I don’t trust the folks who will define what is required to get you on the list in the first place not to keep moving the goal posts. You need to understand, if a serviceman checks yes on enough of the questions in the post deployment health screening he (or she) gets “directed” to see the Head Shrink. Is that “ordered to treatment’ according to the Act? First time a veteran who shoots someone is later found to have been in that situation, that will be the new criteria, and every single other veteran who was also sent will be disarmed.
Here’s an idea. Make the act self negating. The day after the rights restoration program fails to be funded (as was and is done now by Schumer etal) it and one other (1986 GCA (?)) act is repealed. No one should object to that since I’m certain (says NRA) that this time they won’t snatch the ball away at the last minute like Lucy does with Charlie Brown. Every time.
The problem with the NRA is that it is on the strategic defensive all the time. They let the Grabbers frame the argument after Virginia Tech. As a result the best they can hope for now is not to get screwed too badly this time around.
(1986 GCA (?)) There is no 1986 GCA. The 1986 legislation was the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It was a good bill, repealing the more egregious provisions of the '68 GCA (Maybe that's what you meant), such as having to show ID and sign a register when purchasing "handgun" ammunition(including .22 rim fire), and removing the provisions against interstate shipment of ammunition directly to a consumer, It also provided several protections for gun owners, such as the ability to transport firearms from one state where possession of them is legal to another where is also legal, never mind the laws of states or localities in between (with limitations on the conditions of transport).
The one bad feature, and it's truly awful, because it was the first outright *ban* of a whole class of firearms for civilians, was a last minute (literally) addition that many did not even know was in the bill and fewer yet understood. In fact it was so poorly worded it should not have changed anything, but it's being enforced as the author intended, not as the law actually reads.