Posted on 04/21/2007 12:56:05 AM PDT by DeerfieldObserver
Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.
The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.
A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Under the terms of the divorce decree she has the right to the money, just as her mentally fit brother (my half-brother) does. WITH an adjudication of mental incompetence, a trust could be set up and a legal guardian (most likely her brother) appointed to have authority over dispensing funds. Just trickling the money out instead of handing it over as a lump sum wouldn’t really make much difference. It could still very easily be diverted to someone else, and even if it wasn’t, she’d certainly spend it on bizarre and impulsive purchases, rather than on things she actually needs.
Agreed. Fleeting mental defects are rare. Though there needs to be a mechanism for reversing mental incompetence adjudications in the even that the person’s condition actually changes (which medical advances may well make more common in the foreseeable future), the period of time during which someone is legally classified as mentally incompetent should be formally fixed. There is no legal basis for the current cafeteria-style approach, in which someone gets off the hook for a crime committed based on a claim of mental incompetence, but is not released from any and all contracts entered into during the alleged period of mental incompetence, even though contracts involving a mental incompetent as a party are void under common and statutory law. The periods of time involved in these specious defense claims are often much more fleeting than 6 months, and sometimes even virtually momentary (as in for the few minutes it took to plan and carry out the crime).
In order for this to be effective all firearms would have to registered (Step 2) which would then pave the way to confiscation on a national level(Step 3). That is why the NRA has always fought against laws, particularly on a national level, that would mandate such a scheme.
Paranoia is not a policy. I think the NRA is wrong on this one.
However, I do support having qualified teachers/staff carrying firearms on campus.
No, it doesn’t. Gasoline and an ignition system is cheaper.
Tell that to the Jews who registered their firearms under the Wiemar Republic in Germany and then lost them under the National Socialist (NAZI) government in Germany. It's already happened in some states and most of the countries of the world. Registration=Confiscation sooner or later.
We don't really have mental institutions in the US anymore. They were all closed in the 60s when the Federal Government refused to all Medicaid dollars to fund them. The states couldn't afford them -- so they closed them.
All we have are hospital beds, which cost up to $300,000 per year. Most of the US mentally ill are warehoused in jails, which costs about $100,000 per year. Those who have committed no crime yet make up about 30 percent of the homeless living on the street.
The states can't afford to pick up any of these costs without a drastic increase in taxes.
As a society that believes in a god-given right to carry guns, I think we must accept the fact that there are people around us who can point and shoot anytime they want to -- at the office, at school, in church, on the street and highways, at home, in shopping malls, in movie theaters, at sports events.
This is the cost of freedom (in lieu of paying exorbitant taxes). We want small government -- which means we have to take on the responsibility of protecting ourselves every minute of the day. I don't have a problem with this. I carry everywhere I go.
Well said and so do I.
BTW, as of March 07 there are 561,872 persons are licensed to carry in Florida.
Car through the Mall at lunchtime?
In many states they will take your guns on an accusation of a crime and not return them - ever.
What is this FedGov law doing operating inside the Commonwealth? Or, apparently not operating.
The mental institutions were closed, but they were largely replaced by group homes scattered around the general community, with insufficient supervision to protect either the residents (who are often victims of their government-paid caretakers in these homes) or the neighbors. These group homes may be cheaper to run than the mental hospitals were, but I believe serviceable mental hospitals could be run for what we’re currently paying for the group homes (most of which have had to fight local legal battles with people who don’t want the facility in their neighborhood, in order to get set up in the first place). The money is often coming from different line times in the federal and state budgets, but it’s still a lot of money. What used to fall in the “mental hospital” line item of government budgets is now found in additional expenditures via Section 8 housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, “outreach programs”, and on and on.
There is no security. There are no gigantic orderlies with tasers. There are no needles or emergency meds, no restraints. No doctors or nurses. These are gentle, peaceful places.
I know you want a cheap solution, but it's not there. Ask any mental health professional. In the United States we use prisons to house the mentally ill -- the kind of crazies you are worried about. Otherwise, they are on the street, in our lives, until they commit a crime.
When you shrink government, you give up many protections. Arm yourself and your family. Be safe.
Many of these group homes are NOT gentle, peaceful places. The inmates are at the mercy of those $8/hour workers, who have been known to rob, beat, and rape the vulnerable people they’re supposed to be protecting. But when these people are housed in tiny, widely scattered homes, it’s virtually impossible to police the caretakers. Policing them sufficiently to keep the residents safe would cost a lot more than gathering them all under one institutional roof.
Where would I put it? The real Luger would revolt, and cause all sorts of problems.
lol...
“Paranoia is not a policy. I think the NRA is wrong on this one.”
So you would require a background check for someone to leave his guns to his son or to donate them to the NRA museum?
So you would require a background check for someone to leave his guns to his son or to donate them to the NRA museum?
Yes. What if his son’s name is Cho?
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.