Posted on 04/19/2007 7:32:47 PM PDT by RWB Patriot
McLEAN, Va. - A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.
Cho purchased two handguns in February and March, and was subject to federal and state background checks both times. The checks turned up no problems, despite a judge's ruling in December 2005 that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
"On the face of it, he should have been blocked under federal law," said Denis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
The 23-year-old South Korean immigrant was evaluated by a psychiatric hospital after he was accused of stalking two women and photographing female students in class with his cell phone. His violence-filled writings were so disturbing that professors begged him to get counseling.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Was there any followup to insure that he actually was following the outpatient program?
Then judge made the ruling after the doc's evaluation. It was the official ruling, and you only need one ruling.
The VA court's determination did disqualify Cho from purchasing any firearms according to fed law, 18USC922(g)(4). The court record was never entered into the NICS dbase, because VA declined to volunteer those court records to the DOJ. 28CFR25.4 says the States may volunteer info regarding the fed disqualifications contained in 18USC922. SInce VA didn't forward the court finding, Cho's fed BG check came out clean.
In 2002, the House passed a bill saying the States must forward such info, and put up some $s for it. The Senate never moved on it. Had it became law, the info would have been in the NICS dbase and Cho's BG check would have said decline.
The judge DID rule at one point that he was a danger to himself or others. But later, he changed the ruling, otherwise Cho would have entered into the system and have been unable to purchase a weapon. That is the best I can recall from what I have heard.
This is Bill Clinton’s fault. HIPPA regulations were passed under his watch in 1995.
I support the right of all law-abiding citizens to bear arms. I do NOT support the right of the mentally ill to bear arms.
The law that forbids the sale of guns to the mentally ill is a good law. It gives voice to responsible gun ownership as a fundamental right.
Bottom line: yeah, he might have found some other way to kill 32 people, but maybe not. He should certainly not have been able to buy a gun to do it.
Nobody should be defending this guy's right to buy a gun because he had no more such right than a 5 year old.
I am still only saying that what I had heard was that he WAS legally adjudicated as mentally ill, but it was either changed or set aside at some later point in time. If you have the final document I would really like a link to it rather than the continuous back and forth.
The ruling was never changed. It stands. No subsequent ruling in that process could have changed it. The fact that he was never committed is relevant to VA firearms law only, not fed law. Fed law says the disqualifierss are: found a danger due to mental defect, OR committed. VA law just says committed is a disqualifier.
But the patient doesn’t necessarily have to tell the doctor.
I have a question about all of this mess:
If the Second amendment says that the “right to keep and bear arm shall not be abridged”
Well the state of VA is a conceal carry state if I am not mistaken. A governmental entity-a state univeristy-passed a no guns policy for state property-the grounds of VT university. Wasn’t the state of VA abridging the rights of citizes to keep and bear arms? Perhaps had the student’s right to carry had not been abridged they may have been able to save themselves.
Link to the document or explain why he wasn’t in the system.
Sec. 25.4 Record source categories.
It is anticipated that most records in the NICS Index will be obtained from Federal agencies. It is also anticipated that a limited number of authorized state and local law enforcement agencies will voluntarily contribute records to the NICS Index. Information in the NCIC and III systems that will be searched during a background check has been or will be contributed voluntarily by Federal, state, local, and international criminal justice agencies.
I can't believe that anything subsequent to this would have made it OK for him to purchase a firearm. I mean, the guy was a nut, and was adjudicated as much in late 2005. There could not have been any time in the last year and a half where someone would have said, well, you're not really that nuts, so we'll let you buy a gun.
In other words, once you've been adjudicated mentally ill and you're within that federal law, the burden should be on you to show that, no, that law no longer applies to me because I am completely cured or the initial adjudication was erroneous.
That initial adjudication was spot on. Maybe one could trot out some hypothetical of a guy who was unjustly adjudicated mentally ill and was denied the right to buy a gun, and then somebody broke into his house and killed his family but he was unable to defend them or himself because he had unjustly been declared mentally ill and denied the right to buy a gun.
But better that then having the Seung Hui Chos of the world packing.
We always say that we don't need any more gun control laws, we just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. This is an instance where Virginia blew it by not complying with a federal law already on the books.
Amen.
The greatest travesty of law was the set of laws that disarmed practically everyone else but the shooter on that campus.
Both of your answers are correct and I am not in disagreement. Why was he NOT entered in the system if he was required to be entered? I mean the obvious defense of a mentally ill person is to assert that he didn’t know he couldn’t buy a gun because he didn’t know any better because of mental illness.
See the link to 28CFR25.4 i gave in #33 that covers that. A States submission of data that diqualifies firearms purchases under fed law, is voluntary. The chief LEO of the buyers local within the State of residence, of the chief LEO for the whole State, is responsible for the BG check regarding State law only. VA law is less strict with regard to this matter.
“But the patient doesn’t necessarily have to tell the doctor.”
Oh sure. But someone clearly nuts ought to stand out. Like this guy did.
BATF - the Armed Forces of the Gun Control lobby!
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.