Another knee jerk response to this horrific event. This proposed rule would have had NO EFFECT on what happened in Sandy Hook. Sure, let's just give up more State autonomy to the Federal government.

Also, people would be VERY surprised to know how easy it is to get involuntarily committed for psychiatric reasons. It's not what folks think. The VAST majority are folks who are depressed, not psychotic or homicidal. And most of those AREN'T an imminent threat to themselves. But the ugly fact is that most ER docs do not handle psychiatric emergencies well. They are very fearful of lawsuits, and err on the side of covering their butt. So if someone who's depressed goes to an ER to seek help, there's a strong possibility they aren't going home that night, even if they aren't planning to kill themselves. Usually they're given the choice to sign in "voluntarily" or be committed involuntarily. Some choice.

The idiocy of this is, even if there was no gun threat involved,if involuntarily committed, their guns are removed. Overdose on Tylenol - we take your guns, you can still buy Tylenol. Cut you wrists? We take your guns, but leave your knives. Unless you signed in voluntarily. So if you're having voices tell you to kill school kids with an Uzi, but sign in voluntarily - you keep your guns!!!

We can all see how well the law that felons aren't supposed to have guns worked out for the firefighters shot in NY, and how well the gun free school zone worked out in Sandy Hook.

The solution is not more laws, less privacy, and less freedom in order to show that a politician, however well meaning, is doing something.

I hate guns in my house and I will never have one.If you have guns in your home lock them up and dont let others know where they are.People who know they have a family member with mental issues should not own a gun.

THANK YOU TODD STEPHENS -

Bottom line, guns should not be in a house or accessible to someone with mental illness issues, voluntarily committed or otherwise. It's a common factor in most of these massacres. Guns will always be somewhere. Add another layer of prevention. We need to look at the mental illness factor. And if the mental status of someone changes who lives in a home with guns, there needs to be removal of the guns or a requirement to prove they are secure and not accessible to the mentally ill individual. And please don't address my use of mentally ill. It's the way I chose to illustrate my point, and I am not trying to be politically incorrect nor trying to destroy the character of these individuals.

I think this is a common sense law. If you are not allowed to own a gun in one state, why in the world should you be allowed to go to another state and buy a gun? Makes no sense, and I'm glad to see that someone is looking to close the loophole.

The smartest bill is the one that didn't get any traction: Last session, Stephens sponsored House Bill 2331, which, if enacted, would impose mandatory minimum prison sentences for convicted felons possessing guns. However, the bill did not come up for vote before the end of session.
The solution is to keep the criminals in jail. Every cop that has been shot and killed in our area in the last 10 years has been at the hands of criminals with rap sheets.
As our economy spirals down the crapper (thanks Democrats who believing spending and taxing job creators is going to magically fix everything!) - you can count on people turning to crime. I hope Rep. Stephens can pass his mandatory sentencing bill this year; that will make a difference.

The Only Thing that this introduced Bill would do is allow A. T. F. to investigate all gun owners. Like what Happened during the Clinton years when the A. T. F. busted in a home in Allentown, Pa. and actually destroyed a Woman's Cancer supplies looking for firearms. No Firearms were found. Too Many Gun laws on the books today.

Hey, "Yikes", I AM an ER doc, so I know the turf very well, as well as the laws concerning involuntary commitment. So I'd recommend that you investigate things, before labeling my statements as paranoia. I am curious, though. Which of my statements, specifically, did you feel to be untrue? See, feeling it's a good law, or feeling that guns are bad, does not make it so. That's called magical thinking, and excludes reality. The law won't do what you intend it to do, so why have it?

This law would have had no effect on what happened in CT, as the shooter did not obtain the weapons legally. Just as it's true that the "gun free" school zone law didn't work either.

Agreed that if you have a mentally unstable person in your house, you are an IDIOT for having unsecured weapons there.

As far as mentioning the NRA, I've never understood why every time there's an illegal act with a gun, they get blamed. Do we blame the AAA for drunk drivers?

At least someone in Harrisburg is contributing ideas to the debate. Too many people, including Governor Corbett, have been silent since December 14. Kudos to Rep. Stephens (and Senator Greenleaf on a related effort).

Regardless of whether this would have prevented Sandy Hook does not matter here. There is no single bill, law, act, or ban that will prevent all tragedies like this. But anything that closes one little loophole or tightens up restrictions somewhere is worth doing. This is a good thing for PA and I commend Mr. Stephens but this requires all states to get onboard to really work for this one effort. This will require many efforts on many fronts. The outcome of everything we are trying to do should be to make it harder for these types of events to happen.

Dr. Talenti, as a physician, I suspect you recommend that your patients eat right, exercise, drink in moderation, wash their hands, avoid nicotine, eat foods rich in Omega 3 etc. Each of these things is worth doing and 'tightens things up' from a health standpoint but will not completely prevent someone from getting cancer, having a cardiac event or coming down with the common cold. They are merely little things that add up and improve our chances. I think this is analogous to what people are seeking in response to Newtown. For example, it is common sense that mentally ill people should not have access to weapons. Can we do something about it? On the flip side, in many states, retired law enforcement personnel are lumped in with the average Joe and not permitted to carry concealed weapons in certain places (most of which are soft, high value targets), despite their training and experience. This needs to change too. Both examples are small but sensible things which won't necessarily prevent the outcome but will improve our chances.

Frogman, I have to disagree. To start off, hand washing, exercise, and the other things you mentioned are voluntary. Do you think there should be a bill mandating that everyone gets 1 hour of exercise 4 days a week or gets jail time?

The bill does NOTHING to prevent crazies from getting their hands on guns, as we've seen time and again. First, if you've been involuntarily committed, you're not allowed to possess guns, same if you're a felon. But that doesn't stop it from happening, does it?

As for preventing "mentally ill" people from having weapons, well, that's a whole other issue. What do you mean? 3/4 of Americans seek mental health help at some point in their lives. So deny them? That would only cause folks needing some help to not get it, because they're hunters, or cops or have guns for whatever reason. So limit it to the "dangerous" ones? If you have that crystal ball, please loan it to me so I can tell who might do mass murder. Lastly, define weapon, since more murders are committed with hammers and bats than long rifles. As for retirees - do they still train? Are their reflexes, eyesight and judgement as good or better than a 40 year old's or a 20 year old's? By what criteria do you judge them worthy of carrying concealed where other's may not?

As a country... we can not sit on our hands this time..... we need to actually DO something.....banning Assault weapons and large magazine from the public should be the first step.... all other ideas should be discussed .... and government should ACT on the best ideas. Thank you Rep Stevens for thinking, offering an idea, ACTING to better protect people.

People are really stupid.. "Oh we need laws to ban and have gun free school zones." IDIOTS.. by federal LAW no guns of any sort are allowed on school grounds unless your a active on patrol cop. Christ get your head out of your asses and stop thinking criminals obey the law.

this nut job broke at least 6 laws, do you really think a 7th law would of stopped him?

theft of firearms,illegal possession of a firearm,transporting illegal firearms,possession a firearm on school grounds,deadly force with a firearm,murder

The fact that anyone would have a problem with this bill says a lot. LOOK at other countries, successful precedents have been set everywhere. Only here in America do we have these arrogant and insensitive (and paranoid) babies crying about having stricter gun laws. It is an embarrassment. What are you'all gonna do when nobody wants to travel here anymore?? Ever think about what happen to our economy then? It's bound to happen, I travel quite a bit, America is losing respect all over the world. It's not all about you. It must be about the collective good. Hello.

@Yikes ... Yes, we all know the "flawed 2nd Amendment" argument. But that never really describes the difference between the so-called "intentions" of the Founding Fathers and their actions.

Why didn't the FF also prescribe that all law-biding gun owners surrender their arms after the War of 1812? Why didn't they send troops around the country to confiscate guns in those years when several FF served as POTUS?

Try to comprehend the difference between mystic readings into the FF "intentions" and instead look at their actions. Actions that determined the true legal precedents we still follow.

BTW ... There was no NRA back then and no "special NRA glasses" either!

Thanks, Yikes, for demonstrating that famed logical thinking of anti-gun folks. Wow. So banning guns works...like in NY with a total gun ban..ummm...nope...well, how about Chicago...nope...Washington, DC? Again, nope. All the places with total bans have the highest murder rates and highest violent crime rates. So I know you want an entire country ban - that'll work, right? Let's see - England...nope...a violent crime rate close to TEN times higher than the US. But, you might argue, at least the children are safer in school. Like in China with a strict no-gun policy. Again, you're wrong. In China on the day of the CT shooting, a madman stabbed over 20 kids in a school. And a week later, another mowed down a bunch of middle school students with a car. Over 8 attempts at mass murder at schools in China in the last 3 years. You have a risk misperception, based on being fed a steady diet of misinformation, and, likely, a personal fear of guns. Did you know that guns prevent rapes, robberies, home invasions and assaults - estimated at over SIX THOUSAND per day? That 82% of homicides to children age 13 and under were committed without a gun? Probably not. Did you know there are far more guns in the U.S> than cars? Which kills more? Your thinking, and your fear, are irrational. And your anger is misplaced - it's not the law abiding gun owners, or the guns, who've done wrong. It's the criminal who did the crime. Try to think based on fact and logic, not hysteria and hyperbole.

OK, Don't take this the wrong way, but you're sadly misinformed. Try researching primary data. Typical gun control fanatic. You don't understand numbers, logic, nor reason. Just hysterical media hype and your own irrational fears.

So, no comment on Chicago, New York, Detroit, Washington and all those gun ban cities?

As for your "data", there are 315,116,259 people in the US right now. Divided by 100,000 thats about 3151. Divide the number of violent crimes by that number, and you get the number of crime per 100 thousand people.

Per the FBI 2011 Crime report, (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime) there were 1,203,564 violent crimes that year. Or, about 381 per 100,000 people. In the UK, there were 2034 violent crimes per 100,000.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

As for your comment about the Chinese children, well, that's plain idiotic. Point is, gun laws DO NOT PREVENT TRAGEDY, nor school violence.That's why you want them, right? To prevent mass school assaults, right? Gun bans don't do that. Proven. Time and again. It's failed EVERY time it's been tried. But you still want them, don't you?

Also, what IS your point about the Chinese students? That it's better for these kids to live with the nightmare of being assaulted by a cleaver wielding madman? That the fact that they didn't die makes it somehow OK?

Yikes, why don't you write to the FBI, and tell them their data is bad, because mapsoftheworld.com says so?

Also, Yikes, if you would care to look, the Federalist Papers and multiple other writings from the period, by the Founders, clearly delineates what they intended by the Second Amendment. Don't get all of your information from Wikipedia and Google. You asked above to look up the word militia. I recommend you read what the Founders meant by that. EVERY adult citizen was to have a weapon - equivalent in firepower to those carried by the armies. And "well regulated" meant well trained, not state run.

But your last statement says it all. Because you are a true liberal - delusional, irrational, and gun phobic you won't rest until there are no guns in private hands. . You also believe that government can legislate perfect safety, if only we give up enough liberty, and there are enough laws. You don't recognize it, but you are a fanatic. And a fool.

@Yikes!
You keep talking about militias as if that's the only thing the Second Amendment says. The part of the Amendment you and all the anti gun liberals are missing is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "the people" as it refers in every other instance in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights means all citizens. The Amendment clearly states that our right to own guns shall not be "infringed" The definition of infringed: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Therefore since you stated "Thanks, I am not a fanatic, just love my country and it's founding principles." you will agree there should be no changes to the laws of owning guns. You keep saying you don't want gun bans. Yet... " Sorry, I will never agree that our present gun laws are sufficient....I am dismayed that anyone could." So essentially you are just a hypocrite. You also speak of the NRA and how they have damaged our country since the 70's. The NRA has been involved in protecting the Second Amendment since 1871. They supported the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act which both clearly "infringed" upon our Second Amendment rights. There have been no bills proposed since then that would benefit anyone but the anti gun liberals. So yes, the NRA has opposed and fought against them.

Yikes, I'll type slowly, so you get this. "Regulated", in those times meant trained, not under regulation. It meant regular practice. But to answer your question directly, the problem with MORE regulation, as we already have plenty, is that they don't work. Period. So WHY do you want more? To do what? It's an irrational, and delusional, fear of guns and abject belief in the religion of the state that you think that just some more laws will fix everything, and even if it doesn't, why, you've gotten rid of those evil guns and showed them gun owners a thing or two. BTW, isn't there already a law against killing someone? And a law against shooting someone? So what makes you think a crazy person or a felon with evil intent will follow yet another law?

We have the right to bere arms, not just to protect ourselves from thy neighbors, but to protect us from the government as well. If the government tried to impliment an all out ban on weapons, there would be a nation-wide revolt, most likely leading to more crime and ultimately, more deaths. Banning guns is not the answer, more strict laws on gun control "could" help, but WONT. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to keep them locked up and our children safe. However; most viloent crimes are commited by someone who doesn't legally own a gun. So creating more laws won't make a difference. Why not restructure the ones already in place? GUNS don't get up on there own and kill people. Irresponsible idiots kill people. More responsibility, less accidents. A cop leaves his gun in the consol of his car, with his unsupervised children. The 3 year old shoots and kills his older sister. Is it the guns fault or the asshole who thought it was ok to just leave it there in his cup holder? This is a man who knows better, a COP. What does this say about your idea that only police should own guns? I am a mother of 4 and I fight for my right to own firearms. Responsible adults should not have their freedoms stripped away because of the actions of others. Responsible gun owners keep their firearms LOCKED away within a safe. I don't think political party affiliation matters at all. I am not a member of the NRA, not even republican. I am a proud democrat and protect my right to bare arms.