It's not obvious from where you are getting the notion that I am making any recommendations regarding mental stability or how to measure it. I am not. Why? Because we already have an apparatus instituted by our fellow citizens to determine whether a person is or is not incompetent, or if a person is so deranged that the general population needs to be protected from him/her as regarding firearms and/or ammunition, or of components of either.
That apparatus is called the judicial system, whether federal courts or state Superior courts; and where inhibiting a person's liberty is based on behavioral evidence and the recommendation of state-licensed "experts," on a case-by-case investigation, for judging the fitness of a person who might seem to be a bit odd, in reference to firearms, ammunition, or any component thereof. Neither you nor I have any influence of such decisions if we are not deemed qualified to do so.
What I am saying is that what is, is. If you don't like what is, do your best (respecting the rights and liberty of others) to change it. But don't try castigating me for only describing what exists, nor of mentioning the laws, ordinances, and regulations that we must accommodate, whether liking it or not.
What you might do is read up a little on "the Durkheim constant," which tries to estimate the range of behaviors that can be tolerated before a "deviancy" will no longer be tolerated. That limit is set by the laws, enforcement, applications, and traditions that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people have presented to us. In the end, beware of the philosophy of former Justice Charles Evans Hughes:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
The application of our judicial system to a person's behavior is such that the person's having ever been involuntarily commitmented to a psychiatric institution is the limit beyond which the person may not lawfully touch, handle, buy, sell, transport, own, possess, or use firearms, ammunition, or appurtenances thereto, in the interest and welfare of the general population; whether or not the person is currently incarcerated.
No matter whether you or I may agree or disagree on the principle, that is the law.
Deal with it.
No. We know what “is”. The current legal fiction only stands if you discard the document that created it in the first place.
While you are apparently willing to use whatever tortured legal word smithing in common vogue to uphold the status quo, the rest of us a rightfully fed up with it.
Morons like you take a prefatory clause like “general welfare” and use it to prop up Socialist welfare and illegal expansions of Federal power.
We are not putting up with your BS any more.
Deal with it troll...