Brady152 points out that we have a strong interest in putting an end to school shootings so what is the sticking point with enhanced background checks.
The first problem is a generally incompetent State mental health system. Areas that should have and properly pay 100 or more psychiatrists or psychologists struggle along with one. Patients who need an hour a month of psyciatry are fortunate to get a half hour appointment once a year. Patients who need hospitalization find themselves years down on a waiting list. So without a major infusion of something the States are desperately short of before adding a “good order” ruling of mental incompetency can be added to the NICS system. MONEY!
I hope Brady152 realizes that what people say often obscures their intent. Keeping that in mind, the primary sticking point is that adding those adjudged insane should be clear our community has vested interest in preventing those whose mind is broken beyond repair away from the gun safe.
But, for plenty of good and sufficient reasons, we insist that all the forms and practices prescribed by the law, the “Due Process<" is followed. A competent clinician has examined the person and declared he or she to be unfit too possess a firearm. A court appearance must take place, in which a judge agrees, or does not agree, that the subject is an unfit gun owner. On the other hand, the gun ban industry says guns are so dangerous they must be confiscated from anyone even before they have been held for observation. And while the man's sanity hearing fades into the remote distance, his guns fade into the woodwork, and the whol process becomes more and more unconstitutional. We want the rull of law to prevail and due process to be followed in every case. The gun ban industry throws security out the window, and says "confiscate first, do the paperwork later." The difference amounts to the difference between the Law and Order society the Founders were trying to create, and the Autocracy Napoleon crated shortly after the French Revolution. Stranger