire, bombs, poison, 6,000 lb. SUV’s, all of which have been used to kill multiple people in one incident, are more effective methods of mass murder than a gun. And if you choose small victims, then a bathtub full of water will do fine. We have to focus on the person, not the tool.

Chas.

Lucky45 wrote:

Liberty wrote: By denying thre crazies we would put less importance on their lifes than on those of us who may be more whole.

Can you answer the direct question about a felon who is whole that has been "rehabilatated" in prison and is released. They are denied posessing a gun. Are their lives of less important?? Now remember you can be a felon for many different reasons, not just robbery or murder.

i while I believe that felons deserve an oportunity to to at least earn the right. The constitution doesn't exempt felons in the 2nd ammendment, nor does it exempt crazies, However this is a different point and off topic.

The difference between a felon and a crazy is that the felon has proven by their actions they are untrustworthy. They are judge by a system that has checks and balances.

What makes someone crazy is how they think. If they do something wrong and break the rules they should lose the appropriate rights. Someone is crazy because they think differently than the norm.

Some people thought Audie Murphy and Douglas MacArthur were crazy. Should they have been disarmed? Who is to make the judgment? doctors and psychologist? Those guys are amongst the craziest of folks. Did you read about the gynecologist in this thread that asked in a form if their was a gun in the house? Sounded a little obsessive to me.

I've offered what I think is a rationale plan to withhold legal purchases of firearms to those with SEVERE mental illness. Severe mental illness. I've narrowed the grey area to a ruling by a judge, similar to what happens now when someone is committed against their will. It could be done at the same time. Let's limit this discussion to only that. There are other discussions about expanding where we can legally carry. I'm all for expanding those places and even lowering the age to 18.
Can you offer a solution to keep the mentally impaired from legally purchasing a weapon?

And yes, Cho could have used a bomb, but then we would not be having our 2nd amd. attacked.

1. I agree that there should be no gun free zones other than possibly courthouses and prisons. However that would not have prevented VT since as far as I can tell none of the victims or anyone in Norris Hall even had a CCW. There were only about 30 CCW holders among the 28,000 students and professors. So there was no CCW holder there to stop the shooter.

2. We need as a society to teach our childen to defend themselves rather than accepting the mantra "Violence is never the answer." If the kids at VT had been raised to defend themselves there probably wouldn't have been as many victims even if none of them had a gun.

3. There are already restrictions on the right to bear arms including felons, minors and the mentally ill who have been involuntarily committed. I personally don't have a problem with those categories. Frankly I don't think a psycopath like the VT shooter should have been able to get a gun. And the only reason he could was because he voluntarily committed himself rather than being involutarily committed.

In the end, we as a society need to understand that we are each responsible for defending ourselves with whatever weapons are available. However, society also needs to be responsible for putting away demonstrably dangerous people. This isn't liberal or conservative, it is Biblical. In the Old Testament, God ordered fathers as the head of households to stone sons who had proven themselves to be irretrievably rebellious, i.e. dangerous to the people. While the letter of that command doesn't stands anymore, the principle behind it does. Society needs to protect itself and its members from evil people. Multiple violent felons and psycopaths like the VT shooter are evil.
They shouldn't get weapons.

Sorry for the long post but this thread got a lot of thoughts going.

Excellent post, and brings the topic back on track. How to keep the insane from legally purchasing firearms ?

stroo wrote:1. I agree that there should be no gun free zones other than possibly courthouses and prisons. However that would not have prevented VT since as far as I can tell none of the victims or anyone in Norris Hall even had a CCW. There were only about 30 CCW holders among the 28,000 students and professors. So there was no CCW holder there to stop the shooter.

2. We need as a society to teach our childen to defend themselves rather than accepting the mantra "Violence is never the answer." If the kids at VT had been raised to defend themselves there probably wouldn't have been as many victims even if none of them had a gun.

3. There are already restrictions on the right to bear arms including felons, minors and the mentally ill who have been involuntarily committed. I personally don't have a problem with those categories. Frankly I don't think a psycopath like the VT shooter should have been able to get a gun. And the only reason he could was because he voluntarily committed himself rather than being involutarily committed.

In the end, we as a society need to understand that we are each responsible for defending ourselves with whatever weapons are available. However, society also needs to be responsible for putting away demonstrably dangerous people. This isn't liberal or conservative, it is Biblical. In the Old Testament, God ordered fathers as the head of households to stone sons who had proven themselves to be irretrievably rebellious, i.e. dangerous to the people. While the letter of that command doesn't stands anymore, the principle behind it does. Society needs to protect itself and its members from evil people. Multiple violent felons and psycopaths like the VT shooter are evil.
They shouldn't get weapons.

Sorry for the long post but this thread got a lot of thoughts going.

Finally. Bravo

tvone wrote:Can you offer a solution to keep the mentally impaired from legally purchasing a weapon?

If you create an ironclad system that makes it impossible for a particular person to legally purchase a firearm (including restricting private sales, as many jurisdictions do), that person can seduce a girlfriend to do so, or steal one, or purchase one from a gangster.

In nearly all cases, people who commit crimes with handguns now are felons or under 21, and thus not allowed to purchase or carry a handgun.

If all the forces of government cannot stop tons of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin from being brought into the country and sold freely to millions of buyers, they can't stop black-market weapons, either.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote: that person can seduce a girlfriend to do so, or steal one, or purchase one from a gangster.

I think we need to look at it as they are already in place to address that situation and it is clearly black and white, no grey area.
But what most rational people want addressed is the LEGAL ACCESS to a gun. We already know we cannot address the illegal way completely. So whenever someone is mentally impaired where they exhibit desire to do harm to themselves or others, these are the people who need to have a temporary HOLD on purchasing a gun.
One thing that has not been discussed is that when a human gets to the point mentally where they have disconnected the wiring in the brain that prevents you from harming yourself or others, that person is COMPLETELY DANGEROUS. That is why murderers, aggravated robbers are considered dangerous because they just care after the first attempt. if you notice when you have these serial robbers, they start out mugging, then knife, then note of gun, then brandishing gun, then shots in the air. Guess what's next. this is point where the cops get in media because they see that suspect having that disconnect and they know he's about to kill someone real soon.
So if we see the same progression with a person with a mental history, like tvone's wife. why would we not step in and attempt to prevent the inevitable, even if it is TEMPORARY. 3 or 6 months.

Sarah81 wrote:If a criminal can illegally obtain a firearm, then so can a person who is mentally ill.

My solution: end the gun-free zones. If a mentally-ill person or a criminal drops his or her basket and starts blasting, the good guys should be able to shoot back.

The registry/database would be too susceptible to abuse. Especially when liberals/antis are in power. Give them the ability to add a name to a "no gun" registry because of mental illness and eventually wanting to own a
firearm in the first place will be labeled a sign of mental illness. They'd call it paranoia. Heck, they already do, actually.

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here (putting on my asbestos suit...)

Firstly, let me state explicitly that I agree 100% with ending gun-free
zones, as well as most restrictions on carry by competent, law abiding citizens.

Secondly, let me also state that I doubt the ideas outlined below would
have stopped the VA killings (a non-gun free zone would probably have
helped more) but that it does address alot of the concerns that many
folks "on the fence" seem to be expressing in the wake of this tragedy
and offering ammunition and traction to the anti-gun lobby.

That said, I have seen almost exclusively, unary solutions or strategies
put forth in these various discussions. Arguments have generally fallen
into either (a) less gun laws or (b) more gun laws.

Honestly, I think we need both, but in the case of (b) they need to
be the right kind of laws/policies (please read to the end before flaming)

I expect that improvement of the situation will require a combination
of actions addressing the problems
at various angles. That will include *both* eliminating gun-free zones
and unrestricting folks from protecting themselves, but *also* should
include a *little* more organization and management of gun ownership
and use (this is the bit that I expect some folks who read too quickly
and jump to conclusions will flame me for, so please, consider the
following objectively and dispassionately, as coming from a staunch
2A advocate who firmly believes there should be no limits on
type or number of firearms or rights to bear and use them for defense).

Just as I am in favor of someone having to demonstrate that they know
how to operate a motor vehicle and understands the traffic laws before
they are permitted (not merely able) to drive a car, etc. I am also in
favor of a form of gun license (akin to a CHL, but for all ownership/use)
which requires a person to have demonstrated basic gun handling skills
and knowledge of gun safety, etc. and only attainable and remaining
valid so long as they demonstrate themselves to be responsible,
competent, and law abiding citizens.

Such a license should be as attainable as a drivers license, and as such,
would not IMO infringe upon the 2A in any *significant* manner. Yes,
I expect some folks to flame me on that, but I think such a license
would reflect a wise and reasonable balance between "absolute" personal
liberties and the right of the community (note I didn't say government)
to reduce the number of tragedies caused by ignorance or ineptitude.

I also would expect having such a form of gun license would
go a long way towards addressing the concerns of a large majority
of people who are not opposed to 2A rights yet the current, *seemingly*
(even if not in actuality) chaotic, fragmented, and in some contexts
unconstrained system of gun ownership leave them highly
succeptible to supporting actual and significantly infringing anti-gun
legislation, as it more clearly and officially demarcates the line between
law-abiding citizens and both criminals and the incompetent
while also strengthening the 2A by emphasizing that such a license
must be freely attainable by all competent law-abiding citizens.

Such a license should not be treated as a "gold mine" for revenue
to the government, but rather, fees charged should be comparable
to drivers license fees and proceeds should substantially go towards
the funding of the training, etc. (i.e. it should be done "right" rather
than exploited, as it could be in countless ways)

Such a license would NOT include any form of gun registration or restrict
in any way the number or type of guns one might own or use.

Such a license would allow for gun use by anyone under the
supervision/instruction of any adult gun license holder, providing
for supervised youth shooting/hunting, pre-license training, etc.

Such a license would not restrict gun use on private property no
more so than drivers licenses restrict driving a car on private property.

It would be akin to "Hunter Safety" course completion requirements for
hunting licenses in many States and such requirements could be used
as a template of sorts, and one would expect such a "gun license" to
replace such requirements. One could also expect that such a gun
license would subsume a non-trivial portion of the training required
for most CHL/CWP/CCA licenses, being augmented with coverage of
concealed carry laws and (hopefully) conflict resolution strategies, etc.

When buying a new gun, a live check by the FFL could be as quick
and simple as e.g. a credit card charge, ideally being able to just
swipe it in a card reader, hit a "verify" button, and get a yes/no
approval. If rejected, the buyer has to call and resolve the issue
themselves. The FFL would treat it the same as if e.g. their credit
card was declined.

The license could even be incorporated into one's drivers license,
as an extra certification, similar to operating a motorcycle or
commercial vehicle.

OK... that said...

Now how does this relate to the primary discussion in this thread? Well,
just as certain events can suspend one's drivers license, certain events
would be able to suspend, even revoke, one's gun license -- including,
among other things, being arrested, committed to a mental facility,
being diagnosed and prescribed treatment for certain mental illnesses,
etc. as well as e.g. hunting infractions (over limit, out of season, etc.)

And just as a drivers license check by a LEO would reflect a suspension,
within a very short amount of time following the suspension, so too should
a suspension of a gun license be reflected in any check in as short a
period of time as possible/reasonable.

Reinstatement of ones gun license would be a similar process to having
one's drivers license reinstated after suspension.

Suspension of ones gun license would not affect ownership of existing
guns by the person, no more than suspension of a drivers license would
affect car ownership, but it would (a) prevent purchase of new guns, and
possibly additional ammunition and (b) would alert law enforcement agencies
that e.g. someone recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness *may*
be in possession of firearms. Does that mean folks without such a license,
or with a suspended license would somehow "magically" be made "safe"
to themselves or others by the suspension of their license? Of course not.
But it would provide a fundamental infrastructure for identifying and
reducing potential threats.

(yes, any "infrastructure for identifying and reducing potential threats"
will cause some folks to "get their undies in a wad" due to concerns of
abuse by the government, but please, read on before flaming...)

Note that in the case of mental illness, suspension would require rather
extreme events, such as being involuntarily committed to a mental
institution, or being prescribed medication specifically for mental
conditions which exclude a person from gun ownership, and thus it
would not have had any bearing on the recent terrible events in VA.

Could there be abuses? Sure. And so it would have to include a very clear,
and pro-individual process for contesting suspension which would, by
definition and law, give the individual the benefit of the doubt and put
the burden on the government to prove a suspension is justified, etc.
(i.e. loaded with legal presumptions in favor of the individual)

*Extreme* care would need to be taken to ensure that such a gun
license system would not actually infringe on 2A rights due to abuse
or vaguely/poorly worded legislation, or regional variations in
intepretation/enforcement, etc. It would surely take years to
get it "mostly right". And the process will be a political battleground.
But IMO it's a path that should be very seriously considered by all.

Will nut cases still be able to do harm? Sure. That is why *also* gun-free
zones should be eliminated. But IMO mandatory gun safety and
handling training and a license infrastructure similar to drivers licenses
would IMO not be a true infringement of our 2A rights BUT would go a long
way towards satisfying a majority of folks who
are not actually opposed to us keeping our 2A rights but uncomfortable
with the current level of checks and balances (or lack thereof) relating
to gun ownership. And satisfying such "fence sitters" strengthens the 2A
because it weakens the ability of the anti-gun lobby to incite them to
panic.

Note that this is really not far off from what we already have with NICS
and many hunting licenses, it's just better organized, normalized, and
augmented to better address current problems with gun ownership by
persons who are incompetent (either mentallly or merely ignorant).

OK, flame away....

Lucky45 wrote:But what most rational people want addressed is the LEGAL ACCESS to a gun. We already know we cannot address the illegal way completely. So whenever someone is mentally impaired where they exhibit desire to do harm to themselves or others, these are the people who need to have a temporary HOLD on purchasing a gun.

The point I am trying to make is that it is impossible to stop a determined person from obtaining weapons (firearms and other things). You can make it illegal and slightly more difficult, but not impossible.

I think someone who has proven to be dangerous, either by committing crimes or making credible threats, should be confined. Our legal system can do that, but generally fails to do it. That's why so many criminals who finally commit a gruesome atrocity already have a number of felony convictions and are out on parole or probation.

I think the system has tipped too far toward giving dangerous people the benefit of the doubt. Confining someone for what they might do is very risky (to personal liberty) and must be done with many safeguards. Those safeguards are already in place, to the point where it is almost impossible to confine someone.

Crazy people commit violence with vehicles and other things. The number of people killed in vehicle crashes is several times the rate of homicide by firearm. The majority of crashes involve alcohol, drugs, or criminal negligence; but for some reason society fails to emphasize this problem. No one is talking about additional restrictions on vehicle ownership or driver licenses to improve the situation.

- Jim

Patrickstickler, about a dozen states already have the kind of measures that you describe, including mandatory certification and approval by the police of every single purchase. They don't work. Criminal acts are committed by people who ignore the law, and rates of violent crime in those states are higher than in states that have "liberal" weapons policies (many more liberal than Texas, such as Alaska and New Hampshire).

The focus has to be on dealing with dangerous people, not objects.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Patrickstickler, about a dozen states already have the kind of measures that you describe, including mandatory certification and approval by the police of every single purchase. They don't work. Criminal acts are committed by people who ignore the law, and rates of violent crime in those states are higher than in states that have "liberal" weapons policies (many more liberal than Texas, such as Alaska and New Hampshire).

The focus has to be on dealing with dangerous people, not objects.

- Jim

Hmmm... I thought "dealing with dangerous people" was the
focus of what I wrote. ???

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to what you wrote as I don't see
how it directly applies to what I wrote.

I will, though re-emphasize two points:

(a) we have a challenge in defending the 2A due to a system of gun
ownership which is broadly percieved to be (and in certain ways actually is) inconsistent,
insufficient, and in some ways broken -- allowing individuals who
most of agree shouldn't have guns legally obtain guns, not to mention
tragedies caused by the inept handling of guns by those who otherwise
have the right to them but simply don't know better -- and that leaves
alot of folks who
are not necessarily anti-gun or anti-2A to be succeptible to legislation
promoted by the anti-gun lobby that truly does infringe on the 2A,
and

(b) what is needed is both abolishment of (most if not all) gun-free zones, so
that we can defend ourselves against those who disregard the law,
or are simply "out of their minds",
but *also* a more consistent and effective, but NON-infringing system
of gun ownership which, even though it can't eliminate many cases
of gun violence, provides a framework for identifying and limiting
at least some potential cases.