TexasCHLforum.com

I think if there was a required aptitude test, or competency screening, before you were allowed to purchase firearm, along with a mental health database that could be checked...I would agree to that. When I took all of my level 1 through 4 PPO training, in order to get the license you must do a 400 and some question psych eval, as well. I wouldn't be opposed to that either. Fact is, as dim witted as I may be, I could pass both of those, and it seems like a decent start. Why is that not an approach anyone is using? If something to that effect was put into place it would keep mentally unstable, and stupid people away from firearms. I would think that would mitigate future tragedies. I may be completely wrong, but it makes sense to me and doesn't infringe upon 2A.

Shall not be infringed.

george wrote:So, in your world, stupid people would not have a right to defend themselves?

And who decides how smart is smart enough?

Apparently anything is to be scrutinized...yes, people who lack the mental capacity to own a firearm shouldn't have one. I wasn't talking about a college level exam, something more like a safety course test. If you were born after 1976 you already have to take a class if you want to hunt legally in Texas. You can over think what I posted, but I meant what I said and do not see any infringement involved therein. It's not a registration it's a safety precaution. If you allow a guy that rode the short bus to school to own a firearm, the potential for another Sandy Hooks increases. My comments are aimed at making sure the mental health and competency are there, not any infringement upon our rights to bear arms. I also don't think all felons should not be allowed to own firearms either, I think a certain few, over the course of time should be able to regain that right. But that is a whole other argument.

Don't like too much where this is headed.....

To me, it would be like a panel deciding whether or not I needed life saving medical treatment.

I meant what I said and do not see any infringement involved therein. It's not a registration it's a safety precaution.

Just like all the other infringements - "it's for the Safety of the Children".

Here's a novel idea......
How about they just leave Legal Gun Owners alone and go after the Criminals instead?

Let me ask, what if there is such law, as firearms acquisition card for those who have basic safety training and where judged to be sane enough to own a firearm.
AND,

And person who is not qualified:
1) Asked his buddy to borrow his gun.
2) Acquired a firearms at the corner of his street, you know at those 7/11 hangouts.
3) Stole a firearm.
4) etc, add your illegal means of acquiring a firearms without said "firearms acquisition card"


BTW, in Canada they have said "Federal firearms acquisition license card" And you need to have a 15 to 20 signatures form those who might ever knew you, that they do not "object" to you having a firearm. Believe me, as a Canadian, and I had to have said card, you would never like having one like it in US. It would never work!

AEA wrote:

I meant what I said and do not see any infringement involved therein. It's not a registration it's a safety precaution.

Just like all the other infringements - "it's for the Safety of the Children".

Here's a novel idea......
How about they just leave Legal Gun Owners alone and go after the Criminals instead?

When you purchase a firearm now under the current laws, there is already a question regarding mental stability along with dishonorable discharge and a few other personal questions...I just think that it would only be more paperwork and no it wouldn't stop criminals from acquiring guns but it may make the anti gun crowd them shut up for a while. Everyone knows that if a criminal wants a gun they will acquire one regardless of what laws are in place...laws, and bans didn't stop them anywhere else in the world, it wouldn't stop them here. All more restrictive laws would do is disarm the law abiding citizens...but I think that is what TPB wants anyway, they just don't want to come out and say it.

Jd,

I'm meaning no disrespect, I'm just trying to see how much government interference with your life you'd be willing to accept. I'm no drinker, and i assume your not much of a drinker either (or at least, your very responsible) with a CHL. Would you be opposed to vehicle manufacturers installing breathalyzers in every US automobile to completely do away with drunk driving?

I would find it highly offensive. Honestly, I'm not to sure making me have mandated auto insurance is constitutional. I'm not looking for anymore government intervention in my life than I already have.

We already compromised and gave them the 4473 and a 10 year AWB. They don't work, it's time for them to compromise and give us nationwide Constitutional carry while canceling everything back to and including 1934. I am NOT, NOT, Not, for giving them one little inch more, including "just a little paperwork" because that is just incrementing the line toward their side.

Two historical examples that regulations like these, while they may seem common sense, WILL be misused by the powers that be.

I've often thought "Man, there should be a test you have to pass to prove you aren't a moron." Here's where Historical reference #1 comes in. They had such tests at on point, they were manipulated to fail African Americans. The people grading the test didn't want them to vote, and so they failed them regardless of actual score.

Exampe #2: New York has a CHL. However, because the people who run it are anti, only those with friends in high places and/or lot's of money can actually obtain one.

Before you give more power to regulate you over to the government, remember that governments change. Maybe you trust the current administration trustworthy enough to give them that power. That doesn't mean the NEXT one will be so trustworthy.

jimlongley wrote:We already compromised and gave them the 4473 and a 10 year AWB. They don't work, it's time for them to compromise and give us nationwide Constitutional carry while canceling everything back to and including 1934. I am NOT, NOT, Not, for giving them one little inch more, including "just a little paperwork" because that is just incrementing the line toward their side.

I wish!

I am not sure where you came up with the impression that your idea is simplicity, but even your idea of a common sense gun law and reasonable restriction will result in a huge government beauracracy.

I will repeat what one of the astute posters already said.

No infringements.

This is the most simple solution.

Anygunanywhere

How about this. Let's look for a single example of a government regulation that remained where it started. I've never been able to find one, perhaps you will do better. Once a regulation sticks, there are more to follow and even more to follow that. Government regulators have no natural predators to control them. The jackals report that regulators don't even taste good.

but it may make the anti gun crowd then shut up for a while.

No it won't. The anti-gun crowd's goal is to completely disarm the American public. They well understand why that 2nd Amendment was put into place in the first place - to counter governmental tyranny. If you will notice, the ones who publicly push gun control are the same ones who push the UN Agenda 21 and other "world government" initiatives. That is NOT a coincidence.

Simple is "shall not be infringed." I agree with keeping it simple.