TexasCHLforum.com

He can carry on duty but is unfit to carry off duty. Something to think about.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... y-gun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Michael Keyes wants to buy a gun.

And the Pennsylvania state trooper knows how to use one: he carries several on duty, rotating between his Sig Sauer 227 handgun, a fully-automatic AR-15 and a Remington 870 shotgun. But while a very armed Keyes is trusted to serve and protect Pennsylvania, as soon as he clocks out, he is banned by state law from owning a gun for personal use.

That could get real interesting. I suppose he could lose his job if it causes the legislature to close that hole that allows people with that type of background to also be LEOs.

Or it could inspire the court to face reality and nix the prohibition on "mentally ill" people from owning firearms.

If someone's too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to have access to the public. If they're not too dangerous to have access to knives, cars, gasoline, electricity, and a myriad of other, equally or more dangerous items, then they're not too dangerous to own a gun, and should not have their rights arbitrarily limited, restricted, infringed, or denied.

JSThane wrote:Or it could inspire the court to face reality and nix the prohibition on "mentally ill" people from owning firearms.

If someone's too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to have access to the public. If they're not too dangerous to have access to knives, cars, gasoline, electricity, and a myriad of other, equally or more dangerous items, then they're not too dangerous to own a gun, and should not have their rights arbitrarily limited, restricted, infringed, or denied.

That is a valid and logical argument.

So when did we expect logic and fairness to be the determining factor in how the government works?

JSThane wrote:Or it could inspire the court to face reality and nix the prohibition on "mentally ill" people from owning firearms.

If someone's too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to have access to the public. If they're not too dangerous to have access to knives, cars, gasoline, electricity, and a myriad of other, equally or more dangerous items, then they're not too dangerous to own a gun, and should not have their rights arbitrarily limited, restricted, infringed, or denied.

Well said. Many of us could someday end up here for simply having what the State considers too many guns, too much ammo or from just being thrown into some other random category some might think is imbalanced.

joe817 wrote:

JSThane wrote:Or it could inspire the court to face reality and nix the prohibition on "mentally ill" people from owning firearms.

If someone's too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to have access to the public. If they're not too dangerous to have access to knives, cars, gasoline, electricity, and a myriad of other, equally or more dangerous items, then they're not too dangerous to own a gun, and should not have their rights arbitrarily limited, restricted, infringed, or denied.

That is a valid and logical argument.

That's the problem, though. The liberal regressives will never go for it. However, if a judge would make that call and if it would survive the appeal process that would be something.

The other side of that argument is what? That we do nothing?

Honestly, it's the "in-between" that makes the mess. I don't think that many people would advocate allowing a young man who has severe depression a quick turn-around on a handgun purchase. However, I don't think that many would advocate a life-long ban either.

So how do you sort that out? Or better yet, how do you go about letting the government sort that out?


Worse still are "lifelong" mental conditions - that certainly can occur with varying degree, but are all essentially "uncurable" (think bi-polar) but often 100% manageable with appropriate levels of medication. You can't exactly adjudicate it with allowed as long as medical treatment is current and effective.

Either way, if rights are to be restricted, they should only be restricted after due process...

cb1000rider wrote:The other side of that argument is what? That we do nothing?

The real question is, why is he qualified, able, sane enough, stable enough or capable of carrying on duty as a cop with authority over others but not when off duty or own a gun?

mojo84 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:The other side of that argument is what? That we do nothing?

The real question is, why is he qualified, able, sane enough, stable enough or capable of carrying on duty as a cop with authority over others but not when off duty or own a gun?

I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that rhetorical question. The answer, of course, is that the law that is prohibiting him from getting that CHL or from being able to purchase a gun period is that it only matters if one was EVER involuntarily committed and doesn't take into account anything else. That's why I would be worried that there is a higher probability of a person like this losing the ability to be a LEO instead of having their right to possess a firearm returned.