Someone might want to buy Paul a clue… like the fact that the NRA worked dilligently to make this legislation extremely friendly to the law-abiding. I especially liked this part:
Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans’ mental health. Instead, the bill just uses the same terms as in the Gun Control Act , thereby leaving interpretation of the terms to the courts rather than to BATFE.
That’s right folks: consistent laguage. Imagine that!
Like all other gun-control measures, despite it’s good intentions and good people fighting to make it more “fair” to the law-abiding, it worries me a little. People will tell me, “there’s lots of ‘common sense’ in there, Jimmy,” but that’s not any more reassuring. When it comes to our Constitutional rights, the burden should always be on those we have chosen to represent us as to why any one of those right be infringed upon… especially the one that “shall not be infringed”.
Do I think the mentally ill/incompetent should have access to firearms? No. But there are disparate movements out there always moving the goalposts on what constitutes mental illness, infirmaties, and/or unfitness. And that alone can affect more issues than just gun ownership, as well.
I suppose I find some comfort in the provisions that provide processs for error correction, purging/correction of outdated/false/incorrect records, and limited time for the government to respond to your requests.
Gun Owners of America shares my concerns.
A big “thank you” to Senator Tom Coburn for fighting the good fight, ALONE I might add, against The Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, The Brady Campaign, Sen. Carolyn McCarthy, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and the
Cape Cod Orca Sen. Ted Kennedy.