TexasCHLforum.com

stroo wrote:1. I agree that there should be no gun free zones other than possibly courthouses and prisons. However that would not have prevented VT since as far as I can tell none of the victims or anyone in Norris Hall even had a CCW. There were only about 30 CCW holders among the 28,000 students and professors. So there was no CCW holder there to stop the shooter.

2. We need as a society to teach our childen to defend themselves rather than accepting the mantra "Violence is never the answer." If the kids at VT had been raised to defend themselves there probably wouldn't have been as many victims even if none of them had a gun.

3. There are already restrictions on the right to bear arms including felons, minors and the mentally ill who have been involuntarily committed. I personally don't have a problem with those categories. Frankly I don't think a psycopath like the VT shooter should have been able to get a gun. And the only reason he could was because he voluntarily committed himself rather than being involutarily committed.

In the end, we as a society need to understand that we are each responsible for defending ourselves with whatever weapons are available. However, society also needs to be responsible for putting away demonstrably dangerous people. This isn't liberal or conservative, it is Biblical. In the Old Testament, God ordered fathers as the head of households to stone sons who had proven themselves to be irretrievably rebellious, i.e. dangerous to the people. While the letter of that command doesn't stands anymore, the principle behind it does. Society needs to protect itself and its members from evil people. Multiple violent felons and psycopaths like the VT shooter are evil.
They shouldn't get weapons.

Sorry for the long post but this thread got a lot of thoughts going.

tvone wrote:My understanding that doctors that perscribe narcotics have a federal number that is required to be placed on all narcotic persciptions.

Have a similar 800# for physicians to call, he gives name, address, ss#, and certify that this individual is confined to a psychiatric hospital, and has been found either by the physician or court, to be mentally impaired.

Have this added to the NICS.

Say you get rejected when you go to purchase a firearm. Dealer doesn't know why, he just says it was denied. Gives you an #800 number to call to find out why.

You call and find out(and it shouldn't be a surprise) that when you were found mentally incapacitated that you were placed on a no-gun list.

Okay, now it's 10 years later, and for the last 5 years, you've been fine. Petition for a review. Show current medical history, maybe a mental health checkup from your doctor. If you're healthy, you get removed from the list.

Would it be any different for a convicted felon petitioning for reinstatement of voting or firearm rights?

Is it any less serious?

Lucky45 wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:
So everyone who wants to buy a firearm would have to have a psychological examination ahead of time?

It should not be an examination. It should be a verification that you have not been admitted or had a mental episode in the previous time period. Doctor should able to verify confidentially through whatever channels they have and then sign papers. they should be able to find out if you were in mental institution or not from records.

Lucky45 wrote:I agree with you. I'm not too much interested in a database because I know it will be a privacy issue and not really feasible.
I think a good solution would be that you have to bring a NEW form...the ATF Form 666 (aka Nutcase form) that is filled out by a licensed doctor within the last 30 days. The form was basically inform us that the applicant is not a nutcase and has not had a nutcase episode in the last 2,3,4 or whatever years that would disqualify him/her. That way nobody is going over your medical records but your doctor. Maintain your privacy. They do this kind of stuff all the time in immigration cases and other employment.
I think it would work.