I’m curious what one of the few sane pro-gun people I know (Tyr) thinks about this.
I’ve been (stupidly) assuming that this was part of some larger bill that was actually sensical, but no, the gun lobbies are just worried about old mentally ill people who can legally not handle their own finances being able to buy guns.
It’s complex, but I’m glad you brought it up because I’ve been annoyed today seeing it in the news painted by the media as “WOW REPUBLICANS BASICALLY HAND GUNS TO INSANE KILLERS?!”
The intent of the bill is to keep mentally ill people from owning guns, which seems reasonable to me. Sure.
The issue is that the brush they use is a broad one. So it’s not just potentially dangerous people who are affected: it could be someone who is normal in every other way, but is so dyslexic that they can’t balance a checkbook. Just because you can’t handle your finances doesn’t mean you’re a potential danger to those around you.
Here’s a good article that I feel represents both sides well: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
I also worry that laws like this with no real clear definition as to what constitutes “mentally ill/incompetent” will keep people from seeking help they need.
To me, this falls into the realm of a band-aid bill, like the border wall, which have been increasingly annoying me lately. They do very little to address actual issues and instead just look to me like ways politicians can say “look, I did something!”
It’s also the failing with many of the “common sense” gun controls people bring up. Is it common sense not to sell a gun to a person diagnosed with ASPD and narcissism? Of course. Is it common sense to deny gun ownership to a broad group of people purely because for some reason they can no longer handle their own finances? Eh. I think that’s a very grey area and could border on discrimination. The criteria for what constitutes mentally ill isn’t defined enough in my opinion to warrant this kind of action against all who fall into the category.