Been lurking here awhile, and have a few thoughts/questions.
I worked for a while in a mental hospital in Maryland. First thought, whenever a patient was released, it was always done after a doctor decided the patient was not a danger to themselves or others. So would a doctor then be saying, in these new laws, etc., that yes, they pose not threat, but shouldn't own a gun?
Also, they never ask patients about whether they own guns, (or will this be a standard question? and will patients learn to always answer no? and will it matter what the answer is?) so would the doctor then tell local police that they are not a threat to anyone's safety, which is why I am releasing them, and I don't know if they own guns or ever have, but don't think they should have them, and then the police go search the patients home for weapons and confiscate them if they find any?
Secondly, the issue of definition of mental illness, as stated before, is a blurry mess. And what happens to the loving person whose spouse/child/etc suddenly dies in an accident, has a nervous breakdown, however minor, and spends a few days being evaluated in the local hospitals psyc ward, maybe even given some medication, and then released? Are they forever labled a mental health patient? We saw this all the time at the hospital, people come in feeling and stating they are suicidal, or want to kill someone in revenge, etc while angry/depressed/etc then settle down, come to grips with what has happened, and are released.
I mention this last after reading some articles about SAFE act in NY, where if, supposedly, you have taken certain drugs listed on some mysterious list, as a mental health drug, you can have your guns taken away. The drugs, and variants of common drugs are constantly changing, and many are very mild. The thought of perfectly normal people whom have had some history of needed those drugs, even on only one occasion, could stay with them forever once they are labled as mental patients.
Anyway, done rambling....
