TexasCHLforum.com

I had to fill out a survey for my primary care doctor and the question was:

Do you own firearms?
If Yes, are they always kept unloaded and locked up?

I answered no, and recieved a phone call, (lecture) I told them I do lock up my firearms, but I do not unload them first. Also, it isn't always locked up, I often have it in a holster on my hip.

I am very cautious with my firearms, I would consider myself extremely safe with them, yet my doctor only knows I don't always keep them unloaded and locked up. I don't want him forming an opinion like that without all the facts, and frankly, he is my doctor, he cares for my physical well being, having a gun should be of no concern to him. God forbid I need to go to a hospital to see someone after an accident, it for sure isn't going to be a doc that makes me schedule an appointment. I'm going right to the ER. So why should the family practice guy care.

Rant off, I think there are probably tons of people who would get put on the list of not able to buy a weapon, that really would never commint such a crime, and besides that, I've had my weapons for years now, if suddenly I make the list, are they going to come to the house to take them away?

You can not police intent.

GreenGuy wrote:I had to fill out a survey for my primary care doctor and the question was:

Do you own firearms?
If Yes, are they always kept unloaded and locked up?

I have left this question blank and received no comment.

For y'all, the answers are yes and no.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

GreenGuy wrote:I had to fill out a survey for my primary care doctor and the question was:

Do you own firearms?
If Yes, are they always kept unloaded and locked up?

I have left this question blank and received no comment.

For y'all, the answers are yes and no.

- Jim

I've left off a lot of information filling out dentist paperwork. None of it had anything to do with firearms, but a lot of it I didn't feel had anything to do with my teeth.

A good rule of thumb is to wonder WHY they are asking for information before you give it.

Lucky45 wrote:. Any patient who seeks mental care and is DIAGNOSED as mentally ill or perscribed a drug for mental sickness is automatically enter into the states database for tracking purposes... she says it does not come up on background checks.

Lucky45:

Would you please clarify your statement a little. It’s not clear to me the data being entered by the health officials is being used by the state to determine issues like drivers license, CHL, Child Care, etc. If they’re not, then I think the question of possible abuse is still unanswered…

To the forum in general:

To me it comes down to the potential for good vs the potential for bad.

My RKBA is an individual right, that’s why the first letter in that acronym is “R�. But there are cases where that Right fails the “good vs bad� test. I don’t think anyone would agree I have a right to carry around GB or VX nerve gas. I also doubt you want me having a right to posses a 10 Kilo Ton nuclear device, what about a 1 Mega Ton? So my right to keep and bear arms is infringed, and I agree since the potential for harm to society far outweighs the potential for abuse by the governing body. I know those are extreme cases, but my point is we each decide where to draw the line. I suspect everyone on this forum would draw the line somewhere between “No firearms� and “No nukes� in the private citizen’s hands.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of a mental stability data base that gets used to determine if I can purchase a firearm that otherwise is available to the “sane� members of society. It’s not that I don’t care if firearms get in the hands of nuts and causes incidents such as the one at VT. That was a tragic incident, and innocent citizens were hurt/killed, and if I had a way to turn back the hands of time and change it, I would.

But it was an isolated incident, and in general the perpetrator does not represent the majority of folks that seek medical assistance for mental issues. Denying the majority of folks that seek medical assistance their RKBA because a small percentage may use it to commit mass murder, to me, is not right. The bad overshadows the good in my mind…

That doesn’t mean I’m against some level of “screening� to attempt to weed out those that shouldn’t posses firearms…The VT perpetrator is a prime example of one to be weeded out.

But I want the system to err on the side of the individual’s rights…rights to privacy, rights to pursuit of happiness, RKBA, etc. and I fear in the present state of mind, the governing bodies would overreact and that would lead to a system potentially rife with the opportunities for abuse.

It should be remembered that abuse doesn’t have to be intended either, it can be an unintended result of good intentions.

jimlongley wrote:A major fault that I see in your licensing proposal is that you are essentially trying to license a right.

I drove for years before I was even old enough to obtain a driver's license, and the vast majority of that driving was perfectly legal, a driver's license is only required to use public highways, which is essentially what we have with our CHLs, a license to carry in public as opposed to no need for a license to carry on your own private property.

A license to own a firearm, even in your own home, takes you to IL with their FOID, where you have to have a license to own a gun, any gun, or ammunition.

Well, I'll stop posting to this thread because it seems folks are too
busy or passionate to read what I actually wrote. I explicitly stated
that such a license should not in any way restrict rights on private
property, and it would be akin to a drivers license -- i.e. relating
to public possession/use of a gun. Sorry if I wasn't clearer, and
perhaps it was just too long.

So if I comment again in this thread it will be to comments that
pertain to what I originally said rather than just reinterating and correcting
what I already said or didn't say.

I agree with seamusTX that this system is much too hard to use
to respond effectively point by point and does indeed seem to
hinder the kind of active interleaved discussion that occurs in
other forums. But I digress...
more productive.

TX Rancher wrote:

Lucky45 wrote:. Any patient who seeks mental care and is DIAGNOSED as mentally ill or perscribed a drug for mental sickness is automatically enter into the states database for tracking purposes... she says it does not come up on background checks.

Lucky45:

Would you please clarify your statement a little. It’s not clear to me the data being entered by the health officials is being used by the state to determine issues like drivers license, CHL, Child Care, etc. If they’re not, then I think the question of possible abuse is still unanswered…

Basically that information can only be ACCESSED by any "professional" attached to the medical environment in the state of Texas and she said it is similar in other states. (Doctors, psychologist, psychiatrist, insurance companies, hospitals, treatment facilities, etc.) Because if a patient moves to/from another state, the doctor can pull up their mental history or treatment plan and other info from the states mandatory DATABASE (WEBCARE.) So they don't have to depend on a patient telling them the truth about their mental history. Sounds like common sense to me, cause I can't imagine a person with multiple personalities telling you the whole truth.
Also it is entered by the same people along with a special division in the police department who can enter those cases they encounter. By the court, suicide watches ( yellow prison jumpsuit), domestic calls from concerned family.etc.

Of course the police investigate and not go on someone word that someone is crazy. LEO in here can clarify better, but they have to talk to the person and the suspect has to be either credible verbal threats, destructive to persons or property, etc. Clearly demonstrating that they are not in control of "THEIR OWN" normal state of mind. That is why those people taken into custody have a social worker (Harris County) show up from referall from the state database. Same thing happens for CPS with kids. How many people make noise about CPS showing up infringing on rights and privacy? This system mkight not be set up in small town USA, but that is how it is in the BIG CITY. Come to think about out it...it is ran by the COUNTY. duh. Also, it is not the stupid form people fill out at the doctors office, they are alot of notes doctors takes and store on a patient that you don't realize. They only enter their own mental health diagnosis only to the state's database.
Also, NO. It is not used to determine issues like drivers license, CHL, Child Care, etc. Because it can ONLY accessed by medical personnel.


But it kinda makes my point way earlier valid about going to A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL who CAN get info from the database and sign a form saying they have check on the STATE's DATABASE and you do you reach the level on mental incompetency enough to deny you purchasing a gun. This might be cumbersome, but it might be simplified like suggested earlier to maybe a phone call with your SS# and then the requestor FFL # or UNIQUE # and it says YES or NO to a predetermined criteria and gives back to the requestor a CONFIRMATION #. I think that should be private enough. Use that number in the ATF form and bingo you go with your new purchase.


IDEAS????




GEISTER wrote:

But it was an isolated incident, and in general the perpetrator does not represent the majority of folks that seek medical assistance for mental issues. Denying the majority of folks that seek medical assistance their RKBA because a small percentage may use it to commit mass murder, to me, is not right. The bad overshadows the good in my mind…

I think the small percentage is what some and I want to be TEMPORARILY (NOT PERMANENT) denied acess to PURCHASING a new gun only. If they had any sinister plans, then they would have to either throw the ammuntion at you, or try to reload a the same gun.

TX Rancher wrote:
My RKBA is an individual right, that’s why the first letter in that acronym is “R�. But there are cases where that Right fails the “good vs bad� test. I don’t think anyone would agree I have a right to carry around GB or VX nerve gas. I also doubt you want me having a right to posses a 10 Kilo Ton nuclear device, what about a 1 Mega Ton?

Sure you do; you have the Right to do whatever you want as long as you do not harm anyone. Now am I saying carrying around nerve gas or owning a nuclear bomb is a good idea? Of course not.

If there weren't any laws making either a crime, the vast majority of people would NOT do it anyway. I mean, what purpose do you have to carry around nerve gas? Why would you need to have a huge nuclear device if you aren't going to use it?

Those devices were created by government bodies used for warfare. Without the government involvement, I doubt they would have any other purpose on the planet, so nobody would use them.

So my right to keep and bear arms is infringed, and I agree since the potential for harm to society far outweighs the potential for abuse by the governing body.

Here's the problem with your statement: what is the definition of "potential?" How do you decide what potential for harm outweighs the potential for abuse? According to the gun grabbers, anyone who owns a 9mm with hi-cap magazines has the potential to harm.

I can see where your line of thought is coming from, but the only thing we can really do is react to someone committing violence towards us and infringing out rights to live in peace.






I know those are extreme cases, but my point is we each decide where to draw the line. I suspect everyone on this forum would draw the line somewhere between “No firearms� and “No nukes� in the private citizen’s hands.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of a mental stability data base that gets used to determine if I can purchase a firearm that otherwise is available to the “sane� members of society. It’s not that I don’t care if firearms get in the hands of nuts and causes incidents such as the one at VT. That was a tragic incident, and innocent citizens were hurt/killed, and if I had a way to turn back the hands of time and change it, I would.

But it was an isolated incident, and in general the perpetrator does not represent the majority of folks that seek medical assistance for mental issues. Denying the majority of folks that seek medical assistance their RKBA because a small percentage may use it to commit mass murder, to me, is not right. The bad overshadows the good in my mind…

That doesn’t mean I’m against some level of “screening� to attempt to weed out those that shouldn’t posses firearms…The VT perpetrator is a prime example of one to be weeded out.

But I want the system to err on the side of the individual’s rights…rights to privacy, rights to pursuit of happiness, RKBA, etc. and I fear in the present state of mind, the governing bodies would overreact and that would lead to a system potentially rife with the opportunities for abuse.

It should be remembered that abuse doesn’t have to be intended either, it can be an unintended result of good intentions.[/quote]

patrickstickler wrote:
Well, I'll stop posting to this thread because it seems folks are too
busy or passionate to read what I actually wrote.

hey patrick, don't get discourage because I think we are getting some where in public opinion along with an open discussion. Some of us might not get a chance to hear all the (EVEN WIERD) ways people might be thinkin on this issue since we don't discuss guns at work.

Also, been mobile on cellphone and last night was first time I got to I got to get on main PC and watch the news in 2 days, didn't hear about NASA shooting til around 9pm on Friday. But watching alot of dicussion on several Directv channels, I have noticed that alot of people are coming to the same conclusion as we are discussing here and they heading down the road where the mental loophole needs to address in the PROCESS of purchasing a gun. They don't want to stop anyone from buying one, but when you have severe redflags in your recent mental history then someone needs to stop and say whoaaaa!!!!. Wait a sec.

Hey geister,
from your last post, I just want to say that I hope that a lot more people were able to travel more often to several different countries and see the difference in CIVILIZATION around the world. Then you would able to see for your own eyes through globalization that some people will reject the idea of even reading the same book as you and will lash out in any way or means that they possibly can.
I remember when I was taught in school the whole globalization concept in the 80's and I didn't fully understand. Nowadays, I kinda had an epiphany. Alot of people don't have the same right and laws as the USA, alot of people don't want democracy, Americanization, and want to keep their same culture and find it under attack constantly. And they have to problem with attacking whoever they consider as the attacker.

Anyway, let's stay on the topic.

Geister wrote:[
I can see where your line of thought is coming from, but the only thing we can really do is react to someone committing violence towards us and infringing out rights to live in peace.

I hope one day that you can figure out the concept that it is always BETTER to ACT than it is to REACT in any situation in life. When you react you are ALWAYS TOO LATE. Just apply this concept to any scenario you want to.

Lucky45 wrote:

patrickstickler wrote:
Well, I'll stop posting to this thread because it seems folks are too
busy or passionate to read what I actually wrote.

hey patrick, don't get discourage because I think we are getting some where in public opinion along with an open discussion. Some of us might not get a chance to hear all the (EVEN WIERD) ways people might be thinkin on this issue since we don't discuss guns at work.

Also, been mobile on cellphone and last night was first time I got to I got to get on main PC and watch the news in 2 days, didn't hear about NASA shooting til around 9pm on Friday. But watching alot of dicussion on several Directv channels, I have noticed that alot of people are coming to the same conclusion as we are discussing here and they heading down the road where the mental loophole needs to address in the PROCESS of purchasing a gun. They don't want to stop anyone from buying one, but when you have severe redflags in your recent mental history then someone needs to stop and say whoaaaa!!!!. Wait a sec.

Well, it'd be nice to see some real discussion by a majority of posters
about how we find a balance between preserving our full 2A rights
and yet more effectively managing cases where everyone is already
in general agreement.

Most folks just seem to be talking past the points and reiterating what
I think we're all in agreement about, by taking a single-faceted view
of the matter which excludes any combination of solutions from
multiple directions. And to that end, the discussion is unproductive
(at least for me) which is a shame, as I think these are very important
issues that pro-2A folks need to address, before those "on the fence"
are incited to act by the anti-gun lobby and we see real infringements
on our rights.

I think most everyone is in full agreement about being cautious not
to introduce new legislation and government controls which would
undermine our 2A rights and furthermore that gun free
zones are bad and more armed citizens is good. So the continual
reiteration of those points is not contributing to the discussion.

But it seems that this discussion has rarely, if ever, gotten past
those two points to consider the other, finer facets of the issues.

I sense that alot of fellow citizens who are not gun-advocates, but also
not specifically anti-gun, are concerned with what appears to be
"poor management" (inconsistent, filled with loopholes, etc)
concerning already agreed restrictions on ownership and
while it is certainly true that MORE folks should take responsibility
for their own protection AND that gun free zones are bad AND that
any system can be abused if not defined properly, it's also IMO
both a valid and reasonable concern that there are possibly not enough
checks and balances relating to gun aquisition by folks who shouldn't
have them, or proper management of the checks and balances that
exist, and if the pro-2A folks disregard such broadly held concerns
relating to restrictions they ALREADY agree with, and do not engage
in constructive discussions with their fellow citizens about those
concerns, we increase the risk of more restrictive "solutions"
being put into place.

And before anyone misinterprets what I just stated as being the same
as "outlaw some guns but not my guns" that is NOT what I am
suggesting by any interpretation. I am simply interested in contructive
discussion of how we might better manage our RIGHTS -- in a manner
that PROTECTS them, not restricts them, and in a way that PROMOTES
in the minds of a majority of Americans that pro-2A folks are as
concerned about issues of abuse as much as anyone else rather
than just chanting the mantras "no infringement, no laws, from my
cold dead hands" -- all points which I AGREE with, but doesn't do much
to bring any of the "fence sitters" over to our side.

This particular issue, of a database that is part of the live checks, is
in the scope of concerns of alot of fence sitters, and I was hoping to
see some constructive discussion of how such a component of a solution
might succeed -- to the satisfaction of 2A advocates.

I may very well conclude that such a database will not contribute
to any part of the "solution", but I don't think my conclusions will be
helped much by the primarily polarized and single-faceted discussion
that has occurred thus far in this thread.

Ok so this database, if (and I don't support it) we collected information about your mental health, and used that to determine your right to buy a firearm, where does the database end.

Should your employer also have a link to the database to report your performance reports, and let that be a decision maker as well. For sure that would have prevented the shooting at NASA.

GreenGuy wrote:Ok so this database, if (and I don't support it) we collected information about your mental health, and used that to determine your right to buy a firearm, where does the database end.

I would expect that any such database would (a) be restricted to
cases which are already identified by law as being excluded from
ownership/possession, (b) have search access restricted to the
minimal authorities necessary to effectively enforce those restrictions,
(c) have safeguards in place which favor the rights of the individual
and provide for timely and straightforward contestation of invalid
data.

Thus, it would not include information about folks who are not
diagnosed and under treatment for those mental conditions which
are covered in the current legislation (i.e. if you're depressed and
prescribed an antidepressant, you wouldn't show up in that database,
and if you did, that would be abuse for which there must be
safeguards/processes in place to discourage and resolve).

Should your employer also have a link to the database to report your performance reports, and let that be a decision maker as well.

Absolutely not.

patrickstickler wrote:

GreenGuy wrote:Ok so this database, if (and I don't support it) we collected information about your mental health, and used that to determine your right to buy a firearm, where does the database end.

I would expect that any such database would (a) be restricted to
cases which are already identified by law as being excluded from
ownership/possession, (b) have search access restricted to the
minimal authorities necessary to effectively enforce those restrictions,
(c) have safeguards in place which favor the rights of the individual
and provide for timely and straightforward contestation of invalid
data.

I.e. it would cover the severe mental health conditions covered
on the federal firearms purchase form but not presently recorded
in any existing database referenced during live checks.

I.e.. we should have a live check that covers all of the exclusions
on the form, reducing the possibility for purchasers to lie on the
form. It could still happen. No system can be perfect. But our checks
and balances could more effectively cover the restrictions that we
already all (mostly) agree on.

patrickstickler wrote:

jimlongley wrote:A major fault that I see in your licensing proposal is that you are essentially trying to license a right.

I drove for years before I was even old enough to obtain a driver's license, and the vast majority of that driving was perfectly legal, a driver's license is only required to use public highways, which is essentially what we have with our CHLs, a license to carry in public as opposed to no need for a license to carry on your own private property.

A license to own a firearm, even in your own home, takes you to IL with their FOID, where you have to have a license to own a gun, any gun, or ammunition.

Well, I'll stop posting to this thread because it seems folks are too
busy or passionate to read what I actually wrote. I explicitly stated
that such a license should not in any way restrict rights on private
property, and it would be akin to a drivers license -- i.e. relating
to public possession/use of a gun. Sorry if I wasn't clearer, and
perhaps it was just too long.

So if I comment again in this thread it will be to comments that
pertain to what I originally said rather than just reinterating and correcting
what I already said or didn't say.

I agree with seamusTX that this system is much too hard to use
to respond effectively point by point and does indeed seem to
hinder the kind of active interleaved discussion that occurs in
other forums. But I digress...
more productive.

It seems that you have hoist yourself in your own petard, you hardly could have read MY post carefully if you ignored the thrust of my objection to licensing a right. Driving on public highways, constructed with public monies, is a privilege, keeping and bearing arms, no matter where, is a right.

Ok...I had a look at a different perspective from the wife. She heard the discussion about mental health database yesterday and she gave a suggestion today.

She said that they will still be a right to privacy issue on the mental health of every individual if dealers had to check on the database to see if someone was eligible. Although she agreed that the info is already know because it is stored in the states WEBCARE database. But she would object if she had to apply and the guy behind the counter would find out your status from having a check done on your eligibilty.

She suggested that the way to make it work is
1. To make it voluntary by having people sign a waiver to do a check of your mental history in previous determined time period. Just like you sign on a job application for condition of a job to have a background check.

OR

Just to keep your health info completely PRIVATE between you and your doctors.

2. Same as SOME job opportunities, in order to have it....you have to fill out the application and bring back a CLEAN POLICE REPORT. So they can model this and if you want to purchase a gun, submit along with application...a form from a doctor who has checked the STATES database and determined that your don't have a severe mental illness.

The samething would happen as on a job application. If you don't want anyone to know your severe status then you would not apply and therefore keep your history private between you and doctor. Hopefully, the therapy that they are seeking during the WAIT PERIOD would help them get over their illness.
And if you don't have a SEVERE problem, then you submit it and walk out with gun.