TexasCHLforum.com

RAM4171 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

RAM4171 wrote:Ummm...........................shall not be infringed?

If you are arguing that mentally unstable and dangerous people should be allowed to buy and own guns, then you are in a very tiny minority.

Pardon me baldeagle I have great respect for you and always enjoy reading your posts. However, I am an absolutionist when it comes to the Constitution and the Billl of Rights, and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means exactly that which it states. I believe any new laws as well as all of those currently in place do just that, infringe on our rights. Pardon me for believing wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I think you are mistaken. Shall not be infringed does not mean we have to be insane and have no laws at all. Allowing mentally disturbed violent people to have access to guns is foolish and puts the people in jeopardy.

The founders of our country had no problem passing laws that regulated firearms, and they were the ones who wrote shall not be infringed.

For example, some of the colonies had laws that prohibited the discharge of firearms in public places except for weddings or funerals (where it was common to do so and still is today in some parts of the world.) Unsafe storage of gunpowder was prohibited in some cities, because it presented a public safety hazard. There were laws regulating hunting, just as there are today, to prevent the decimation of the deer population, and just like today "vermin" could be taken at any time (wild pigs, foxes, coyotes, etc.)

Most of the laws were what I would call common sense. You can't fire into the door of your neighbor's house because someone could be injured, for example. Even ownership of weapons was regulated. You were required to own certain types of guns and certain levels of powder and ball in preparation for the common defense.

So the idea that shall not be infringed means no laws can be passed doesn't match what our forefathers did in practice. The difference between their laws and the ones frequently proposed now is that their laws addressed irresponsible gun ownership whereas the current laws simply seek to take away weapons and ammunition. There is no way that can be justified under the Constitution.

No right is unlimited. Free speech does not mean you may speak at any time in any place about any thing any more than shall not be infringed means you can walk down Main Street firing your gun in the air to celebrate your son's birth. Along with rights comes the responsibility to exercise them sensibly. Those who cannot or will not do so are rightfully disarmed by the people for the safety of all.

RAM4171 wrote:Ummm...........................shall not be infringed?

If you are arguing that mentally unstable and dangerous people should be allowed to buy and own guns, then you are in a very tiny minority.

RPB wrote: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

Click on the link I provided. It's a one page bill. It will take all of 1 minute to read it.

RPB wrote: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.

Then this bill wouldn't apply, because there is no NICS check involved.

RPB wrote: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.

Again, this bill does not address or propose private sales transaction background checks. All it does is try to improve the existing system to ensure that truly mentally ill people will be rejected during a NICS check. If they get a gun through a private transaction, they will have bypassed NICS and this bill would not apply.

RPB wrote: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.

If you can get someone adjudicated in a court of law as mentally incompetent because they had a hernia, then NICS would reveal that fact. Otherwise they're in the clear.

RPB wrote: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.

Of course that's not its purpose either. But to say that Cornyn "calls for background checks" is more than a little misleading since the average person would immediately think universal background checks in the current environment, and that is not what this bill does at all.

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.