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 ...
That depends on which state and which locale . It varies widely .
Not sure I understand the point. My point was the unanswered question related to the gun dealer sale. I did not focus in on the “legally” word as Lurker and Spktyr did.
The other issues and they are numerous, is the states having to have a bureaucracy to take care of “sending the government data” at the states expense.
The emptying of Mental institutions in the 60’s, and the placing of people on their own recognizance who probably should not be, but under the Constitution, certainly are.
If this had been a true private sale, the private seller would not have been found, since the serial number had been filed off, but had the seller been known we would have been subjected to an endless rant of see I told you so, related to the “gun show loophole” even though the “system” “worked like it was supposed too, minus the tell tale data of mental defective.
The gun show loophole is really pointed at private sales not so much gun shows. A true misnomer.
All the rules in the world cost huge amounts of money and in the end, depend on people living by them. That may look good on the outside, but when bad people do bad things, rule are meaningless, my point is the Founding fathers had one rule related to guns. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Had even a few people been living that rule, the jerk would have been dead long before 31 others would have been killed and a host of wounded, added to them. All of the rhetoric by various politicos is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, to gain political power over others, and further denigrate the founding documents.
Anyone of us could write a book on Chuck Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy and the people dumb enough to believe their tales. Speaking of Holocaust deniers, Carolyn McCarthy has got to be one of the worst, in modern times. Had anyone on the train had a weapon, she wouldn’t be in the House of Representatives as a member of the pity party, and her loved ones might still be around.
But they refused to pass info on because of privacy concerns. But not the “privacy” of certain other people. Bout 32 of em.
Exactly correct.
I’m not sure of all the details, but something happened to my brother once. And while he has never been incarcerated, he has been judged as having some types of mental problems, and faces jail time if he is caught with a firearm.
And I know a fellow who got charged with domestic abuse who also can never own a gun. I think this one is a crappy deal, cause if your old lady hauls off and lambastes you with a Faberware frying pan, and you slug her back, you SHOULD NOT be denied the right to have a gun.
She should get thrown in the clinker if she’s caught with another frying pan, though!
No ‘ he can’t do it legally. Private sales on hand guns must go to a dealer and run the back round check. It does happen I know but it is not legal.
Cho wasn't convicted of anything. He wasn't even institutionalized.
Like I said, so much for background checks and gun-free zones. It ain't a "whole 'nother topic", it plays right into it.
That whole 'gun free zone' thingy didn't work out quite as they intended, did it.
Fools.
L
IF ONLY THEY HAD ENFORCED THE CURRENT LAWS... THOSE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!
Sorry for the caps, but it needs to be shouted from the rooftops!
LLS
Hence mental cases without criminal records can purchase arsenals.
What do we and where do we go from here?
Right. Gun-free zones are a recipe for disaster.
I hope those who were responsible for the passage of the "gun-free zones on school campuses" in Virginia can manage to sleep well every night from now on, because through their shortsightedness and striving to be politically correct, cost the lives of 32 people.
"Some" (very few) states require that. Most don't. But it is still illegal for anyone with certain serious mental problems to OWN or BUY a gun--even though it may be legal for someone else to SELL one without a background check.
I hope they get their asses sued off myself.
And just to be hyper technical about it, I don't think there was ever actually a law passed making the campus a 'gun free' zone. That was a VT policy. IIUC the Legislature was trying to pass a law forcing VT to abide by current VA law.
When that effort failed, VT simply instituted a policy of expelling any student caught with a firearm legal or no.
So if I've got it right there's really only a small number of people responsible for the 'gun free' (guess not) thing and that's the VT President and his lackeys on the Board.
They should all be sued until they have nothing left.
L
law enforcement has 3 lines of defense to pursue from here:
1. the first line of defense is that criminals and others unsuited to gun ownership should be barred from legal possession. better information systems and co-operation among agencies would help;
2. the second line of defense is that if such a person above attempts to bypass gun laws, that should signal a red flag, and invite an automatic visit by law enforcement, i.e. watch list;
3. the third line of defense is to encourage and support the arming of the populace so that there are fewer lambs for the slaughter
So this nut bought a gun illegally? He also carried guns on the campus “illegally.” He used the guns illegally many times. The law/police/justice/etc. never got in his way during any of this. Passing laws and threats of punishment after the fact are no protection against a determined killer.
Many states like Florida and Virginia provide their own background check systems as a substitute for the NICS check with federal approval. The reason they do this is that they charge a fee that generates an income source and state jobs as opposed to the federal NICS check which is free (thanks to the NRA).
Any person who knowingly transfers a firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person also commits a federal crime.
Government does not do its job and lock this guy up or report him to the National Instant Check System after repeated demonstrations of dangerous behavior.
-—What is the result-—
We need to restrict honest citizens from owning firearms.
ML/NJ
Reported to whom?
source
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.