Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Virginia Governor closes gun loophole.
My Way ^ | April 30, 2007 | Bob Lewis

Posted on 04/30/2007 3:56:32 PM PDT by freemike

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The governor on Monday closed the loophole in state law that allowed the Virginia Tech gunman to pass a federal background check and buy the weapons used in the massacre.

(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: banglist; vatech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last
Hmmm,, sounds good and safe at first, doesn't it. I wonder if a lot gun owners may in time find themselves facing involuntary committal?!
1 posted on 04/30/2007 3:56:33 PM PDT by freemike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freemike

So what loophole will they close after the next shooting...and the next one...and the next one....


2 posted on 04/30/2007 3:57:59 PM PDT by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Still Championship U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike

what a freaking hero. he ought to run for president. /dripping sarc


3 posted on 04/30/2007 4:00:59 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (Thank you St. Jude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike; dfwgator

Dang! I thought the governor abolished the gun-free college campus zones...


4 posted on 04/30/2007 4:01:00 PM PDT by an amused spectator (Gun Control, the Sequel: More and Morerer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike

If only they had closed that loophole sooner. Those cursed loopholes.


5 posted on 04/30/2007 4:01:19 PM PDT by doubleA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike

I can’t offhand think of any lawful gunowner who wants lunatics owning deadly weapons. About time.


6 posted on 04/30/2007 4:03:18 PM PDT by RichardW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike

What did he fix ?


7 posted on 04/30/2007 4:03:53 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike

What the governor should do is push his legislature to re-open discussion and vote on allowing concealed carry on all collegew campuses. The BIGGEST LOOPHOLE the killer used was that there was no one armed to stop him.

What the governor did instead will have about as much impact on a killer intent on getting a gun and taking advantage of this much more critical loophole as trying to swat away a swarm of angry horse flies with a single strand of hair from a horses tail.


8 posted on 04/30/2007 4:04:38 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Precisely. How about the “gun-free-zone loophole,” which allows armed maniacs free reign over defenseless populations? Let’s close that one.


9 posted on 04/30/2007 4:06:46 PM PDT by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RichardW

...but would likely have had no impact on the actions of Chu. He would simply have gotten the guns another way. You see, he was criminally minded and he was going to break whatever laws he thought necessary to carry out his evil intent.

The only loopholes that mattered that day was all the ones that have been closed to law-abiding citizens preventing them from being armed to stop the madman that day.


10 posted on 04/30/2007 4:06:56 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

See my posts 8 and 10.


11 posted on 04/30/2007 4:07:45 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freemike
But because Cho was treated as an outpatient and never committed to a mental health hospital, the court's decision was not entered into the database that gun dealers must check before selling a weapon.
The database "should include any determination that someone is mentally ill and so dangerous to himself or others as to warrant involuntary treatment," Kaine said in a statement.

The Clintoons tried this style of crap while they were back in office however just by which measure does one determines "Mentally Ill & Dangerous"??

The Communists in several countries have been using this measurement to imprison & persecute political enemies & Christians for decades!! You watch and see how easily that this can easily be expanded to anyone who've ever had been prescribed a sedative or antidepressants.

12 posted on 04/30/2007 4:08:28 PM PDT by prophetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike
Good thing the ONLY Democrats who win those "red" states are "conservative" Democrats. A pro-abortion, gun-grabbing socialist will NEVER win in a "red state", no sireee.....
13 posted on 04/30/2007 4:09:03 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Don't blame Illinois for Pelosi, we elected ROSKAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike

I agree that homicidal maniacs should not own guns. But,,, could this not be abused?? The article only says you need to be found dangerous and ordered to involuntary mental health treatment. It all depends on the details. I find it surprising that the Gov. himself can just order this. Could another gov. just order the loss of your gun rights should a crisis worker just show up on your doorstep?? Or am I being too paranoid here?!


14 posted on 04/30/2007 4:10:18 PM PDT by freemike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike

OK.... Don’t bash me to bad on this one because I’m against people like this from having guns also, but, Executive Order? I thought the legislature had to pass laws, and then the Governor signs it BEFORE it goes into law? Just a thought.


15 posted on 04/30/2007 4:13:05 PM PDT by Patriot2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike
Stroke of a pen, law of the state. Pretty cool, huh!
16 posted on 04/30/2007 4:16:02 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

“The only loopholes that mattered that day was all the ones that have been closed to law-abiding citizens preventing them from being armed to stop the madman that day”


17 posted on 04/30/2007 4:19:30 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker ( Hunter/Thompson/Thompson/Hunter in 08! Or Rudy/Hillary if you want to murder conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freemike

If he’d just closed this loophole before the shooting, this jerk would never have been able to get a gun......


18 posted on 04/30/2007 4:20:35 PM PDT by umgud ("When seconds count, the police are just 10 minutes away!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

You assuming he would have illegally procured the weapons. You know what they say about assuming don’t you?

In a perfect world he wouldn’t have obtained them either legally or illegally. Unfortunately we don’t live in such a world. We can do what we can do and nothing more. There is no reason that I can think of to justify selling deadly weapons to lunatics.

And I support the public hanging of illicit gun dealers and drug dealers. That would largely take care of the illicit gun problem in addition to the legal precurement of weapons by maniacs like Cho.


19 posted on 04/30/2007 4:21:55 PM PDT by RichardW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Patriot2000
Executive Order? I thought the legislature had to pass laws, and then the Governor signs it BEFORE it goes into law? Just a thought.

The governor is operating under the impression that "anyone who is found to be dangerous and ordered to undergo involuntary mental health treatment", or his lawyer, won't dare challenge his "law" or executive order, in a court of law. Imagine a mental health patient challenging the "law" because he wants to get his hands on a gun, being turned down, than then challenging the "law". What lawyer would dare take on that case?
20 posted on 04/30/2007 4:24:19 PM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson