Guns, Constitution, Rights, Bans Debate Thread

Originally posted by donwhite
The US Constitution is a work of art! It is beautifully written, concise, coherent and complete. That is, all of it except the Second Amendment. It alone is discombobulated.

The one amendment that you disagree with is "discombobulated" and poorly written, eh? Because YOU know what they meant and they didn't say what they meant? They worked hard for years putting it all together, but when it comes to the second amendment, they were just too tired to write what they really meant? C'mon, donwhite. It's there written very clearly.

1st Amendment "right of the people"
2nd Amendment "right of the people"
4th Amendment "right of the people"

People who don't like guns seem to want the 2nd Amendment to read "right of the militia" but it just doesn't.

Originally posted by donwhite
That's the line I take. As regards to the VA Con, I rely on the US Con. Article VI, Sec. 2: "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”“

The “supremacy clause” seems pretty clear to me.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by donwhite]

I’ll ignore the asinine “Aryan brotherhood” comment, and focus on the slightly more worthy issue of the “supremacy clause”.

The point I was making was that “Original Intent” argument, in the context of the II Amendment, is not valid in the case of Virginia. If one says that the OI was in the context of a militia…great that is covered via the VA Con. Beside even the “Supremacy Clause” is not bullet proof. In Printz v. United States SCOTUS decided that states have rights inviolate from the USG. As Justice Scalia pointed out in his majority piece: "The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States."

It is incontestible that the Constitution established a system of "dual sovereignty." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990). Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty," The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution's text, Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869); Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), including (to mention only a few examples) the prohibition on any involuntary reduction or combination of a State's territory, Art. IV, §3; the Judicial Power Clause, Art. III, §2, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, §2, which speak of the "Citizens" of the States; the amendment provision, Article V, which requires the votes of three fourths of the States to amend the Constitution; and the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, §4, which "presupposes the continued existence of the states and . . . those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights," Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414 -415 (1938). Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers,but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment's assertion that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

My point was, and I think your snarkiness aside you can well see, was that the USG could not take firearms from VA citizens without amending part II. To do anything else would be a violation of “states rights”. II Amendment rights are a individual right and as such one can not make the argument that it is a “collective right”. Such and argument would not be a logical legal argument to make.

Originally posted by donwhite
I think the key words are “ . . well-regulated and disciplined militia . . “ which sets militias apart from vigilantes and a mob. We don't have militias today. Note the weapons ae to kept in “public stores” which today we call an armory.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by donwhite]

WRONG!!

That was the point of my post. The VA Con sets asside what is a militia and whom is in it. Thus in VA we have a militia and are covered by the 2nd. Nice try though!

Sic Semper Tyrannis

AH,

So we now have the REAL root of the "other side."

The ONLY Amendment that Donwhite claims is poorly written, is of course......


Wait for it....

YES!!!!!

The one he does not emotionally agree with....

SHOCKER

And if any of you followed my links, you will find that DW went to the BOTTOM of the list to obtain the numbers he supposedly used to refute what I posted... SAD

Freedom is never free...

Oh well

Takes all kinds to make the world go round.

Semper

Semper,

Excellent stats, I remember getting similar updates during ongoing training.

How many times have you told single women, right after a B&E to go get some certified training, get a CCW, and buy a gun?

I can tell tell how many times I did, every single instance.


And I never had a problem with a legal CCW carrying individual, they always told me they were carrying. On the otherside, arresting a fricken felon was always fun because you never knew WTF you were going to find. Including used drug needles.

Originally posted by semperfortis


The idea that making guns illegal, or restricting them in anyway, flies in the face of logic and has no substance other than the emotional...

Semper

[edit on 17-4-2007 by Realtruth]

[edit on 17-4-2007 by Realtruth]

As Justice Scalia pointed out in his majority piece: "The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States."

I think he is wrong. Associate Justice Scalia does not represent a school of constitutional law I have any regard for. I can’t help it he, Thomas, Alito and CJ Roberts make up the Deadly Four.

The immediate effects of the ruling on the Brady Bill were negligible. The vast majority of local and state law enforcement officials supported the interim provisions and were happy to comply with the background checks, unconstitutional or not. The issue ended with the completion of the federal background check database.

The political poles have reversed from Printz, especially after 9/11; where Printz protected conservative local authorities from liberal federal power, it also now protects liberal local authorities from conservative federal power.

Originally posted by donwhite
As Justice Scalia pointed out in his majority piece: "The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States."

I think he is wrong. Associate Justice Scalia does not represent a school of constitutional law I have any regard for. I can’t help it he, Thomas, Alito and CJ Roberts make up the Deadly Four.

TO be frank your legal jingoism serves no one. O'Connor was in Concurrence in that decision, have you regard for her?

The immediate effects of the ruling on the Brady Bill were negligible. The vast majority of local and state law enforcement officials supported the interim provisions and were happy to comply with the background checks, unconstitutional or not. The issue ended with the completion of the federal background check database.

I agree with ya here. NICS made the point mute. And let me be clear, I have no problem with instant background checks, buy limits, waiting periods, & CCW training requirements. My dissent lies in any event in which the USG tells a state how to conduct intrastate commerce. This is a right of a state, to conduct business how it chooses.

The political poles have reversed from Printz, especially after 9/11; where Printz protected conservative local authorities from liberal federal power, it also now protects liberal local authorities from conservative federal power.

And your point is...what? That the SCOTUS is, and has been, doing it's job? Good! The operative phrase is "federal power". Hamilton and Jefferson, both, went to far in there opposing positions. I am guessing we won't see eye-to-eye here, but I am comforted by the age of our debate. Fed vs. Anti-Fed is as old as Athens vs. Sparta.

Of course you did ignore the main thrust of my post: "Pick a position...is the 2nd a personal or collective right?"

If it is a personal right; then anything you propose would require an Amendment.

It is a "collective right"; then States with militia laws, such as VA, are covered. The USG would have no right to deny the state's right to determine whom is in "their" state militia.

It was the loose gunregulations in the US that gave this mentally disturbed guy the possibility to do the damage that he did.

I feel sorry for you Americans, I appreciate that at this point, changing gunregulations in a thorough way would have so many negative side effects, besides most americans being against it because the deep-rooted culturally formed opinions in favor of everyone and their mom carrying a gun around.

posted by Imperium Americana

To be frank your legal jingoism serves no one. O'Connor was in Concurrence in that decision, have you regard for her? [Edited by Don W]

Yes. But I have NOT read her concurring opinion. Before we jump into the fray we (or at least I) ought to know why she concurred and did not join. By writing her own opinion, she obviously did not agree with ALL that Scalia wrote.

And let me be clear, I have no problem with instant background checks, buy limits, waiting periods, & CCW training requirements. My dissent lies in any event in which the USG tells a state how to conduct intrastate commerce. This is a right of a state, to conduct business how it chooses.

I admit that is the current Law of the Land. Other courts at other times and I am hopeful in the not too distant future, will reject the reasoning behind Scalia’s Printz majority opinion. It would be helpful to read the 9th CCA majority opinion.

The SCOTUS is, and has been, doing it's job? Good! The operative phrase is "federal power." (1) Hamilton and Jefferson both went too far in their opposing positions. I am guessing we won't see eye-to-eye here, but I am comforted by the age of our debate. Fed vs. Anti-Fed is as old as Athens vs. Sparta . . (2) you did ignore the main thrust of my post: "Pick a position . . is the 2nd a personal or collective right? If personal then anything you propose would require an Amendment . . [if a] collective right then States with militia laws such as VA, are covered. (3) The USG would have no right to deny the state's right to determine who is in their state militia.

1) Jefferson envisioned an America populated by small farmers who owned their own land. An agrarian democrat. I would not claim Hamilton was prescient and had glimpsed NYC as the future capital of the world, but I do think he grasped a strong central government was essential if the US was to take its place in the family of nations. I don't believe Jefferson shared that vision with Hamilton. TJ may have been America's first isolationist. GB and France were the 2 most powerful countries; Spain had fallen on hard times. There was no Italy (until 1850s) and no Germany (until 1869). Russia was then as it is now, large, but moribund.

I see the issue not so much as what you or I favor, as it is accepting the reality of 2007 and 300 million Americans living on 3.8 million square miles. The 1790 census recorded the US population at just under 4 million, counting blacks as 3/5ths of a person. An insult to blacks and a major concession to slavery. America was overwhelming rural, not urban. We had not yet had our industrial revolution. What would work then will not work now.

Geographically, America lay entirely east of the Mississippi, the mouth of which was under Spanish or French rule. Florida, Maine and the UP of Michigan were in dispute with Spain or GB. Our western frontier referred to the land west of the Appalachians out to the Mississippi River.

2) Rule 1. Never allow your opponent to define the debate.

I offer the 2nd Amendment is collective more so than personal. To use your word. I rely on the meaning of clause 2, “ . . security of a free state . . ” operative word “state” which is very much “collective” to use your word.

Reading that in conjunction with clause 3, “the right of the people” - operative words “the people” which also is plural or collective and is not personal or individual. Reading the two clauses together makes the 2nd Amendment a collective amendment. To use your word. And not personal.

3) Finally, when the 2nd Amendment is read in context with the Article VI Supremacy Clause, the Federal government will have the last word. The Article VI language is not at all ambiguous, unlike the discombobulated language in the 2nd Amendment. . The Supremacy Clause language is plain, straightforward and clear. That cannot be gainsaid.

[edit on 4/18/2007 by donwhite]

I found this reading an article today in regards to the NRA and gun control.

The comment was posted on a blog directly under the article.

Why the NRA gets it's way.

"Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6%
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44%(yes, 44 %)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300%
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens."
Posted by One_American at 12:32 PM : Apr 18, 2007

This person should not have been able to purchase a gun period.

Current Laws were not enforced, so why make new ones?

Gun Control Act of 1968

9) Congress established the federal regulatory foundation in the Gun Control Act of 1968,(10) which prohibits the sale of long guns (rifles and shotguns) and handguns to anyone who is: (1) not a resident of the state in which the federal firearms dealer does business;(11) or (2) under eighteen years old for long gun purchases and twenty-one years old for handguns.(12) In addition, the Act prohibits the sale of firearms to anyone who is: (1) under indictment for or has been convicted of a "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year";(13) (2) a fugitive from justice;(14) (3) an illegal narcotics user or addict;(15) and (4) either an adjudicated mental defective or someone who has been committed to a mental institution.

[edit on 18-4-2007 by Realtruth]

posted by Realtruth

I found this reading an article today in regards to the NRA and gun control.
The comment was posted on a blog directly under the article. Why the NRA gets it's way. [Edited by Don W]

"Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6%
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44% (yes, 44 %)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300%

Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens." Posted by One_American

Well, Mr R/T, when something is too good to be true, it probably is. Or to put it another way, as in real estate’s location, location, and location I’d say this one merits a check on sources, sources, and sources. My first impression is H O O K U M. This is equal to the old NRA bromide how Hitler first confiscated the German citizens’ guns, then created the Nazi Party! Ugh.

[edit on 4/18/2007 by donwhite]

DW,

Is there no room in you for fairness?

Is it that you actually consider your opinion to be the only viable one in the entire world?

Lets see,

1. The four judges YOU don't agree with are "wrong" and "deadly." (Your words) [Even though I am guessing that their qualifications far surpass mine and yours combined] You have no regard for their opinion as it differs from yours.

2. You actually have a vision of the past and apparently can tell what the Founding Fathers visions were. AMAZING

Jefferson envisioned an America populated by small farmers who owned their own land. An agrarian democrat. I would not claim Hamilton was prescient and had glimpsed NYC as the future capital of the world, but I do think he grasped a strong central government was essential if the US was to take its place in the family of nations. I don't believe Jefferson shared that vision with Hamilton

Again, YOUR opinion even presumes history.

3.

Well, Mr R/T, when something is too good to be true, it probably is.

Of course we all know that old saying. The funny thing is that YOU only apply it when what is written differs from your OPINION. Again, AMAZING..

First the Dead, Then Comes The Poppycock Ritual from The Gunnies and NRA-types

As opposed to the Ridiculous drivel from the Anti-Gun Nuts? Who were the FIRST to begin the politicalization....

I first became aware of the counter-democratic electoral practices of the National Rifle Association

Democratic Electoral? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah OK

So, Fairness....
Honesty

Both attributes of a person that can SEE someone else's point and does not consider himself incapable of being wrong.

Yet, with you I see that you are correct over no less than 4 of the finest legal minds in the world. HMMMMMM
YOUR Gun opinion is obviously far superior to any of the other MANY posters that disagree with you.
YOU require sources sources sources for anything that disagrees with YOUR opinion.

Fairness
Gone

Semper

Originally posted by donwhite

Yes. But I have NOT read her concurring opinion. Before we jump into the fray we (or at least I) ought to know why she concurred and did not join. By writing her own opinion, she obviously did not agree with ALL that Scalia wrote.

True! LOL since when did she ever agree with all he wrote!
But She did agree with enough, didn’t she.

I admit that is the current Law of the Land. Other courts at other times and I am hopeful in the not too distant future, will reject the reasoning behind Scalia’s Printz majority opinion. It would be helpful to read the 9th CCA majority opinion.

If you find a link to the CCA’s opinion, minority and majority, U2U me it (Or post it). I would be interested in reading it as well.

1) Jefferson envisioned an America populated by small farmers who owned their own land. An agrarian democrat. I would not claim Hamilton was prescient and had glimpsed NYC as the future capital of the world, but I do think he grasped a strong central government was essential if the US was to take its place in the family of nations. I don't believe Jefferson shared that vision with Hamilton. TJ may have been America's first isolationist. GB and France were the 2 most powerful countries; Spain had fallen on hard times. There was no Italy (until 1850s) and no Germany (until 1869). Russia was then as it is now, large, but moribund.

I agree with you, and Hamilton did in fact perceive NY as a capital. Look at how hard he lobbied for the permanent placing of NY, as the US Capitol.

BTW semperfortis, Don is pretty much spot on in his assessment of, both, TJ and AH visions of what the US should and should not be. I read Alexander Chernow’s awesome biography on Alexander Hamilton last year. The man was amazing to say the least. If you want to know the founder roots of why Don and I do not see eye to eye, read that book. Our argument is as old as AH & TJ. LOL

2) Rule 1. Never allow your opponent to define the debate.

I offer the 2nd Amendment is collective more so than personal. To use your word. I rely on the meaning of clause 2, “ . . security of a free state . . ” operative word “state” which is very much “collective” to use your word.

Reading that in conjunction with clause 3, “the right of the people” - operative words “the people” which also is plural or collective and is not personal or individual. Reading the two clauses together makes the 2nd Amendment a collective amendment. To use your word. And not personal.

3) Finally, when the 2nd Amendment is read in context with the Article VI Supremacy Clause, the Federal government will have the last word. The Article VI language is not at all ambiguous, unlike the discombobulated language in the 2nd Amendment. . The Supremacy Clause language is plain, straightforward and clear. That cannot be gainsaid.

That is all fine and good, but how can you make a statement such as the one above, and ignore the entirety of SCOTUS jurisprudence on incorporation. In Presser v. Illinois the ruling clearly refutes your contention and supports mine:

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police; 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States." See also Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. The State of Ohio, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cowen, 819; Commonwealth v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; United States v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Iredell, 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heiskell, 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.

SO while you might think I was attempting to "frame the debate" I was simply seeking a clarification on your view. Since YOU and SCOTUS, BOTH, agree that it is a collective right and since it is non-incorporated...the Article VI you are so fond of is a non issue. The USG can not make laws that violate the US Con. The issue of gun-control is an issue wholly allotted to the state to do as it so chooses. The 2 Amend. only seeks, like most of the other first 10 Amends., to limit the powers of the USG. It does not delineate the powers of the USG specifically; rather it only delineates those powers that do not infringe on the Amends, and the powers that are not explicitly laid out as powers of the state or people. Thus any VA law that seeks to restrict the free access to arms would have to be judged under the VA Con. and not the US Con. The Va Con lays out why the right is necessary and who may use such right. Any appeal to UCC or SCOTUS would be knocked down.

And don't bring up Miller cause we both know damn good and well that it was about Fed law...

BTW I am cool with that model. My first post was only to show the problems with VA Constitutional law, not Fed. If New Jersey wants to have very strict firearms laws...great that is their right. If Georgia wants light gun regs...cool. ~200 times SCOTUS has knocked backed cases due to the right of states to decide their own laws, using Presser BTW.

Originally posted by Jakko
It was the loose gunregulations in the US that gave this mentally disturbed guy the possibility to do the damage that he did.

I feel sorry for you Americans, I appreciate that at this point, changing gunregulations in a thorough way would have so many negative side effects, besides most americans being against it because the deep-rooted culturally formed opinions in favor of everyone and their mom carrying a gun around.

Not true. It wasn't the law that failed, it was the execution of those laws.

It is illegal to sell a firearm to a person who has known mental issues. I'm about 99% sure its also illegal for that person to own a previously purchased firearm if they are subsequently deemed to be mentally unstable. This should have been caught by BATF form 4473 and the instant background check.

In this particular case, there were red flags all over the place regarding this guy's state of mind, including the following:

abcnews.go.com...

This isn't the fault of gun laws, gun manufacturers, the NRA, gun owners, or whatever. This is the fault of the state of Virginia for allowing this guy to be on the street in the first place. And as mentioned before, he should have been red-flagged in the state's database when his background check was ran.

Posted from the Federal Officials: At Least 32 Dead After Virginia Tech University Shooting thread:

April 18, 2007 — - A court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous. Then it let him go. In December 2005 -- more than a year before Monday's mass shootings -- a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care. According to the "Temporary Detention Order" obtained by ABC News, psychologist Roy Crouse found Cho's "affect is flat and mood is depressed. "He denies suicidal ideation. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder," Dr. Crouse wrote. "His insight and judgment are normal." That information came to light two days after Cho, a Virginia Tech senior, killed 32 people and then himself in a shooting rampage on the university's campus. 'An Imminent Danger to Himself' The evaluation came from a psychiatric hospital near Virginia Tech, where Cho was taken by police in December 2005, after two female schoolmates said they received threatening messages from him, and police and school officials became concerned that he might be suicidal. After Dr. Crouse's psychological evaluation of Cho, Special Justice Paul M. Barnett certified the finding, ordering followup treatment on an outpatient basis. On the form, a box is checked, showing that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." Immediately below it was another box that is not checked: "Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness." Authorities said they had no contact with Cho between then and Monday's mass killings.

ABC News

RT, I think there is a difference in VA between "committed" and a temporary observation order.
In this case he was not "committed". He was placed under temporary observation. The psychologist basically found that he was depressed. Depression without a suicide attempt is not considered a disability. That is why he passed the NICS. If he was subject to a in-patient care (committed) then he would have been barred from gun ownership and flagged on NICS.

I will check with the lil'mrs. when she gets home tonight, she will know. They are working them 14 hours a day right now at the VT Counseling Center. What is cool is that people from local business are bringing in breakfast, lunch and dinner for them. Bad part is she is getting home around 11-12 every night.


[edit on 18-4-2007 by Imperium Americana]

I am not going to disagree, if he was not committed, then the mental committed issue on handgun search wouldn't be an issue, but if he was, then someone really screwed up and broke the law, but he was brought to a state mental facility.

I am only going by the media. I think we would all have to see the paperwork on his mental condition and if or not he was actually committed or committed himself.

By my experience if you are brought by law enforcement to a state mental facility, in order for anyone to even treat, observe, etc. you need to commit yourself or need to be committed.

Originally posted by Imperium Americana

RT, I think there is a difference in VA between "committed" and a temporary observation order.
In this case he was not "committed". He was placed under temporary observation. The psychologist basically found that he was depressed. Depression without a suicide attempt is not considered a disability. That is why he passed the NICS. If he was subject to a in-patient care (committed) then he would have been barred from gun ownership and flagged on NICS.

I will check with the lil'mrs. when she gets home tonight, she will know. They are working them 14 hours a day right now at the VT Counseling Center. What is cool is that people from local business are bringing in breakfast, lunch and dinner for them. Bad part is she is getting home around 11-12 every night.

But in this case he was dropped off for temporary evaluation to see if he was suicidal, evaluated by the mental health staff, deemed that he was just depressed, not a danger to others, and released with outpatient therapy.

Not committed.

The only way that he would have been flagged on a state police report, (which is checked prior to allowing purchase of a firearm), is if a court had him committed long term after a commitment hearing.

This was not the case. No law broken.

Are you suggesting that if a person gets upset, people worry about him committing suicide, have him taken in temporarily for observation, released because he was apparently suffering from depression, follows the treatment prescribed, and seems relatively normal, that person should be forever flagged in the state police files and not allowed to own a gun forever. No, I don't think thats appropriate, nor is it the law.

Do I think if a person is court ordered to be committed to a mental health establishment for an extended period of time, and deemed a danger to others, that his state police record should be red flagged, and kept from purchasing a firearm? That would be an appropriate discussion, yes, and should be done thru the court system on a case by case basis, as in the link that I posted previously. Not an all encompassing regulation covering every case of mental therapy.

Originally posted by vor78
This isn't the fault of gun laws, gun manufacturers, the NRA, gun owners, or whatever. This is the fault of the state of Virginia for allowing this guy to be on the street in the first place. And as mentioned before, he should have been red-flagged in the state's database when his background check was ran.

I don't think you know how easy it is in your country for random people to get guns. Of course the government says, we don't want crazy people to have guns, but it is stupidly naiv of a government to expect guns to only be used for "good and noble" deeds, in country with as many guns going around as america.

The laws were actually update in 1986 ( Firearm Owners Protection Act) to encompass more of the mental issues, but if he was so deemed by the mental health staff as just depressed and not adjudicated by a judge or court, then he probably wouldn't have a record on LIEN.

I hope that he didn't have a documented mental defects, because if he really did and someone screwed up somewhere, there is going to be hell to pay. Literally.

Originally posted by makeitso
But in this case he was dropped off for temporary evaluation to see if he was suicidal, evaluated by the mental health staff, deemed that he was just depressed, not a danger to others, and released with outpatient therapy.

Not committed.

The only way that he would have been flagged on a state police report, (which is checked prior to allowing purchase of a firearm), is if a court had him committed long term after a commitment hearing.

This was not the case. No law broken.

Are you suggesting that if a person gets upset, people worry about him committing suicide, have him taken in temporarily for observation, released because he was apparently suffering from depression, follows the treatment prescribed, and seems relatively normal, that person should be forever flagged in the state police files and not allowed to own a gun forever. No, I don't think thats appropriate, nor is it the law.

Do I think if a person is court ordered to be committed to a mental health establishment for an extended period of time, and deemed a danger to others, that his state police record should be red flagged, and kept from purchasing a firearm? That would be an appropriate discussion, yes, and should be done thru the court system on a case by case basis, as in the link that I posted previously. Not an all encompassing regulation covering every case of mental therapy.