Can you still purchase a gun if you were denied a chl?

[LSUTiger]

I'm gonna have to agree with you that tying mental health records to NICS is a slippery slope and disagree with you that it should be done. In theory, it sounds good but in practice it is nothing more than a gun control scheme disguised as "common sense", IMHO. Once any kinda of mental health record, no matter how innocuous gets tied to NICS you can bet that the person will be denied forever.
...
As for as the "gun show loophole", I'm all for it. I'm not willing to give an inch thinking the libtards are going to back off on anything especially scary NFA items like SBR and Suppressors. Whoever thinks that compromising with the antis will gain the Pro 2A cause anything is seriously misguided. Their goal is total disarmament/gun confiscation, our goal is "shall not be infringed", the two could not be more polar opposite.

The FFL (not a dig on FFL's but it's a gun control mechanism) is the government's last way to control firearms sales before they happen, private sales, they have no control. So I'm ok with that, you know not giving up freedom and liberty for "security".

I guess my contention is that it should all be equal and fair. (I'll give you a few seconds to regain your composure and pick yourself up off the floor).

If the idea of having FFLs do background checks is for public safety, then the law should be "all sales of guns require NICS". If not, then NOBODY should be required to do them. From a free market perspective, it puts sellers on a level playing field. They handicap businesses in the commerce sector. (Which is what they like, I'm sure).

And I agree that the mental health thing is irreversible. And I also like what you said about "it might discourage people from getting help." But, I think that's giving crazies too much credit.

The solution, like you mentioned, is to arm everybody (or allow them to be). Then, if somebody goes "crazy", there are other non-crazies around to fix the problem. Also, as for "rehabilitation", what is the recidivism rate? Isn't it pretty high? Rehab doesn't really work. Many if not most crimes are committed by ex-cons. It's just in their blood. Someone who used to be crazy probably still has crazy lurking somewhere. Just as "gun free zones" don't prevent mass shootings (but rather enable them!), "no crazies with guns" won't solve the problem of crazy people with guns.

In fact, my biggest complaint is that more people with their CHL don't carry daily. My wife, mother, and close friend are three such people...and we own a gun store. Go figure. I ask them "When will you start carrying?" Response: "If I go somewhere I think I might need it." My Response: "Maybe you shouldn't go there."

So my real feeling is that FFLs shouldn't have to do background checks either if private sales don't have to. And SBRs and silencers should be off the NFA list for sure. I show people in our store my 9.5" Sig 300AAC and hold it up to my Tavor 16.5" 5.56. The Tavor is actually shorter overall length. Tavor: no NFA. SIg: yes NFA.

Many if most of the gun laws are simply illogical and ineffective.

First I had to pick up my self off the floor from laughing at your first statement, not about fairness but from you expecting me to be stunned by your reply.

You are right no one should have to do background checks. I think the FFL/NFA (ineffective at crime reduction, ridiculous and arbitrary) should be done away with, it's nothing more than infringement/gun control. We have all this gun control in place and it does not do anything but burden the the law abiding citizen and do nothing to stop criminals.

"Many if most of the gun laws are simply illogical and ineffective"

The mental health issue might also stop someone else from getting the person in need help if they know how it might affect the rest of their life. The real problem is how easy it is for the government to categorize anything related to mental health into a disqualifying condition. For example, If some one was depressed because a loved one passed away and they sought grief counseling.

As for as recidivism rate, I guess if you commit one small crime you should be locked up forever according to you, eventually petty crimes will lead to violent felonies..... or better yet how about if you did nothing at all, a "minority report" system to condemn you.

[Feed&Guns]

As for as recidivism rate, I guess if you commit one small crime you should be locked up forever according to you, eventually petty crimes will lead to violent felonies..... or better yet how about if you did nothing at all, a "minority report" system to condemn you.

Official Texas Report 2004-2008. Percent of people rearrested in 3 years.

Rearrest
Adults and juveniles released from correctional facilities or starting supervision were monitored to
determine the percentage rearrested for an offense of at least a Class B Misdemeanor level within
three years of release or the start of supervision.1 The 2008 cohort is the most recent group for which
the three-year rearrest rate has been calculated. Some historical rearrest rates are unavailable for
some populations. Table 1 shows that the rearrest results for each population analyzed remained
relatively stable across the fiscal years analyzed.
(summary)
Prison: nearly 50%
State Jail: over 60%
Secure Residential Facility-Juveniles: over 75%

So, ya. I'd say their ain't a lot of rehabin going on. I didn't think about keeping them locked up forever, but I like your idea. (sarcasm...kind of) It's better than the current system of spending more tax dollars on future prosecutions and threatening society with bad people when over 50% of the time we already caught the guy once. It's like the Kate Steinle thing. Why catch and release just so they can commit crimes again? How many times would you suggest we catch and release before we say "enough is enough"? In fact, this was in just THREE YEARS. I don't know if they have stats if you stretch it out to 5 or 10 years, but obviously it'd be even higher.

However, and not that it is on topic, but my solution is to make jails tougher. There's not much of a deterrence apparently. I think we should make prisons 6x8 boxes. Everyone gets a shaved head. No socialization. vitamin enriched oatmeal for every meal. Whatever. NO cable tv. no personal art on the wall. It's F-ING JAIL. You want to be treated like a human? Act like a human. You had the chance to act right on the outside. If criminals thought "I am NOT going back to that hell hole!" Then maybe that'd be the rehab they need.

The current system is broken. But I love how you go from "recidivism" to "minority report". Nice leap. Everyone gets a chance with a clean slate. It's up to you to f it up the first time. Shorter, but much harder prison time is my solution. Be nice and letting you hang out with your homies sure isn't working.

[LSUTiger]

As for as recidivism rate, I guess if you commit one small crime you should be locked up forever according to you, eventually petty crimes will lead to violent felonies..... or better yet how about if you did nothing at all, a "minority report" system to condemn you.

Official Texas Report 2004-2008. Percent of people rearrested in 3 years.

Rearrest
Adults and juveniles released from correctional facilities or starting supervision were monitored to
determine the percentage rearrested for an offense of at least a Class B Misdemeanor level within
three years of release or the start of supervision.1 The 2008 cohort is the most recent group for which
the three-year rearrest rate has been calculated. Some historical rearrest rates are unavailable for
some populations. Table 1 shows that the rearrest results for each population analyzed remained
relatively stable across the fiscal years analyzed.
(summary)
Prison: nearly 50%
State Jail: over 60%
Secure Residential Facility-Juveniles: over 75%

So, ya. I'd say their ain't a lot of rehabin going on. I didn't think about keeping them locked up forever, but I like your idea. (sarcasm...kind of) It's better than the current system of spending more tax dollars on future prosecutions and threatening society with bad people when over 50% of the time we already caught the guy once. It's like the Kate Steinle thing. Why catch and release just so they can commit crimes again? How many times would you suggest we catch and release before we say "enough is enough"? In fact, this was in just THREE YEARS. I don't know if they have stats if you stretch it out to 5 or 10 years, but obviously it'd be even higher.

However, and not that it is on topic, but my solution is to make jails tougher. There's not much of a deterrence apparently. I think we should make prisons 6x8 boxes. Everyone gets a shaved head. No socialization. vitamin enriched oatmeal for every meal. Whatever. NO cable tv. no personal art on the wall. It's F-ING JAIL. You want to be treated like a human? Act like a human. You had the chance to act right on the outside. If criminals thought "I am NOT going back to that heck hole!" Then maybe that'd be the rehab they need.

The current system is broken. But I love how you go from "recidivism" to "minority report". Nice leap. Everyone gets a chance with a clean slate. It's up to you to f it up the first time. Shorter, but much harder prison time is my solution. Be nice and letting you hang out with your homies sure isn't working.

That's still 50, 40 and 25% who don't recommit. That's not insignificant, but I digress.

The original conversation was about mental health. Not that the 50, 60 and 75% who commit and recommit crimes don't have mental health issues.

I'm talking about people who have done nothing wrong who need help but IMHO don't rise to the level of disqualification or criminal insanity. It's just too easy for the government to put a label on people to advance gun control. If you don't agree with the government you must be crazy......

[treadlightly]

Universal background checks? Sounds good, but I can't quite agree with a dad having to run a background check on his son before Christmas.

But heck, if we're going to scrutinize everyone, why not make the recipient of the gun responsible for the background check? He's the one all the fuss is about, anyway.

The idea would come with some real benefits.

If there was a law requiring a thief to run a background check on himself prior to stealing a gun, most of them wouldn't qualify to commit the theft. That would reduce crime and keep guns out of the wrong hands, right there.

Those that did qualify to steal firearms would essentially be reporting the crime themselves, saving law enforcement lots of trouble and making it unnecessary for the rest of us to call the police when guns disappear. The unlawful transfer would already be registered with the government.

And it would work for... Wait a minute, wait just a cotton-pickin' minute... Something fishy here.... It's my meds! I'm OFF my MEDS! WHERE ARE MY MEDS???

[JALLEN]

The original conversation was about mental health. Not that the 50, 60 and 75% who commit and recommit crimes don't have mental health issues.

...

People who commit violent felonies all have mental health issues. You have to be crazy to do those things. Not incompetent mind you, just crazy.

[jb2012]

I'm gonna have to agree with you that tying mental health records to NICS is a slippery slope and disagree with you that it should be done.

The answer is simple end gun free zones, let people exercise their freedom and liberty and 2A right uninfringed and let natural selection take its course. The population of truly bad people will get thinned out.

I'm not willing to give an inch

I'm with you, I don't agree with them being tied in for the reasons you stated, as well as your stance on the "loophole" or "exception"

If we are going to rename it then we need to rename it the private party exemption, it's NOT a loophole.

haha you are right, but I mean we are basically saying the same thing.

[cb1000rider]

A
There is a big push (and I'm partially okay with this) to tie in mental health records to the NICS....Yes, part 2. The gun show loophole...Sorry fellow NRA lifers, but this is one the libs might have right.

<facepalm>

1) People that are mentally ill or are under-the-influence of medication are expected to indicate such when making a purchase. This is, by definition, inherently broken. Impaired people are impaired and can't be expected to make good decisions.. If you think that this is a functional system, our definitions differ.

2) Requiring commercial sellers to do a background check while allowing private sales next door without is equally ineffective. Calling this out is not the same as advocating background checks for all sales. There are simple non-liberty-stealing solutions that could improve this situation.

Pointing out the flaws isn't facepalm. Having the same issues over and over, doing nothing, all facepalm...