I wrote to him asking him to clarify several points. Are range/LGS owners supposed to act as mental health professionals and screen people and/or would the LGS folks be held liable if they didn't? Wouldn't this be "profiling"? Suppose a (pick your race) person comes in to the LGS acting unbalanced (and that may just be baiting) is denied a purchase at the discretion of the LGS because of this screening then sues said LGS for racist profiling and the LGS gets shut down. How very convenient.
He talks about licensing and how we should have to show proficiency with our guns. How is that supposed to work w/ 80 million+ gun owners and 350 million or so guns out there? We all know there are bolt actions, pumps, etc all which operate a bit diffierntly. What would constitute proficiency, who is the judge of that, where is the $ for that going to come? "
" In households with unlicensed individuals, gun owners must keep their firearms under lock and key." Well my wife has no interest in guns and some of my occasional house guests do not either. They are not goiing to be getting a license. So then even though no children ever visit my home am I then under order to keep my guns locked up? That would be very inconvenient in trying to stop a home invasion.
"Congress should decide whether the most dangerous types of weapons and ammunition should be held to higher ownership, licensing and security standards than other firearms"
I thought all weapons are dangerous? Sounds like the infringemnt clause of the 2nd amendment will be trashed.
"This is not a simple problem with a single solution. Each of these steps would balance rights and responsibilities, limit access to the most dangerous weapons, promote responsible gun ownership" No disrespect to the senator, but that is just magical thinking.
"and address the woeful lack of mental health services across the nation"
THAT was the only part of his statement that made good sense. Criminals and crazy people are not going to be prevented from unleashing mayhem under any of his other proposed principles. His statements were so vague that I thought perhaps it was written just to placate the unthinking that he's actually doing something about the situation when he knows full well that actually implementing these ideas is unconstitutional, dangerous and ineffective. There are enough folks w/o critical thinking skills that would believe this would work.
I find it hard to believe that someone intelligent enough to be a senator could actually believe that this scheme would work to control gun violence; they are fully aware that these methods would work well to control people and that I feel is their endgame.
