Mass Shooting in California , 6 dead :(

[Jiro]

Let me make an example story.

The man's name is Brian and he loves guns. He bought several handguns and shotguns when he was 22 years old. In 3 years later, he got diagnosed with schizophrenia and deal with hallucination that suggest him to kill random people. The psychiatrist puts him on anti-psychotic drugs.

Do you think that Brian should lose the rights to have guns?

the law already exists that he is required to surrender his firearms to police and that the psychiatrist is required to notify police that he is a danger to himself and public.

 

[Steinhauer]

Let me make an example story.

The man's name is Brian and he loves guns. He bought several handguns and shotguns when he was 22 years old. In 3 years later, he got diagnosed with schizophrenia and deal with hallucination that suggest him to kill random people. The psychiatrist puts him on anti-psychotic drugs.

Do you think that Brian should lose the rights to have guns?

Absolutely! if it is proven he is a danger to himself or others ... YES!

 

[Foxrac]

It is a delicate situation - we do not want to deny the right of self defense to non-violent functioning mentally ill patients. If there is such a thing, I am sure there is. But to deny the right of self defense to those with malevolent intentions.

So .. where do we start?

I have no problem with guns for fully mentally stable citizens, but mental illness isn't only one of my concern, also immature citizens (not fully mature) is part of them as well.

Require all medical communities and LEO (if they know) to make a report to state about citizens have serious mental illness.

Gun carry is legal in California, but depending on sheriff department whichever they will grant or deny.

 

[Foxrac]

the law already exists that he is required to surrender his firearms to police and that the psychiatrist is required to notify police that he is a danger to himself and public.

Oh wow, even without involuntary commitment to hospital?

I feel bad for anyone with gun hobby who got diagnosed with serious mental illness and it is nice to find a permanent cure for mental illness.

 

[Jiro]

Oh wow, even without involuntary commitment to hospital?

I feel bad for anyone with gun hobby who got diagnosed with serious mental illness and it is nice to find a permanent cure for mental illness.

that's why it's tricky

 

[Steinhauer]

I have no problem with guns for fully mentally stable citizens, but mental illness isn't only one of my concern, also immature citizens (not fully mature) is part of them as well.

Require all medical communities and LEO (if they know) to make a report to state about citizens have serious mental illness.

Gun carry is legal in California, but depending on sheriff department whichever they will grant or deny.

I mentioned earlier why this particular subject is one I am interested in. I know you already know. I knew a person who was violently and mentally unstable. However, that person was a very clever manipulator too. It ran in the family, they all covered for each other.

I reported it to the authorities, in court. They did nothing. Almost a year later it ended up in a murder-suicide.

So although I may 'kid around" or make statements about the silliness of gun control laws, I do not take it lightly. That is just how I deal with frustration. People deal with this in different ways, I take a therapeutic comedy approach .. makes the bitterness easier to swallow. If that makes any sense.

Ultimately yes, people who are violent, in general, even if not deemed mentally ill, should not be in possession of a firearm. We also have to be extremely careful not to stigmatize certain groups of people who may be viewed as mentally ill, who are not. Odd behaviour is not mental illness. Then, there are functioning mental illnesses where the person is not a threat to themselves or to others. What we ultimately do not want to happen is for a weapon to be in the hands of a person who will use it to harm innocent people(mental illness is not required to harm others - an evil heart is). We do not want to extract the weapon from people who will use it to defend themselves or others. Putting "magic words" on a piece of paper will not prevent the malevolent crazies from plotting harm. If not a gun, they will use something else.

Should the violently mental ill be allowed to roam free in public? Should they be given the same Civil Rights you and I have?

When Cain killed his brother, it wasn't the weapon (jawbone) in his hand that killed Abel, it was the evil in his heart. It was hatred. The motive was jealousy and rage.

 

[Mewtilation]

The law does not apply if that mentally ill person is diagnosed and is seeking mental health treatment and under the care of a psychiatrist. Just thought I'd chime in here for you. I ( being mentally ill and fitting into your little topic here ) am medicated and under the care and treatment ( medicated ) of a licensed psychiatrist. I have, am allowed to have and still legally have my CCW permit. Boom.

Something you also need to keep in mind. People who are mentally ill are not all dangerous. There is a stigma of mental illness that people have that is completely inaccurate and incorrect! Most schizophrenics are NOT dangerous to strangers and do NOT hear voices telling them to kill people or anything of the sort. 90% of schizophrenics are dangerous mainly to themselves. The stigma that mentally ill people get is from movies and all this other crap is total and utter BS. A Schizophrenic is more likely to kill themselves than another person... the suicide rate of a schizophrenic is the highest risk of a person with schizophrenia, that is why their life expectancy is so low! Not the risk of them killing others! The likeliness of a person with Schizophrenia killing a stranger is 1 in 14 million per year! The stigma of people with mental illness from the media and Hollywood HAS to stop! Do some damn research before applying this crap to mental illnesses ESPECIALLY schizophrenics will you!? Here's a little read for you. :roll:

(Reuters Health) - Despite some highly publicized incidents in recent years, people with schizophrenia rarely commit random homicide, research shows.

Pooling data from seven studies in four countries, researchers found that the odds of a person with schizophrenia killing a stranger were 1 in 14 million people per year.

The risk appears even lower if the disorder is being treated with antipsychotic medication, the investigators report in the Schizophrenia Bulletin.

When they looked at 42 incidents in which someone with schizophrenia killed a stranger, they found that nearly two-thirds of those offenders had never been treated with medication.

They conclude that it is "exceptionally rare" for someone with schizophrenia to kill a stranger -- and that earlier and continued treatment of the disorder could make these events rarer still.

Schizophrenia is a brain disorder that causes people to break from reality, with symptoms such as hallucinations, paranoia and unusual thoughts and perceptions.

Most people with schizophrenia are not violent, but studies show that they are more likely than people without the disorder to commit violent crimes. This is especially true if a person with schizophrenia abuses drugs or alcohol, or had a history of violence before developing the brain disorder.

People with schizophrenia are responsible for a disproportionate number of homicides; while they account for about 0.5 percent of the world's population, they are estimated to commit 6.5 percent of homicides worldwide, according to Dr. Olav Nielssen of the University of Sydney in Australia, the lead researcher on the new study.

Most of the victims, though, are family members, Nielssen told Reuters Health in an email, and in nearly half of these cases, the person's schizophrenia had never been treated.

The current findings are based on seven studies from Europe and Australia looking at homicides by people with schizophrenia. The estimated annual rate of "stranger homicides" ranged anywhere from 1 in 7 million to 1 in 18 million people per year.

The researchers also compared 42 cases of stranger homicide with 42 in which the victim was a family member. They found that the former were more likely to be committed by a schizophrenic individual who was homeless, or had a history of severe childhood or adult behavioral problems, including violence.

In both groups, more than half of the offenders had never been admitted to a psychiatric hospital or placed on antipsychotic medication. Of the 42 who killed a stranger, 64 percent had never received drug treatment.

Some highly publicized homicides in Canada, the U.S. and the UK in recent years have led to law changes designed to compel people seen by mental health services to take any prescribed antipsychotic medications.

However, Nielssen said, "Because a large proportion of both stranger and family homicides occur prior to initial treatment, laws designed to ensure continued treatment of known patients will not have much effect in preventing homicides."

Instead, he asserted, a more effective approach would be to get people treated sooner, when their initial psychotic symptoms arise. In wealthier countries, Nielssen noted, the lag time between first symptoms and initial treatment is one year, on average.

He and his colleagues argue that a key obstacle to early treatment is so-called "dangerousness" laws, which require that a person be deemed a danger to himself or others before involuntary treatment is an option. Such laws are in place in most U.S. and Australian states, half of Canadian provinces and in several European countries, Nielssen noted.

He said that instead of focusing on a patient's potential danger, mental health laws should be based on the individual's need for treatment and competency to refuse it.

SOURCE: Schizophrenia Bulletin

People are always screaming the insanity plea on the stand to get out of their crime when they are sane... that is where all of this comes from. Out of this article, most schizophrenics who kill ( which mind you schizophrenia is RARE ) The ones who ACTUALLY do kill people ( who are mind you UNTREATED ) Kill FAMILY MEMBERS... They RARELY kill strangers. They don't go out and go on mass shootings or killings murdering strangers, they kill family members and close relatives.

Please, do research before applying your general notions and assumptions to mental illnesses. People have mental illnesses, there are varying degrees, types and other things to these illnesses which CAN NOT be controlled but are treatable through medication. It's people like this who go out assuming things like this without doing research who give these things a bad name. How completely shameful.

Not all people who are aggressive, mean and violent are mentally ill, either. Keep that in mind.

 

[Foxrac]

I mentioned earlier why this particular subject is one I am interested in. I know you already know. I knew a person who was violently and mentally unstable. However, that person was a very clever manipulator too. It ran in the family, they all covered for each other.

I reported it to the authorities, in court. They did nothing. Almost a year later it ended up in a murder-suicide.

So although I may 'kid around" or make statements about the silliness of gun control laws, I do not take it lightly. That is just how I deal with frustration. People deal with this in different ways, I take a therapeutic comedy approach .. makes the bitterness easier to swallow. If that makes any sense.

Ultimately yes, people who are violent, in general, even if not deemed mentally ill, should not be in possession of a firearm. We also have to be extremely careful not to stigmatize certain groups of people who may be viewed as mentally ill, who are not. Odd behaviour is not mental illness. Then, there are functioning mental illnesses where the person is not a threat to themselves or to others. What we ultimately do not want to happen is for a weapon to be in the hands of a person who will use it to harm innocent people. We do not want to extract the weapon from people who will use it to defend themselves or others. Putting "magic words" on a piece of paper will not prevent the malevolent crazies from plotting harm. If not a gun, they will use something else.

Should the violently mental ill be allowed to roam free in public? Should they be given the same Civil Rights you and I have?

Oh wow, there is same issue in Alabama - the judges refuse to send anyone with mental illness to hospital for evaluation, but end up in murder-suicide situation, also sometime, suicide only.

I was misdiagnosed with schizoaffective and bipolar by bad therapist that didn't know how to communicate in ASL, and I'm not danger to anyone but I do have some suicidal thoughts sometime when I was severe depression. I didn't know if they did report to NICS but therapist told me that she never report to NICS or ATF, except for extreme case and she said one of man works at gun dealer has mental illness but well treated with medicine and he's not danger to anyone anymore. If I'm ineligible to buy guns because of NICS so I have deal with it, may want to buy BB guns, stronger pepper spray, melee weapon or other weapons to defend myself or subscribe to anti-burglary alarm. I'm totally deaf and can't hear if someone break in when I sleep, so I have no idea about any outcome from guns.

Yes, you are correct about some people can be very crazy, even they don't have mental illness. It is more of personality.

I support mandatory training for all citizens who are new to guns, but I believe that high school is supposed to teach students about guns and may take shooting classes. It could help to lessen the immature behavior and more awareness that guns are not toy, it is for self-defense.

For your last question, No, violently mental ill need to stay in hospital until they are treated and no longer danger to anyone, but need extra monitoring as well.

 

[Steinhauer]

Oh wow, there is same issue in Alabama - the judges refuse to send anyone with mental illness to hospital for evaluation, but end up in murder-suicide situation, also sometime, suicide only.

I was misdiagnosed with schizoaffective and bipolar by bad therapist that didn't know how to communicate in ASL, and I'm not danger to anyone but I do have some suicidal thoughts sometime when I was severe depression. I didn't know if they did report to NICS but therapist told me that she never report to NICS or ATF, except for extreme case and she said one of man works at gun dealer has mental illness but well treated with medicine and he's not danger to anyone anymore. If I'm ineligible to buy guns because of NICS so I have deal with it, may want to buy BB guns, stronger pepper spray, melee weapon or other weapons to defend myself or subscribe to anti-burglary alarm. I'm totally deaf and can't hear if someone break in when I sleep, so I have no idea about any outcome from guns.

Yes, you are correct about some people can be very crazy, even they don't have mental illness. It is more of personality.

I support mandatory training for all citizens who are new to guns, but I believe that high school is supposed to teach students about guns and may take shooting classes. It could help to lessen the immature behavior and more awareness that guns are not toy, it is for self-defense. keep in mind that a firearm is just one method, there are many. So yes, please talk to someone whom you absolutely can trust - if you trust me - you can PM me.

For your last question, No, violently mental ill need to stay in hospital until they are treated and no longer danger to anyone, but need extra monitoring as well.

I was part of an advocacy group that has been fighting that very thing here in Georgia - and we won.

re: suicidal thoughts - that is when you need to talk to someone you can trust. And no, you really do not need to have a firearm if that happens again. However, people recover from that, and frankly, should not have a lifetime ban from firearms if they have recovered.

 

[Foxrac]

I was part of an advocacy group that has been fighting that very thing here in Georgia - and we won.

My old therapist used strong SEE and I hadn't use SEE since 2000.

Yes, Alabama got sued too for lacking of mental health service to deaf people.

Oh... let check the NICS...

*checking NICS*

*beep*

*NICS Result: Ineligible, filled by ATF agent*

Oh my man, I hate ATF.

 

[Jiro]

The law does not apply if that mentally ill person is diagnosed and is seeking mental health treatment and under the care of a psychiatrist. Just thought I'd chime in here for you. I ( being mentally ill and fitting into your little topic here ) am medicated and under the care and treatment ( medicated ) of a licensed psychiatrist. I have, am allowed to have and still legally have my CCW permit. Boom.

yes. that's why it's tricky as it varies in state/city/town as it's up to police chief to issue you one or not. and also it's up to psychiatrist to report you to authority or not if he/she felt you are a danger to yourself and public which may lead to involuntary commitment which may or will lead to forfeiture of your gun rights.

yes generally... a person with mental history (non-violent) can get a gun if he has never been committed to mental hospital but then again... it is a tricky part because it isn't always an automatic disqualification. if his application got rejected on that basis, he can simply sue and then eventually win the case.

bottom line - it's up to police chief to decide whether or not to issue one after reviewing all facts gathered. some states are very lax on that part as they just simply check for your criminal record and any record with state mental hospital and some states will be more stringent and thorough with background check like my state (NJ).

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/sts-033.pdf
http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/sp-066.pdf

mental health law + gun law + Constitutional rights = not an easy thing to deal with legally. and trampling over patient privacy law = Thought Police

 

[Steinhauer]

The law does not apply if that mentally ill person is diagnosed and is seeking mental health treatment and under the care of a psychiatrist. Just thought I'd chime in here for you. I ( being mentally ill and fitting into your little topic here ) am medicated and under the care and treatment ( medicated ) of a licensed psychiatrist. I have, am allowed to have and still legally have my CCW permit. Boom.

Something you also need to keep in mind. People who are mentally ill are not all dangerous. There is a stigma of mental illness that people have that is completely inaccurate and incorrect! Most schizophrenics are NOT dangerous to strangers and do NOT hear voices telling them to kill people or anything of the sort. 90% of schizophrenics are dangerous mainly to themselves. The stigma that mentally ill people get is from movies and all this other crap is total and utter BS. A Schizophrenic is more likely to kill themselves than another person... the suicide rate of a schizophrenic is the highest risk of a person with schizophrenia, that is why their life expectancy is so low! Not the risk of them killing others! The likeliness of a person with Schizophrenia killing a stranger is 1 in 14 million per year! The stigma of people with mental illness from the media and Hollywood HAS to stop! Do some damn research before applying this crap to mental illnesses ESPECIALLY schizophrenics will you!? Here's a little read for you. :roll:

(Reuters Health) - Despite some highly publicized incidents in recent years, people with schizophrenia rarely commit random homicide, research shows.

Pooling data from seven studies in four countries, researchers found that the odds of a person with schizophrenia killing a stranger were 1 in 14 million people per year.

The risk appears even lower if the disorder is being treated with antipsychotic medication, the investigators report in the Schizophrenia Bulletin.

When they looked at 42 incidents in which someone with schizophrenia killed a stranger, they found that nearly two-thirds of those offenders had never been treated with medication.

They conclude that it is "exceptionally rare" for someone with schizophrenia to kill a stranger -- and that earlier and continued treatment of the disorder could make these events rarer still.

Schizophrenia is a brain disorder that causes people to break from reality, with symptoms such as hallucinations, paranoia and unusual thoughts and perceptions.

Most people with schizophrenia are not violent, but studies show that they are more likely than people without the disorder to commit violent crimes. This is especially true if a person with schizophrenia abuses drugs or alcohol, or had a history of violence before developing the brain disorder.

People with schizophrenia are responsible for a disproportionate number of homicides; while they account for about 0.5 percent of the world's population, they are estimated to commit 6.5 percent of homicides worldwide, according to Dr. Olav Nielssen of the University of Sydney in Australia, the lead researcher on the new study.

Most of the victims, though, are family members, Nielssen told Reuters Health in an email, and in nearly half of these cases, the person's schizophrenia had never been treated.

The current findings are based on seven studies from Europe and Australia looking at homicides by people with schizophrenia. The estimated annual rate of "stranger homicides" ranged anywhere from 1 in 7 million to 1 in 18 million people per year.

The researchers also compared 42 cases of stranger homicide with 42 in which the victim was a family member. They found that the former were more likely to be committed by a schizophrenic individual who was homeless, or had a history of severe childhood or adult behavioral problems, including violence.

In both groups, more than half of the offenders had never been admitted to a psychiatric hospital or placed on antipsychotic medication. Of the 42 who killed a stranger, 64 percent had never received drug treatment.

Some highly publicized homicides in Canada, the U.S. and the UK in recent years have led to law changes designed to compel people seen by mental health services to take any prescribed antipsychotic medications.

However, Nielssen said, "Because a large proportion of both stranger and family homicides occur prior to initial treatment, laws designed to ensure continued treatment of known patients will not have much effect in preventing homicides."

Instead, he asserted, a more effective approach would be to get people treated sooner, when their initial psychotic symptoms arise. In wealthier countries, Nielssen noted, the lag time between first symptoms and initial treatment is one year, on average.

He and his colleagues argue that a key obstacle to early treatment is so-called "dangerousness" laws, which require that a person be deemed a danger to himself or others before involuntary treatment is an option. Such laws are in place in most U.S. and Australian states, half of Canadian provinces and in several European countries, Nielssen noted.

He said that instead of focusing on a patient's potential danger, mental health laws should be based on the individual's need for treatment and competency to refuse it.

SOURCE: Schizophrenia Bulletin

People are always screaming the insanity plea on the stand to get out of their crime when they are sane... that is where all of this comes from. Out of this article, most schizophrenics who kill ( which mind you schizophrenia is RARE ) The ones who ACTUALLY do kill people ( who are mind you UNTREATED ) Kill FAMILY MEMBERS... They RARELY kill strangers. They don't go out and go on mass shootings or killings murdering strangers, they kill family members and close relatives.

Please, do research before applying your general notions and assumptions to mental illnesses. People have mental illnesses, there are varying degrees, types and other things to these illnesses which CAN NOT be controlled but are treatable through medication. It's people like this who go out assuming things like this without doing research who give these things a bad name. How completely shameful.

Not all people who are aggressive, mean and violent are mentally ill, either. Keep that in mind.

Thank you for chiming in. I agree that those whom have been diagnosed with a non-threatening mental illness should never have their civil rights removed.

 

[Lavender]

Blame the family court, one of parents who lived with insane son didn't do well with psych and therapy.

 

[Foxrac]

Blame the family court, one of parents who lived with insane son didn't do well with psych and therapy.

I think family court only deal with child custody.

 

[Mewtilation]

Violence and mental health statistics and facts | Time To Change

1% of violent crimes in the UK are believed to be committed by mentally ill... basically saying mentally ill people are more of a threat to themselves than others once again... what a SURPRISE! :roll:

Mysteries of the Mind: Violence by mentally ill is rare, but more frequent than in others - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

2-7% of people with mental illnesses commit violent crimes ( This includes shoving people ) Looks like you better get your non mentally ill butts in line because you have a 93% gap of violent crimes to make up for that we don't even scratch. :roll:

( That is a psychiatry professor and leading expert on the subject, not a media arse hat or someone writing their opinion, either. ) That is someone who is actually entitled to statistically insert their opinion.

 

[Mewtilation]

Thank you for chiming in. I agree that those whom have been diagnosed with a non-threatening mental illness should never have their civil rights removed.

I think that my illnesses count more than threatening according to the media and general population. :Ohno: Yet, I am medicated... I am a productive functioning member of society. I have a stable job and provide a valuable service to people daily. If the media had it their way, I'd be in a straight jacket and locked away in an institution... People fail to realize ( the mentally ill population as small as it is ) actively seeking treatment are very little if any threat to anyone... it's still nothing they can help... and they're still a larger threat to themselves than anyone else.

 

[CrazyPaul]

People are always screaming the insanity plea on the stand to get out of their crime when they are sane... that is where all of this comes from. Out of this article, most schizophrenics who kill ( which mind you schizophrenia is RARE ) The ones who ACTUALLY do kill people ( who are mind you UNTREATED ) Kill FAMILY MEMBERS... They RARELY kill strangers. They don't go out and go on mass shootings or killings murdering strangers, they kill family members and close relatives.

Is that 100% accurate?

 

[Reba]

My statement concerning leaving the victims father alone was in response to another comment posted by Foxrac. I am not bothering the victims father. I am stating an opinion.

Why do you feel I should "give it a rest"? we have already discussed how we disagree on the interpretation of the statements made by the shooters father and the victims father and I have moved on. I have also not changed my stance that what they have both said was the exact same thing. I have already shared all the relevant links - yet you still ... disagree. Well ... ok. We disagree.

I haven't disagreed; I merely wanted the source to read for myself. You know that I request that from everyone, not just you. I also did my own independent search for any statements from the shooter's father, and found none other than the original one from his lawyer. I don't think it's an unreasonable request.

Do I need to post a link, or source, so that you can "school" me on why someone should not disagree with you?

Absolutely not! I want to see the link so that I can read the entire context of the father's statement for myself. If your link supports your statement then I certainly wouldn't be able to criticize you, would I? If anything, it would strengthen your position.

If you read what I actually said, I made mention that the victims father and the shooters father made similar statements. And they both did. They both blames guns. if this were not so, no blame would have been placed on the NRA, and peter Rodgers would not have specifically made a point to mention he was "against guns".

Being philosophically and generally "against guns" is a far cry from the father of the shooter blaming guns for what this son did.

These were political statements. I don't care if you are attempting to "shield" the fact that these were political statements behind "but the victims father was grieving". He still does not have the right to take away my rights (i.e. the gun free zone where his son was killed). Now ... the media is attempting to portray him as a gun rights activist ... most gun grabbers do this. If I need to explain what a gun grabber is, I would be happy to do so. They usually start a statement with "I am for the right to self defense ... but …"

I'm not that paranoid or insecure. I'm savvy enough to realize that even the most justified gun-rights supporters jumping on the case of a grieving father immediately after his son's tragic death isn't going to win anyone to the cause. It simply makes gun-rights supporters look petty and mean, and turns off people.

there is no "but" and the 2nd Amendment will not be infringed ... period.

That is definitely not my issue or argument; the Amendment also doesn't include the words, "acting like a butt-head" anytime someone says "I hate guns."

I don't want to get into a fight with you in this thread or anywhere else, so I'll be the one who moves on.

 

[Steinhauer]

I haven't disagreed; I merely wanted the source to read for myself. You know that I request that from everyone, not just you. I also did my own independent search for any statements from the shooter's father, and found none other than the original one from his lawyer. I don't think it's an unreasonable request.


Absolutely not! I want to see the link so that I can read the entire context of the father's statement for myself. If your link supports your statement then I certainly wouldn't be able to criticize you, would I? If anything, it would strengthen your position.


Being philosophically and generally "against guns" is a far cry from the father of the shooter blaming guns for what this son did.


I'm not that paranoid or insecure. I'm savvy enough to realize that even the most justified gun-rights supporters jumping on the case of a grieving father immediately after his son's tragic death isn't going to win anyone to the cause. It simply makes gun-rights supporters look petty and mean, and turns off people.


That is definitely not my issue or argument; the Amendment also doesn't include the words, "acting like a butt-head" anytime someone says "I hate guns."

I don't want to get into a fight with you in this thread or anywhere else, so I'll be the one who moves on.

I am not paranoid or insecure, and was not attempting to win anyone to the cause when i called Martinez's statement out for what it was - anti-gun propaganda.


he is embracing his inner Hitler:

he was anti-gun before this incident and is now attempting to politicize his son's death - which is loathesome - or am I allowed to have an opinion?

To clarify, he was already against the 2nd Amendment before this shooting, already blamed gun lobbyists for the actions of criminals and homicidal lunatics before his son's death.

 

[Reba]

Maybe all states except 1. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but if I remember right Texas didn't sign into the union after the civil war and yes while it's a US state it can fly its flag at the same level as the US flag all other states must fly below the US flag and can do its own thing as governed by state laws not federal if wanted.

Not according to the U.S. Flag Code.

USFlag.org: A website dedicated to the Flag of the United States of America - United States Code

If a State flag is on the same halyard (pole/staff) as the US Flag, then the US Flag is on the top. If the flags are side-by-side on separate poles, the State flag (including Texas) can be at the same height but must be positioned to the left of the US Flag.