Unintended consequenses - a prediction

[alethialogos57]

A woman will be denied the purchase of a firearm because her estranged husband is currently under the guidance of mental health officials. Never mind the restraining order she has out on him. He will be the reason that she will not be permitted to purchase a firearm to protect herself from him.

[Curmudgeon]

A woman will be denied the purchase of a firearm because her estranged husband is currently under the guidance of mental health officials. Never mind the restraining order she has out on him. He will be the reason that she will not be permitted to purchase a firearm to protect herself from him.

How do you figure?

[alethialogos57]

How do you figure?

Because part of the intent is to keep guns out of the hands of people who have mental health issues. Take Newtown for example; he could never have passed a check so he stole his mother's guns. The Democrats have been arguing that she should have never been able to purchase the guns and that would have prevented the CT shooting.

I've also come across a few stories out of NY where people are losing their guns due to either direct medication connections or actions of close relatives. Sorry, I can't seem to find where I saw them. This is the only one I could find quickly. I realize these are out of NY but if UBC passes I predict it would only be a matter of time.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/new-...tion-underway/

[Curmudgeon]

Now I see what you're trying to say... I think.

I believe the intended consequences are bad enough. I think my confusion stems from what you are calling UNintended consequences are actually intended.

They've been rather bold these past couple months.

[Qtrborecrazy]

Same could be said of domestic violence. Had a friend once who let his brotber-in-law stay at his place because of abuse. Cops came and told my buddy if the in-law stayed his guns had to go. My bud did the right thing and kicked out the in-law.