Texas SOT

Mental Health and CHL

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rattlesnake911

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 6, 2019
    10
    11
    DFW Tx
    You were “admitted” not committed. The way professionals use the word “committed” implies non-voluntary.

    I’m sorry that trying to understand exactly how all this works is kinda stressful. I think that our laws should be more cut and dried and simpler, and less restrictive.


    Ahh okay thank you. And i agree I wish they were straight and simple!
     

    Coiled

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 25, 2016
    8,292
    96
    SETX
    They were a psychiatrist.

    What I was meaning by 100% was me being committed was up to my self and my mom because of my age. But there was a social worker with like family services there and went over the behavioral health units that had beds available but they also gave me the option to just go home. But me and my mom choose to put me in.
    Thanks for the reply. After posting I was afraid I came off as trying to nail you and nothing could be further from the truth . . based solely on my perception of your words. Best of luck to you.
     

    Coiled

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 25, 2016
    8,292
    96
    SETX
    You were “admitted” not committed. The way professionals use the word “committed” implies non-voluntary.

    I’m sorry that trying to understand exactly how all this works is kinda stressful. I think that our laws should be more cut and dried and simpler, and less restrictive.
    Sadly, others here don't seem to follow that logic.
     

    Mohawk600

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 31, 2018
    2,662
    96
    Austin
    I just purchased my girlfriend and I a handgun. I did it legally and the background check came back okay. But I was reading on Texas LTC requirements it says that if you were involuntary committed to psychiatric hospital and psychiatric hospital. I was voluntarily admitted to a behavioral health unit. When I was maybe 15, I was diagnosed with PTSD and Anxiety. I am wondering if I would have to disclose that or sense I was a minor and it was over 5 years at this point I would be okay to say no and just go through with it. I have been off of medication for at least 3 years if not 4. I am totally okay with going and getting a letter stating it is in remission and it should not come back. I also said no on the question in the background check where it asks if I was ever admitted to one due to a judge. Hopefully that was the right thing to do.
    I wouldnt post that info on a public forum......
     

    Wildcat Diva

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 26, 2016
    3,040
    96
    My brother in law suffers from antisocial behavior and bipolar disorder. I've known him for twenty years and I can say without a doubt society is a better place without him walking around with a firearm.

    Well, he can still possess a gun. And let’s be honest, how would anybody KNOW if he has an LTC? I mean it’s not like someone with a mental illness couldn’t carry anyways. You know how many times someone has checked my LTC to see it if I am, in fact, approved to carry? ZERO. Your brother COULD be carrying all the time if he wanted to. Nothing is physically stopping him, right?

    That way of looking at it, your argument that we should limit LTC by diagnosis, is all very well and good ... but do you want to have it to where anyone who sought treatment is prohibited? So we will make seeking treatment and obtaining a diagnosis a disqualifying condition? How long do you think it will take for the populous will say, well this is for LTC, what about considering mental fitness by diagnosis for possessing a gun period?

    And well... while we are at it....what about those folks who don’t go and get assessed and treated, we are missing catching those folks. Maybe we need to make SURE that ALL folks are all mentally sound and such before we go selling them a gun, and each year to make sure they are still ok to possess one.
     

    Wildcat Diva

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 26, 2016
    3,040
    96
    As you have been told, get the letter and then apply.
    So what if someone doesn’t see a psychiatrist anymore?

    And what if a person did see a psychiatrist and that doctor was unwilling to write such a letter.

    Not so much because the person was ACTUALLY a risk, but that doctors are not in the business of saying that someone is NOT a risk.

    I’m a pro gun clinician, and I WOULDN’T write that letter for the most stable of my clients. Not putting my license on the line for that. It’s not my job to predict what can happen in terms of future mental health problems. NO ONE should be doing that.
     
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 17, 2010
    7,576
    96
    Austin
    So what if someone doesn’t see a psychiatrist anymore?

    And what if a person did see a psychiatrist and that doctor was unwilling to write such a letter.

    Not so much because the person was ACTUALLY a risk, but that doctors are not in the business of saying that someone is NOT a risk.

    I’m a pro gun clinician, and I WOULDN’T write that letter for the most stable of my clients. Not putting my license on the line for that. It’s not my job to predict what can happen in terms of future mental health problems. NO ONE should be doing that.

    Doesn't have to be the same person who writes the letter.

    If nobody wants to write the letter, then he could be denied for LTC. Let your representatives know you'd like attention to this next session.
     

    RJ MacReady

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 9, 2019
    19
    11
    Medina
    Well, he can still possess a gun. And let’s be honest, how would anybody KNOW if he has an LTC?

    Well according to state law he can't.

    I mean it’s not like someone with a mental illness couldn’t carry anyways.

    Not according to state law.

    Your brother COULD be carrying all the time if he wanted to. Nothing is physically stopping him, right?

    Yea, me.

    That way of looking at it, your argument that we should limit LTC by diagnosis, is all very well and good ... but do you want to have it to where anyone who sought treatment is prohibited? So we will make seeking treatment and obtaining a diagnosis a disqualifying condition? How long do you think it will take for the populous will say, well this is for LTC, what about considering mental fitness by diagnosis for possessing a gun period?

    And well... while we are at it....what about those folks who don’t go and get assessed and treated, we are missing catching those folks. Maybe we need to make SURE that ALL folks are all mentally sound and such before we go selling them a gun, and each year to make sure they are still ok to possess one.

    So you're fine with someone that suffers from hallucinations, false perceptions and beliefs, and schizoaffective disorders who also decided to stop taking their meds to be walking around with a firearm?
     

    Wildcat Diva

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 26, 2016
    3,040
    96
    Well according to state law he can't.



    Not according to state law.



    Yea, me.



    So you're fine with someone that suffers from hallucinations, false perceptions and beliefs, and schizoaffective disorders who also decided to stop taking their meds to be walking around with a firearm?

    Regarding “So you’re fine with”

    Just stop right there.

    You have NO CLUE what I’m fine with.

    I say that it’s too tricky for us to be legislating such a thing. Not that I am fine with it. But by the way, the vast majority of people with mental health diagnoses, even serious ones, are NOT dangerous. I say let those who prove that they ARE dangerous because they have legal problems or court orders be legally prohibited then. The others will need their support system to help them make the right decisions about firearm possession and carrying.

    How does such a law even stop someone mentally ill from walking around with a gun anyways? If someone is THAT OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY presumably they wouldn’t be deterred by a law saying they can’t carry in public. No one would know to stop them because they wouldn’t see a concealed gun.

    What do you mean “according to state law” he can’t possess a gun?

    Walking around publicly with, and possessing at one’s home or in one’s vehicle are different things, legally different restrictions.

    LTC does not address general gun possession. What state law are you referring to, please?
     

    Wildcat Diva

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 26, 2016
    3,040
    96
    No. This is something the majority of people agree with including Republican and Democrat politicians.
    Those people are not clinicians and do not know the ins and outs involved in doing such a thing. I do not care what politicians think. They do not get the specifics and the problems associated with logistics of implementing such a thing.

    I am a clinician and I say we do not deserve such power over the populous.
     

    Wildcat Diva

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 26, 2016
    3,040
    96
    Mental health providers do not get the responsibility for deciding who should and should not hold a gun.

    Because when it comes to my license, it’s safer for me to say that no one is “sane enough” to possess a firearm. No one should be asking providers that question, except in extreme circumstances related to a legal court hearing regarding dangerousness.

    I get no benefit from giving the all clear for firearm possession. No provider in their right mind would risk their career on making this decision not directly related to the topic of their practice.

    Moving further in this direction will yield a skewed result: stripping rights from those who do not deserve to have rights stripped from them.
     

    candcallen

    Crotchety, Snarky, Truthful. You'll get over it.
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 23, 2011
    21,350
    96
    Little Elm
    Scoutow,

    Spammer selling kratom? Pushing a website?
    e966a7da1dae221568caf3051ffba9f7.jpg
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom