Mentally unfitness for gun ownership is currently defined by Federal Law 118 U.S. C. par. 922(g)(4) and this is to which I referred. A person in a mental hospital only for observation or self-admitted does not come under this prohibition.
This may help allay your fears. I, too, am concerned as to what may be attempted under Executive Order without legislation. But right now, James Holmes own mother would have found it almost impossible to have her adult son committed no matter how odd he might seem. Consider the John DuPont who drove his M114 armored personnel carrier over to his neighbor's house, and asked him to come out and play. John DuPont later shotgunned his personal trainer, but defense claims of legal insanity were rejected.
We have firm protections of individual liberty in place, and yes, they could be altered -- but not as easily as you might think.
We will always be faced with the conundrum that degree of liberty is a statistical problem. That was addressed somewhat by Emile Durkheim, the "father of social science," and popularized by Moynihan in defining how we view deviant behavior. How do you suggest we define it other than by the standards our legislators and courts provide? And how shall we redefine deviancy up or down, rather than leave it alone? Who ought to do the defining?
I certainly hope that it is not left up to the Executive branch to determine!
Respectfully --
Where in Art 1 Sec 8 does it give the FedGov power to even include a Section like 922 in it’s Code of Law?
Take your time we’ll wait...