I haven't paid attention to all the details in the Loughner case, but my understanding was that everyone knew he was crazy, but no one had reported it. So he passed the existing background check. I'm not sure what sort of enhanced background check is being proposed, but I agree that Loughner (obviously) was not a good choice for a license.
“but no one had reported it”
It was reported, the sheriff didn’t do his job because Loughner was the son of a friend.
He had some minor juvenile arrests, IIRC. Those records should have been flagged when he was ordered to have a psych exam before returning to college.
Too many people knew he was crazed.
My God. I can't believe it. I'm not defending Loughner or anyone, but government has no legitimate business licensing ANYBODY to keep and bear firearms.
I go on record right here and right now saying that the "prohibited person" category is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and maybe the whole Brady background check. The state can take someone's right away to carry a gun WHEN THEY COMMIT A CRIME, and after due process, and not before. Anything else is an encroachment to freedom.