Guns, Constitution, Rights, Bans Debate Thread

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
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.

It still wouldn’t matter. In certain states a firearm is considered a piece of property. You can go to a gun show and buy a weapon no matter your back ground, mental, criminal, it doesn’t matter. If you have money you can buy a gun end of story.




posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I knew I was right on this. He was adjudicated by a judge with a mental illness in 2005.

Someone is going to pay big. Federal Laws where broken and he should have never had a gun period.

Rules Should Have Barred Weapon Purchase of VA Shooter


news.yahoo.com

McLEAN, Va. - A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.

Cho purchased two handguns in February and March, and was subject to federal and state background checks both times. The checks turned up no problems, despite a judge's ruling in December 2005 that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
And I was right too.

From the same article you quote!


Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead.

Initially states were required to provide all relevant information to federal authorities when the instant background checks were enacted, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling relieved them of that obligation.





posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
You know why they are saying this?

CYA that is what they are doing. LOL!


Because no one wants to be wrong, get sued, be in the media for screwing up and have political blood on their hands.

They screwed up and they know it.

This is going to be a political nightmare, since he was deem "mentally ill"



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

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.


You're right, it is very easy for anyone to get a firearm in this country for one simple reason: the country is FILLED with illegal firearms. If a criminal wants a firearm, they can easily get one. This is a big reason why gun control/bans won't do anything to curb gun violence in the United States.

That's obviously not the case here, however. This appears to be a situation in which the safeguards that are in place to prevent such an event from occuring with a legal firearm purchase failed.




[edit on 20-4-2007 by vor78]



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
McLEAN, Va. - A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.


Isn't this why we pay billions for homeland security?

I am still trying to figure out what they do.





new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join