“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.
No one is judged "a tiny threat. It's a distinction that does not exist in the law. It's just another loaded phrase the GOA peppered its press release with.
I assume you left out a "not" above -- and I agree, but his history wasn't in the system. It should have been, and this bill clarifies that.