Gun reform to me is mute. There are two sides of the fence that are outspoken while a very, very wide fence is silent. Prominent displays of the media keep this issue alive and well fueling those two sides of the fence. With reform in my IMO there are three elements:
For the purist those are at task not the issue of firearms. Firearms are the catalyst. Thus, the complexity of discussions regarding the 2nd amendment many times hidden are those three elements.
I am not going to argue gun control. I am only offering some things to ponder while for some is only fodder for debate.
For instance regarding mental health how does one constitute that? Today it is narrowly defined by federal law prohibiting gun ownership.
"Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.”
Adjudicated simply means the courts proclaim one a mental defect with cause. You don't have to be a criminal to receive that. 'Committed' is an involuntary stay at a mental institution. That means two are arguing and one is arrested. That person is taken in for a 24 hour observation per a law enforcement officers determination. Not a mental health professional. The end result is everything is okay. Alas, that was involuntary. What is the next step? Voluntary stay?
Perhaps anyone who enters professional therapy? Anytime you go to therapy for them to bill the insurance company they have to state a diagnosis with a code. Will the professional therapist have to report certain codes to the ATF and/or a state agency? Does that mean if you enter therapy on the form you fill out you will have give notice you own a firearm(s). After all if the wrong code it (they) will have to surrendered or confiscated. Next, is filling out the form for purchasing a gun. So, you have to state that you were in therapy and what it was for?
I am not able to fathom how that can be regulated while not relinquishing individual rights as a citizen.