I think in the VA case the judge checked a box that while Cho was a danger to himself and others, and mentally ill, he could get voluntary treatment. Since he was not involuntarily committed, it was not reported to NICS under VA law.
However, under Federal law it should have been reported to NICS just because Cho was declared a danger to himself and others. This is my concern, though no doubt Cho should have been committed in retrospect. The Federal law is specific that you just don't have to have been involuntarily commited, but if you are adjudicated a danger to yourself or others, you lose your firearms rights forever.
That is what we need to be careful about - the fact that any judge, based on the testimony of some liberal, anti-gun shrink, can take away your rights forever.
Quotes from the link in my post that started this thread about involuntary commitment:
"a system in which (1) dishonest testimony is often regularly (and unthinkably) accepted; (2) statutory and case law standards are frequently subverted; (3) insurmountable barriers are raised to ensure that the allegedly 'theraputically correct' social end is met".
"In other words, psychiatrists often commit perjury because they won't allow such things as the pesky constitution to get in the way of what they think is right".
"Anything the defendant says is deemed a symptom of their 'illness'. In fact, denying one has mental illness is deemed a symptom of mental illness".
"I had a client who refused to talk to the psychiatrist because she quite legitimately felt he was just talking to her to make a case against [her]. That became a justification for a diagnosis fo paranoid schizophrenia".
"It is a stacked deck; it is a sham that is hurting people".
Now, this is before Cho. Think how bad things could get? Be very, very careful about what you say and how you act. The more chilling aspect is that because people might be concerned about being called a nut, they won't aggressively petition the government.
