I find both propositions idiotic, but the thing is that second provision is a strawman. NR, WaPo, and independent sources all agree – it's overblown, and according to all but Snopes out of those 4 links, it was a bad rule.

WaPo: "But despite its good intentions, what the policy actually does is take away the gun rights of a large category of individuals without any evidence that they pose a risk of harm to self or others, and without legal due process protections commensurate with abridging a constitutional right."

NR: "Contrary to the AP’s suggestion, the background check system remains in place. Contrary to The Hill’s implication, the rule change in question did not repeal the limitations on the “severely mentally ill.”"

PC: "But it was a bad rule to begin with that should’ve never been finalized, because it didn’t take into account a person’s likelihood to commit a crime or likelihood of using a gun to commit violence. Furthermore, the rule violated the due process rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution."