You want some common-sense gun control? Here you go.

[TheKentuckian]

51. Okay. It think there is ground we can work from.

1. I prefer opening the background checks to private citizens, I don't like the private and for profit middleman but can live with it the logistics are unreasonable.

2. I think the background check for concealed carry works, I'd leave it at that. No competent psychiatrist can make an educated prognosis based on a stop by, a medical doctor would likely be guessing, and both would have a big increase in the cost of malpractice insurance probably resulting in refusing to sign off either way (aka back door systemic ban having nothing to do with the individual.
In any event, if you are going to try and put the ball in medical professionals laps then I think they should be involved in the entire process early and by early I mean during drafting of legislation you would make them point people for.

I'd also add that if a person is diagnosed as mentally ill, they are again eligible for licensing seven years release from care (to demonstrate they have not relapsed. Just as we account for a person not remaining stable we should account for healing. You close it out and you build a perverse incentive for people to not seek and receive care they need.

I also believe that once you have served your time that all rights should be restored and that conviction should not be a bar to cross for those who have served their time, a fully discharged felon should just be a citizen across the board. This has nothing to do with guns at all and has consistently been my strongly held belief.
We shouldn't be throwing people away like we currently practice and it makes folks more likely to be repeat offenders and acts as a barrier to meaningful rehabilitation. I could live with a plus seven rule here too, understanding the concern but eventually a person who has paid their debt to society should be restored to full rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

I empathize with your reasoning and caution but I think it is a toxic as hell way to run a society that puts people back into population. If the people are too dangerous to re-join society then they shouldn't be out at all.

3. I'm not sure of the objective here? Monitor for what and then act based on what? Is there some past incident this monitoring program would have prevented? It is stupid to waste resources tracking sudafed too. The fertilizer may make some sense but I'd like to see the justification after the years since the initiative.
Maybe there is deterrence value too.

4. Sounds good as long as the taxes are not used as a prohibition, meaning reasonable amounts. I'll float 5% of pre-tax cost.

5. You don't need it is not much of a rationale. I'm open to the clause because I wouldn't use such an unreliable piece of equipment and agree that it isn't needed but am unclear on the bottom line of the purpose, opinions on need aren't reasons.