TexasCHLforum.com

I think we all need to be careful about focusing in on the scary sounding words such as anxiety, depression, mood and intelligence etc. Those all come in varying degrees and not all degrees warrant the loss of someone's rights as not all degrees of the conditions cause one to be a danger to themselves or others.

We don't want to fall into the same type of trap as the media and be scared of all the scary black military automatic assault weapons with armor piercing bullets.

See what I did there?

"TREATMENT HISTORY INFORMATION * USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY.
Indicate any history or information, of treatment and/or diagnosis received by, commitment to, or residence in:
a drug or alcohol treatment center licensed to provide drug or alcohol treatment under the laws of this state or another state; OR a psychiatric hospital; OR
a mental institution following an adjudication as a mental defective or court ordered commitment or treatment (per 18 U.S. Code § 922(g) (4)); OR court ordered outpatient treatment; OR
a physician for a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability. (per Texas Government Code § 411.172(d)(1))."

I think that because he is under treatment for a condition requiring medication to control, he should have completed and submitted this form.

I agree, he should have completed it.

For what it's worth, I imagine this would be a disqualifying condition for a CHL. I can't image too many situations more stressful than having to make a split second decision regarding taking a human life.

Just because he has an illness, it doesn't automatically disqualify him unless it causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment.

See where I bolded the words adjudicated and court ordered commitment or treatment. He didn't say anything about either being the case. Therefore, that is one of the reasons I posted my comments using those terms.

I see you are new to the forum. Welcome. There is a lot of good info here.

Thanks for the lecture.

The fact he omitted it should be enough to disqualify him from getting a CHL. My point about the other is that just because he is under psychiatric care and taking medication doesn't mean he should be automatically disqualified like some seem to think.

As with many discussiins, my comments were in response to some of the subsequent comments that were posted and were not directly in response to the OP.

Bottom line, his question cannot be answered on here with the limited info he provided.

How was your comments directly related to the op or were they also directed at subsequent posts?

I think you have a valid point. However, it is really up to him, his family or his close friends to address this with him. If his illness is serious enough that he should lose his rights, they should be the ones to step up to take the necessary steps to get him adjudicated to not be qualified and capable. By the way, we do not know if he has already discussed this with his doc and it was determined he was not a threat to himself or others.

Just the fact he has an illness and it is being treated with medication is not sufficient to assume he is incapable of exercising his rights to have own and carry guns. There are many people that have mental and physical illness that sounds bad but isn't anywhere near the point of needing to lose their rights.

If you go down that slippery slope of just assuming people with an illness is incapable of exercising their rights, what about chronic pain sufferers and those that have bad attitudes or those that are fed up with the government or those that consider themselves sovereign citizens or those that have are forgetful but some consider it to be dementia etc.?

People's family and friends along with their physicians are the ones that should initiate the legal proceedings to have one adjudicated incapable of exercising their rights. Or, in the event of one committing a crime and it is then discovered they have serious mental illness that justifies them losing their rights, the state should take the steps to have them properly adjudicated.

Two things, it always makes me wonder when a new poster shows up and posts something like this topic for their first post. Seems too much like someone fishing for ammo against us and trying to get us to publicly talk about how to game the system or exploit a loophole. Not saying this person posted this topic with those intentions but it does cross my mind.

Also, I would be very careful about posting any medical or other info that could possibly bring into question one's eligibility for having a LTC or own guns. Unfortunately, our online presence isn't as anonymous as we think. I also suspect we are just a judge's subpoeana away from having our idenity revealed.