Judged:

1

1

1

I see a lot of concentration on the pro-gun side for mental health as part of the background check. Sure, who can dispute mentally incompetent people should not have guns. But who decides and how is it handles? I see no dialog about how to do that rationally. It may be a bigger and easier to use stick than anything else in the background check department. And firearm ownership in general.

I have seen posts (not sure of their validity) about how NY state is approaching this. Ever been to a mental health practitioner, had an anti-depressant or other drugs in the last 10 years. Then there is the Feinstein idea that all veterans are mentally damaged and should not have guns. Do you realize just how many of our citizens would fail indiscriminate checks like that. And how many consider that to be "common sense" efforts. Boy I am sick of that phrase!

We need to be paying attention to not "throwing the antis a bone to keep thm quiet" when we may just be handing them the very stick they want. There needs to be serious constraints on the mental health angle. NY is just crazy (hmmm - so the state government should not have guns?). There are privacy issues out the wazoo. And the parameters of failure or pass must be intelligently defined and publicly reviewed. If you neighbor says you are crazy - is that a fail on the check; or is there a structured and rational way of handling such accusations. Does a SWAT team show up at your house after the report? Public reporting has a part in the process; but only professionally moderated. It can easilly become the sort of environment we have seen in Hitler's Germany and the old Soviet Union to name just a couple. With people reporting other people for personal reasons or to gain rewards.