TexasCHLforum.com

bagman45 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:52 am Well folks, THIS is the biggest risk to our 2A rights that I've seen in my 57 years on this earth. I have contacted ALL of my elected Texas representatives, as well as others in congress by both Twitter and email. I've also shared my views against ANY "red flag" laws, or other nonsense our feckless republican surrender monkeys are entertaining with the NRA, and all Pro-2A organizations of which I'm aware. I suggest that you ALL do the same. We're about to get railroaded out of a Constitutionally GUARANTEED RIGHT. The black robed politicos won't do a damn thing to stop it. After this one falls, as you know, we are all done. Now is NOT the time to hang our heads and surrender. More people were shot and killed this weekend in the big Dem controlled cities, with NO MEDIA COVERAGE. It's time to take the fight to them with our communications before other approaches are necessary. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE IN!!!! It's up to us.....

Rather than address the mental health issues of a few individuals...ALL lawful citizens must have their rights put into jeopardy.

Trump is treading on dangerous thin re-election ice by supporting/advocating this, increased background checks and a new "assault weapons" ban.
If you're just going to give the socialist anti-2A people what they want, why do we need you?

Firearms Policy Coalition statement on red flag legislation:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-stat ... mp-remarks

Excerpt:

FPC has been and remains strongly opposed to so-called “red flag” laws, also known as “Gun Violence Restraining Order” (GVRO) or “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) statutes.

FPC also remains strongly opposed to expanding federal criminal statutes, including but not limited to those mandating “universal background checks”.

These proposed laws do not increase access to mental healthcare or improve public safety. They rely on expanding federal powers through further abuse of the Commerce Clause and are unconstitutional, as well as dangerous.

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:39 pm The problem is that this bill isn't nearly enough, while its failure to be proactive results in a critical lack of due process. When you look at the list of deadliest mass shootings, the overwhelming majority of shooters met the lay definition of mentally defective, and several had involuntary psych holds in their history. None of them were prevented from buying a weapon, and legally all of them answered 4473 question 11f truthfully. The new Lorena Bobbitt documentary shows John Wayne using his (presumably legally owned) pistol, seemingly to imply that domestic abusers can remain armed. I'd be more upset at their failure to mention 4473 questions 11h and 11i, but for the fact that neither prevented that jerk from owning a gun.

Form 4473 apparently prohibits these people from owning or purchasing firearms, but in practice it fails spectacularly. The ATF does not prosecute people who attempt to illegally buy guns, while question 11f seems to come from 1950s mental health terms that aren't applied to ANYONE today (no matter how crazy they may be- I have never wtitten "mentally defective" in a chart nor have I ever asked a judge to make that determination).

To make question 11f valid, we must attach DSM-V diagnoses to the NICS and actually report them to the NICS. I would argue that a searchable list of prohibited persons and penalties for private citizens who knowingly sell to people on that list effecticely closes the "gun show loophole" without actually infringing on anyone's rights to sell or give away a gun.

The idea to require gun owners to undergo psychological testing has been floated. Of course, once this is in place the test only has to be modified in order to deem anyone who wants to own a gun as mentally flawed.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-simple- ... al-illness

“Any person who seeks to purchase a gun of any type of firearm that is legal under a statute will be required to obtain a standardized psychological assessment from a licensed doctoral level mental health specialist,” the proposal states. “The sole objective of the assessment is to identify factors that may be particularly related to an impairment that can be related to harm to oneself or others.”

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:15 am Taking somebodies property and denial of due process of law will go to the Supreme Court quick!

And be upheld by the same. SCOTUS has done little to turn back the agenda of progressive socialists, legalizing abortion, Obamacare, etc.

jb2012 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:44 pm Dan Crenshaw has already promoted this... pretty disappointing, I had considered him to be such a fine example until today.

Just say no.

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
— Thomas Jefferson, “Commonplace Book,” quoting 18th-century criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1774-1776
“To disarm the people … is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
— George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania Gov. Sir William Keith, “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,” June 14, 1788
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
— Noah Webster, “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” Oct. 10, 1787
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. … The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
— Joseph Story, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” 1833
“On every occasion (of constitutional interpretation) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying (to force) what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, (instead let us) conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823