Dr. James Reinhard, Virginia commissioner for mental health, said that a temporary detention order was meant primarily to permit a patient to be evaluated and should not be considered a final determination of a person’s mental state.
Your interpretation merely carries water for the gun grabbers and opens the door for psychiatric abuse. Anyone can claim you are behaving "aberrantly" and should they convince a cop or judge you could find yourself hauled off for an evaluation by temporary order.
Should that be the determining factor in your ability to purchase a gun? That you were once required by a court to be evaluated.
Doesn't matter what Rhienhart says about intention, because it refers only to spending Cho in before the ruling. Fed law cares about the court ruling, which was made post evaluation. THe court ruling was signed by Dr. Crouse, who examined Cho.
"Anyone can claim you are behaving "aberrantly" and should they convince a cop or judge you could find yourself hauled off for an evaluation by temporary order."
No, as per above. I already went over this. A court ruling requires legal representation, a docs cert. and evidence. That must be obtained first. In order to get htat info one must be evaluated before the judge makes his decision. Burketts ruling was made to force Cho to get treatment, which includes a more thorough eval. Had Cho refused, the court would have held the next hearing in the VA process to have Cho involuntarily committed.
Re: "State and federal law enforcement authorities confirmed Thursday that they had no record in their respective criminal background check systems to indicate that Cho had been involuntarily committed, or that he had been declared mentally incapacitated by a judge."
I gave you 28CFR25.4 above. Submission of the info regarding fed law by a State is voluntary. The law should read MUST SUBMIT.