I do agree he wanted the loophole changed and l agree with that. However, a gun is a commodity just like a car unfortunately, so who can tell a seller in Tennessee for example, he can't sell his gun to his neighbor. Our disdain doesn't over-ride the RIGHT to bear arms. You can try to legislate it ( we have straw purchase laws in Philly), but the exchanges just go underground or laws get circumvented.
As for mental illness, what defines it in this day and age? It is cut and dried schizophrenia and bipolar? Or does it include a bout with depression or PTSD?
The slope is too slippery, and to deny, for example, a young mother who's being abused and suffers from depression as a result, the need to buy gun to protect her and her family from an estranged, stalking, threatening boyfriend is unfair.
People will always get around the system or the system will become so restrictive that the Second Amendment becomes basically toilet paper. Which is how the Left do things. Create so many laws you end up like NY and NJ.
The Sudanese Church coverage paled in comparison to others. It was a predominantly White Church.
We agree it can be a slippery slope, and criminals will break the law no matter what laws we pass, but closing the loophole, would
not, remove the right to bear arms, just require people to register and provide more tracking information, again most Americans, by a large margin, approve of closing this loophole.
As far as the mental illness proposal from President Obama, it would only have affected a small % of people with mental challenges, and did provide an option for them to
still be able to legally purchase a gun.
What was the rule?
The regulation,
finalized in December under Obama's tenure, required the Social Security Administration to disclose information quarterly to the national gun background check system about certain people with mental illness.
While the list of eligible mental disorders is long -- ranging from anxiety to eating disorders to schizophrenia --those who would have been reported by the agency had to meet two main criteria: a) They were receiving full disability benefits because of a mental illness and couldn't work and b) they were unable to manage their own benefits, thus needing the help of a third party to do so.
The Obama administration estimated that the new rule would have affected roughly 75,000 individuals annually.
And according to a report by the Office of the Inspector General at the Social Security Administration, 81,000 disability awardees would have met the criteria in fiscal year 2015, which amounts to about
9% of the total disability awardee population.
Those affected would have been notified both orally and in writing that they could potentially be prevented from buying a gun.
Such individuals would have been allowed to request a relief from any firearm prohibitions if they could show evidence that they didn't pose a risk to public safety.
