[hunter112]

Yes, having Chuckie in favor of something makes it immediately suspect in my mind, but on the other hand, what would have been wrong with having the VT gunman's mental records in the system? Yes, he probably would have found a way to get a weapon anyway, but I was under the impression that most of my Second Amendment friends don't have a problem keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the insane.

If there's a flaw in this bill, perhaps someone will point it out, but on the surface of what I've read, I don't have a problem with it at this point...

[Eaker]

those who have been judged mentally defective are generally barred from purchasing weapons, and their names are placed in a database.

Owning over zero guns under a Clinton administration could put you on this database. So could not keeping your gun locked up at the range which is the only place that you can legally handle it could too.

Wanting to carry concealed could get you put away for life.

[Scotsman will be Free]

The “problem” is that currently, you have to be adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective. You know, due process. As I understand it, this bill will allow a “board, commission, or pyschiatrist” to judge you as a mental defective, and then you are toast.