TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks for all the info. My false impressions are corrected.

- Jim

jimlongley wrote:I can't resolve the dichotomy you presented. If a pistol were inaccurate, how would it be useful for dueling?

My understanding is that they wanted a certain amount of chance, let God decide or something. I've read that most pistol duels ended with no injury or a minor injury. I've also read that some duellers missed intentionally, and sometimes they tried to miss and hit their opponent.

If participants really wanted to kill each other, they would use swords or rifles. (It's not an area that I have a lot of interest in.)

Contemporary accounts refer to people carrying pistols concealed, and not all pistols of the era were as large as you state.

I didn't know that. The few 18th-century pistols that I've seen were quite large.

In any case, the 2nd Amendment does not refer to concealed or open carry; and I'm convinced that the issue is irrelevant.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Another point is that the constitution says we have a RKBA, not a RKB *CONCEALED* A. You don't think this little detail was left out by accident, do you?

Pistols of the time were a foot long, single-shot, inaccurate, and pretty much useless for anything other than dueling.

The RKBA also referred to swords. Whatever happened to that?

- Jim

GreenGuy wrote:I had to fill out a survey for my primary care doctor and the question was:

Do you own firearms?
If Yes, are they always kept unloaded and locked up?

I have left this question blank and received no comment.

For y'all, the answers are yes and no.

- Jim

patrickstickler wrote:This actuallly highlights what I see as a benefit to such a license program: it emphasizes the fact that gun posession is inherently no more criminal than driving a car.

That has not been the case in states where firearms ownership is licensed.

In most states that have concealed-carry licenses, newspapers can obtain lists of license holders and publish them. The newspaper editors do so on the presumption that license holders are dangerous. They say so in their editorials.

This has not happened in Texas because the CHL law (wisely) makes it prohibitively expensive and difficult.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are choosing to read only portions of my original post and disregard other portions.

I'm sorry if you feel slighted, but this forum software makes it laborious to reply to each point as I am doing in this message.

I also don't have unlimited time to reply.

I stated in several places that it would take effort and care to ensure that the basis for suspensions is such that it is difficult to abuse while still allowing for valid cases. Again, I agree, with what you are stating here but I don't see a valid objection to what I was proposing. "Let's not do that because it might be done in the wrong way" is not IMO a valid argument for not trying.

My main objection to the linkage of licensing and mental illness is that it will not stop dangerous mentally ill people from causing harm. If someone is that dangerous, they should be confined or closely monitored.

Meanwhile, we would be left with a licensing system that was ineffective and subject to abuse.

I appreciate the essence of that argument; however, some "things" are more hazardous than other "things". It is reasonable for control to be relative to the danger a given "thing" presents. I'd be alot more concerned about a loaded handgun found in a playground than a knife ... Now, should the person who dropped that gun be treated as leniently as someone who may have dropped a knife?

It is already illegal to allow a minor to come into possession of a loaded weapon. No licensing is required for that.

It also strikes me (given my underlying philosophy) that losing an item that cost several hundred dollars and can result in liability in the millions is really stupid. Can we outlaw stupidity effectively?

It may simply be that we disagree in principle on the idea of "licenses". I get the impression that you are opposed even to drivers licenses, ...

I accept driver licenses on several bases:
1. Vehicles are more dangerous than semi-automatic firearms. They kill far more people each year (not even counting car bombs).
2. Driver licensing is an accepted fact after a century or so.
3. The vast majority of Americans drive. They would object to unreasonable restrictions on driving. (Breaking the 55 MPH speed limit was probably the most widespread form of civil disobedience since the end of Prohibition.)

The last point is not true of firearms licensing. Once a system was in place, a hostile government could ratchet up the requirements indefinitely.

For example, what if you had to be able to fire 15 shots in 15 seconds into a 2-inch circle at 15 yards before you could purchase a handgun? How could you ever get to that point if you couldn't own one?

What if classes were held once a year in Lubbock?

... that there should simply be traffic laws, and if someone breaks a traffic law, they are penalized, but that it is unreasonable for society to seek to ensure that people that lawfully operate vehicles possess both essential skills and knowledge to do so safely -- because of the higher risks to others involved. Or have I misunderstood your position?

I think my points 1 and 2 above answer this question.

- Jim

patrickstickler wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Your driver license can be revoked if your physician files an affidavit saying that you have epilepsy or a similar condition.

(a) Do you see rampant abuse in such cases?

No, for two reasons:
1. Your driver license can be suspended only for a physical medical condition that can be verified by objective tests.
2. Driving has not been criminalized. People accept it as normal, and driver licenses are suspended or revoked only in extreme cases.

Many people have the attitude that firearms ownership is inherently criminal, or that firearms owners are inclined to behave violently. I have heard this expressed many times on talk shows in the past week (I listen to some left-wing ones).

In the more restrictive states, you are assumed to be planning a crime if you want to buy a handgun, and must persuade the authorities that you are not.

(b) Do you really think it's a bad thing that a physician is able to do so?

In the case of physical illnesses and driver licenses, I think it's a good idea.

The problem with mental illness is that it's often subjective. Five psychiatrists can examine a patient and come up with three diagnoses. One might say that the patient is not mentally ill.

I'm sorry, but it seems you are arguing that because criminals will disregard the law there is no point in having any laws. ???

I support laws against actions that harm other people, such as assault and theft.

I am opposed to laws that attempt to control people who have done nothing wrong, and probably never will, simply because they possess an object or material that could be used to do harm.

Your home or mine contains dozens of things that could be used for murder, even mass murder by poison; but all the focus is on possession of firearms.

But every day, and I do mean every day, the police deal with crashes where a driver had no license, no registration, no insurance and/or was drunk or under the influence of drugs.

But if there weren't laws identifying such activities as prohibited, why would the police need to be involved.

The police become involved when there is a crash, which is the result of an offense like failing to stop for a red light or failing to yield the right of way.

I think I failed to make my point with the car analogy.

Honestly, I think you are completely missing the points I was trying to make. I agree completely with the key points you are arguing yet they are not the same points that were the focus of my previous postings.

OK. I tried to express myself. It's difficult in this kind of forum. Perhaps someone else will be able to clarify the issues.

I'm hoping that Kevin Craig expresses an opinion.

- Jim

patrickstickler wrote:Let me try to summarize what I understand you to be saying,...
You highlight the fact that, in many places where gun ownership
is more structured, there is more violent crime. Fair enough.
Laws do not prevent crimes so much as they identify criminals.
Thus more "control" will not necessarily reduce crime. Criminals
will do as they please.

That is my point.

Having a "better" system for managing gun ownership ... would IMO address another part of this puzzle, and in a way that would ultimately strengthen appreciation of the 2A rather than weaken it.

I think a licensing system would be a mechanism for increasing restrictions, without any real benefit in reducing crime or preventing violence by mentally ill people. It could be abused, for example, by an angry spouse or some other person falsely claiming that you threatened them.

Let's look at what happened with cars. Originally, there were no driver licenses, car registrations, inspections, or insurance. Now, all those things are mandatory. Your driver license can be revoked if your physician files an affidavit saying that you have epilepsy or a similar condition.

At one time, drunk driving was winked at unless it cause serious injuries or death. Now, it will get the driver's license suspended or revoked and result in large fines and jail time.

Law-abiding people obey all those laws.

Car keys used to be a simple piece of metal. Now cars are required to have electronic locks that disable the steering wheel and gearshift.

But every day, and I do mean every day, the police deal with crashes where a driver had no license, no registration, no insurance and/or was drunk or under the influence of drugs. Often the car was stolen. No law can stop that kind of thing from happening.

- Jim

patrickstickler wrote:I think we are talking past one another here.

Unfortunately, you are right. But I can't seem to express my point more effectively.

- Jim

Lucky45 wrote:also seamus, I think you are drifting from my point. I never suggested physical confinement. I was taling about, like patrick put it, temporarily suspending certain spelled mental cases where you can't buy a gun.

I am suggesting physical confinement as the only measure that can prevent violence in some cases.

If someone really wants to kill people indiscriminately (as in the Virginia Tech case), they can just get behind the wheel and plow into a crowd of people. This has happened. I don't know why it doesn't happen more often.

- Jim

patrickstickler wrote:Hmmm... I thought "dealing with dangerous people" was the focus of what I wrote. ???

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to what you wrote as I don't see
how it directly applies to what I wrote.

I mean dealing with dangerous people by preventing them from committing any violent act, whether with a legally purchased firearm, a vehicle, a homemade bomb, a bathtub, or their bare hands.

In some cases this will mean confinement under judicial supervision. In others, it might mean outpatient treatment for mental illness with frequent monitoring (in some cases, daily phone calls or house arrest with electronic monitoring).

The vast majority of firearms owners will never commit a crime, and adding legal hurdles is an infringement of their rights. Criminals and violent mentally ill people will not obey the law. I don't know how to state this more clearly.

- Jim

Patrickstickler, about a dozen states already have the kind of measures that you describe, including mandatory certification and approval by the police of every single purchase. They don't work. Criminal acts are committed by people who ignore the law, and rates of violent crime in those states are higher than in states that have "liberal" weapons policies (many more liberal than Texas, such as Alaska and New Hampshire).

The focus has to be on dealing with dangerous people, not objects.

- Jim

Lucky45 wrote:But what most rational people want addressed is the LEGAL ACCESS to a gun. We already know we cannot address the illegal way completely. So whenever someone is mentally impaired where they exhibit desire to do harm to themselves or others, these are the people who need to have a temporary HOLD on purchasing a gun.

The point I am trying to make is that it is impossible to stop a determined person from obtaining weapons (firearms and other things). You can make it illegal and slightly more difficult, but not impossible.

I think someone who has proven to be dangerous, either by committing crimes or making credible threats, should be confined. Our legal system can do that, but generally fails to do it. That's why so many criminals who finally commit a gruesome atrocity already have a number of felony convictions and are out on parole or probation.

I think the system has tipped too far toward giving dangerous people the benefit of the doubt. Confining someone for what they might do is very risky (to personal liberty) and must be done with many safeguards. Those safeguards are already in place, to the point where it is almost impossible to confine someone.

Crazy people commit violence with vehicles and other things. The number of people killed in vehicle crashes is several times the rate of homicide by firearm. The majority of crashes involve alcohol, drugs, or criminal negligence; but for some reason society fails to emphasize this problem. No one is talking about additional restrictions on vehicle ownership or driver licenses to improve the situation.

- Jim

tvone wrote:Can you offer a solution to keep the mentally impaired from legally purchasing a weapon?

If you create an ironclad system that makes it impossible for a particular person to legally purchase a firearm (including restricting private sales, as many jurisdictions do), that person can seduce a girlfriend to do so, or steal one, or purchase one from a gangster.

In nearly all cases, people who commit crimes with handguns now are felons or under 21, and thus not allowed to purchase or carry a handgun.

If all the forces of government cannot stop tons of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin from being brought into the country and sold freely to millions of buyers, they can't stop black-market weapons, either.

- Jim

tvone wrote:If a mental illness database is not a good idea, does anyone else have a suggestion?

At the risk of sounding like a pompous fool, I think the solution is like preventing plane crashes. You can't stop a plane crash when the plane is 50 feet off the ground. You have to correct its course at a time when you can make a difference.

It was very easy to get people committed 40 years ago, probably too easy. Now, I think it's far too difficult. Someone has to commit a serious crime and be imprisoned to stop them from harming more people (and even then, they sometimes harm other prisoners and guards).

We've seen in the Virginia Tech case that many people knew that the killer was headed for trouble. That has been true in many other cases, including parents who killed their children.

I don't know how to fix the problem in detail. It would require a different standard for what constitutes dangerous behavior, which has other risks; and it would cost money.

- Jim

tvone wrote:Should there be a database for licensed physicians (Psychologists) to report patients that are a danger to themselves and others that can be included in a NICS check?

IMHO, no.

In the first place, I think the standard would be too subjective. Many people in the medical field are extremely anti-RKBA and would report too many patients. It would essentially make people guilty until proven innocent, and I don't know how someone can get off the NICS restricted list.

In the second place, any time a physician or psychologist can report patients to the legal system, it makes patients hold back information or refuse to seek treatment. That's why medical personnel do not report illegal drug use.

As you say, even if people who are mentally ill are denied firearms through the NICS, they can obtain them by other means. They can use weapons other than firearms. It's easy to find instructions for making bombs on the Internet. It's even easier to crash a vehicle into a crowd, and crazy people occasionally do that.

We always have to balance the rights of the many law-abiding people against the few extreme criminals or mentally ill people.

- Jim