18 U.S.C. §922(g), states that “It shall be unlawful for any person…who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” to own a firearm.
Actually, gun prohibitions under the Gun Control Act of 1968, from which Section 922 comes, requires less than ownership. It prohibits possession of a gun no matter who owns it. If you are a person not prohibited but you knowingly allow a prohibited person to even touch a gun, you have violated this Federal law. It’s a felony, by the way.
The form a gun buyer must fill out and attest to asks whether he or she has been “adjudicated” mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. The answer must be “no” or they don’t get the gun. Lying on the Form 4473 is also a federal felony.
Nikolas Cruz must have answered that question with a “no” or he would not have been able to purchase his AR-15. I assume he had never been “adjudicated” or committed so his answer was truthful.
Liberals who hate guns and gun owners want to change the law so as to not require an adjudication or involuntary commitment to make someone a prohibited person under Federal law. They don’t ever say what standard they would substitute, if any. Therein lies the problem. Without some objective criteria such as adjudication or commitment a huge opportunity for abuse will arise.
Just because someone thinks some other person is crazy shouldn’t be enough to take away a natural right that is protected the Constitution. They should be forced to produce evidence that would convince a reasonable person that you cannot be trusted with a firearm. That evidence would need to be cross examined and submitted to disinterested neutral persons for decision, i.e., adjudicated.
Obama attempted, by way of executive order, to add a new category to 18 U.S.C. §922(g), without Congressional action. Leftists are now falsely claiming that Obama’s order would have stopped Nikolaus Cruz if only Trump had not reversed it soon after taking office. It’s all a big fat lie.
Obama attempted to attach gun prohibition to any social security recipient who happened to have a third party appointed to handle his or her financial affairs. This shows brightly and starkly the sort of abuse that would occur if the law did not require either adjudication or involuntary commitment before denial of the right to purchase a gun.
Having someone else appointed to handle one’s financial affairs does not, by itself, support a conclusion that one is so dangerous as to justify infringing their fundamental natural and legal rights under the Constitution. The sort of mental difficulty that might need help in handling financial affairs are numerous. They can range from autism to eating disorders. Most don’t have anything to do with violent tendencies. If Obama’s over reaching had been allowed to become hallowed law it would have been just the beginning for more of the same. Abuser must abuse.
Lots of people of advanced age would like to have a trusted friend or relative handle some or all of their financial affairs. Old people are especially vulnerable to financial fraud and trickery. Bunko schemes abound to relieve them of their money. It is especially tragic when an oldster is conned out of their life savings. Why not have someone you trust at least look over your shoulder in such matters?
Old people, especially those who live alone, are also more vulnerable to criminal attack, often in their own homes. There are daily reports across the United States of some old person in their 80s or 90s repelling a home invasion with a firearm. What kind of a politician wants to leave them helpless to criminals?
The Obama kind, that’s what kind. But not the Donald Trump kind, may we be thankful.