Posted on 04/09/2002 12:48:21 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
YNBROOK, N.Y., April 8 — One month ago, Peter J. Troy walked into a Long Island gun store and bought a semiautomatic rifle that he used four days later when, the police say, he killed a priest and a parishioner during a morning Mass in this tiny Long Island village.
Mr. Troy, 34, had spent time in two mental hospitals, and his mother had obtained a restraining order against him, which he had violated, officials said. Those facts did not show up on the federal registry used to check the backgrounds of prospective gun buyers, so the sale went through.
Today, Senator Charles E. Schumer and Representative Carolyn McCarthy said they were introducing legislation to close loopholes in existing federal gun control laws. At present, states collect information on people involuntarily committed to mental institutions but are not required to give it to federal agencies.
Standing in front of Our Lady of Peace Roman Catholic Church, where the shootings took place, Mr. Schumer and Ms. McCarthy announced a bill that would require states to supply that information for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a database that provides clearance for gun purchases.
The bill would also expand gun control laws to block purchases by anyone against whom a restraining order has been issued in the last five years, Mr. Schumer said. Now, he said, the only restraining orders covered by the laws are those protecting the person's romantic partner, child or romantic partner's child.
"Peter Troy was the last person on earth who should be able to buy a gun," Mr. Schumer said. "What we're trying to do is prevent brutal and senseless murders like the one that took place in this church from ever happening again."
On March 12, Mr. Troy burst into a 9 a.m. Mass here and, using a .22-caliber rifle, killed the Rev. Lawrence M. Penzes and Eileen Tosner, a parishioner, the authorities said.
After Mr. Troy pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, details of his background started emerging. Officials said Mr. Troy was hospitalized last spring at Bellevue Hospital Center in Manhattan. Twice, they said, he was hospitalized at Nassau University Medical Center. The second time, also last spring, doctors wanted to keep him there for an extended period, but a Nassau County judge ordered him released.
Although doctors at Bellevue had urged that Mr. Troy continue to be closely monitored, as required by a state law for mentally ill patients considered potentially harmful, the Nassau Department of Mental Health failed to find him, and his case was closed.
Stephen Fischer, a spokesman for the F.B.I., said the federal database included "very few" mental history records.
"In an instance like this, with Peter Troy, we didn't have the information," he said. "Had we had it, in all likelihood he would not have been able to purchase that firearm."
Caroline Quartararo, a spokeswoman for Gov. George E. Pataki, said New York State would soon require that its mental health data be submitted, regardless of whether the Schumer bill is enacted.
Neil Slater, president of the Nassau and Queens chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, said that for now, he was opposed to the bill.
"In some parts of the country, carrying a gun is tantamount to a civil right," he said, "and to deny it to somebody who once suffered from mental illness and has recovered, who is not any danger to himself or others, seems to be an abrogation of the Constitution."
Oh how the education system in this country has failed this man. The right to defend ones own life is an inalienable right conferred by the Creator on each man, woman and child. And entailed in that right is the right guaranteed to each US citizen by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, is the right to keep and bare arms (that’s the right to own and carry guns for those who went to government schools and haven’t yet recovered). And this makes the carrying of a gun by definition a civil right.
this man was obviously NOT well and should NOT have had a firearm. The priest and the woman SHOULD have been armed and weren't for reasons obvious and outdated. Women NEED to carry, as a preventative measure against rape, assault and murder. Priests, who abhor violence, should carry because they need to prevent violence... avoiding the use of guns does not prevent violence, it enables it.
Should crazies get guns? NO... but who decides who the "crazies" are? I could forsee a time when anyone who is heterosexual, might be considered "crazy" by the radical left... labelled as homophobes and stripped of their arms.
For that matter, who ISN'T a little crazy, out of balance or maladjusted at one time or another? If the guy is out on the street, and able to drive a 2000 pound weapon on wheels, he ought to be able to own a gun. I guess the problem is, THIS guy was NOT well enough to be "out" in public. Obviously.
This is the most unjust thing I have ever heard of. A restraining order is not a conviction or even an arrest. It is issued by a judge, on the flimsiest of evidence, not necessarily even with any right to a hearing or appeal.
How would you like it if your b*tch ex-wife could bar you from having guns for five years just by telling a judge she's "afraid" of you?
For that matter, what's to keep her from doing it every five years? What's to keep Charles Schumer, disgusting little New York pr**k, from taking out a restraining order on every NRA member because they frighten him and make him wet his bed at night?
I predict that many otherwise sensible Republican women will support it, lest they be seen as arming vicious wife beaters.
I hope our legislators have more sense than this. If they don't, I hope that our courts do. And if they don't, I hope the good citizens of this country have the b*lls to deal with this in the way our forefathers would have...
-ccm
The usual suspects.
Boonie Rat
MACV SOCOM,PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
 |
Gee, remember the good old days when the states told the federal government what to do instead of the other way around? |
That was before they became indentured servants.
I would guess that many if not most restraining orders are issued ex parte (that is, with the "defendant" absent and unnotified about the hearing).
Over the years I've heard of two friends having these things issued against them in the midst of divorces for no reason whatsoever, except that the wife "needed her space." Of course that's not what the orders said. Since I know these guys and that they were not a threat to anyone, I could only surmise that the wives' lawyers concocted the charges so that the wife could remain in the house and the husband would be pressured to reach a divorce settlement.
In any case, neither fellow challenged the order because it was simply too much of a pain in the neck.
I'd love to see some stats on how many ex parte orders are issued in divorce cases. I've heard that many cops have lost their jobs because they were subject to these flimsy restraining orders in the midst of a divorce, and thus were no longer able to carry.
Who is to blame for this shooting? How about the judge that ordered him released over the objection of his doctors who considered him "dangerous". If this man was "dangerous", and had been refused the right to purchase a firearm legally, would he have stolen or bought one from someone who had? For those who would like to see the Constitution protected and restored, Serious Discussions found here
Just about ANYONE can get a restraining order for ANY Reason.
Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
How true, domestic arguments these days often degenerate into a race to the phone.
Dial fast! Be the first to have a restraining order sworn out! You too can be a winner!
Does the disability kick in prior to a judge hearing testimony or after?
Schumer is a fascist POS and should be banned from the country.
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.