This was an article from "The Huffington Post."
The article outlined some of President Obama's plans to strengthen background checks. According to "The Huffington Post,"
"According to materials provided by the White House, some states have raised concerns about ambiguous wording that makes it difficult to determine who should be barred from purchasing a gun. The first proposed rule change, by the Department of Justice, expands the definition of the statutory term 'committed to a mental institution' to clarify that the prohibition on firearms purchases applies to people subjected to involuntary outpatient as well as inpatient commitments.
"The rule also clarifies that 'adjudicated as a mental defective' and 'committed to a mental institution' include persons who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect; persons lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane; and persons found guilty but mentally ill, regardless of whether these determinations are made by a state, local, federal or military court."
The article also mentioned that a White-House official told "The Huffingtion Post" that this is only the first step in a series of actions designed to combat gun violence. The official brought their attention to "a recent move to spend $100 million on mental health services."
I think this is a great move by the President to not only do something about gun violence, but to do so in a compromising manner. When I read this, I thought of Kyle's recent suggestion that stiffer background checks would be a better solution to gun violence than revoking gun rights. The article in which he suggests so can be found here.
I agree that increasing the ability to differentiate between a responsible gun-owner and a erratic, potentially violent person would be valuable, regardless of your position on gun-control. While I do recognize the nebulous nature of psychological illness, I think that we still haven't pushed gun-restrictions to match the full capacity of our knowledge (albeit, limited) of what defines mental illness.
Either way, I feel like the White House has been too quiet as of late, even with regards to other issues. I am pleased that the President is acting, whether or not his actions are effective.
Comments are appreciated.
I completely agree with you, Noah. I think that the best solution is not to take away guns, but to create better background checks. I think this is a step in the right direction. However, I do think that we need to be careful that we become too restrictive in the future. I think often it can be easy to slowly be, maybe, poisoned by degrees, until it is too late to realize you are dead. I don't think this is such an action, I do just want to keep a cautious eye on those that are restriction rights in any ways.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Tanner. I think that too much federal intervention into the private sector is a bad precedent.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this was more of an executive re-definition than restrictions. Frankly, I think that the Obama Administration just aligned the restrictions with common sense.
I totally agree with all that has been said. My 30-year old nephew is a guns aficionado, and i am pretty sure that even he would agree that these measures are good ideas. I am also sure that he would agree that too much restriction can be more of a problem than a solution, and so do i. It makes it hard to protect yourself from people that have acquired guns illegally. We need to be careful how strict we allow our restrictions to get.
ReplyDelete