The problem I have with the law is the people determining what justifies someone with mental illness. Who gets to make that decision, and how do we ensure it isn't weaponized to disarm someone? I'm all for disarming someone if they are truly mentally ill (like the person in the article seemed to be).
Just remember that traditionally across the globe, governments have a habit of declaring anyone who opposes their regime as being mentally ill. Which demonstrates why there needs to be clear professional medical guidelines.
This is a tough issue. Liberals consider a vast list of things to constitute "threatening behavior." This man may have been a time bomb or he might have been a guy who liked to open carry. With a .25 semi auto pistol, ie one step above a cap gun. We should be very wary of giving liberal judges and police departments the ability to seize your guns because a few neighbors don't like you. These well-intentioned laws have a way of getting distorted beyond all comprehension. Remember when dumbass President Bush backed the Americans With Disabilities Act because it was wrong to discriminate against people in wheelchairs? Now we have judges forcing businesses to accommodate every nutcase weirdo you can imagine on the grounds they are handicapped.
Wrong, we live in a Constitutional Republic & Governed by Constitutional Law & our system of Law is Based on Majority Rule...When you take the Pledge of Allegiance you Pledge to the Republic of The U.S.A. Not To A Democracy. Just think we have leaders in both Government & Private Industry-MSM & Professors in College`s & University`s who still insists we live in a Democracy but this Shows the Sorry State of Affairs in the U.S.A. & just think the Tax Payers have to Pay for Most of it.