"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...

Which doesn't exclude fine-tuning the law to reduce such incidents.
After
the Virginian Tech massacre the NRA endorsed the background check system
being changed so someone a judge considers a danger to himself and others
and orders to undergo psychiatric treatment will be prevented from
purchasing firearms.

Which is largely BS because for the most part these records are sealed
by Federal and state law.

Laws which can be changed, that surely is the point. Requiring schools
that expel someone for violent or threatening behavior to have to report
that and a judge would rule on adding that person to the no-guns list also
seems worth exploring--again, they could challenge that later. Over and
over we see these cases where someone offered plenty of signs they were
heading for a serious crackup, and nobody did anything.

This Arizona case suggests to me that if someone is
rejected by the Army on psych grounds (if that's what happened) then
maybe
that too should put someone on the list.

Same problems. You will note that the information was leaked and the
Army rep said they couldn't comment. Also, FWIW, the Army turned him
down for a dirty urine drop, NOT for psych reason, at least according to
the reports.

That's why I said *if* he had been rejected on psych grounds, but the point
is that if the Army doesn't want someone because he's dangerously unstable
then maybe we should be paying attention to that. BTW, military psych
discharges already appear on the firearms purchase background check,
although the law was altered a couple of years ago to make it so appeals are
easier.