Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vanya
I don't see much that's troubling in the mental health provisions of the amendment. There's nothing there that changes who is defined as a prohibited person: someone "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." Given that standard, improving mental health reporting seems a good thing. And I don't read it as a blanket permission for mental health professionals to report people directly to NICS, but rather to clarify that privacy concerns don't trump the reporting requirements already in place at the state level.
|
My concern is that as written, the language is broad and subject to interpretation. Since there is already better and more precise language in S.480 that is more specific, I don't see the point in accepting this one.
S.480 deal with the veteran's issue better too. Instead of making veterans appeal their denial, it says that you cannot add someone to NICS for mental health issues unless you:
1. Were found to be a danger to yourself or others
2. Adjudicated at a hearing where you were afforded due process and allowed an opportunity for counsel
3. You were involuntarily committed (not for temporary observation).
Sadly, there are parts of the country where all three of those requirements are not necessary for you to lose your Second Amendment rights.