More time, more discretion: Changes to gun permit law spurred by tragedy in Buffalo
More than two years after a man with a documented mental illness opened fire inside a Minnesota healthcare clinic, the state is changing a law that police say could have kept him from buying the gun.
The shooting at the Allina Health Buffalo Crossroads clinic in February 2021 killed a young mother and injured four other people.
Last year, a judge sentenced Gregory Ulrich, 69 years old, to life in prison for first-degree murder and multiple counts of attempted murder.
As 5 INVESTIGATES reported, Ulrich legally bought the Smith & Wesson handgun he used in the shooting despite a history of mental illness and his previous threats to the clinic.
Have to agree with this change. A person who has a documented history of violence and/or threats should be denied a purchase permit. It also seems a finding of incompetence to stand trial should be equivalent to an involuntary commitment.
= new reply since forum marked as read
The NFA does not ban ownership of anything. Or didn't you know that? To better inform you, the NFA imposes a tax stamp for the purchase of restricted firearms, imposes a stringent background check and requires registration of the weapons with the BATF&E. It's existance also points out that the right to keep and bear is not unlimited. I've already explained why I think semi-autos belong on the list or didn't you read that? Leaped over it on the way to a concussion I guess 
Are you afraid of not passing the background check? Is that it? Sorry I'm just projecting on you as you do to me.
Now when you get past the passive agressive syndrome and want civil discourse maybe we can do this again. No time soon I fear.
Last time, good day to you. Consider yourself ghosted.
Fewer crimes. Seems our arrival at such differs in view.
1. I agree, it isn't a full background check, that's just the vernacular in use. As far as social media, other constitutional hurdles must be overcome, or some folks will just think you're trying for a pure police state. As far as family/employer go, family isn't reliable/accurate enough at times. Haven't actually visited 3 of my 4 siblings in several years. B-day cards, C-mas cards, occasional e-mail is about it. Hardly enough to determine a go/no go on a constitutional right. And, I'm retired, so no current employer. LEO? They don't know anything about me. Because I don't break the law. A few years back, they were calling for a large snowfall (10-12"
in our area. I have a 6-wheel drive 5-ton military surplus truck. Went to the city cops, told them that if necessary, I would volunteer my time/vehicle if needed for an emergency outside any plowed area. (Thankfully, the forecast was double what we actually got.) The dispatcher at the window didn't have the foggiest idea who I was, or how long I had lived in town (Over 20 years at same address.)
2.Read my #2 again. That scenario is completely unpredictable, and the only way to 100% stop it, is for there to be NO guns. Semi auto's on the NFA list won't stop the guy with a revolver, or a pump gun, or a bolt gun. You worry about the rate of fire, but the guy in the Pulse nightclub had all the time in the world. Could have used a muzzleloader, in fact. Same as Uvalde. Safe storage has no effect if the one storing the gun is going to be the one committing the crime. Or live-in family member, who kills you and breaks open the safe (Sandy Hook).
3. Funding isn't the problem with enforcing/sentencing. DA's, judges are at fault here. As far as executive orders, that's not how our system is supposed to work. EO's are used to get around the system. My job is to promote/elect congressmen that will stand up for what's right, not whatever the current lobbyist with a fistful of cash says.
For confirming exactly how seriously you should be taken.
I do hope you have a good source of grief counseling when the 1934 Firearms act and the 1968 Gun Control act are tossed out as blatantly unconstitutional (hopefully next SCOTUS term).
The state has, and should have to power to remove children from the homes of parents who through abuse, neglect, incompetence, or other factors are unable to provide for them. This includes leaving firearms where a child to young to understand what they are (or an older one who is not trained to leave them alone and let an adult know asap) can access them, exactly the same as if they left fentanyl pills on a coffee table or let child pornographers babysit the kids for an afternoon.
Just as I am quite willing to admit there are people who shouldn't have guns; I've had the misfortune of such as neighbors. However I disagree with the principle that since *some* people will misuse something that everyone or many should be prohibited from it, be that voting, rearing children, having guns, writing, making speeches; I am against prior restraint as the default but obviously support removing rights and privileges from those who have been officially and formally adjudicated incapable of using same, be that taking away guns from a violent moron, placing children in foster care, or disqualifying a voter because they have a Trump '24 sticker on their big-assed smoke belching truck 
Rights can, and sometimes should be removed; we put people (way too many and way disproportionally BIPOC and poor) in jail all the time, we disqualify them from voting, we take kids away, of course there are people who should have their guns taken away and told if they ever touch another one they going to jail for a long time. But all of these can (in my opinion) only come after due process, not merely because someone might do something wrong.
Once we get to the point that the people who hate guns, hate the idea of armed self defense, and consider the 2nd a barbaric anachronism admit that the *default* status for a citizen is to be armed if they wish, I think most gun owning voters would be more than willing to *then* discuss processes for licensing concealed carry and means and methods of identifying potential mass shooters.
We are, however, not going to trust adding on more restrictions and rules on top of the unclear clusterfuck of current regulation because a LOT of us believe that all the talk of 'preventing mass shootings' and such is merely subterfuge for establishing as a standard that there is no right to armed defense (except for the rich, politicians, and celebrities regardless of political affiliation). In other words an earned part of the hostility towards gun control advocates is because so many pretty much admit what they *really* want is no guns anywhere except in the hands of the cops even as they also claim they are merely pushing for 'common sense' gun control.
Regards.