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 ...
“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.”
Cho is in big trouble!
The laws are made for law-abiding citizens (duh!).
Criminals don’t care about the laws.
This same logic applies to the right to defend yourself regardless of the law. The 2nd amendment is really not needed it is a natural right.
I would rather be judged by 12 than be carried by 6.
BUMP
The 2nd amendment is really not needed it is a natural right.
It is right up there with the Ten Commandments . . more important in some ways!
Probably the same people who get to determine who is a child predator, and has to register as such for life. I would think that being a child predator is a sub-set of being a mental defective, after all.
He would have strapped a bomb to his body. Or some other means of horrific terror. Cho was help bent on murdering lots of people. Lack of a gun would not have changed that.
It takes a lot more resourcefulness to get a body bomb than to amble across town and buy a gun using your Master Card.
Regarding using a chainsaw, its hard to kill 32 people in 60 seconds using a chainsaw.
(Obvious points, why should it be necessary to even make them.)
there are some that should apply to just for cooking dinner, much less trying to hit someone with a frying pan... ;)
So you think he couldn’t have actually *planned* something else without a gun? Have you not seen the instructions on the web for making bombs? You obviously have no grasp of the reality that is Cho’s psychopathic intent.
Ain’t that the truth!
Could’a ... should’a ... would’a .... We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.
I suspect having illegally purchased a gun is the least of his troubles at this point. The absence of asbestos underwear (and outerwear) is probably the major thing on his mind.
Not according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Virginia: State law requires gun buyers to go through a state-based criminal background check in addition to the federal NICS check. This is the best system since it includes checking both state and federal records to prevent criminals and other prohibited people from buying guns.
Ask yourself, what if the federal government said that anyone charged as mentally defective can't get a gun, and your state said you actually had to be convicted? Should your state follow federal guidelines and submit your record to the federal government even though you were found competent by a state judge and your case dismissed?
Same principle.
"Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,”
What does that mean? Geez, go through a divorce and child custody battle, be diagnosed with cancer, lose a limb in an auto accident, lose a child, flunk out of school, get fired from your job -- in those situations, you're not mentally fit. Doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
Some, like Cho, benefit from treatment enough to live normally, but the miracle of meds is vastly overrated and many cannot take care of themselves. Half of all people disabled on SSD are mentally ill. We send them a small monthly check and they are on their own, even though they are a lot worse off than Cho.
We don’t need to “keep the nuts on the street”. We need to cut the red tape and bleeding heart regulations, and make it a LOT cheaper to keep people locked up, whether they belong in a secure mental institution or a regular prison. Frankly, there’s no reason for people who’ve been committed to a mental institution with no real possibility of recovery sufficient to re-join society, to be receiving all sorts of expensive “treatment”. There’s no reason it should cost more than $20,000 a year to keep somebody in a secure institution, and medicated to whatever extent is necessary to make them easily manageable by staff.
According to the article, some ivory tower law professor (in Florida, no less) interprets Virginia law as equating outpatient treatment to being institutionalized.
(No, I don't know how he does that.)
Why on earth would we want to do that? He should have been shot dead by an armed resident advisor upon his first attempt at violence in the dorm.
"However, these provisions do not prevent the University, from prohibiting students and University employees from carrying firearms on campus, even if those individuals hold state permits to carry concealed handguns, since specific statutes grant the University authority to regulate the conduct of students and University employees."
A year ago, the legislature tried (and failed) to remove those "specific statutes".
I think it is very unrealistic to expect impersonal institutions to be more conscientious and protective than his family, neighbors, and friends. In fact, his crimes are so exceptional that noone who knew him expected them. Why would institutions do better?
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.