Quote:
Originally Posted by iruinedyourday
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
In my opinion, you'll never get a Democrat to vote for a republican because the democratic nominee doesn't have the same stance on guns that the voter does, but you WILL get republicans voting for Bernie Sanders if he has a more centrist stance on the second amendment.
|
This.
And the talk about mandatory reporting of mental health treatment is too slippery of a slope. Like the other candidate said, these types of background checks are fine, but who ultimately decides who can have a gun and who can't?
For expediency reasons I think we can guess that these background checks would ultimately lead to being denied a firearm if you have any history of being in a protected section (Section 12, Section 5150). One of the questions that ATF special agents ask when conducting an interview is "Have you ever received mental health treatment of any kind?", "Have you ever been in a protected section?". I know this because I knew a guy who was being investigated as a potentially "prohibited possessor". He was able to DENY any history of these things to the special agent, because current privacy law PROTECTS him from guys like this, who's goal was only to take unilateral action as a Special Agent and happily add another name to the prohibited possessor database with absolutely no oversight, and no consideration aside from his narrow matter-of-fact questions.
As adults, we all know you can end up sectioned for expressing a certain feeling after a tough break-up with a girlfriend.
For this reason, as I know too many responsible adults who had relationship problems in their 20's, I am fully against mandatory reporting of mental health records and section history. ONLY IF these records would be used by the legislation to make a blind uninformed decision to deny the applicant the sale of a firearm.