Why didn't the court's decision show in his background check!?

This is a discussion on Why didn't the court's decision show in his background check!? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; He lied on the form. There is no consolidated system for both criminal/clinical background info. I would not be surprised to see some legislation on ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37

Thread: Why didn't the court's decision show in his background check!?

  1. #16
    Ex Member Array HOLYROLLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    269
    He lied on the form. There is no consolidated system for both criminal/clinical background info. I would not be surprised to see some legislation on this point. God bless, HOLYROLLER.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member
    Array dr_cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Stokes View Post
    Did any of the girls that he stalked get orders of protection?
    According to the info I have been able to gather "stalking" is a word used by the media that does not reflect the actual incidents. He was calling and emailing the two girls. They reported it to the university as a nuisance. He was instructed not to bother them and complied. He was not "stalking" in the legal sense. No legal procedures were involved. Almost everything about this guy was handled by VT except for the judge requiring him to be evaluated.

    It appears that VT is going to be blamed for lots of stuff over which they had no control. They went as far as they could go on several fronts. They did not have cause for dismissal. While I hate that they could not do more, I believe that it would be a great loss of our rights to give them the ability to do more. I am caught between my desire to maintain the rights I have and allowing the university to have more options. Where do I come down? Don't know yet, but lean toward keeping the rights. If you ever give them up it's easier for them to take more later.
    George

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

  4. #18
    VIP Member
    Array falcon1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_cmg View Post
    ...but lean toward keeping the rights.
    I agree with that 100%! Liberty is always the best policy!

  5. #19
    Member Array Harold Fastwaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    247
    VA only calls the state police and runs a quick background check. Takes all of 3 minutes to do.

  6. #20
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759
    It is a Republic if we can keep it!!
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."

  7. #21
    Member Array BonoVox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    95
    Does't the form you fill out ask if you have been admitted? Or something to that effect? If so he lied and broke the law when he did. So those were not legally acquried guns!

  8. #22
    Member Array tj1231's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by BonoVox View Post
    Does't the form you fill out ask if you have been admitted? Or something to that effect? If so he lied and broke the law when he did. So those were not legally acquried guns!
    Agreed! Question #9 on the Virginia firearm follows:

    # Have you ever been adjudicated legally incompetent, mentally incapacitated, or been involuntarily committed to a mental institution?
    "Learn as if you'll live forever...Live as if you'll die tomorrow" - SOULFLY

    Where am I going....and why am I in a hand basket???

  9. #23
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,486
    A judge had to order him to be evaluated against his will.

    That legal record should exist and not be protected under HIPPA becuase it is in the public domain.

    It might be that when he was released form the hospital the record was sealed.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  10. #24
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,749
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but VA uses the same form as everyone else, federal form 4473... right? The call into NICS just like every other state, right?

    Nothing showed on his backround check for a few reasons...

    1. He was never convicted of anything. You cant be punished if you never been convicted.

    2. He was not subjest to a restraining order due to a pending case

    3. He was never committed a nut. A judge can suggest treatment, or can order treatment. My guess was that the judge suggested that he seek "help" so he did not have to be committed. If the nut seeked voluntary treatment, it is no different that you or I going to talk to a pro. about whatever problem is bothering us.
    What bothers me is maybe the suggestion of treatment was part of a plea deal from another case brought on by one of the girls that had problems with him.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    I thought this CNN article explained it pretty well, but I could have done without the somewhat subtle whines for more control.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array Rob72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Stokes View Post
    HIPPA is the culprit; but I don't know how much of that privacy I want to give up. .
    Ok, guys, lets get a grip on the HIPPA issue. It changed nothing about the way your information is used and shared by agencies, it just made it possible for institutions to place liability on their employees/representatives who, through inattention/malfeasance/whatever, "allow" the info to pop up in unexpected places. That is all it does. Of course, many will say it does more/does less, but the truth is- nothing has been challenged, so there is no hard boundary. Hence, again, the only surety in HIPPA is the liability issue for employees. The VA can fire a few people, instead of shelling out $$ in settlements.

    It grossly impedes patient care and negates the checks and balences of interdisciplinary care. But of course, "it protects you".

    I've worked intimately with this; even had the opportunity to hear the in-house progression of the concept as conceived by the Frists. Can't get insurance caps? Shift the liability.......

  13. #27
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,486
    Thanks the article cleared it up.

    He was ordered for involuntary treatment, not commited.

    Therefore no flags on the background check

    Thanks guys
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  14. #28
    Member Array mmwb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Wyoming
    Posts
    86
    Rob72 hit the nail on the head regarding limits of confidentiality. HIPPA did not change the professionals' responsibilities regarding confdicentiality and disclosure. Those have been standards that existed long before HIPPA

    If he had been ordered into treatment, there would be a court record. That is not protected. While I'm sure there are minor variations from state to state, "imminent danger", "a sustantial probability of harm to self or others," or similar criteria are used to prompt an involuntary commitment. If he was "an imminent danger" as presented, one would have to question why either the examining mental health professional would endorse outpatient treatment or if he/she didn't why the judge did. The real glitch is that in order to protect individual rights, once the person is committed he/she can only be held against his or her will until "stable". Stability is determined by a reasonable presentation that the character is no longer an "imminent" danger. Most people with a bent to do what Cho did have strong narcissistic personalities. They are absolutely certain that thier views of the world are the only accurate views. They also tend to be skilled at deception and can talk thier way through a mental status exam.

    People like this are treatable, but when you are talking about challenging and restructuring thought processes and perceptions that they have developed over a life time... The general consensus by the "experts" is that between a year or two of cognitive therapy is the norm for success. They won't do it voluntarily and unless they are on probation or parole and ordered into counseling until the professional deems it completed, the necessary treatment will not occur.

  15. #29
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    His referral did not show in his background check because of the nature of the order:

    Special Justice Paul M. Barnett, who filled out the certification and order for involuntary admission to a mental health facility, checked the box that said: "The alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and deemed suitable."

    "Only if I order them into a hospital is there any effect on their gun rights," Barnett told CNN on Wednesday.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html
    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  16. #30
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Also, he was never adjudicated (during these procedings) to be a danger to others, only to himself. A minor point, but something to consider.

    I am at least glad (if you can be said to be 'glad' about any part of this tragedy) that we aren't hearing the usual "he was such a good boy" stories... It seems everyone knew this kid had problems, but no one knew the extent of them.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Delayed Background Check?
    By xsigma40cal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 8th, 2010, 12:26 AM
  2. Gun Show Background Check Act (S-843)
    By Eagleks in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 19th, 2009, 03:25 PM
  3. Background check question
    By DaWhip in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2009, 10:48 AM
  4. Background check, why so long?
    By mig7410 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: July 25th, 2008, 11:44 PM
  5. Gun background check
    By Amnesia Wes in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 13th, 2006, 02:52 AM

Search tags for this page

background check in court didn't show up

,

conceal carry in mental clinic oklahoma

,

court in mental hospital show up on background check

,

courts didn't clear bacground check

,

does a noli case show on background checks

,

does court flies show up on back ground checks

,

would court order mental hospital show in background check

Click on a term to search for related topics.