Gun rights commentator Colion Noir is taking aim at a proposal from Nebraska Senate candidate Dan Osborn that would require owners of certain semi-automatic rifles to undergo periodic mental health evaluations and reregister their firearms every five years.
In a recent video (see below), Noir argued that the proposal raises serious constitutional questions and, perhaps more importantly, doesn’t appear to address the very crime Osborn used to justify it.
Osborn proposed requiring owners of so-called “assault-style” rifles (including AR-15s, AK-pattern rifles, and similar firearms) to pass a mental health examination every five years and reregister those firearms in order to keep them.
The proposal reportedly surfaced during a town hall event in Omaha.
Table of contents
- The Shotgun Problem for Dan Osborn
- Dan Osborn: A Mental Health Test Every Five Years for AR-15s?
- Who Gets a Seat at the Table?
- The Bigger Debate on Mental Health Tests
The Shotgun Problem for Dan Osborn
The centerpiece of Noir’s criticism is what he sees as a major flaw in Osborn’s argument. The Nebraska candidate pointed to a tragic shooting in Crete, Nebraska, involving a 74-year-old man who opened fire on his neighbors before taking his own life.
The problem? The firearm involved was reportedly a shotgun.
“A shotgun. He said it, not me,” Noir noted in the video. “His entire proposal wouldn’t even touch it.”
That point forms the foundation of the argument. If the incident being used to justify additional restrictions involved a firearm outside the scope of the proposed policy, the proposal fails its most basic test.
“His solution wouldn’t have even stopped the one tragedy he’s using to sell it,” Noir said.
Dan Osborn: A Mental Health Test Every Five Years for AR-15s?
The proposal itself has generated plenty of discussion. Owners of covered rifles would be required to periodically pass a mental health evaluation and re-register their firearms in order to maintain lawful possession.
Supporters of similar proposals often argue they are designed to identify individuals who may become dangerous over time.
However, requiring otherwise law-abiding citizens to repeatedly prove their eligibility to exercise a constitutional right turns that right into something contingent on ongoing government approval.
“A right you have to renew every five years isn’t a right,” Noir said. “It’s a subscription.”
Who Gets a Seat at the Table?
Another aspect of the proposal that drew criticism was Osborn’s explanation of how he arrived at the idea.
The Senate candidate said he often looks to law enforcement for guidance on firearms policy because officers routinely deal with gun-related incidents.
Noir pushed back on that reasoning, arguing that constitutional rights belong to citizens generally, not just those who carry firearms professionally.
He also questioned Osborn’s claim that a gun owner he spoke with had no objection to the concept of periodic mental health evaluations and reregistration requirements.
“A sample size of one,” Noir joked.
The commentator contrasted that anecdote with criticism from the Nebraska Firearm Owners Association, which reportedly described the proposal as an attack on individual liberty and noted that it represents more than 26,000 members across the state.
The Bigger Debate on Mental Health Tests
At its core, the dispute reflects a broader disagreement that has become increasingly common in the gun-control debate.
Supporters of additional firearm regulations often argue that periodic reviews, licensing requirements, and registration systems are common-sense measures intended to keep firearms out of dangerous hands.
But such requirements place burdens on people who have done nothing wrong while doing little to stop determined criminals.
Of course, the more immediate issue is whether the proposal addresses the problem it claims to solve. If the crime being used to justify the policy involved a shotgun, while the policy targets rifles, then supporters of the proposal still have work to do explaining how one connects to the other.
At the end of the day, though, proposals like this are less about one type of firearm and more about establishing a precedent. As Noir pointed out, today it’s AR-15s. Tomorrow it could be shotguns, handguns, or hunting rifles.
Once government gains the authority to decide who must periodically requalify to keep exercising a constitutional right, the debate quickly becomes bigger than any single gun.
Find this article on GunsAmerica.
READ NEXT: New Emails Shed Light On Biden-Era School Threat Directive
