Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Garrett - let me say welcome :smile:

This stuff is thin ice and a double-edged sword.

On the one hand - a classic, proven and documented case of extreme paranoid schizophrenia should IMO debar safe gun ownership - an extreme case and one which should prevent a purchase.

OTOH are the countless cases of what may be listed as ''mild depression'', ''anxiety'' - any number of supposed ''conditions'' which should not in most cases lead to an individual being deprived of their rights.

""Blanket'' policy is dangerous and hard to get right - some winners but potentially way too many losers. To be honest - I am not sure where the safe middle ground exists - if in fact it does exist.

Like most plans to database info - it will usually end up being excessive and overly restrictive - having in the end maybe 5% desirable results - and potential for 95% bad. Plus - if instigated, and it goes wrong - it'd be a long battle to either modify it or cancel it.

Dangerous waters. Do the benefits outweigh the downsides? Not sure they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hopyard

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
Here's where I say draw the line...

Your standard forms when buying a firearm ask if you have been INVOLUNTARILY commited to a mental instituion. And that should be the determination, in other words you did not have the stability and responsiblity to sign yourself in for some help. (depression, anxiety, whatever) SO...although I hate government regulation of any sorts (most people who settled the West HAD to be mentally unstable....look at how Kalifornia wound up!) I would settle for people who have been ordered into mental helath treatment againt their will being placed into a database.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,533 Posts
cjm5874 said:
Here's where I say draw the line...

Your standard forms when buying a firearm ask if you have been INVOLUNTARILY commited to a mental instituion. And that should be the determination,
The only problem I have with that is, would a person who wants a weapon ADMIT to that, if they know that would be a reason to keep them from getting it? I sort of doubt it.

The bad news is there is never a good answer to these questions. There is no perfect or good balance between rights and "safety". It seems like one of the other ends up suffering!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Texas tried to pass a bill in the last legislative session that was basically the same idea. The biggest difference seems to be that the only records that would have been entered into the nationwide database would have been information related to those individuals that have been institutionalized by a court order for a mental condition, or who have been deemed by a court to be incompetent.

Here is the language of that bill as proposed:

79R2760 UM-D

By: Ellis
S.B. No. 869

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the collection and dissemination of certain information for a federal firearm background check.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter D, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Sections 411.052 and 411.0521 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.052. FEDERAL FIREARM REPORTING. (a) In this section, "federal prohibited person information" means information
that identifies an individual as:
(1) a person ordered by a court to receive inpatient mental health services under Chapter 574, Health and Safety Code;
(2) a person with mental retardation committed by a court for long-term placement in a residential care facility under
Chapter 593, Health and Safety Code;
(3) an incapacitated adult individual for whom a court has appointed a guardian with full authority over the individual
under Chapter XIII, Probate Code; or
(4) a person determined to be incompetent to stand trial under Chapter 46B, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) The department by rule shall establish a procedure to provide federal prohibited person information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for use with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Except as otherwise provided by state
law, the department may disseminate federal prohibited person information under this subsection only to the extent necessary to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to collect and maintain a list of persons who are prohibited under federal law from engaging
in certain activities with respect to a firearm.
(c) The department shall grant access to federal prohibited person information to the person who is the subject of the information.
(d) Federal prohibited person information maintained by the department is confidential information for the use of the department and, except as otherwise provided by this section and other state law, may not be disseminated by the department.
Sec. 411.0521. REPORT BY COURT TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY. (a) The clerk of the court shall prepare and forward to the Department of Public Safety the information described by Subsection
(b) not later than the 30th day after the date the court:
(1) orders a person to receive inpatient mental health services under Chapter 574, Health and Safety Code;
(2) commits a person with mental retardation for long-term placement in a residential care facility under Chapter 593, Health and Safety Code;
(3) appoints a guardian with full authority over an incapacitated adult individual under Chapter XIII, Probate Code; or
(4) determines a person is incompetent to stand trial
under Chapter 46B, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) The clerk of the court shall prepare and forward the following information under Subsection (a):
(1) the complete name, race, and sex of the person;
(2) any known identifying number of the person, including social security number, driver's license number, or state identification number;
(3) the person's date of birth; and
(4) a certified copy of:
(A) the order for inpatient mental health services;
(B) the order committing the person to a residential care facility;
(C) the order appointing a guardian; or
(D) the order determining that the person is incompetent to stand trial.
(c) The duty of a clerk to prepare and forward information under this section is not affected by:
(1) any subsequent appeal of the court order;
(2) any subsequent modification of the court order; or
(3) the expiration of the court order.
SECTION 2. Each clerk of the court shall prepare and forward information required to be forwarded to the Department of Public Safety by Section 411.0521, Government Code, as added by this Act, for each order issued on or after September 1, 2001. Not later than September 1, 2006, each clerk of the court shall prepare and forward the information for any court orders issued on or after September 1,
2001, and before September 1, 2005.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.



An all-inclusive bill on the federal level could hurt a lot of good folks. One example would be our veterans returning from overseas who might be diagnosed with PTSD. They are certainly not crazy and may only have a diagnosis for a non severe condition, but an all inclusive bill would very possibly include that condition also... and that would not be right.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
313 Posts
P95Carry said:
Garrett - let me say welcome :smile:

This stuff is thin ice and a double-edged sword.

On the one hand - a classic, proven and documented case of extreme paranoid schizophrenia should IMO debar safe gun ownership - an extreme case and one which should prevent a purchase.

OTOH are the countless cases of what may be listed as ''mild depression'', ''anxiety'' - any number of supposed ''conditions'' which should not in most cases lead to an individual being deprived of their rights.

""Blanket'' policy is dangerous and hard to get right - some winners but potentially way too many losers. To be honest - I am not sure where the safe middle ground exists - if in fact it does exist.

Like most plans to database info - it will usually end up being excessive and overly restrictive - having in the end maybe 5% desirable results - and potential for 95% bad. Plus - if instigated, and it goes wrong - it'd be a long battle to either modify it or cancel it.

Dangerous waters. Do the benefits outweigh the downsides? Not sure they do.
I could not have said this better. My take on it exactly.

Best,
Jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
If this were to happen I think it would be bad day for all gun owners.How many law-abiding gun owners take medication for depression and anxiety?I would imagine a good many.I would guess that a good bit of LEO's themselves have taken anti-depressants.I guess it would come down to how mental illness is defined.Seems to me it would just be another way for anti's to take guns out of the hands of decent people.Besides a complete nut job does not need a firearm to be violent and commit unspeakable crimes.Where theres a will theres a way.

I also have a friend that just had a restraining order put against him by his ex-GF(real winner) that was not justified.Now what?No more guns for him?Dont seem fair to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
cjm5874 said:
Here's where I say draw the line...

Your standard forms when buying a firearm ask if you have been INVOLUNTARILY commited to a mental instituion. And that should be the determination, in other words you did not have the stability and responsiblity to sign yourself in for some help. (depression, anxiety, whatever) SO...although I hate government regulation of any sorts (most people who settled the West HAD to be mentally unstable....look at how Kalifornia wound up!) I would settle for people who have been ordered into mental helath treatment againt their will being placed into a database.
Well, the risk is that some time down the line the word "involuntarily" might be removed. Now someone who would like to seek professional help, knowing this is always a possibility, will not seek help in order avoid this possibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
grnzbra said:
Well, the risk is that some time down the line the word "involuntarily" might be removed. Now someone who would like to seek professional help, knowing this is always a possibility, will not seek help in order avoid this possibility.

I agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
I think it should be extended to include anyone who has

1) Posted inappropriate thoughts on a internet forum
2)Taken Anti-depressants
3) Ever had violent thoughts

And most importantly...
4) Anyone who has ever owned a gun because they obviously must have some kind of disorder to think their life must be in danger and may have to defend themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
940 Posts
The thing also to remember with the mental health field is that it's owned wholesale at the organizational level by those who believe we have no right or need to have firearms.

Mental illnesses have changed, been modified, or deleted from the catalog under political pressure and agenda before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Missouri Violates the tenth amendment

I have read a lot of the comments concerning the reporting of menal health records to NICS.
The Federal Government is stupid. Look they says don't give that person a gun. Lets see, They need to add Knives,Hammers,Tire Tools,Cars, Trucks,Nail Guns, Etc to the list right ? Because they all can cause Harm.

The Federal Government, And people like the Brady Bunch are all Anti-Gun crazys. They pay money to people like Bill Clinton, Obama, Eric Holder to try and ban guns altogether.
I have always been a Law Abiding Citizen and a Big Game Hunter along with sport shooting.

I lived in Missouri from 1993 until I moved back to my home state of NC in 2003. Back in 2001 my family doctor gave me valium to help me sleep, I had never took this medication before in my life, I had a bad reaction and voluntary committed myself.
Around 02/2011 I went to buy my son a shotgun for skeet shooting and was denied. This was very embarrassing since their were several customers standing around.

Well Missouri was reporting that I was involuntary committed. I order the records from the hospital and just received them. This is the first time I have since such records. Man am I tee off. The doctor did not list anything about my family doctor giving me medication in which I had a bad reaction too and most stuff he put was untrue. I wished I had order this records a lot sooner. He also listed that I had taken illicit drugs in the past which is a lie I have never took such drugs.

I have gotten into it with the local prosecuting attorney several months before this happened about him charging a friend of mine for something he did not do and he told me if I call him again he would find something to arrest me for, I told him that was a witch hunt.
I think he maybe behind this because he had a grudge against me ever since. You may have seen him on TV because he was on 48 Hours pertaining to Ryan Ferguson. He sent this young man to prison for murder. Look it up on google.

The US Dept Of justice tried to enforce the states to release mental health records under the Brady Bill Act but the Supreme Court stuck in down 5-4 say it violates the Tenth Amendment. So the Justice Dept told the states if they release these records voluntary they would give them Grant money.
But in there wording it states you MUST give us records dating back 20yrs.

Look if it's a violation of the Tenth Amendment for the Federal Government to enforce the states to release those records. Would it not be a violation for the States to release such records.

Plus if the Federal Government is releasing Tax payer money to the states to release the information. Than the Federal Government is still violation the Tenth Amendment. And if the Government is enticing the states with money is that not a crime, Bribe ? If we would do such a thing we would go to prison right ?

Their are a lot of things the Government should do with tax payer other than to spend it on trying to take away something everyone should be entitled to like the Right to bear arms. For hunting and to protect the family from dangerous crooks with stolen guns who get arrested and back on the streets in 2 weeks.
Back in the 90s when the economy was booming everyone was too busy working and taking vacations at the sametime people like Bill Clinton and the Brady Bunch were shifting laws though for passage like a McDonalds drive thur. So everyone was too busy to even read what was sent through until now that the economy has slowed to a snails pace. They have come to realize that much of what has passed violates our rights. This is why alot of states are passing there own laws called the Freedom Of Gun Act. But it does not include anything about the reporting of mental health records.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,152 Posts
And my family and friends wonder why I don't like to go to the doctors unless an appendage is falling off!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts
I don't think even being forcibly institutionalized is enough to warranty taking their rights away UNLESS they are violent. Just because a person hears voices or sees imaginary people doesn't mean they are at risk of hurting other people. I think they should be evalutated and taken on a case-by-case basis.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
I lived in Missouri from 1993 until I moved back to my home state of NC in 2003. Back in 2001 my family doctor gave me valium to help me sleep, I had never took this medication before in my life, I had a bad reaction and voluntary committed myself.
Around 02/2011 I went to buy my son a shotgun for skeet shooting and was denied. This was very embarrassing since their were several customers standing around.

Well Missouri was reporting that I was involuntary committed.
You either were or were not. If you have been harmed by dissemination of false information about you, then you need legal assistance. If you were involuntarily committed, you have my sympathy for your illness, but not for being denied by NICS.

I order the records from the hospital and just received them. This is the first time I have since such records. Man am I tee off. The doctor did not list anything about my family doctor giving me medication in which I had a bad reaction too and most stuff he put was untrue. I wished I had order this records a lot sooner. He also listed that I had taken illicit drugs in the past which is a lie I have never took such drugs.
Weird, see above suggestion.

I have gotten into it with the local prosecuting attorney several months before this happened about him charging a friend of mine for something he did not do and he told me if I call him again he would find something to arrest me for, I told him that was a witch hunt.
Now we are getting somewhere. Sounds as if maybe your judgment is impaired. Unless you are an attorney representing a client, you have no business "getting into it" with the DA. Basically, he told you to get out of his office and don't come back. That is because you were doing something you had no business doing.

I think he maybe behind this because he had a grudge against me ever since. You may have seen him on TV because he was on 48 Hours pertaining to Ryan Ferguson. He sent this young man to prison for murder. Look it up on google.
You are not coming across as a "together" person. My inclination here is to believe the validity of the involuntary commitment. Glad NICS caught you.

If you walk around thinking the DA is after you because something happened between you two while you were inappropriately interfering with his performance of his duties, you probably are not quite as grounded in reality as you think you are.

At this point only a lawyer and a doctor can help you. You certainly can not help yourself. LISTEN CAREFULLY.
Judging strictly by what you wrote, anything further that you do on your own is only going to get you in trouble.
Seek out professional assistance. Don't make threats. Don't bother the DA. Don't bother the docs that were involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wdbailey

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
This is a prime example of our "leaders" using unfortunate situation's to induce fear to gain acceptance from sheep to take more inalienable rights away from society.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
This is a prime example of our "leaders" using unfortunate situation's to induce fear to gain acceptance from sheep to take more inalienable rights away from society.
No, it is a prime example of the wisdom and necessity of the NICS check. You have someone who was (probably) involuntarily committed, who "got into it" with the prosecutor, who appears to harbor a continued paranoid belief, and is speaking up in anger.

Sure, the OP might actually be right. It is possible that a mistake was made, that his anger is righteous, etc., but he has avenues to redress his complaint.

He didn't get hospitalized from a bad reaction to ordinary prescription levels of Valium. Something else was going on and he was acting out in some manner which brought him to the attention of authorities because of HIS behavior.

I hope he recovers, gets well, stays out of trouble, and at some point after is able to have things reviewed so he can get his license. Meantime, based on the tone of the post, its fine with me that he was stopped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wdbailey
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top