Strange, the Brady Campaign has a PDF of the new bill: here.
Go to the GOA site and see their latest. The've sided with the VPC, inasmuch as they are saying how gunowners have been shafted by the NRA. Pretty obvious they haven't read the new bill, as they are using the same arguments as before.
I've read it and it does appear (on first reading) to sustain what the NRA says it will do. It does nothing what the GOA or the VPC says it will do.
According to the following we are going to have a problem with the very broad interpretation of what constitutes being a danger to oneself or others.
Consider carefully the following quote-link below
For purposes of Federal law, “danger” means any danger, not simply “imminent” or “substantial” danger as is often required to sustain an involuntary commitment under State law. Thus, for example, adjudication that a person was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others would result in Federal firearms disability, whether the court-ordered treatment was on an inpatient or outpatient basis. This is because the adjudication itself (a finding of danger due to mental illness) is sufficient to trigger the disability.
Merely expressing anger at another or oneself or even brief transient notions of suicide will trigger the disability.
It is not clear if such expressions to a private doctor are sufficient. The example does not restrict disability determination to a 'court-ordered' scenario but uses such as an example.
