“Give law enforcement more authority to seize weapons and ammunition from those deemed mentally unfit or otherwise a threat;”
The issue is how is one deemed “mentally unfit” or otherwise a threat? Who determines that? A magistrate that hates guns someone else with “issues”? The law is intentionally written so vague that it pretty much allows the authorities to do anything that they want to do without due process...The potential for abuse is enormous - much like in authorities confiscating property with no due process, but by declaration. This is how bad laws make it on the books - right after a tragedy and based on emotion.
Back in the USSR mental illness was defined to arrest those who opposed the state.
News reports I heard suggested Scott might veto the bill because it allows teachers to have guns, something he said he doesn’t want.
I think the Second Amendment means non military and police people are entitled to have guns and protect themselves and others and that should include teachers in school.
If Scott vetoes because teachers can have guns in school for protection then we know where Scott stands on the Constitution.
He stands in the sewer.
“The issue is how is one deemed mentally unfit or otherwise a threat? “
That’s easy. They will just listen to your ex-wife. Or your liberal next door neighbor who’s dog keeps crapping in your yard.
The issue is how is one deemed mentally unfit or otherwise a threat?
I think this issue is why Obamacare had all the medical records online, so that eventually a government agency could search them. Any word deemed subversive on your file could become an excuse to take your guns away.