[tpaine]

It isn't once in a while that a madman beats our system. It is almost continuously.

Remember the guy who shot up the Jewish community center in Granada Hills, California a few years ago, scoring many points for the gun control crowd? He actually tried to get himself into a mental hospital, but a judge refused to listen to his talk about mass murder, and released him, rather than hospitalized him.

-- the point of my article was that a doctor doesn't have the power to decide if you are mentally incompetent. The entire process of involuntary commitment has become extremely hard since the 1970s. As much as I disapprove of what the ACLU has done to commitment law, the net effect is that it takes a due process conformant hearing to lose your right to own a gun now because of supposed mental defect.

Fine. You don't want or trust doctors or judges to have the commitment power. Neither do I. -- Who then should have the power to [in effect], prohibit our right to own and carry weapons?

[claytoncramer]

Fine. You don't want or trust doctors or judges to have the commitment power. Neither do I. -- Who then should have the power to [in effect], prohibit our right to own and carry weapons? Actually, I do want judges to have that power. They don't use that power very much now--too many of them thought One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was a documentary.

The government has always had the power to disarm people who were a danger to others. Convicted violent felons. Do they have that power? Of course.

Can the government prohibit sales of handguns to 10 year olds? Of course.

Can the government prohibit sales of guns to people who have a history of violent mental illness? Of course--and they have that authority under current law. This bill doesn't change that power--it only encourages the states to report that information so that the background check will catch more of those with mental illness commitments.