Well, at least they can't say he legally bought ..
...the gun.
Turns out Seung-Hui had been found mentally ill by a court in 2005. That means he was prohibited from purchasing a firearm. No comfort to the victims, but it does damage the argument the anti-gun people will make when they use this as an excuse for a new AWB.
Turns out Seung-Hui had been found mentally ill by a court in 2005. That means he was prohibited from purchasing a firearm. No comfort to the victims, but it does damage the argument the anti-gun people will make when they use this as an excuse for a new AWB.
0
-
How does the background check miss that one? 0 -
Is that part of the NICS or a state thing?
I know it's on the 4473 but, people can (and do) lie.0 -
Are Doctors required to notify The law when a man is determined "mentally ill" and should not be allowed to purchase a weapon at this point in time?.... I would like to think that if I go off my rocker... my doctor passes it a along. Aside from family death nothing causes me more pain than an innocents death....
I must confess I have known a few people that I would not sell a gun too... Fortunately they have never asked...
I'll take that back when I was a kid (15 ???) a drunken neighbor trying to get a gun from me when he found out his wife was cheating. Weeks later he got his brains blew out in a bar....The guy was Insane for sure..... No I didn't give him a gun. I was smarter that that even at 15 (even younger)!!!!0 -
quote: BLACKSBURG, Va. - Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui was declared "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization" and posed "an imminent danger," according to a 2005 temporary detention order issued by a Virginia district court.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266683,00.html
I'm pretty darn sure that a temporary detention order is not at all the same thing as being "ajudicated mentally defective"
Saxon, it strikes me as odd you would refer to this man by his given name. What's up with that?0 -
"mentally ill" ...? [:0] Imagine that.[;)] 0 -
Dr's cannot disclose patients medical records. Privacy act. 0 -
as i understand, police did find a receipt from a gun shop that had the itemized purchase of one of the pistols the guy used. if this is true, then i'd say he bought them illegally. but...being that he was found to be mentally disturbed by a physician and not a court, it might not have been a matter of public record and thus not show on a background check. court records are published and are a matter of public interest, a doctor cannot volunteer information to any agency about any patient unless he/she determines that the patient is a hazard to either the public at large or a specific person. and that determination comes from the patient leading the doc to believe that they intend to do harm. doc/patient confidentiality clause at this point could come into question. obviously the doctor(s) that decided that this guy posed no appearant threat and he was released. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
Dr's cannot disclose patients medical records. Privacy act.
Well I think that if you are sick enough that you are capable of doing something like this your are no longer capable of walking down to the police station and saying "Yo dude I am sick and you might want to see to it that I don't buy a gun till the Doctor says I am better".
And the Doctor might be the only freaking man in the world who knows that you could go off!!! Or as Spock once said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"!!!!
In other words if a have a wart on 'lil buddy' keep your mouth shut. If I am about to be a potential danger to society. Help "me" avoid it!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by aramisvi
as i understand, police did find a receipt from a gun shop that had the itemized purchase of one of the pistols the guy used. if this is true, then i'd say he bought them illegally. but...being that he was found to be mentally disturbed by a physician and not a court, it might not have been a matter of public record and thus not show on a background check. court records are published and are a matter of public interest, a doctor cannot volunteer information to any agency about any patient unless he/she determines that the patient is a hazard to either the public at large or a specific person. and that determination comes from the patient leading the doc to believe that they intend to do harm. doc/patient confidentiality clause at this point could come into question. obviously the doctor(s) that decided that this guy posed no appearant threat and he was released.
Well that would make more sense!!!!0 -
...Very ironic since the left pushed for a LARGE percentage of the so called "privacy laws"!! Although I am against the Feds and other agencies getting into one's medical records; so it gets back to taking responsibility for your own safety, and ALL actions, first.
...Being deemed "mentally incompetant", may not be far from being "committed"...may just be a bit different as far as the paper trail, and just what a standard bk ground check is allowed by the "privacy laws" to "look" at?.
...For me, with a CHL here in Texas, no waiting and no NICS when I do a transfer, handgun or long gun; my bk/grnd check and picture, finger prints, blah blah, has all been done. 17 questions, sig and I walk out.
...Crazies To The Left & Whimps To The Right...I just found out that's the title to a new book about the dims & Repubs just out...oh so true...[:D]
0 -
Good one! If only we gunners can get proof of this and make it known far and wide. 0 -
He was not found mentally ill by a court! He was court ordered to see a shrink after a court hearing that he had to go to because he was a stalker.
Now, here is the rub. If he had actually been convicted of being a stalker, I think it would disqualify him from owning a firearm. But, because we have a bleeding heart liberal judicial system, his punishment for stalking was to go see a shrink. Therefore, no record, and no flags on a background check.0 -
quote:Originally posted by guntech59
Is that part of the NICS or a state thing?
I know it's on the 4473 but, people can (and do) lie.
Sure, but if you lie on the 4473, and the sale goes through, then you have just illegally purchased a gun. Hopefully this is what this nutcase did.
If so, bottom line, he was illegally in possession of illegal guns.0 -
I chalk it up to there will always be someone bad out there. You can never avoid everything forever. Very tragic event, but you could of never stopped this man from starting to do this. You couldn't of because you can never truly know what another person is thinking. Even shrinks have no idea what a person is thinking if they hide it.
You can stop him after he already commited himself to doing this act, then you know his intentions and whats on his mind.0 -
quote:Originally posted by HandgunHTR52
He was not found mentally ill by a court! He was court ordered to see a shrink after a court hearing that he had to go to because he was a stalker.
Now, here is the rub. If he had actually been convicted of being a stalker, I think it would disqualify him from owning a firearm. But, because we have a bleeding heart liberal judicial system, his punishment for stalking was to go see a shrink. Therefore, no record, and no flags on a background check.
True.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by guntech59
Is that part of the NICS or a state thing?
I know it's on the 4473 but, people can (and do) lie.
Sure, but if you lie on the 4473, and the sale goes through, then you have just illegally purchased a gun. Hopefully this is what this nutcase did.
If so, bottom line, he was illegally in possession of illegal guns.
Negative! If so, he would have been illegally in possession of legal guns.0 -
Folks, I and my dealer got warned because the lady down at the DMV put the wrong zip code on my DL... I had a 1911 sit'n on the dealers shelf (Paid in full) for a month because of a trivial thing like that....So the NICs system works...
And we've known for years that the court's have oooopsed too many killers right down the road to their final "Wrong" destiny.
And then there is the press.. A CCW saves a bunch of lives and it is Whoop-dee-freaking-doo. A evil man does something like the VT shootings and that make a Star out of him...
Oh yea My last Rant of the day...
The NRA needs a new leader....FREAKING NOW!!!0 -
there is the problem, he did not have the 4473 properly explained to him, he must have been totally unaware that falsifying information on the 4473 was illegal, i wonder if charges can still be brought against him
{complete sarcasm}0 -
quote:Originally posted by HandgunHTR52
He was not found mentally ill by a court! He was court ordered to see a shrink after a court hearing that he had to go to because he was a stalker.
Now, here is the rub. If he had actually been convicted of being a stalker, I think it would disqualify him from owning a firearm. But, because we have a bleeding heart liberal judicial system, his punishment for stalking was to go see a shrink. Therefore, no record, and no flags on a background check.
@% was a nutjob and what he did was horrendous. With enough people coming forward saying that they had actually told him to seek help and that they had reported his behavior and depression, and with the stalking incident and the court ordered shrink visits, I think the judicial system dropped the ball on this. They should have been advised of his progress or "condition" by the shrink and everyone else and made a ruling accordingly.0 -
It was brought up on the news that his time in the mental facility was voluntary, and no outside reports of his condition were forwarded to any agency. Therefore his purchase according to law was legal..as far as the gun dealer was concerned..There are many felons that purchase guns daily that come up legal as far as the dealers checks..In fact they found a bunch of convicted felons with CCW permits..[:(] go figure.. 0 -
I never heard what medication he was currently on? Anyone know? 0 -
Gary..
Last report about him stated he was not on any meds for his depression ...
There was an intern on a news shows in Tampa interviewed as she went to high school with him in Virginia and she said he was a 'loner' even then...didnt associate with any other kids but it was a school for the "upper crust" .... anyone not well off did not fit in and the kids let the poorer students know they were poor...0 -
Well I sure hope everyone paid attention cause the quiet ones can sure erupt. Children and adults can sure be mean in society against another weaker child. ( or at least they thought ). He paid them back in the best way he could. 0 -
All the reference to "loner". That annoys me, just because you're not one of the "boys" doesn't mean you're a the next killer to go on a rampage. 0 -
Isn't the high school he attended in Nova, Va.? 0 -
He lied on the 4473. Boy, he is in big trouble now. 0 -
ohooioooooooioooooownrfkjllgbj b;l io kjlnh b 0 -
Hold the phone and stop cheering, guys.
It simply doesn't matter if the purchase was legal or not. It is a lose-lose situation either way.
1. The gun purchase was illegal. This adds fuel to the fire of the liberals, who will say that background checks missed something like this and all gun-owners are nutcases anyway, and we shouldn't have the right to own a gun.
2. The gun purchase was legal. This adds fuel to the fire of the liberals, who will say that background checks don't work and tha all gun-owners are nutcases anyway, and we shouldn't have the right to own a gun.0 -
Well I don't know about VA. but in Kansas if the victim of the stalking would have ask for a protection from abuse order or a restraining order from the suspect then it would have been entered NCIC as required by state law and that would have stopped the purchase. Anyway I have to agree that the MEDIA and others will make this fit with there agenda any way they can. 0 -
It was just in the paper today. Cho was determined to have some mental problems and was recommended to be committed. The application clearly states if you have been unvoluntarily committed, which Cho was not. The paper said that not only did Cho purchase the guns legally but that it appeared he researched the laws very well. In VA there is a one handgun per 30 day limit. He purchased one gun in Feb and another in March avoiding any red flags that he tried to get multiple guns. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
32 comments