It's already illegal for the mentally ill to own guns. There WILL be stronger laws to ensure it does not happen. As there should be. Instead of burying our heads in the sand and pretending the problem does not exist this is an opportunity for the pro gun side to pass laws that prevent the mentally ill from getting guns, and getting them out of their hands if they become mentally ill after they legally purchased them. And at the same time ensuring that the law is not abused as you claim.
If we sit on our hands and continue to let anti-gunners control the debate and propose all of the laws written the way they want them we WILL get laws we don't want.
I will assume that your views are well meant and honest.
Do you then believe that some new laws that further restrict citizens' rights to keep and bear arms based on new mental health standards will appease those who do not believe guns should be in the hands of private citizens, at all?
Because those who are most in favor of gun control will not be satisfied until private citizens may not possess guns. And the upset, uptight suburban women most vocal in supporting new laws to keep guns out of the hands of "the mentally ill" have no idea what they are talking about and whether it will be effective. They are scared. They don't want their babies killed in school. And they are being exploited by people who are well aware that "assault weapon" bans, universal background checks and new "mental health restrictions" on gun ownership will not stop public place shootings. In fact, the exploiters are pleased that this is so. Because when new laws are adopted and they don't work, there will be grounds to demand even more new restrictions.
You seem to imagine that gun control advocates are capable of compromise. They are capable only of the tactical advance. Take ground as and when possible. Consolidate. Soften up the opposition again. Advance. They do not compromise. They rest and reinforce.
As you note, the law already bars those who have been adjudicated mentally ill from owning firearms. So what you are advocating is that the grounds for adjudication of mental illness must be expanded and that it must be made easier to adjudicate someone as dangerously mentally ill. And yet several posters above have made well communicated cases that doing so can only be done at the certain risk of many who present no risk to society being stripped of their rights. Why do you ignore this? Why do you believe that housands of innocent people should be stripped of their rights in an ineffective effort to save the lives of the fewer than 100 people per year that are killed in mass shootings?
If the saving of lives by stripping innocents of their rights is just in your view, would you also support laws banning ownership of firearms by African-American males under 40? I would not, but given that almost half of gun homicides are committed by this demographic, it would meet your criteria of saving lives, a goal greater than protecting individual rights. If saving lives justifies almost any laws, then would you also support banning anyone who has ever used alcohol from owning or operating a motor vehicle? After all, drunk driving homicide and manslaughter are the leading preventable cause of deaths among under 14 year olds in America. And far more children are killed in this manner every year than are killed in mass shootings.
So you see, it appears on further consideration that those who are demanding more laws to stop that which is already forbidden are in fact burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that the laws being proposed will not solve the alleged problem, that the problem does not justify the measures being proposed, and that those proposing new tougher laws are being exploited by those for whom abolition of private gun ownership is the only "solution", and are unaware or prepared to ignore the consequences of such "new, tougher laws".
You are not wrong to be angry about and indeed afraid of mass shootings. You are reasonable to want "something" done about it. But if you are a responsible person, you must consider what that "something" means and how it will impact others. Can you possibly imagine that a government program to expand mental health screening and determine new, expanded thresholds for using "mental health" to strip people of their rights (because if you think the government labeling someone "mentally unfit to own firearms" will only impact their Second Amendment rights, you are mistaken) will not be subject to abuse, will not mis-label and ruin the lives of thousands of innocent people each year and will not be ineffective in stopping people who want to kill others for fame and bizarre personal agendas? Are you familiar with the criminal justice system? Are you familiar with the foster care system? Have you been to the Dept of Motor Vehicles since 1955? Can you possibly imagine that this government run program to screen and convict the "mentally ill" will work? That its failings, excesses, abuses and costs will be offset by its ability to save some of the fewer than 100 people a year that are killed in mass shootings? I cannot.