TexasCHLforum.com

recaffeination wrote:It should be the same background check for Internet access, including smart phones. A reasonable restriction on the Bill of Rights is reasonable for the whole Bill of Rights or none of it.

OldGrumpy wrote:With a right to bears arms comes a responibility to insure that my right does not infringe on someone else's right to life. I personally see no problem with whatever provisions we can add that insures everything possible is done to keep the mentally incompetent from legally buying guns. True, they may get them by other means but let's not make it easy for them. I applaud Senator Graham for taking a stand on the side of reasonable responsiblity. His guidelines are very narrowly defined and does not leave "wiggle room" for liberal interpretations.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Slowplay wrote: 1. Negotiate the best deal we can. Get in front of the issues. Get something in return for any ground given. How stupid does the administration look now that Uncle Joe says armed guards in schools is a good idea? The NRA was loudly ridiculed for suggesting this. Win. Similarly, the NRA has correctly pointed to the fact that nothing in the current mass of legislation proposed by the anti's will do any good at all. Here we have an example of something at actually tries to address keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Will this quell the anti's? Certainly not. Will it help us win the middle? That is the more important question. What have we given up? Argue "slippery slope" all you want... This is political reality. Deal.

and

2. Even after a bill is passed, even this Graham/NRA bill.... Nothing prevents us from arguing it to SCOTUS (except time and money) if we believe it's infringing. Just because we work to get the least onerous bill passed doesn't mean we give up the right to argue later that it's still unconstitutional.

KaiserB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:What are the disqualifying mental illnesses and who determines who has those disqualifying illnesses? Does it matter to what degree someone must be ill with one of the illnesses to disqualify them from gun ownership?

.

That has ALREADY been defined. 30 seconds on Google will get you this:

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that:
(A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or
(B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;
(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs; or
(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):
(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization;
(2) psychiatric hospitalization;
(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;
(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; or
(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:
(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;
(B) bipolar disorder;
(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;
(D) dissociative identity disorder;
(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or
(F) antisocial personality disorder.
(f) Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a person who has previously been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d) or listed in Subsection (e) is not because of that disorder or condition incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person provides the department with a certificate from a licensed physician whose primary practice is in the field of psychiatry stating that the psychiatric disorder or condition is in remission and is not reasonably likely to develop at a future time.
(g) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a person who is at least 18 years of age but not yet 21 years of age is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a member or veteran of the United States armed forces, including a member or veteran of the reserves or national guard;
(2) was discharged under honorable conditions, if discharged from the United States armed forces, reserves, or national guard; and
(3) meets the other eligibility requirements of Subsection (a) except for the minimum age required by federal law to purchase a handgun.
(h) The issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun to a person eligible under Subsection (g) does not affect the person's ability to purchase a handgun or ammunition under federal law.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.03(a), 9.04(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 255, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 486, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146, Sec. 11.03, eff. September 1, 2009.

RoyGBiv wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:I think something is being missed here. CNN tried to contact Brady Campaign on this and they wouldn't respond. Some of the other anti-gunners are ticked that it doesn't stop private sales. However, a LOT of people have said, in effect, "We need the law to keep crazy people from getting guns". All of you KNOW that this has been said by a LOT of people. Well, this would be that law. Please note, I am not saying it would be a fully effective law. I am not saying it would stop crazy folks from getting guns and shooting innocent little kids. Not saying that it cannot be abused by a Federal government bent on abusing just about anything they see fit to abuse in the law. What I am saying is that it seems like some Republicans, and the Democrats from some of the "redder" states are trying to head stuff off at the pass, so to speak. And perhaps the NRA realizes that, as well. The important part, and what liberal-progressives probably don't like about it, is that it uses the word "adjudicated". That means someone who has been shown in a court to be with less than a full deck of mental faculties, not just some doc somewhere saying it. You all had to know they were going to "do something" about this "gun problem"...well, here it is.

Exactly.

This bill is about putting the conversation back on point. It talks about restricting access to guns for people who should not have them. It's not perfect. But it will do our side much good politically.

I understand the desire towards absolutism on 2A, but I am inclined to support this bit of political realism.