I'm waiting for a response. Not holding my breath though.
People want to get on here and run their mouths about "doing SOMETHING!" But when those of us on the pro-2A side of the house actually agree and ask questions about specifics, we get zero answers. Instead they turn to insults and how "unreasonable" we are. Which doesn't help their stance.
I'd imagine they didn't think it all the way through. But they'll screech to do SOMETHING even if they didn't manage to put any thoughts past the first step.
Broadly speaking, my proposal would be as follows:
1) When any school counselor, principal, teacher, or other officer of local government determines that in his or her view a student, former student, or person associated with them represents a threat, based on words or actions, then that official may report that person to the FBI.
2) The FBI shall place that person on a list whereby they cannot purchase a firearm or ammunition until removed from the list.
3) The person gets notice they are on the list and how to clear from it in a process that lasts no longer than 90 days.
4) If a person is denied removal, they can reapply to be off the list within 6 months and can renew each 6 months until off the list.
5) Upon listing a person as above, the FBI shall check all databases to see if the person listed has purchased any guns. If so, the FBI sends someone to interview them within 7 days. If the person is deemed a threat by the interviewer and still possesses a firearm, the FBI can seize the firearm and house it and step 3 is applied, i..e they can apply to be off the lit and get it back within 90 days.
6) All persons involved in this process are immune from suit unless they act in bad faith or with malice toward the person on the list.
Something like this balances the person's right to have a firearm against the situation in which there is a relatively acute concern that the person is a threat. Worst case scenario, someone wrongfully on the list or with a gun seized has a mechanism to get it back within 90 days. The other thing it does is identify risks and gets them "in the system." There is value to that, as well, because it makes upticks in any threat level more apparent as they are on the radar, so to speak.
