Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?
I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.
These are all laudable goals, but law-making bodies and the courts are not the proper entities to address the issue of mental illness and guns, where to seek through the legislative process to address that problem is to potentially violate the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the fundamental right to due process.
Background checks are Constitutional because citizens were afforded due process before their criminal records are placed in the database, the check itself doesn't manifest an undue burden, it's rationally based, has objective, documented evidence in support of its efficacy, and pursues a proper legislative end, as it's applied to everyone equally.
That's not the case with requiring a gun owner to pass a mental health test to justify his possession of firearms, absent evidence that he indeed might suffer from mental illness, while not affording him due process to compel the state to produce evidence of his mental illness that the citizen can challenge in a fair hearing.
