I would rather suffer the injustices of too much liberty than not enough.
Limiting gun ownership because of mental issues is a slippery slope. Remember now, the Left would consider many of us on this board bat shit crazy.
There is just no way to know exactly who is going to snap and who isn't. Some are easy to judge, but a system that had stopped the recent California killer would be way too overreaching in my opinion.
Until mind reading technology is perfected we are very limited on diagnosing those that intend to do harm to others.
the govt defines mental illness these days and we know they don't like guns. soon, your voter registration will determine if you're mentally ill or not.
the govt defines mental illness these days and we know they don't like guns. soon, your voter registration will determine if you're mentally ill or not.
Then they are going to have flip the current definition of insane or they would disqualify every liberal.
the govt defines mental illness these days and we know they don't like guns.
soon, your voter registration will determine if you're mentally ill or not.
We know crazy people don't vote.
From my secret cel phone the NSA doesn't track !
Is it not against existing law to make public threats to harm or kill people, and to make terroristic threats to harm or kill a lot of people?
sadly, i dont see that happening. the pendulum has swung hard to the left in this country. I don't see pro-abortion groups being audited and forced to hand over their donor lists.
it was a mental illness in the USSR to be against it. that will happen here, too.
This is, potentially, the most real-world useful response to the OP. Trouble is, I may just be a dunderhead but I can't figure out where to go from that URL to find the actual text of the proposed new rule.
Regulations.govThis is, potentially, the most real-world useful response to the OP. Trouble is, I may just be a dunderhead but I can't figure out where to go from that URL to find the actual text of the proposed new rule.
Help?
I think you might mean Apparently not enforced. Plus, it might be hard to enforce against unknown actors using screen names.Apparently not.
In addition, the Department proposes amending the definition of “committed to a mental institution” to clarify that involuntary commitment to a mental institution includes both inpatient and outpatient treatment. ATF has received inquiries as to whether the definition applies to involuntary outpatient treatment. Although the term “committed to a mental institution” is not defined in 18 U.S.C. 922, the plain language of the statute incorporates both inpatient and outpatient commitments as the statute requires commitment to a mental institution, not commitment in a mental institution. See United States v. B.H., 466 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1147 (N.D. Iowa 2006). Mental institutions include mental health facilities and the auxiliary mental health services provided through those facilities.
Furthermore, ATF has received inquiries as to whether commitments of persons under the age of 18 are qualifying commitments to a mental institution. ATF is considering clarifying whether the term “committed to a mental institution” includes a commitment that occurred when the person was under the age of 18. ATF seeks comments on this option and solicits recommendations for other approaches.
Persons are not considered to have been “committed to a mental institution” as a result of a voluntary admission to a mental institution or a temporary admission for observation unless the temporary admission for observation turns into a qualifying commitment as a result of a formal commitment by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. As previously noted, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 provides that adjudications and commitments by a federal agency may not be reported to NICS when the adjudication or commitment is expunged, or when other criteria are met.