Gun rights activist and YouTuber Colion Noir is warning Nebraska gun owners about a new proposal from U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn that would require people who own certain rifles to pass a mental health exam every five years just to keep firearms they already legally possess.
In a recent video, Noir said Osborn’s proposal is being framed as “common sense,” but he argued it is really a dangerous new permission system for gun ownership.
“So, a man running for the U.S. Senate wants you to pass a mental health exam every five years just to keep the AR-15 you already own legally,” Noir said.
Noir’s sharpest criticism was that Osborn has used a tragic Nebraska shooting to defend the idea, even though the weapon involved in that case was a shotgun, not an AR-15, AK-47, M16, or any other rifle category targeted by the proposal.
The Proposal Targets “Assault-Style” Rifles
Noir said Osborn, an independent running for U.S. Senate in Nebraska, brought up the idea during a town hall in Omaha after someone asked for a policy response beyond “thoughts and prayers.”
According to Noir, Osborn suggested what he described as a “preemptive red flag law” for people who own what Osborn called “assault-style” rifles.
Noir said the proposal would cover AR-15s, M16s, AK-47s, and similar firearms, requiring owners to take a mental health exam every five years and re-register their guns.
“Own an assault-style rifle, his words, AR-15, M16, AK-47, and you take a mental health exam every five years and re-register your guns to keep what you already bought,” Noir said.
For Noir, that is the core problem. The gun owner would not be applying to buy something new after committing a crime or raising a specific concern. They would be required to periodically prove they are still fit to keep property they already lawfully own.
That changes the nature of the right. It turns gun ownership into something that expires unless the owner checks in with the government on schedule.
Noir Says The Example Does Not Match The Policy
Noir focused heavily on the shooting Osborn cited while making the case for his proposal.
He described a deadly and disturbing case in Crete, Nebraska, where a 74-year-old man opened fire on his Guatemalan neighbors and then killed himself. Noir called the attack genuinely tragic and awful, but he said the facts undercut Osborn’s policy argument.
“The day after that, a man in Crete pulled a shotgun on his Guatemalan neighbors and opened fire,” Osborn said in the clip Noir played.
Noir then pointed to a news report stating that the shooter killed himself with the shotgun he had used on the victims.
“A shotgun,” Noir said. “He said it, not me, him.”
Noir argued that if Osborn’s proposed five-year mental health exam and re-registration requirement is aimed at AR-15s and similar rifles, it would not have stopped the very attack Osborn used to justify it.
“Not an AR, not an M16, not an AK,” Noir said. “A shotgun owned by a 74-year-old who walks right past Dan’s entire plan untouched.”
That is a serious weakness in the argument. If a proposal is being sold as a response to a specific tragedy, it should at least address the facts of that tragedy. Otherwise, it looks less like targeted public safety policy and more like a chance to revive a familiar gun-control wish list.
“Common Sense” Becomes The Selling Point
Noir said Osborn’s plan leans heavily on the phrase “common sense,” which he argued is often used to make restrictions sound harmless before people examine what they actually do.
“Watch the phrase he keeps leaning on,” Noir said. “Common sense.”
Noir said the same phrase is used for waiting periods, new registries, recurring check-ins, and other limits that may sound small on their own but add up over time.
He quoted Osborn as saying the issue is about figuring out “who should have them and who shouldn’t have them,” then argued that this gives the government broad power to decide who is allowed to keep a rifle.
“That’s the game right there,” Noir said. “He decides who should with an exam he writes on a schedule he sets.”
Noir’s point is not that mental health is irrelevant to public safety. It is that the proposed system appears to begin with ownership of a disfavored firearm, then forces the owner to periodically prove continued eligibility without a criminal conviction or individualized due process.
There is a difference between stopping a genuinely dangerous person and making millions of ordinary owners submit to a recurring permission test because a politician dislikes the type of gun they own.
Who Was Asked Before The Proposal?
Noir also took issue with whom Osborn said he consulted before reaching this idea.
In one clip, Osborn said he looks to law enforcement to ask about their stance on guns because officers are the ones who deal with firearms “a heck of a lot more than most of us do.”
Noir rejected that logic, saying proximity to firearms through police work does not give law enforcement authority over the people’s constitutional rights.
“This is your right,” Noir said. “It doesn’t shrink because somebody else handles a gun for a paycheck.”
Noir then focused on Osborn’s account of speaking with one gun owner who allegedly owned several “assault-style” rifles and said he would not have an issue with re-registering them after taking a mental health exam every five years.
Noir mocked that as a “sample size of one” and called the unnamed person the “most convenient witness in the history of town halls.”
He contrasted that with the Nebraska Firearm Owners Association, which Noir said has more than 26,000 members and strongly opposed the proposal.
Noir quoted the group as calling Osborn’s idea an “affront to individual liberty and common sense.”
“Twenty-six thousand members,” Noir said. “That’s not a focus group. That’s the community.”
A Right Or A Subscription?
The most memorable line in Noir’s criticism was his comparison of the proposal to a subscription model.
“A right you have to renew every five years isn’t a right,” Noir said. “It’s a subscription, and the government can cancel a subscription.”
That argument goes to the heart of many gun-rights objections to recurring checks, registrations, and re-approval systems. If the government can require periodic exams before someone may keep a rifle, then future lawmakers could change the period, expand the categories, alter the exam, or use the process to reduce ownership over time.
Noir warned that today’s proposal may target AR-15s and similar rifles, but future versions could expand to shotguns, handguns, or other commonly owned firearms.
“Next cycle, why not the shotgun?” Noir asked, pointing again to the weapon used in the Crete case.
That slippery-slope concern is often dismissed by gun-control advocates, but history gives gun owners reason to be skeptical. Firearm categories can grow, definitions can shift, and the word “reasonable” can do a lot of work before a right becomes difficult to exercise.
Noir Says The Facts Were Ignored
Noir framed Osborn’s proposal as emotion dressed up as policy, saying it starts with a horrific event but then veers toward a firearm category that was not involved.
“His solution wouldn’t have even stopped the one tragedy he’s using to sell it,” Noir said. “That’s not a policy.”
He argued that the phrase “assault weapon” is part of a political strategy designed to make people afraid before they think carefully about the facts. In this case, Noir said, the scary label became more important than the weapon actually used.
This is where the debate becomes especially important for the public. If the policy response does not match the actual problem, then it may leave the real danger untouched while burdening people who had nothing to do with the crime.
It also risks teaching voters to support broad restrictions based on shock rather than evidence.
A Warning To Nebraska Gun Owners
Noir closed by asking viewers to imagine what the proposal would mean in practice: a lawful gun owner standing in an office years from now, waiting for a stranger to decide whether they can keep a rifle that has been locked in a safe the whole time.
“That is not safety,” Noir said. “That’s permission.”
For Noir, Osborn’s plan is not a middle-ground compromise. It is a system where lawful owners must repeatedly prove themselves to the government, while the crime used to justify the idea would not have been stopped by it.
The proposal may be described as “common sense,” but Noir argued that it should worry anyone who believes constitutional rights should not come with renewal dates.
The broader warning is simple: once the government gets the power to make gun owners reapply for their rights every few years, the debate is no longer about one rifle category or one exam. It becomes a question of who gets to decide which citizens are trusted, how often they must prove it, and what happens when the answer is no.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
