I understand your concerns - I am probably more libertarian than most. However, when it comes to the purchase of deadly weapons, it is almost a duty to society to protect us from ourselves as much as we can without taking away personal liberties in the process. There is nothing preventing your average American with no criminal record or court ordered mental illness evaluation from purchasing a weapon given an average waiting period in most states (there are a couple of exceptions and Alaska comes to mind). Preventing the purchase of a deadly weapon by an individual undergoing court ordered psychiatric evaluation or treatment is reasonable. My concern would be not that he cannot purchase a weapon while that is the case, but rather, how does the system get updated? What if he/she completes his evaluation and is determined to be of sound mind? How does his/her name get taken off the list? How private are the lists? The name search should come back rejected whether it is due to a felony or court ordered psychiatric evaluation so privacy can be accounted for. I don't know if the new guidelines in VA are sufficient or not at this time, but to be fair, most new policies do undergo a period where all of the kinks in the system are ironed out. I would like to see it given the time and opportunity to do so. I would like to add the requirement for training by a licensed and approved training facility (for new purchases and license renewals) as a requirement as well. Anyone already knowledgable in firearm handling and usage (such as yourself) would breeze through the training and it makes even more sense than driver training if you think about it.







>>>>The executive order does not apply to people who voluntarily seek mental treatment. Kaine said such an action might discourage people from seeking mental help.
>>>
>>>That was exactly my point, although I didn't put it in such a summarized form. I think that is a reasonable order then, unless I think of another angle that ticks me off. ;-)
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>You seem to keep focusing on this mental health thing, because you took meds in the past. Now I'm sure you're all perfectly normal and rational but this debate is not about you. It's about nutters offing people with firearms, and where to draw the line at issuing firearms. In a way, your position is just as the gun lobbyist, directly from YOUR personal corner. Just as NIMBYs resist the installation of a garbage incinerator near their houses so you resist any talk of restricting gun ownership if it touches your own mental health issue.
>>
>>Talk on this forum is not going to end up as law so you might as well stop defending "yourself" and look at the longer picture.
>>
>>It strikes me that most of these massacres are by mentally deranged kids who end up taking their own lives, so we never know, but one thing seems certain - they are seriously unhappy, depressed and at odds with the world. So, if someone is taking, or has taken meds for depression, then it only stands to reason that they may well be a liablity (yourself excluded of course)
>>
>>My two penn'orth :-)
>>
>>(don't hate me!)
>
>I have said in the past that if restrictions like these come into effect then it will be a slippery slope. What happens if another incident happens with the restrictions in place? They become more restrictive.