VA. Governor adresses more gun control


PDA






Glockman17366
April 27, 2007, 10:18 AM
The article is in the Washington Times: Kaine will tighten gun-buyer controls (http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070426-114024-3041r.htm).

I don't see any loosening of CCW in schools. I'm in PA, so not much I could do on this, but you folks in Virginia might want to read this article and make your views known to your representatives...and call the governor's office to make your views known there as well.

Good luck, keep us posted.

BTW, you MD folks might want to read this article too.

If you enjoyed reading about "VA. Governor adresses more gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bdutton
April 27, 2007, 10:26 AM
Seems reasonable. This would require persons deemed dangerous by a judge and placed into a mental institution to be denied a gun purchase.

32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the terms of the mental illness reporting portion of the NICS law.

I'm pro gun, but not stupid.

RNB65
April 27, 2007, 10:43 AM
Tim Kaine (who I refuse to acknowledge as my Gov) is nothing but an old school liberal who would love to ban guns completely if he could. :mad:

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
April 27, 2007, 11:42 AM
We just have to be very careful, the mental illness aspect could be used as a loophole for antis to start denying innocent people their firearm rights.

Henry Bowman
April 27, 2007, 12:07 PM
Seems reasonable. This would require persons deemed dangerous by a judge and placed into a mental institution to be denied a gun purchase.While in the mental institution, sure. Forever? Is that reasonable? Never "cured"? Never have rights restored? What other rights should they lose forever? Voting? Preaching?

Travis McGee
April 27, 2007, 12:10 PM
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"
~Senator Charles Schumer, 1993

I can see the Schmuckies in Congress eventually stretching this mental clause into a backdoor ban prohibiting half of America from owning guns. They'll just gradually add "anyone who was ever prescribed antidepressants" etc to the law.

bogie
April 27, 2007, 12:10 PM
would require persons deemed dangerous by a judge and placed into a mental institution to be denied a gun purchase.


Uh... I thought this was already the case?

If so, do we need ANOTHER law, or do we need to worry about maybe making the existing law actually function?

Glockman17366
April 27, 2007, 12:27 PM
I'd like to see you Virginians tell Kaine to open the campuses to CCW.
As far as the mentally ill, let's see what the federales do.

But, the main thing...you Virginians got to impress upon Kaine the value of CCW

Geno
April 27, 2007, 12:47 PM
The whole danged process is "bass ackwards". We in society sit and wait to see which of our gun rights will survive this pack of self-loving, legislative fools, rather than us contact them and demand that they report to session and represent our will. Screw what they want...they work for us! We should collectively demand that whatever measure is proposed to be implemented, be either:

1) put on a ballot, if it in any way shape or form effects our Constitutional rights

or

2) that legislators report back to their representative communities, in person, for town hall meetings before they vote, if it will simply be legislated without a public vote.

Titan6
April 27, 2007, 01:20 PM
I don't see why people deemed a danger to themselves and others due to mental illness should have guns. Nor should they drive vehicles or operate heavy machinery or be left repsonsible for kids at say a school...

This would be lot harder than people are willing to admit. However, we no longer live in a society where people know each other well enough to say that a person is insane, dangerous and irresponsible. Even if we did that person could easily move about the country posing a threat to a new community. This is likely the best solution we have for our world. If someone can be cured and deemed no longer a threat I would say restore rights, but in today's litigous society what doctor would sign off on that?

992
April 27, 2007, 02:10 PM
I am wondering if a person intent on murdering as many people as he can,would be stopped by ANY law?
Feel good laws do nothing to stop a determined killer.

992

Vern Humphrey
April 27, 2007, 02:26 PM
32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the terms of the mental illness reporting portion of the NICS law.
32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the Constitution and not forbidden honest people to carry on campus.

bdutton
April 27, 2007, 02:28 PM
While in the mental institution, sure. Forever? Is that reasonable? Never "cured"? Never have rights restored? What other rights should they lose forever? Voting? Preaching?

I believe that there already is an appeal process to have your name removed from the NICS 'list'.

If so, do we need ANOTHER law, or do we need to worry about maybe making the existing law actually function?

Problem with the existing law was the states had to volunteer the info. If there is no penalty, the only incentive are more acts of of violence by people who SHOULD be denied. What good does that do? It makes us honest gun owners look like monsters for fighting tooth and nail every single gun law.

We need to pick and choose our battles. I would think that reasonable people would support a law that prevents psychos from passing a NICS check. WE should be leading the fight for this type of law.

bdutton
April 27, 2007, 02:32 PM
32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the Constitution and not forbidden honest people to carry on campus.

I agree. I think it would have helped if Cho had failed a NICS check as the original NICS law intended.

Vern Humphrey
April 27, 2007, 02:32 PM
I would think that reasonable people would support a law that prevents psychos from passing a NICS check. WE should be leading the fight for this type of law.
Let's compromise -- lets include in the same bill a provision that allows citizens to carry anywhere, in any state on their CCW -- just as they can drive anywhere, in any state on their state driver's license.

One of Many
April 27, 2007, 02:39 PM
The whole idea that the majority must pay for the sins of the minority is unjust. One crazy person breaks the law, so we pass new laws that only affect the law abiding, not the criminals and crazies - this is idiotic. The politicians need to be committed to mental institutions.

From a Risk VS Benefit approach, we are better off as a society to suffer a RARE mass killing of this type, than to prevent self defense by tens of thousands of individual victims of violent criminals.

When only the criminals have the means to use violence to achieve their goals (because they ignore gun laws), we suffer runaway rates of armed robbery, rape and murder, because no one can defeat the muggers. Under disarmament laws, only the illegally armed victim can stop the criminal attack, because the police are never around when these crimes are committed. An illegally armed victim that stops a criminal attack is much less likely to report that attack to the police, so the criminal attacker (if he survives) is less likely to be arrested and sent to jail.

Criminals, by definition, are those that disobey laws - laws against possessing guns, robbing or raping defensless victims, or even murdering people. Criminals don't stop at just one crime - they continue to commit crimes as long as they are allowed to roam the streets with unarmed targets of opportunity.

Violence itself is not the problem - violence when used at the proper time and place, under the correct circumstances, is beneficial to society. The concept of capital punishment is based on the use of violence as a means to control the antisocial actions of a small portion of the populace. It is a recognition that some people deserve to die, for the harm they cause to the law abiding members of society.

Laws that reward the criminals for Violent behavior (put them in a warm, dry, and comfy jail cell, with three meals a day and free entertainment) and turn them back out on the street with a better education in criminal practices (they get instructions from other prisoners) do nothing to reduce the amount of crime. One way to reduce the amount of crime is to reduce the amount of criminals, and one way that happens is when violent criminals are killed (either by armed victims, or execution by judicial sentencing).

Criminals need to know that violent attacks against other people will cost them their life; it is senseless to sentence someone to life in prison, and force the victims to pay for the upkeep of that criminal. Prison should be for non-violent criminals, and should be harsh enough that the people who leave prison never want to do anything that will get them returned to prison. The cost of prison should be paid by the prisoner, by working at some job in prison that benefits the law abiding members of society.

The people of this country have got to take responsibility for their own safety, and responsibility for dealing with the violent criminals in a manner that ensures the violent criminals will never repeat their criminal violence again. If that means kicking all of the politicians out of office and replacing them with servants that follow he will of the people, then so be it. Laws define the society - bad law creates a sick society - good law creates a healthy society. Law is suposed to serve the members of society, not subjugate them.

Vern Humphrey
April 27, 2007, 02:42 PM
I agree. I think it would have helped if Cho had failed a NICS check as the original NICS law intended.

The problem is, Cho's status was accidental -- the next Cho might have go postal before ever entering the system. So "tightening up" the NICS wouldn't catch or stop him. Or he might obtain his weapon illegally.

However, if we actually enforce the people's rights to bear arms, the odds are very good the next Cho will run into an armed victim in the course of his rampage.

bdutton
April 27, 2007, 02:46 PM
so we pass new laws that only affect the law abiding, not the criminals and crazies - this is idiotic.

???

When a criminal or crazy person goes to court and a judge determines that they are guilty or crazy and sends them off to prison or the mental institution they fill out a form that puts the person's name in the NICS system

How are the law abiding people getting adversely affected?

Bartholomew Roberts
April 27, 2007, 02:52 PM
If so, do we need ANOTHER law, or do we need to worry about maybe making the existing law actually function?

The issue is that only 22 states currently even have computerized databases on people who have been involuntarily committed/adjudicated mental defective. Since Printz v. U.S. (original Brady Bill) held that Congress cannot commandeer the resources of state officials to enact a federal law in this circumstance, Congress must either bribe the states (more federal funds) to report this information or extort the states (withhold federal funds). This bill does both; but it also changes the definition used for misdemeanor domestic violence slightly and gives the states incentive to report records that are not truly relevant.

I believe that there already is an appeal process to have your name removed from the NICS 'list'.

The appeal process only works if your name was included on the NICS list wrongly (i.e. I am "John A. Smith, SSN: 123-45-6789 - the guy who is denied is John A. Smith, SSN: 123-45-6780). If you were adjudicated mentally ill in 1970; but have lived for the past 37 years with no problems with the law or mental illness you are still prohibited from owning a firearm and there is no way to appeal it.

I agree. I think it would have helped if Cho had failed a NICS check as the original NICS law intended.

He might have, he might not. The court cases on the subject have only dealt with what is defined by "involuntary commitment." The government has never tried to argue that being found a danger to yourself or others (adjudicated mentally defective) under the standards used to commit Cho is a violation of 922(g). It is a grey area in law and past case law suggests that the regulation might not pass the scrutiny of the court. It seems the main problem here is that Cho had more of a preliminary hearing than an actual adjudication of his status. If that is the case, then NICS still would not have caught him.

I personally wouldn't support H.R. 297 myself and I would let the NRA know why I didn't support it; but on the other hand I don't think the law should be pulbicly renounced by the NRA either. It is bad politics and serves no purpose when the bill will die easily enough on its own. Think of how tough a sell this issue is on a board like THR that is filled with gun owners... it surely isn't going to sell any better to the general public unless somebody can figure out some very compelling arguments (which I have not yet seen).

I think the NRA should take the position that they will support the bill if:

1) The incentive to include ANY or ALL relevant records is removed and states do not get credit for records that are determined not to be relevant to a 922 determination
2) The definition of misdemeanor domestic violence is left as it is currently instead of being broadened in a sneaky, underhanded fashion
3) Funding for relief from disability is restored by Congress

Those are all rational arguments you can defend in the public arena and that the antis cannot easily discount. Issue #3, while being a basic idea of justice in our society is probably also a poison pill for the chances of this bill passing since both Republican and Democrat Congress have refused to do it since 1992.

bdutton
April 27, 2007, 02:52 PM
The problem is, Cho's status was accidental

The state of VA chose not to share the data with the feds. Probably with lots of pressure from the AMA and ACLU. Not exactly accidental. I do believe that CCW should be allowed on ALL campuses.

ArfinGreebly
April 27, 2007, 02:57 PM
Do they let "crazy" people drive cars?

Buy gasoline?

Chainsaws?

Vote?

This slope sure has a lot of grease on it.

Something to remember:

When you start revoking rights based on the opinion of a "doctor" whose field of "expertise" has been used as a political tool of oppression for nearly a century, you allow it to become a political tool here as well.

They're solving the wrong problem in any case.

The majority of dangerous sociopathic murdering jerks out there are not maladjusted, twitchy, and "obviously" nuts.

Evil doesn't often register as a beacon.

You place this kind of power in the hands of self-important politically motivated "doctors" and they will actively seek to expand it until they and their opinions are "indispensible" to law enforcement.

Cho wasn't as crazy as some would like to think. If he had been TRULY crazy, he'd have attacked a police station or an army base.

He didn't. He was completely aware that he needed a no-resistance zone to wreak his havoc.

Quit trying to turn this into a medical thing.

Let people arm themselves and put paid to this kind of idiocy.

fiVe
April 27, 2007, 03:13 PM
32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the Constitution and not forbidden honest people to carry on campus.

Let people arm themselves...

I agree. All this red tape over our 2nd amendment right. I read somewhere that if the 1st amendment had the same regulations/limitations that are currently on the 2nd amendment, we would only be allowed to use vowels.

bdutton
April 27, 2007, 03:22 PM
All this red tape over our 2nd amendment right. I read somewhere that if the 1st amendment had the same regulations/limitations that are currently on the 2nd amendment, we would only be allowed to use vowels.

o ue! ;-)

Glockman17366
April 27, 2007, 05:17 PM
"I believe that there already is an appeal process to have your name removed from the NICS 'list'"

It's my reading (and a call to the NRA) that the NRA negotiated version on HR 297 added a removal process. As far as an appeal process, I'd guess that's up to the state.
However, I'd like to see a review process for any denial as part of any bill.

Majic
April 27, 2007, 05:22 PM
But, the main thing...you Virginians got to impress upon Kaine the value of CCW
The CCW shouldn't be the issue, but rather the ability to just have a firearm on campus. No matter how a firearm is carried or stored just the presence of one and the mindset to use it could have ended the entire incident a lot earlier.
Let's not allow our CCW'ers to be like the anti's and let this unfortunate incident be a platform for their personal agenda. The ability to have a firearm on campus should be the subject. Not how you would carry it.

Glockman17366
April 27, 2007, 05:27 PM
"The CCW shouldn't be the issue, but rather the ability to just have a firearm on campus. No matter how a firearm is carried or stored just the presence of one and the mindset to use it could have ended the entire incident a lot earlier.
Let's not allow our CCW'ers to be like the anti's and let this unfortunate incident be a platform for their personal agenda. The ability to have a firearm on campus should be the subject. Not how you would carry it."

CCW isn't the issue...but to be effective, the weapon would have to be with the carrier.
I don't have an agenda concerning CCW. I do carry, I believe anyone willing and capable of carrying should carry.
Just having a firearm on campus won't help much. The gun has to be on hand.

Deer Hunter
April 27, 2007, 05:40 PM
It is a feel-good law, that's all. How will one be deemed mentally incompetant? Most likely when he begins to shoot up his school.

JimmyN
April 27, 2007, 06:38 PM
The state of VA chose not to share the data with the feds.

Everyone keeps saying that, but the fact is there was NOTHING TO REPORT. The VA system is computerized and already sends reports to the federal database. The new legislation won't change anything in VA, their system is already in place.

But, he was never involuntarily committed, as the judge ruled for voluntary outpatient treatment. And he never went for treatment, because it was voluntary. Therefore he still met the VA and federal legal requirements to purchase a handgun.

If the judge had commited him to treatment, rather than sweeping it aside, he would have never got through the VA system check. And he checked "NO" on the 4473, as he had never been involuntarily commited, which was true.

brickeyee
April 28, 2007, 12:52 PM
"32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the Constitution and not forbidden honest people to carry on campus."

Virginia has NO law prohibiting carrying on a college campus.
The VT administration has taken it upon themselves to have a POLICY that no student or employee who does require a firearm to do their job may have a gun on campus.

VT is floating the state preemption law by claiming they are NOT part of the state government (or a subordinate jurisdiction).
A bill to force the universities to obey the law was defeated in committee.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 28, 2007, 02:44 PM
Everyone keeps saying that, but the fact is there was NOTHING TO REPORT. The VA system is computerized and already sends reports to the federal database. The new legislation won't change anything in VA, their system is already in place.

Actually, the new bill would give more money to Virginia to include records that meet the federal requirements; but do not meet Virginia requirements.

But, he was never involuntarily committed, as the judge ruled for voluntary outpatient treatment. And he never went for treatment, because it was voluntary. Therefore he still met the VA and federal legal requirements to purchase a handgun.

This is a grey area actually. 922(g) says "adjudicated mentally defective OR committed to a mental institution". ATF regulations defined "found by a court to be a danger to himself or others" as "adjudicated mentally defective."

Virginia wasn't actually trying to disqualify Cho (thus the outpatient counseling which under Virginia law would not be reported to NICS) and so Cho didn't get counsel to contest the judge and psychiatrist's preliminary finding that he was a "danger to himself or others."

Since the government has never tried to argue (that I can find) that someone who didn't meet the regulatory definition of "committed to a mental institution" DID meet the regulatory definition of "adjudicated mental defective", we don't really know what would happen if they tried to make that claim. I think it would probably fail looking at what courts have ruled on 922(g) so far. So far I haven't been able to find a case where someone was ruled a prohibited person under 922(g) unless they had an adversial proceeding in front of a court where they were represented by counsel (but I haven't looked at all the relevant cases yet either).

If the judge had commited him to treatment, rather than sweeping it aside, he would have never got through the VA system check. And he checked "NO" on the 4473, as he had never been involuntarily commited, which was true.

Two Cold Soakers
April 29, 2007, 01:54 AM
Deleted

stevelyn
April 29, 2007, 12:09 PM
Tim Kaine (who I refuse to acknowledge as my Gov) is nothing but an old school liberal who would love to ban guns completely if he could.

Hey..........Didn't the NRA give him an "A" rating?:uhoh: :confused: :eek:

JohnBT
April 29, 2007, 03:08 PM
"Tim Kaine
Supports gun control-used taxpayer money to bus people to anti-gun rally in D.C., and as mayor of Richmond, sought legal advice on suing gun manufacturers. Tim Kaine has an "F" rating from the NRA which is defined as a "true enemy of gun-owners rights." (Richmond Times- Dispatch 5/18/00 and 3/14/99) and (NRA-PVF Candidate Endorsement Chart, 2001)"

They've said some nice things about him regarding his support of Project Exile.
____________________

"The state of VA chose not to share the data with the feds."

Virginia is one of only 22 states that reports any mental health info to NICS. Of the mental health reports to NICS, Virginia has made almost half.

John

SIOP
April 29, 2007, 03:14 PM
Yeah, great idea.

But don't forget, the powers that be have been trying to get "homophobia" officially declared a "mental illness".

You know that if they can get away with it, they will also have "fear of government", "love of guns", and other such maladies deemed "mental illnesses" too.

paramedic70002
April 30, 2007, 07:31 AM
In my opinion, the psych system needs to be re-funded so that true nuts can be housed indefinitely.

If the psych system can't put a patient in with a paid bed waiting, then they really don't need to be there.

The Smoking Gun or TMZ published Cho's Temporary Detention Order. A TDO IS an involuntary hold for psych eval.

Having transprted psych patients to psych facilities for way too long, I can tell you that the psych facilities are open door for many people who need to spend extra time inside. Most admissions are 72 hours only. Like having day surgery, but then you go home to get better. Only problem is, psychs don't always appreciate the "getting better" part and are apt to be noncompliant with their meds and follow ups. Same reason we used to lock up TB patients for a year. They's get better, stop their meds, and end up screwing their whole community. But we're a better nation now, we don't do that any more.

Tim Kaine is just enough of a gun rights suporter to say so on TV. Which is to say, NOT!

mec
April 30, 2007, 07:49 AM
Mental Health /Probate Codes can be interesting. In the past, (Texas) a mental health committment or guardianship created a presumption of incompetence that remained until the individual proved himself competent in court. In recent years the trend has been to add more due process to the mental health code and to abandon the words " Incompetent" or " Person of Unsound Mind" in favor of " Incapacitated."

Guardianships no longer automatically create general incompetence/incapacity but are taylored to the individual case. There is a check list detailing the areas in which the guardian of the person has the decision making power and what areas the ward is considered capable of managing himself. Routinely, with profoundly demented people Every box but one will be checked as being in the perview of the guardian and the court. the ward will be unable to make personal medical decisions, inter into contract, manage is financial affairs In every case I've seen, no matter how afflicted the incapacitated person was, the ward retained the capacity to vote. Apparently the LAW doesn't consider voting to be very important or requiring any degree of judgement.

As of five years ago, buying or owning a gun wasn't mentioned in probate procedings.

If you enjoyed reading about "VA. Governor adresses more gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!