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 ...
My state doesn't have money to put people mental health hospital beds more than five days max. It's a lot cheaper to put the crazies in prison (only $100,000 per year) but they have to commit a crime first.
If we want to shrink government, we gotta keep the nuts on the street.
Ouch. Of course this logic would fly by the Old Grey Whore.
Well, Yeah, but that is a whole ‘nother topic.
The actions, inactions and idiocies of a whole lot of other people in a whole lot of different areas and two different nations added up to create the conditions that allowed this atrocity to happen.
you mean gun legislation proved futile?
Another thing to ponder, the boyfriend was detained on the day of the shooting (and I don’t suspect that the officers were cheery or believed him much when they stopped him) on the evidence that he (a)knew the victim, and (b)had a gun.
Some profile.
Yet an adult who was convicted of criminal insanity and prescribed psychoactive medications was left to his own authority.
I understand (if I understand) private sales are not covered by background check rules, so if I understand, your answer is incomplete or doesn’t apply, and the same goes for Lurker’s non answer. I’ll agree that attempts to blame or cast dispersions on the NRA are a bit far fetched.
Correct, private sales are not required to have background checks. *HOWEVER*, many private sellers are now insisting on background checks unless the person is already known to them.
That said, it is *still* illegal for them to purchase a gun due to their mental defect. Don’t confuse “physical ability to obtain a gun” with “ability to obtain a gun legally.”
It is illegal for a mental defective to possess a firearm in the United States. Period - doesn’t matter if he got it by lying on his 4473, duping a private seller, stealing it, or buying it off the black market - it is still illegal.
See ny 26. “Legally” may be the operative word, but I’m stuned by your non answer.
That depends on which state and which locale . It varies widely .
This wasn’t a private sale . The fact remains that he went through a licensed dealer (who did his job correctly). The state failed to notify NICS, where it would have then been a denial of transfer . It’s as simple as that .
If I sell a gun privately, the only thing that matters is getting the highest price. That is the free market system.
Agreed at least in my case. Who wouldn’t ask a few pointed questions, especially with someone young, or old, just to somewhat ascertain the general attitude and demeanor. One other point, and there are far fewer than in days of yore.
The private dealer, who has a hobby business of selling guns, but who today, must be a dealer under all the rules in order to buy guns from another dealer, and the true private seller, like myself or unlike myself where I never met a gun I would sell. I keep what I have, and only want more. Mainstream media Arsenal comes to mind.
From the NYT article:
",,,,,,I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
Not to worry, no bureaucrat will face charges or pay fines for their inefficiency.
Had it been the firearms dealer's fault, Mayor Bloomberg and others would have ridden up on their white horses and chained the doors of that business.
We need LESS not more gun control laws.
Cho wasn’t “convicted of criminal insanity”
He merely went through some legal administrative hearings and after a bit of wrangling it was strongly recommended that he seek help.
There was no trial, no conviction, therefore nothing that could be legally entered into NCIS or any federal database.
Yes, in hindsight he should have been. But if he had been, he could have sued ‘them’ and very likely won.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Maybe 28 states have no crazy people. Would like to get a list of them.
Articles from the New York Times need to be examined on a story by story basis. This particular article is quite well written and objective.
I believe the standard is "Gross Negligence" and I'm not sure this error constitutes that. Soverign Immunity might well protect the state from what should be its obligation in this matter.
The focus should be on being denied the ability to defend yourself with equal or superior force. VAT did just that, no guns, no OC, no weapons. Some states require a permit to carry pepper spray [OC]. Keeping records and court rulings of the mental health of a potential gun owner, is the start of looking at the mental health, of a vehicle owner. Hey, you can’t travel by plane because your mental health background check reveals .... The Commies are doing this to complete their mission, shred the U.S Constitution.
I noticed you are from California. Arnie can find the money for state wide health insurance, even for illegals. The truly dangerous represent a small portion of people with mental illness, it’s not like the state would be paying for millions. I’m sure the money could be found, unfortunately we’ve been told that institutions are inhumane and violate the civil rights of the crazy people.
See how well gun control works? I am grateful the mere existence of paper laws keeps us so safe. Maybe we need more paper laws to keep us even safer. </sarc>
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.