TexasCHLforum.com

Lucky45 wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:
So everyone who wants to buy a firearm would have to have a psychological examination ahead of time?

It should not be an examination. It should be a verification that you have not been admitted or had a mental episode in the previous time period. Doctor should able to verify confidentially through whatever channels they have and then sign papers. they should be able to find out if you were in mental institution or not from records.

What doctor would do this, and how would any doctor know? There is no physician repository of this type of information either.

I just don't get how the mechanics are suppose to work.

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?

tvone wrote: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?

So we create a new report for Doctors to have to do, added record keeping at FBI, for the small percentage of people who are diagnosed with whatever is determined to be prohibitory?

Mental diagnosis is subjective, and that just seems ripe for abuse.

I agree that something needs to be done. I am just not sure a mental health database is it.

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?

Thoughts?

I'm against any limits on gun ownership, so naturally I'm against the creation of such a database. Everybody has a right to defend him/herself, and a gun is a useful tool in those events.

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?

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

Yes, eliminate all "Gun free zones" which would substantially increase the odds of CHL'ers w/ guns outnumbering criminals/nutcases w/ guns in these specific areas. Just my opinion.

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.

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

[quote="tvone"]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.
[quote]

Yes. Minors would of course depend on their parents' position.
Also includes illegal aliens too. I'm not saying it is legal or not;
I'm just stating my opinion on who I think sould be allowed to
own guns.

I've read some of the questions they give you in the OBGYN offices and women's clinics.
The does your home have firearms? type questions are right in there with the "Does your husband hit you?" questions.

I can see some of these people putting us on a list for answering yes to the first.

Venus Pax wrote:I've read some of the questions they give you in the OBGYN offices and women's clinics.
The does your home have firearms?

That is quite possibly the most retarded thing I've ever heard. That has nothing to do with nothing.
The ONLY thing that would have to do with anything medically related is lead exposure, which is still
I'd leave that Q blank, and possibly find another Dr.
or tell the Doc how retarded their questionaire is.

The questionaire that you have to fill out at my "friend's" job requires a fair amount of patience to complete, and even then Really? we need to know.... I mean THEY need to know the dates of Surgeries and what have ya???
once again, I say, emphatically

If a criminal can illegally obtain a firearm, then so can a person who is mentally ill.

My solution: end the gun-free zones. If a mentally-ill person or a criminal drops his or her basket and starts blasting, the good guys should be able to shoot back.

The registry/database would be too susceptible to abuse. Especially when liberals/antis are in power. Give them the ability to add a name to a "no gun" registry because of mental illness and eventually wanting to own a firearm in the first place will be labeled a sign of mental illness. They'd call it paranoia. Heck, they already do, actually.

j1132s wrote:

tvone wrote: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.

Yes. Minors would of course depend on their parents' position.
Also includes illegal aliens too. I'm not saying it is legal or not;
I'm just stating my opinion on who I think sould be allowed to
own guns.

I agree.

Too many people are wrapped around RKBA as a constitutional right, as if that document is the source of our rights. It is not; the right to acquire, possess, and use tools to defend our lives is a human right. It applies to all human beings, even "those people".

Kevin

Venus Pax wrote:I've read some of the questions they give you in the OBGYN offices and women's clinics.
The does your home have firearms? type questions are right in there with the "Does your husband hit you?" questions.

I can see some of these people putting us on a list for answering yes to the first.

That's what led my former family doctor to try to lecture me on the evils of gun ownership, I objected to the question, wanted to know what business it was of hers, and walked out the door when she started in with the JAMA propoganda. Told her she was fired - you should have seen the look on her face when I said that.

Like I said, after that, if she had the power to do so, I'm sure she would have added me to the list.

I sent her a copy of a manifesto that I have around here somewhere for just such occasions.

I'll have to find it and post it here.

Lucky45 wrote: It should not be an examination. It should be a verification that you have not been admitted or had a mental episode in the previous time period.

What makes you think that every single person that goes through mental illness is going to shoot a bunch of people? You can't. Going through depression is like getting the flu. More people than not have went through depression.

I know all of this talk is in reference to the Virginia Tech massacre. A lot of you need to realize that the violence was committed by a LUNATIC, not a gun. If he didn't have a gun he probably would have used pipe bombs or something. He had a right to buy a gun but NOT a right to use it for physical acts of violence.

You can't deny somebody's right because he MIGHT do something. Otherwise that's slavery. I honestly get tired of going on these gun boards and reading some of my fellow gun owners propose more gun control laws that will take away our rights. We're a worse enemy to ourselves than the anti-RKBA crowd.