Having the gubment decide is not a ‘potential pitfall’ - it’s the plan.
My thoughts exactly, it’s “the plan”.
Bringing mental health issues into the debate is a necessary part of any attempt at a “solution” , going forward, but the real fear is that the “screening” will be enmesh millions in an intimidating bureaucratic nightmare, with definitions of who is “unstable” likely to change as often as the definitions of “assault weapons”.Remember, this kind of strategy can only work if parts of it are kept “open” and “undefined” for as long as they can reasonably keep them that way-—the overall objective is to introduce new or prospective gunowners into a process where they will be fearful of being “judged” as unstable, and might be pushed INTO acting unstable. Background checks too, can suffer the same fate-—they can easily grow into soft police-state tactics, and subject appellants to as strict a process as if they were applying or a ten million dollar loan, rather than a permit to buy a gun/
So the real thing to watch is THIS process, the excruciatingly delayed and undefined collection of imponderables, that will play out in the public realm, and will position the gun-grabbers to make the kinds of laws they ideally want to make.