Michigan Official: Require Mental Health Checks for Bullet Purchases

'
A Wayne County commissioner wants law-abiding citizens to submit to a mental health check before being allowed to purchase bullets.
On September 18, 2018, Breitbart News reported that Detroit-area commissioner Reggie Davis wants to ban bullet sales by anyone except police. Breitbart News also reported that he wants to add a tax to police sales, thereby raising the prices citizens pay for their ammunition.'

They have one track minds...


Source: https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...equire-mental-health-checks-bullet-purchases/

 

Yep, no cure for idiocy...

 

"AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News,"

A secondment amendment columnists?

 

Unconstitutional.

'Arms' are not arms without ammunition.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In order to deny a citizen the ability to purchase ammunition, you must first strip him of his rights by way of due process.

Further, to 'infringe' means to erode, lessen, impede. A ''bullet tax" imposed for the purpose of making bullets economically less accessible, is a clear infringement of the 2A.

You would think people elected to public office would have, at least, a basic understanding of our Constitution.

 

The public will simply purchase ammunition outside of the county, thus serving to render the requirement moot, as well as depriving the county of funding.

 

I always wonder which class of mental health practioners these people think are sufficiently trained to make a pass/fail judgment.

 

Whoever will most likely arbitrarily deny firearm purchases by private citizens who have done nothing wrong.

 

My second question is what happens to the false negatives, where this expert passes someone who later goes on to kill. Are they liable legally or financially?

 

Those instances will be blamed on a newly-discovered mental phenomenon that could not have been predicted by even the best trained experts. It is the same reason the concept of spontaneous suicide was created; because the so-called "experts" in the field are simply making guesses about something that is not a hard and fast science.

 

I always wonder why anyone would take this as a real threat?

>>ban bullet sales by anyone except police<<

 

For the simple purpose that in the united states, it does amount to a real threat, even if it never comes to fruition. It is nothing more than an elected official telling the public, the same public that elected them to office, that they are not fit to be trusted to manage their own affairs, and that their constitutional rights are not regarded as being valid.

 

No threat, but those of you having a slow day, by all means, pretend that it is.

 

If an elected official proposes violating the constitutional rights of the public, then it is indeed a threat. And a reminder that the elected official in question views the constitutional rights of their constituents as contemptible and unimportant. It is no different than one suggesting the protections of the fifth amendment be restricted further than they are currently.

 

And at the same time, you can pretend that MS13 is a national security threat.

 

With all of the criminal activity they are currently engaged in, how would they not qualify as being such?

 

why do you try to defend every idiotic scheme by politicians to harass lawful gun owners and shooters?

 

we need politicians such as this scum bag, charged with 42 USC 1983 civil rights violations-in other words, denying citizens their constitutional rights

 

By saying it's no threat that's suppose to be denfending it? Come on man.

 

Demonstrate that they are.

 

I don't care how you take my words here but YOU are a threat to my 2A rights.

 

Your words?

 

That's a question?

 

Obviously.

 

I clearly said they were my words, how did you get confused?

 

What words?