Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CNN Article Legal Loophole

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Ohioan, Apr 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ohioan

    Ohioan Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Round on the ends, HIGH in the middle.. oHIo
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/24/gun.loophole/index.html




    s
    The article leads you to believe that he did something illegal or subversive to purchase his firearms...

    They can't understand, he was mentally ill.. and sometimes mentally ill people do crazy things like kill people.





    You know, if guns are so scary, how come is horror movies the psycho killer rarely uses firearms? It's always big knives, or axes, or chainsaws, or trucks or something along those lines... hardly ever guns.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2007
  2. Rumble

    Rumble Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    Indiana, PA
    Well, Cho did do something illegal--he murdered a whole bunch of people.

    However, I'm not entirely convinced that even the court order he had would have disqualified him federally--it has not been entirely clear to me that what he was ordered to do (some sort of temporary outpatient thing) rose to the level of "adjudicated mentally defective."

    And I'm also not clear that the Federal government's regulations on that have a lower burden of proof--the 4473 only asks "have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective...?" Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm not sure that the loophole CNN mentions actually existed.

    EDIT: It appears that the federal standards are somewhat less strict--"adjudicated mentally defective" is defined in 27CFR178.11 simply as a finding by a court or other authority that the person has certain characteristics, one of which is "being a danger to self or others." I believe I stand corrected on the above.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2007
  3. Steve 48

    Steve 48 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    416
    Location:
    St. John, Kansas
    I heard "Chuckie" Schumer last night on Fox telling them that the 2nd amendment was a guaranteed right and that they were going to "fix" the Cho incident with a voice vote to eliviate the reporting of all persons who are "a danger to themselves or others". I just don't trust that man no matter if he makes sense once in awhile. It may be a slippery slope!! Steve48
     
  4. ingram

    ingram Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    174
    Location:
    Vancouver/Seattle, WA
    Because what's scary is not having an adequate means to defend yourself. :cool: At least I guess why the victims rarely have guns =(
     
  5. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    What "loophole" did Cho exploit again???:confused:

    It seems to this badger that he went through all the governmentally mandated wickets to obtain his pistols. Where's the loophole now?:confused:
     
  6. Ohioan

    Ohioan Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Round on the ends, HIGH in the middle.. oHIo
    The loophole was Virginia not reporting the fact that he was considered a danger to himself and others... but, they're trying to make people think that there are loopholes that need to be "fixed" by "better, more strict" gun laws...

    like my Professor of Political Science used to say "Getting a degree is all about jumping through hoops, if you want to get a pHD they just light those hoops on fire." Well, the same quote goes for dealing with the federal government. All bureaucracies for that matter I suppose...
     
  7. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,232
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    So the linked TDO in the article says that a less restrictive alternative has been found to involuntary commitment - outpatient treatment. It says he was mentally ill, but was NOT a danger, COULD take care of himself, etc., etc., etc.

    The state has said he didn't meet the standard and the feds have said that he should have been reported.

    Let's see, Virginia lost the War of Northern Agression, so the feds will win the matter of the interpretation I predict. ;)

    John
     
  8. MD_Willington

    MD_Willington Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,692
    Location:
    Canuck in SE WA State.
    No background check... lol
     
  9. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    John, yes, exactly right.

    Ohioan, well, if the government of Virginia failed to do something (at this point I do not know if they did), then it must be shouted from the rooftops that it was the government's fault. I move to ban governments.:)
     
  10. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,232
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
  11. Ohioan

    Ohioan Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Round on the ends, HIGH in the middle.. oHIo
    I second that motion!!

    All in favor say "aye"!!
     
  12. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,232
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    The more I read that form the screwier it gets. Buried at the bottom it says he is an imminent danger, yet immediately below that it says a less restrictive treatment environment is available and appropriate(or whatever the wording is, I hate pdf files, too hard to cut and paste) and that outpatient treatment is good to go.

    Seems like he either ought to be sick enough to need intensive inpatient care or if he doesn't then he gets a pass.

    John
     
  13. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,107
    What is a "Special Justice?" Does it mean the person is legally acting as a Judge in the matter?
     
  14. another okie

    another okie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,850
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    The magistrate checked the box that says "danger to self" but not the one marked "danger to others." This still should have disqualified him by federal law, since he was judged "mentally defective," but Virginia does its own checks through the state police. Apparently Virginia only reports commitments to the state police. I suspect the Virginia law will be amended soon.

    One reason so few states report the information is concern for privacy. Mental health rights advocates are a pretty tough lobby, and they don't like the idea of being permanently barred from owning firearms because they were once depressed. And they don't like the idea of the information being in a computer data base, either. We all know what happens to information once it's compiled.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page