That is not good.
I’m for the mental health part…unless someone has a BETTER idea to keep guns out of the nutters hands.
I’m OK with background checks at gun shows…no big whoop as long as private sales outside of the shows are unaffected. I’ve gotten several at shows with checks done there and it is painless. There should be safeguards to insure there is no DATABASE of registered owners though.
I heard Toomey speak on this today and thought he made a lot of sense AS A HUNTER AND GUN OWNER himself.
I particularly would like the EXISTING background checks followed up on. Perhaps we should hold off on expanded checks until we can be assured that the 76000 rejected by the current system have been DEALT WITH…or else we’ll just have a new law and 100,000 rejected by the system and not dealt with.
How would mental health be defined though and to what level would the restrictions be? If a returning vet suffered from PTSD, for example, should they be restricted for life? 20 years? 10 years? 1 year? Case by case? If case by case, what would the standards be and who should set them to allow a returning vet his constitutionally protected right?
Also, regarding safeguards ensuring there is no database of registered gun owners, who can we trust and what accountability measures could be taken?
I agree, though that would require the ATF get its act together & they’re kind of a mess right now.
It would have to be case by case I would think, accountability could be something along the line of strict scrutiny, licensed psychiatrist must show compellingly interest as to why this person shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. Most PSTD sufferers aren’t a flashback away from a shooting spree.
There should be NO GUN laws whatsoever!Gun Laws apply ONLY to the law abiding!Ever seen a criminal worry about a gun law?Are these Laws going to affect the ‘elitists’?Smoke and mirrors.STOP falling for the Leftists garbage!
How the Heck do you get line breaks to work in the posts?
[br] doesn’t work!
<br> doesn’t work!
‘Criminals’ aren’t the ones who perpetrate the gun massacres…
Explain this one.
An obvious moment of truth from the Liberal. Criminals aren’t responsible. In their twists minds, :Law abiding gun owners are the criminals. Bad is good and good is bad…It’s the Liberal way.
Check your history…of the 60+ gun massacres that have occurred in the US in the last 20-30 years, only a couple were committed by people with prior criminal records. They are largely caused by otherwise law-abiding people who have either been suffering from a mental illness or who have snapped for one reason or another…
I know my history. They have broken the law by obtaining a weapon. It does not take a criminal history on paper to make someone a criminal. If they never get caught, they are still criminals. You are starting with a false premise.
Your knowledge is poor. Many of those massacres were committed with LEGALLY obtained weapons.
It is a red herring to bring up “criminals” when discussing gun control. Criminals with guns certainly commit crimes, but not the gun massacres like Sandy Hook…
Yes, the kid killing his mother to obtain the weapons was legal. Riiight.
Until he commenced that killing spree, he had no history of crime…just like the vast majority of gun massacre killers…
Any talk of gun control “not keeping guns out of the hands of criminals” is a red herring…
He killed his mother, do you dispute that? What gun law can prevent that? What law could possibly be passed that would prevent someone from killing another human being?
He has a history of mental illness, and psych meds, which he was not taking. It’s not a red herring.
Exactly. He was mentally ill - I already said that. The very free availability of weapons and the poor level of background checks means that people like him are too easily able to obtain the tools of their ‘trade’…
What part of killing his mother to obtain them, and that being a criminal act, are you not grasping?
By the way, the mass killings are about as likely to happen as a shark attack. Has beach going been banned? Are surfboards legal?
Even less common in areas where the populace is heavily armed. What we have an actual problem with are drug related killings, gangs and such. Many many more deaths involved there. They are most certainly done by criminals.
So we need background checks?
In the article, GOA states that doing background checks has bogged down the system so bad that it’s repeatedly shut down gun shows.
I’ve heard of that happening, but was unaware that it was so common. Is it?
Not that that matters where this particular bill is concerned, 'cuz I’d be against it anyway.
For starters, I’m not a cop, and I don’t even want to play one on t.v. It’s not my job to do LE’s work for them. Nor should it be a psychiatrist’s.
And as has been asked, define “mental disorder.” Does going to bereavement counselling count?