Posted on 04/19/2007 4:54:22 AM PDT by PapaBear3625
So why didn’t the authorities get him off the street?
Maybe they needed him out so that he could vote.
He was involuntarily committed in 2005 by court order, but was able to pass "instant check" to buy a gun?
“He was involuntarily committed in 2005 by court order, but was able to pass “instant check” to buy a gun?”
hmm perhaps we should just automatically declare everyone guilty and make them prove their innocence?
I don’t see how you can stand to even visit the DU. That place is as nuts as Cho.
It appears the ruling the judge used on Cho did not meet up to the standard that would put him in the database and would not allow him to buy a car.
Something didn’t work here—we either need to lower the bar for what types of mental illnesses are flagged, ask judges to deliver harsher rulings, or find some other solution.
I don’t think that is what the other poster meant. Is this something that is SUPPOSED to occur and didn’t? I think most people are under the impression that gun laws prevent a mentally unstable person from legally obtaining a gun. I know I have been under that impression.
I agree. It will not stop everyone, but it might stop a few.
That is what my wife and I were questioning as well.
(Sarcasm alert)
Well obviously Cho was driven to do what he did because of Bush. Not to mention how the unfair evil capitalist system drives people to insanity.
But seriously, he will be dismissed as just a lunatic. But can you imagine the coverage that would follow if he had issues all kinds of right wing ramblings? It would have made the whole Imus thing seem like nothing.
How much time did Cho spend listening to ErrAmerica and posting on DU?
Good point! It sounds like the dirtbag soaked up and dutifully spit out all the hate America, capitalism is bad, rich exploit the poor rhetoric the left is always spewing.
My guess is, that the ACLU will come down screaming “civil rights” if they try to tie psychiatric records to ANYTHING like this.
A person with an involutary commitment should NEVER be able to buy a firearm. It may not seem fair but it’s life. I do have some experience with this, by the way - my husband had long time mental illness (yes he was a postal worker!) and was bipolar. And he did have to leave work because he threatened people.
The day the postal inspectors came to my door, their first question was, “Do you have a gun in the house?” Thank God, this was NY, so I could say no. If I had said yes, I don’t like to think what may have happened.
But while he was alive our protection was a couple of very large dogs. Now, he is deceased, and only then did I feel ok getting guns for the household.
Except the ACLU tends to look the other way on Gun restrictions.
I get flagged because someone with my same first and last name in California got arrested for eco terrorism, and this guy was pronounced dangerous and was able to buy a pistol no problem.
Nuts.
Private schools at least have the option of expelling troublesome students without as much danger of lawsuits Adas state-run schools experience, as contractual law, rather than legislation and court decisions on the "rights" of students, still prevails. It is incumbent that state legislatures strengthen the hand of school administrators to expel troublemakers, and, in the case of elementary or secondary students, force them to attend what used to be called reform schools if they remain in public education.
As importantly, the legislatures need to use their power over public university purse strings to rein in college faculties and administrations dominated by leftists. If the trustees of the colleges resist, the state governments should either tell the colleges to go private, after paying off the state's investment, or remove the trustees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.