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.
The National Conference of State Legislatures' website has a
handy table summarizing those reporting requirements for all 50 states.
However, I do have reservations about the part that deals with veterans:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Armorer-at-Law
Quote:
|
Sets up appeals process for veterans denied their Second Amendment rights
|
I'm all for this, but why give different treatment to veterans vs. non-veterans. Both (all) deserve due process.
|
Yes, they do. And I read that part of the amendment a bit differently from the way BR does: the effect of codifying an appeals process for veterans is to
legitimize the current system, under which, as I understand it, an in-house (VA) board can make the initial "adjudication."
I fail to see why veterans should face a greater burden than non-veterans in this regard: rather than having to appeal to a court after the fact, veterans should, like everyone else, be entitled to have a court do the adjudicating in the first place.