The suggestion by an Alberta judge that gun application rules should be tightened is sparking debate.
Provincial court Judge Marlene Graham recommended better screening of an applicant's legal and mental health backgrounds in a fatality inquiry looking into the shooting death of Corey Lewis, who was gunned down by Okotoks RCMP officers in 2010.
- MORE CALGARY NEWS | Calgary teen takes aim at Amazon for selling shirts about mental illness
- MORE CALGARY NEWS | 5 things to watch as oilpatch hopes for turnaround year
Lewis was unarmed at the time, but had several registered weapons in his home. The judge said she found it disturbing that he was ever granted a firearms license given his mental health history.
'Plenty of enhanced screening'
Blair Hagen with Canada's National Firearms Association disagrees with Graham's recommendations.
"We've got plenty of enhanced screening now," he said. "There are very, very few ways that they could amend this."
- MORE LOCAL NEWS | Man accused in 'violent rage' crowbar rampage after truck rams house
- MORE LOCAL NEWS | Dad charged in death of daughter, 4, likely to seek bail
He takes issue with stringent regulations being placed upon people who don't require additional impediments to owning a gun.
"I think it's unfortunate, but trying to enforce more regulations and tweak the system is not going to have the effect of preventing this thing in the future. What it is going to have the effect of is targeting the wrong people."
'Err on the side of caution'
Alberta Liberal Leader David Swann, who co-chaired Alberta's mental health review, says he doesn't want to see people with mental health issues targeted, but he agrees with the judge's recommendations.
"We should err on the side of caution for public health purposes and not give a rifle or a gun or a firearm to someone who we think there is a potential for harm," he said.
However, he also says it's a question of "relative risk."
"We can not exclude people just on the basis that they've had a diagnosis of a mental illness," said Swann.
He believes that "anyone who has anything to fear, or anyone with an experience with that individual relative to risk should be consulted and should be included in the evaluation."
The judges recommendations are non binding.