Nope. Sure don't want to disarm folks who are legally determined to pose "a tiny threat" to themselves or others.
Nope. Sure don't want to disarm folks who are legally determined to pose "a tiny threat" to themselves or others.
From the NRA:
Among the numerous improvements contained in H.R. 2640 are:
Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms.
Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.
Excluding federal decisions about a person’s mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision is intended to address concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform.
Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish “relief from disability” programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.
Ensuring—as a permanent part of federal law—that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade. While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire.
Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misused for unrelated purposes.
This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. NRA will continue to work throughout the process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally incompetent are included in the system.
If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any adverse amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!
One — Your sample was no veteran.
He was a documented mental case who had slipped through the “system”.. He should never have permitted to buy a gun LEGALLY.
Two — this guy knew no one on campus would be armed to oppose him.
Three - Folks like you love to take a case where ALL the existing systems failed - and wish to expand upon those failed systems...
Your chosen “name” — ReignOfError is well chosen.
So much better to disarm all the law abiding people, so when one one of these nutjobs, or criminals, do get a gun (they don't obey really important laws, like those against robbery, rape and murder), they have a safe "work environment" aka "unarmed victims zone". That worked real well at Va. Tech.
“Sure don’t want to disarm folks who are legally determined to pose “a tiny threat” to themselves or others.”
He wasn’t judged a tiny threat. He was deemed dangerous and should have had his ability to purchase weapons restricted based on CURRENT law.
I agree; we need to disarm women that are going through postnatal depression, women that still have their monthly cycles, gun owners (from the view of hoplophobiacs & tyrants), christians (from the view of muslims), etc.