TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:With the current drive of the extreme left to eliminate firearm ownership combined with the left wing ownership of the education system (law school) and the predominance of left wing judges, I would not trust my second amendment rights to any court that has the legislated authority to determine my mental fitness to own firearms.

If I were to trust such a court then I would indeed be crazy.

Anygunanywhere

As my mom and I held hands and "skipped" to the car in the parking lot (embarrassing my brother and sister", but we had fun) ... she commented, crazy people all think they are sane, only the sane people know they themselves are a bit nuts.(You have to be a bit crazy to cope with the idiocy of the rest of the Nation sometimes, else you'd move like some Ex-Pats do)

Einstein was crazy, Thomas Edison was nuts to think man could create light...or sound duplication/recording
Charles Manson thinks he's sane ...

So leaving a determination of who and who cannot protect themselves up to Obama's criminal DOJ/Sec of State/Supreme Court/FEDERAL JUDGE nominees/Bloomberg's criminal mayor squad... just makes me a bit uneasy
====================================================
The debate goes back to way before Samuel/Saul's time

Government, a governor --- purpose: to restrict freedom
Freedom= absence of restriction
a motor without a governor can go faster

Do you trust yourself to decide who you should sell to?
Do you want the government to govern whoi ytou can or can't sell to since you have bad judgement and can't be trusted?

Are you the only sane person who should be armed like Mike Bloomberg thinks, and we need regulations for everyone else, but of course your judgement is good, but laws are needed because of "them who are untrustworthy"?

Debate will continue forever

So this does not increase the number of background checks, but makes background checks which are already required, more probative than they currently are ...to investigate into mental health adjudications?

I might read it later, but busy lately

baldeagle wrote:For those wondering what this is all about - http://texicantattler.blogspot.com/2013 ... check.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

‘Background checks serve a critical role in ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of those not responsible enough to use them…we must refocus our efforts to make sure the current background-check system works to screen out the dangerously mentally ill.’

Does anyone disagree with that?

Unfortunately, legislation proposed in the Senate, such as the so-called "assault weapons ban," focuses not on the perilous intersection of mental illness and guns, but on the cosmetic features of certain firearms. I wasn't sent to Washington to pass another law that will not address the real root cause of mass violence. Recent tragedies across the nation confirm that we must improve mental health reporting for the background check program.

This is why I support legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would plug the holes in our background check system. Federal and state authorities alike have criticized ambiguous guidelines in the current system that fail to include many existing mental illness records. The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 would clarify outdated legal definitions so that we could more effectively screen out individuals who are prohibited from buying guns.

This is the bill Senator Cornyn is referring to. If you read the text of the bill it is very reasonable. It requires a judicial finding where the individual had counsel and a court order finding them incompetent. So the rights of the individual are protected by a legal process that honors all the usual rights of our system; innocent until proven guilty, the right against self incrimination, etc., etc. It explicitly excludes voluntary admissions to a psychiatric hospital or involuntary admission for observation, and it excludes people for whom judicial orders have expired, been set aside or expunged or have been fulfilled or completed. In my opinion, it's a very good bill.

Thanks for the link, but without taking time to read the reasonableness / degree of infringement in that bill, I'll just ask ...

If I meet you behind the Walmart to swap/trade/sell a Glock 17 and 500 capacity drum clippie thingy, do we have to run to town to do background checks and pay someone and create paper? I saw your CHL/I've known you since birth/you are my nephew etc.

If so, I'm against it

how do I know your mental adjudication without a background check and medical records release?

seems to invade privacy and deter private transactions both.

I have no intention of providing you a medical records release. How my hernia is is no business of yours nor the governments. My niece wouldn't want her medical records released to govt or me when I transfer a gun to her.

How is all that going to float with HIPAA ??

Sure. it benefits FFLs, and allows Govt to collect more personal info in the database, but it does not stop bad people from stealing guns or buying them on a street corner and going on mass shooting sprees or robbing stores or doing home invasions like has occurred commonly in the past.

John did vote against Shumer's bill though.
Guess I just got ticked at him placating the Libs in their language and "compromising" the Constitution more than it already has been... by supporting Graham's bill to "plug the holes" (loopholes) and infringe "just a weeee bit more"

Cruz isn't apologizing for doing right.

Article in paper I JUST GOT today

And I thought Texans had sense, but some "long-time politicians" living in an Austin Condo and in DC may be out of touch?

Background checks have to keep guns from troubled buyers
by John Cornyn

This is why I support ... Graham... that would "plug the holes in" ...

ohhhhh the Democrat's' "loophole" reworded for Republicans?

Loophole: synonym: freedom from govt control
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22john ... =firefox-a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People who purchase used dishwashers without govt intervention/taxation/registration/permission are exploiting a loophole. You can't get away with that with a used automobile, we need to plug the loopholes.


IMHO, We need to vote against loopholes next chance we get; some loopholes have been out of touch too long, like Bloomberg when he flies to his gunfree palace in Bermuda and carries a cop (ok, 2 cops, paid by NYC)

I can't carry a cop.