TexasCHLforum.com

Excellent post, and brings the topic back on track. How to keep the insane from legally purchasing firearms ?

I've offered what I think is a rationale plan to withhold legal purchases of firearms to those with SEVERE mental illness. Severe mental illness. I've narrowed the grey area to a ruling by a judge, similar to what happens now when someone is committed against their will. It could be done at the same time. Let's limit this discussion to only that. There are other discussions about expanding where we can legally carry. I'm all for expanding those places and even lowering the age to 18.
Can you offer a solution to keep the mentally impaired from legally purchasing a weapon?

And yes, Cho could have used a bomb, but then we would not be having our 2nd amd. attacked.

Geister wrote:

As someone else said, we don't live in a Utopia. I'm a firm beleiver in my personal responsibility to protect myself and my family. There are those who by choice (criminals) or the mentally impaired(and here, I'm talking certified insane, NOT DEPRESSION, NOT WACKY, NOT ECENTRIC!)
that lose the right to possess a firearm.

Once again, how do we decide who's really mentally impared? Way too subjective.

Instead of worrying about what mentally impared person can buy a gun and who cannot, just shoot the bastard when he comes after you with a gun.

You're already in more than a few databases...got a SS#, bank account, email, insurance, own a vehicle, property, credit cards, etc

That does justify databases. I have a problem with PUBLIC databases, not private databases used for business purposes. We don't need any public databases at all.

Without some gov't, you're left with anarchy.

And what does this have to do with government databases?

We can have a perfectly good government that does not operate on databases at all.

No one said a public database. The public does not have access to the information that's found in a NICS.

Our present form of gov't and it's support of our populace couldn't survive in modern times without computerized database without creating thousands of new gov't jobs to manual handle all of the information necessary to process SS checks, tax checks, and others. In this day with our growing population, database management saves millions of your tax dollars every day.

"Just shoot the jerk" is not an answer. As someone else said, the time to stop a plane crash is not 50 feet from the ground.

Let's narrow the grey area then. To be put on the list takes a court order from a judge after a hearing. 3 independent dr. reviews. Appeals if necessary.

Here's who I believe shouldn't have a firearm:
Violent felons
The insane
Minors

(Edited for 10 year old daughter rule. GH)

Geister wrote: TVone, you need to freaking get over the fact that it's not the government's job to protect you. It's YOUR job to protect YOURSELF. The only good that laws do is to punish those that commit crimes.

You're just a typical knee-jerk liberal who wants the government to be nosy in our lives due to a handful of situations. You don't seem to understand that in a free society, citizens are not put into databases.

That's a first!

I'll need to pass that around to the people I work with. They all think I'm a Neo-Con sitting on the right of John Birch.

As someone else said, we don't live in a Utopia. I'm a firm beleiver in my personal responsibility to protect myself and my family. There are those who by choice (criminals) or the mentally impaired(and here, I'm talking certified insane, NOT DEPRESSION, NOT WACKY, NOT ECENTRIC!) that lose the right to possess a firearm. Criminals who have truly been rehabilitated CAN have their rights restored. Those who are mentally impaired need our protection, whether it's family, church, or gov't.

You're already in more than a few databases...got a SS#, bank account, email, insurance, own a vehicle, property, credit cards, etc?

Without some gov't, you're left with anarchy.

Let's keep it civil.

I agree, none of those examples would fall under the catagory of being mentally incapacitated to the point they are a danger.

None of them had been committed unvoluntarily to a hospital and deemed a danger.

I'm talking about the truly dangerous individuals, like the VT loon, the kid in Frisco wanting to be a seriel killer, or my ex-wife who wanted to skin me alive and roast me over a fire. The type of person who says "I want to kill xyz" and you know they mean it.

Yes you are. What makes you think she would harm herself in any other way? Did you childproof your entire house?

In fact, I did.
I took every knife out out the kitchen except the butter knife. No BBQ forks either.

My turning point in that marriage is when I got home from leaving her at the hospital the first time. The weight of the world was off my shoulders. For the first time in months, maybe years, I slept soundly. As the day got closer to her release, I could feel the dread building. It still took years before I left, still hoping for the best.

edit to make it a little clearer.

I had the opportunity to sit down with 2 doctors and posed this very question.

Both agreed that it should be done.

Both agreed that it would be impossible due to privacy laws and the ACLU.

One doctor didn't think it would be acceptable to have armed citizens in a classroom, and went as far as saying not even an off-duty LEO. "If we get to that point where we feel the need to have firearms in classrooms then we have already lost".

Another interesting quote: "Handguns cannot stop handgun violence".

He also couldn't wrap his hands around the idea that normal ordinary citizens would want to go through the process of of getting a CHL and carry in a classroom. "We'd have to pay someone to do that!"

At this point, we agreed to disagree.

I agree with no gun free zones...nothing more than please shoot here zones.

My one exception might be courtrooms. But at least there you have metal detectors and LEOs.

I can't think of another place.

Does your "everybody" include felons? Minors? There are restrictions already, and some are necessary. There are restrictions on every right. The grey area is what is reasonable.

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

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?

It's not the firearms I'm worried about. It's the mental status of the individual. Just because you didn't threaten anyone with your firearms, didn't mean you weren't a threat to youreself at that time.

My ex never threatened to harm herself or others with a firearm. I still wouldn't want her to have access to a firearm through a dealer. It was her mental state I was worried about. I'm not blaming firearms.

To all, thanks for keeping this discussion civil!

Interesting enough...

O'Reilly is discussing this on his radio show now.

When a person is convicted of a felony, they are incarcerated, and they are barred from possession of a firearm unless they get their rights re-instated upon release..

When someone is committed to a psychiatric hospital because their mental state is uncontrollable, and have been deemed harmful to themselves and others, shouldn’t something similar apply?

I agree that there is room for abuse. You have that in almost every situation. Look at the CHL database. Can’t your employer get access to that information to see if you hold a permit? If you work for Canon in Irving, TX, that would put you under suspicion of violating company policy. I work for a company that is very left-wing, and company policy forbids firearms on company property and in company vehicles. I sometimes go places in the wrong parts of town late at night to do my job. I follow company policy. I don’t like it, but I love what I do, and have great benefits and a flexible schedule. I’m aware of my surrounding when I go. I would go on record saying EVERY major company in my industry is the same.

"When my first wife became ill I dropped into a depression that would easily have put me on the list. I sat parked on the bridge steeling myself up to jump (plenty of guns at home too) and only gave up on the idea upon long reflection. I assaulted a doctor. I drove while intoxicated (and didn't get caught, but if I had . . .) and spent a lot of days at work in an alcoholic haze."

At that time in your life, your family and friends would most likely wanted you on that list. You were on the edge, in a stupor of alcohol, DIU, and had access to firearms with thoughts of killing yourself. It wasn't a permanent situation, nor should you be on that list permanently.

edited for spelling.

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?

I think so, and here's my personal example.

From 1984 to 1997, I held an FFL, and had a part-time business out of my house selling firearms and accessories.

During that time I got married. As a wedding present, I gave her a 9mm handgun, and one year later, my wife's mental illness became uncontrollable without heavy medication. There were still times that I felt unsafe sleeping in the same house for fear of a steak knife in my stomach while I slept. Obviously, I locked everything up tight. Soon she was committed voluntarily to a psychiatric hospital for 6 weeks. She was never really the same after that, and after several years of seeing professional help, one took me aside suggested that I should consider getting out of the marriage. 4 years later, I did. During the divorce in 1994, she wanted her handgun back. I refused, but found that since she voluntarily committed herself, and according to her and her lawyer, she was perfectly sane.

My response: I talked directly to her lawyer, and said I would transfer the firearm into his name. If he felt so sure that she was sane, then he could give it back to her.... He convinced her to take a couch instead. In 1997, I re-married, and she went off.

I'm not talking about those with mild depression. I'm talking about severe cases of mental illness. In my case, my ex-wife was a danger to others and herself. If she goes off her meds, it gets ugly. I'm in contact with her mother every so often and I keep an eye out for her. Her parents also agreed that I should get out. To this day, she still blames me for everything that gone wrong in her life.

Would that have prevented the massacre at VT? Maybe not, but the sale would have been refused, and a red flag would have gone up somewhere saying a nutcase tried to buy a gun. I know that I would want my ex stopped from walking into a store and purchasing a firearm. Can she buy one FTF? Sure, but that is another step I would want her to take.

Thoughts?