Mental Illness Database?

[Lucky45]

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/cmbhs/default.shtm

Everyone should check it out. But if you don't want to here are the main points.

Presently, the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) uses multiple information technology systems to provide and manage mental health and substance abuse services for Texans.
For the mental health system, CARE and WebCARE are the current systems that provide clinical management services. CARE’s database stores client registration and demographic data, assessment and diagnostic information from clinical service providers, state hospitals and others.
Gathering and analyzing comprehensive client and service data will help provide a full view of mental health and substance abuse services and present a complete and accurate treatment history for clients. This full picture will require input from multiple entities providing behavioral health services, including substance abuse providers, community MHMR centers, NorthSTAR, state hospitals and other providers. State hospitals are out of scope for the current project. Data integration through an integrated data warehouse or data federation is to be addressed in a future project.
The current project is designed to begin the streamlining process so clinical information is gathered in the most efficient way possible, minimizing entry of data into multiple systems and using industry standard transactions where possible.

[Lucky45]

I've never heard of WEBCARE or Northstar. These systems are not accessed through TLETS (Texas Law Enforcement Telecommunications System). TLETS is the system that connects all Texas Law Enforcement agencies together and provides connections to TCIC, and NCIC. If these databases are not part of the TLETS system, then access to those systems is not available to law enforcement. Unless some local agency somewhere has access via another interface system.
Never having heard of them in my 32 years of Police Communications experience

Well I didn;t make it up, here is the link. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/cmbhs/default.shtm

Also, as she told me, all those forms that you guys so love to fill out after detaining a mental case. Remember the particular ones that you always want to know why you love filling it out. Guess where it ends up???? Not every individual LEO enters the info, but those forms ends up to a certain division/office that enters that info. Those people that you wonder what do they do in the station.....Yup.!!!! We can learn something new everyday, SW.

[pbandjelly]

you were on here at church???
for shame!!!

[Lucky45]

No 30.06 was posted!!!

Was outside in lobby and before the service started.

[pbandjelly]

that's okay then!!!
least you were at church, I'm at flippin' WORK!!!

[Lucky45]

If these databases are not part of the TLETS system, then access to those systems is not available to law enforcement. Unless some local agency somewhere has access via another interface system.

Also, S.W.
Most jails where detainees are detained have a psych section/ward and medical personnel on staff right? What do they do with their info?

[carlson1]

If these databases are not part of the TLETS system, then access to those systems is not available to law enforcement. Unless some local agency somewhere has access via another interface system.

Also, S.W.
Most jails where detainees are detained have a psych section/ward and medical personnel on staff right? What do they do with their info?

NOTHING. The Counties DO NOT pass on much information on crimes, much less medical histories.

[NuBee]

Will this become the law of the land or left up to the states??

I think the billion dollar question is for example: back in 1998 you had some depression and you are fine now but of course you were included on "the list". Will they start revoking carry permits?????

Who is to say that this will not lead to "permit snatching" in all of the states that honor carry permits???

I just do not trust some LIBS with this "opportunity" right in their hands. I hope that I am wrong.

[PatrickS]

My point is that ALL rights have limitations, including our cherished 2nd Amendment.

I think we can all agree that psychos, terrorists, drunks, dope addicts, and violent felons should not have guns and should not carry guns. At least I hope so. So the vast majority of us are willing to put up with esablishing our credentials, showing that we are "none of the above" in return for the ability to purchase and the license to carry guns.

...

And I think there are places where limiting or prohibiting the carrying of guns is a benefit to everyone.

The trick is how to accomplish these things without trampling on the legitimate rights of citizens.

...

But if we aren't willing to accept some limits to that right, (psychos, violent felons, terrorists, drunks, dope addicts, sterile areas, etc.), we could overplay our hand and lose everything.

Precisely.

And there are alot of folks who are not as concerned about
such rights and willing to allow restrictions/infringements to
go alot farther (much too far).

Even if a majority of us hold to a fundamentally "absolutist"
position on 2A and other rights, I fear that we will lose many
opportunities to show "fence sitters" that we share many common
concerns and are earnest in our desires to see real improvement
of the situation. Even if true, the "from my cold dead hands" response
just isn't all that productive, and may simply result in the lot of us
dismissed as "gun nuts" outside the scope of "reasonable discourse".

My own view, (just my opinion here) is that it is legitimate to ban guns in places that have true security, such as airplanes, courtrooms, The White House, etc. By true security I mean places defended by armed guards who man checkpoints where people are actually screened for weapons.

+1

[Commander]

I've never heard of WEBCARE or Northstar. These systems are not accessed through TLETS (Texas Law Enforcement Telecommunications System). TLETS is the system that connects all Texas Law Enforcement agencies together and provides connections to TCIC, and NCIC. If these databases are not part of the TLETS system, then access to those systems is not available to law enforcement. Unless some local agency somewhere has access via another interface system.
Never having heard of them in my 32 years of Police Communications experience

Well I didn;t make it up, here is the link. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/cmbhs/default.shtm

Also, as she told me, all those forms that you guys so love to fill out after detaining a mental case. Remember the particular ones that you always want to know why you love filling it out. Guess where it ends up???? Not every individual LEO enters the info, but those forms ends up to a certain division/office that enters that info. Those people that you wonder what do they do in the station.....Yup.!!!! We can learn something new everyday, SW.

I didn't say you did. I was pointing out that those databases are not accessible through normal law enforcement computer checks. I fully realize that there are systems out there that I have not heard of, but there is a reason - they are not part of TLETS - the system used in Texas that connects various LE agencies to various databases.

As I recall, this thread started over background checks not turning up mental health issues. My point then and now is that LE does not have access to those databases. A "background check" done by a LEO will consist of DL, TCIC,NCIC and CCH checks. Addtional telephone or in person inquiries will be made to the local PD/SO where the person lives or has lived. Family, friends and acquantences will be interviewed. Sometimes in those interviews a persons mental health will come up,

[Geister]

I have another theory. I think you're not going to answer my question

Have you ever considered that I haven't answered your question because I have a job and family which takes a good portion of my time?

Whatever time I have left over I'd rather spend shooting. But I do find it ridiculous that a fellow gun owner actually thinks that the issue of concealed vs. open carry has any relevance to the Second Amendment.

Let me clue you in on something: the phrase "bear arms" means just that, bear arms. You are bearing arms when you carry open. You are also bearing arms when you carry concealed.

Just that one statement from you keeps me from wanting to even read anything else you write. Especially the part about Rights having limitations. Do you even know what a Right is?

I have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That means as long as I am not using my firearm to initiate physical violence or intimidation (like holding it up to your head), you have no business telling me when, where, or how I can conduct my Right in public. Now if I'm in your private adobe or place of business that's an entirely different thing. All these state permits are infringements on that Right and I'd love it if all 50 states went to "Alaska/Vermont" carry.

I have a Right do keep and bear arms peacefully. I do NOT have a Right to use them against you unless you tried to commit violence against me first. There's no limitations on that Right or otherwise it wouldn't even be a Right.

I nor anyone else CANNOT tell you that you have the right to free speech but then say that you are limited in what words you use. The "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" scenario is NOT a limiation of the right to free speech. No one has the right to do that because it does cause direct harm and panic to people if there really isn't a fire. Just the same as how nobody has the right to use a firearm in an aggressive and not defensive manner.

Do you even understand what the Second Amendment is for? Or why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights even exist?

I've repeated myself so many times on this thread, but one more time here it is:

1) The government will not save you

2) Gun laws will not save you

3) The person and entity most capable of protecting you is yourself

4) Guns are tools that can be used in self-defense more effectively than in offense; that's why terrorists bend on killing use bombs

5) Someone so mentally disturbed with a documented history of violence shouldn't be out and about to begin with

6) Even if that person is out and about, keeping him from purchasing a firearm WILL NOT stop him from killing if that is his intent

7) Mental illnesses are NOT cut and dry; you CANNOT know for certain what mental illness will cause what person to commit acts of violence in order to kill

8) Killers intent on murdering and then committing suicide, like the murderers at Columbine and Virginia Tech, will not be stopped by gun control laws

9) A gun ban on airplanes did not stop Islamic terrorists from KILLING 3,000 PEOPLE IN ONE DAY, in fact it probably helped the terrorists

10) Firearms are perhaps the BEST self-defense tools available; nobody has the right to deny someone that tool for self-defense in a public place just because someone else MIGHT get angry and shoot someone. That leaves us defenseless against someone who doesn't care about breaking such a gun ban

11) You SHOULD NOT arrest someone just because they MIGHT do something. That does not follow any sort of logic at all. If you do that you might as well start throwing in particular racial, ethic, or religious groups in prison because they MIGHT be more likely to commit a crime than any other racial, ethnic, or religious group

12) I have no problem being asked not to carry in a private residence but I DO have a problem with gun free zones in public if all they do is disarm my means of self-defense without making me any safer

13) Nobody in their right mind is going to lug around a "street sweeper."
That's more troublesome than keeping a pack of wolves on a leach wherever you go.

14) The VT shooter only had a mental history of depression among other similiar illnesses and NOBODY besides himself really knew that he was going to cause a huge massacre. NO such mental database would have prevented the act of pure evil

15) I do not like the assumption that an armed populace will lead to an Old West shootout, like what Frankie indicated with his "sweet sweeper" comment.

16) The Old West was as violent as it was due to the vast geographic distances between settlements, which meant that perpetrators were much less likely to be caught. It had very little to do with the firearms.

17) A gun free courthouse does not prevent anyone from shooting up the place

18) If someone's going to shoot up the place, the only real response is to shoot the idiot in return fire. Gun bans will not keep him from shooting up the place.

19) If you think you are safer in a gun free zone such as an airplane or a courthouse, you have a false sense of security

20) Rights are NOT privileges. You should not and do not ask someone else's permission to engage in your rights because they do not own you.

21) All a mental patient database would do is make a huge privacy nightmare, cause people to reveal difficult aspects of their lives even though they never had a violent thought during their mental illness, and cause more delays and mistakes.

22) Judging who is mentally fit to purchase a firearm is a spectulative perception that's different to each person and is ripe for abuse

23) If you're trying to prove a point by posting an article which shows Cho was found by a court of Virginia to be a danger to himself, you are entirely missing the point. No law in America could have prevented Cho from killing. He didn't need to purchase a firearm to kill. Islamic terrorists did not need to purchase a firearm to kill 3,000 people. Timothy McVeigh (assuming that he did it) did not need to purchase a firearm to kill many people. Stuntman Mike (Grindhouse movie) did not need to purchase a firearm to kill women. People have been killing one another for thousands of years before firearms were developed. In fact, our world in general has been more civil since the development of firearms although I cannot make a direct connection to the firearms. But a lot of it has to do with the founding of the United States and the freedoms guaranteed not to be infringed upon.

24) For every guy out there like Cho who uses a firearm for the evil intent to kill, there are hundreds if not thousands of people who use firearms to effectively defend their lives and their families.

25) Throwing someone in jail because they carried a firearm in self-defense without ever using it to initiate violence is just as bad as someone using a firearm to mug somebody. In some ways its worse since the time in jail and fines cost a lot more than the few dollars you handed over to an armed robber.

26) Americans in general need to learn how to be more self-responsible and reliant like their ancestors, such as Davy Crockett, William B. Travis, Daniel Boone, and Lewis & Clarke were.

Some of the responses on this thread I would expect to see on a Barack Obama board, not a gun board. It just blows me away that some of you guys are gun owners but you all still want to blame the guns or think they are otherwise responsible for the actions caused by evil individuals. Guns are simply tools and they do not cause violence. Individuals cause violence and if they're intent on causing violence, the absence of a gun will not stop them from doing so. But an absence of a gun in your possession will greatly diminish your chances of survival if you're defending your life.

There will ALWAYS be evil people in the world. By banning guns you are not removing evil people from the planet. The best way to deal with evil people is to use self-defense tools such as firearms to keep the violence and grief they inflict to a minimum. My life is important enough to me to not entirely entrust it to the protection of law enforcement, especially since they're not everywhere I go.

That's pretty much all I have to say about this thread.

(edited for 10 year old daughter rule. GH)

[KBCraig]

That's pretty much all I have to say about this thread.

It was a mouthful. The only minor quibbles I have aren't worth it, because I believe you're spot-on.

Please continue to hang around and contribute.

Kevin

[frankie_the_yankee]

Let me clue you in on something: the phrase "bear arms" means just that, bear arms. You are bearing arms when you carry open. You are also bearing arms when you carry concealed.

That's right. Now feel free to consult a lawyer or a judge about this, but the way the law works is like this. A government can regulate or ban one of them and not the other. So you complain, "Hey. You won't let me bear concealed arms." The government can say, "Is carrying openly bearing arms? It is? Fine. You have the right to bear arms. Bear them. Openly. Because if the Constitution intended to protect the right to bear concealed arms IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO.

Or the other way around - allowing concealed carry while banning open carry. Either way, you have the right to bear arms, and you're bearing them.

What the Constitution does is protect the right to bear arms, and leaves things like the manner in which they are born open to the legislature.

I have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That means as long as I am not using my firearm to initiate physical violence or intimidation (like holding it up to your head), you have no business telling me when, where, or how I can conduct my Right in public.

Says who? You? Suppose I think it means something different. What are we supposed to do - shoot it out? Me, I prefer to peacefully abide by what the courts say it means.

Or do you think that just because you say what YOU think it means, that no one else's opinion matters?

Do you even understand what the Second Amendment is for? Or why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights even exist?

I think so. But have you reviewed Marbury v. Madison recently? Have you got any idea what the courts are for?

1) The government will not save you

2) Gun laws will not save you

3) The person and entity most capable of protecting you is yourself

4) Guns are tools that can be used in self-defense more effectively than in offense; that's why terrorists bend on killing use bombs

5) Someone so mentally disturbed with a documented history of violence shouldn't be out and about to begin with

6) Even if that person is out and about, keeping him from purchasing a firearm WILL NOT stop him from killing if that is his intent

7) Mental illnesses are NOT cut and dry; you CANNOT know for certain what mental illness will cause what person to commit acts of violence in order to kill

8) Killers intent on murdering and then committing suicide, like the murderers at Columbine and Virginia Tech, will not be stopped by gun control laws

Agree.

9) A gun ban on airplanes did not stop Islamic terrorists from KILLING 3,000 PEOPLE IN ONE DAY, in fact it probably helped the terrorists

I agree that it didn't stop them. But we don't know if it helped them. If guns were freely allowed on airplanes, they may have just adjusted their tactics accordingly.

10) Firearms are perhaps the BEST self-defense tools available;

Agree.

..... nobody has the right to deny someone that tool for self-defense in a public place just because someone else MIGHT get angry and shoot someone.

Really? Not even if that "someone" is a drunk, dope addict, psycho, or a previously-convicted violent felon?

Hey, if that's your opinion that's fine. But don't expect too many others to agree. And please don't make this point to your state senator or rep. You won't be helping us if you do.

11) You SHOULD NOT arrest someone just because they MIGHT do something.

I agree. Where did I ever say that?

12) I have no problem being asked not to carry in a private residence but I DO have a problem with gun free zones in public if all they do is disarm my means of self-defense without making me any safer

I agree.

13) Nobody in their right mind is going to lug around a "street sweeper."

OK! OK! You win! Let's just give all those people bitterly contesting that divorce and the custody of the children $3000 Les Baer custom 1911's with Novak lo-mount night sights, melted edges, 30 lpi checkering on the front and back straps, checkered cocobolo grips, and full length guide rods WITH SHOK-BUFs.

"Your Honor, I object!"

"Order in the court!" Bang, bang, bang. (RELAX! It was just the gavel.)

14) The VT shooter only had a mental history of depression among other similiar illnesses and NOBODY besides himself really knew that he was going to cause a huge massacre. NO such mental database would have prevented the act of pure evil

I agree that no perfect system exists that can absolutely prevent a dedicated mass murderer from perpetrating an act of mass murder. But the perfect need not be the enemy of the good. The VT guy had not formally been adjucated as mentally incompetent, so he could buy a gun. But I think the issue is that IF HAD BEEN SO ADJUCATED, should the NICS database include that fact and cause a denial? I say, yes it should.

15) I do not like the assumption that an armed populace will lead to an Old West shootout, like what Frankie indicated with his "sweet sweeper" comment.

I never made that assumption. But I'd still feel pretty nervous in that courtroom with everyone carrying a Les Baer 1911. People tend to get pretty emotional in those situations. And people can also ORGANIZE, which you seem to discount.

Don't tell me something is far-fetched, just because you'd rather not consider it. What Charles Whitman did was far-fetched.

If something CAN happen, it probably will.

17) A gun free courthouse does not prevent anyone from shooting up the place

Neither will a "gun soaked" courthouse. So which one would you rather hang out in?

Then, there's airplanes.

Do you honestly think that if there were no restrictions on carrying guns on airplanes that Osama wouldn't think of sending teams out to shoot them up in flight?

18) If someone's going to shoot up the place, the only real response is to shoot the idiot in return fire. Gun bans will not keep him from shooting up the place.

When was the last time someone shot up an airliner?

19) If you think you are safer in a gun free zone such as an airplane or a courthouse, you have a false sense of security

You're entitled to your opinion.

20) Rights are NOT privileges. You should not and do not ask someone else's permission to engage in your rights because they do not own you.

All rights have limitations. In our society, we charge the courts with the responsibility of sorting these things out, and agree to peacefully abide by the results.

Sometimes they make mistakes (McCain-Feingold for instance), but it's the only game in town.

21) All a mental patient database would do is make a huge privacy nightmare, cause people to reveal difficult aspects of their lives even though they never had a violent thought during their mental illness, and cause more delays and mistakes.

"All" it would do? I see a pattern here. You seem to frequently confuse "everything you can think of" with "everything". Such a database MAY do things that you have not considered or that have not occurred to you, or to me.

22) Judging who is mentally fit to purchase a firearm is a spectulative perception that's different to each person and is ripe for abuse

Sure. But the current system whereby someone may be ADJUCATED as incompetent has some pretty good safeguards built into it. Heck, it didn't flag the VT nutball. I too would be wary of abuse. But I think it is too soon to throw in the towel and say that because we can't devise a perfect system we shouldn't at least TRY to keep crazies from owning guns.

23) If you're trying to prove a point by posting an article which shows Cho was found by a court of Virginia to be a danger to himself, you are entirely missing the point.

I never did that.

No law in America could have prevented Cho from killing.

I agree. That's why I am opposed to non-sterile gun-free zones. If students and/or professors WITH CHL'S had been allowed to carry, we all agree that the death toll would have been far lower.

But a lot of it has to do with the founding of the United States and the freedoms guaranteed not to be infringed upon.

And the courts rule on what constitutes infringement, not you, or Webster, or I. There is a whole body of case law, common law, etc. where principles like "compelling state interest", "undue burden", "strict scrutiny". etc. are defined and are used to guide the courts in making decisions.

You may not like it. Sometimes, I don't like it. But that's the way it is.

25) Throwing someone in jail because they carried a firearm in self-defense without ever using it to initiate violence is just as bad as someone using a firearm to mug somebody. In some ways its worse since the time in jail and fines cost a lot more than the few dollars you handed over to an armed robber.

So busting you for carrying on an airplane is worse than someone stomping the crap out of me and taking my money at an ATM? I don't think so.

26) Americans in general need to learn how to be more self-responsible and reliant like their ancestors, such as Davy Crockett, William B. Travis, Daniel Boone, and Lewis & Clarke were.

Agree.

Some of the responses on this thread I would expect to see on a Barack Obama board, not a gun board.

You know, that's funny. Because some of the stuff I read here sounds to me like it's written by some guy living up in Idaho in a cabin on top of a big pointy rock.

I believe in self reliance, self defense, and the RKBA. I have a CHL and carry wherever and whenever I can - within the law. I think there are many laws on the books today that are true infringements on the RKBA. I do what I can to have those laws changed. I think that it is idiotic and IMMORAL to simply "proclaim" a place to be a gun-free zone when what you're actually proclaiming it to be is a big barrel full of fish waiting to be shot.

But I do NOT believe that the RKBA allows for no regulation whatsoever. You won't find me campaigning for "guns for psychos", "guns for violent felons", "guns for drunks and addicts", or "guns in courtrooms and airplanes".

You won't find me objecting to "shall issue" CHL's because establishing that I am none of the above is somehow an "infringement".

[Geister]

That's right. Now feel free to consult a lawyer or a judge about this

Here's your problem. The Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights so that the COMMON MAN could read and understand it. They didn't write it so that you would have to get an interpretation from a lawyer, who interprets it based on his own opinion.

Hell, I could go to law school if I wanted to and I still would say the same thing I am saying now, which conflicts interpretations by other lawyers.

but the way the law works is like this.

The law works like that because guys like you stand back and do nothing, no complaining or anything, when the government acts in an unconstituional manner and infringes on the Bill of Rights.

A government can regulate or ban one of them and not the other. So you complain, "Hey. You won't let me bear concealed arms." The government can say, "Is carrying openly bearing arms? It is? Fine. You have the right to bear arms. Bear them. Openly. Because if the Constitution intended to protect the right to bear concealed arms IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO.

This is the most ridiculous statment I have ever read on a firearms board.
Are you even a gun owner?

First off, the Constitution does NOT intend anything about Rights. Rights are in the Bill of Rights, which were AMENDMENTS to the Constitution. Amendments created AFTER the Constitution was formed.

That and the Bill of Rights does NOT grant Rights. Those Rights already existed well before the Bill of Rights.

And the Second Amendment also does not say a thing about how you can only bear arms openly, either. That's because it says all it needs to say, BEAR ARMS. There is NO stipulations in the Second Amendment about bearing arms. You are bearing arms whether you are carrying open or concealed. A piece of fabric underneath or over your firearm does NOT make the difference between bearing arms or not because you are STILL CARRYING A FIREARM, which is BEARING ARMS.

The First Amendment doesn't say anything about free speech while wearing a mask to hide my identity, either. Are you also going to tell me that someone does not have the Right to free speech if they are wearing a mask to hide their identity or just staying anonymous? That follows the EXACT same logic that you are using with your "the Second Amendment does not say anything about concealed carry" argument.

The pen is mightier than the sword. A person can do more to influence the world and bring about chances using words, not firearms. In fact, conflicts such as the American revolution were started by words, not firearms. Firearms were simply the tool used to grant our independence, started by words.

That's why the First Amendment is backed by the Second Amendment, not the other way around. So it's silly for you to hold the Second Amendment to a totally different set of standards than the First Amendment, especially if those differences make no logical sense.

If you think the Founding Fathers like Jefferson would disagree with me, you really need to read their notes and correspondence in regards to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the government in general. Everything I said comes from THAT.

I think you need to just study that time period and the founding of the United States in general.

what are we supposed to do - shoot it out? Me, I prefer to peacefully abide by what the courts say it means.

As opposed to what, dying? Yes, you should shoot it out with an armed attacker instead of sit there waiting to be killed. If someone's intent on killing inside of a courtroom he's going to do it. Unlike you, he ain't going to peacefully abide by what the courts say.

Suzanna Hupp also preferred to peacefully abide to the law of Texas in 1991, which banned carrying in a restaurant just as much as a courtroom. As a result, she watched both of her parents get murdered in front of her while she could not do anything about it.

Or do you think that just because you say what YOU think it means, that no one else's opinion matters?

No, I think other people's opinions matter, such as the opinions of the Founding Fathers, who managed to fight one of the largest empires in the world and win, wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and created a government which was, at the time, a huge improvement over the monarchies of the day.

Besides, if the words are there in plain English, such as BEAR ARMS, you cannot use your opinion to change them. I can't use my opinion to change the response you made to me.

I think so. But have you reviewed Marbury v. Madison recently? Have you got any idea what the courts are for?

"I think so" is not a good enough answer when it comes to your freedoms.
Sounds to me like you don't want to study the Constitution or the Bill of Rights at all, but just be spoon-fed information by judges and lawyers.

I agree that it didn't stop them. But we don't know if it helped them. If guns were freely allowed on airplanes, they may have just adjusted their tactics accordingly.

If guns were allowed on airplanes Todd Beamer would probably had a better chance of keeping the airplane in the air. Come to think of it, terrorists might not have attempted to hijack at all, even if they had guns, because there would have been a good chance that they would have been shot.

The point being that terrorists managed to commit a huge act of violence without needing firearms. They killed 3,000 people without one. But a firearm COULD have prevented them.

Really? Not even if that "someone" is a drunk, dope addict, psycho, or a previously-convicted violent felon?

Acting like total idiots doesn't make their lives any less important than others. Like I said before so many times, if they are intent on killing people, firearm laws will not stop them.

Once again you are reverting to punishing people before they've even done anything wrong.

Dog the Bounty Hunter is a previously-convicted violent felon and I have absolutely no problem if he has firearms. People change for the better all the time. He served his time and shouldn't have to be punished the rest of his life. He has every Right to the best tools for self-defense just like you and me.

Hey, if that's your opinion that's fine. But don't expect too many others to agree. And please don't make this point to your state senator or rep. You won't be helping us if you do.

Who is 'us'? Gun owners? What makes you think you are the only viable voice for gun owners? The GOA would disagree with most of what you've said.

If you want to cater to Pelosi and Obama so much, I don't want to be a part of your team.

I agree. Where did I ever say that?

By suggesting that X group of people should not have firearms, especially Dog the Bounty Hunter. If he possesses a firearm, he goes to jail, even if he did not use it in commission of a crime at all. That's exactly what you suggested, keeping guns away from certain people because they MIGHT do something.

At this point it's obivious that even your own arguments don't follow a particular path of logic and conflict each other, so I'll stop here.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This is an interesting discussion. I am a “strict constructionist� when it comes to the Constitution. I also believe that all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are fundamental rights. As such, they should be subject to the “strict scrutiny� test which makes it virtually impossible to “regulate� a fundamental right. It’s been a long time since I took constitutional law, but if I recall correctly, only one or two statutes have passed the “strict scrutiny� test. All other attempts to regulate a fundamental right have been struck down as unconstitutional.

That said, the constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. We can rattle sabers and beat our collective chests as long as we want, but at the end of the day, 9 men and women have the final word. I don’t like that one bit, but that’s the way it is. Even if we elect “our� guy as President and “our� people as a majority in the U.S. Senate and get “our� people appointed to and confirmed on the Supreme Court, the meaning of the Constitution will still be determined by 9 men and women. If we like their decisions, then we will hail the majority as insightful and correct - men and women of integrity, judicial restraint and intellectual honesty. But those on the other side of the issue will be convinced that their interpretation of the Constitution is correct and they will denounce these same justices as judicial activists who ignore precedent and the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution.

The best we can do is work hard to elect a President, Senators and Representatives that best reflect our views and hope for vacancies on the Supreme Court. Even then, we can have a ringer get in. I’m sure Ike would have been rolling in his grave if he had seen Justice Brennan’s decisions. But this is our system and there is no reason to battle among ourselves because we don’t like it.

Chas.