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; Yes, the article explains it very well. He did not lie, and it was not because of HIPPA. He was remanded for evaluation, but he ...
Yes, the article explains it very well. He did not lie, and it was not because of HIPPA. He was remanded for evaluation, but he was not committed and he was not adjudicated mentally incompetent or mentally defective. As such, it was perfectly legal for him to buy the guns.
"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know" - T.R.
<----My LT was unhappy that I did not have my PASS-Tag at that fire. But I found the body so he said he would overlook it. :)
Now, of course, we could argue about whether or not he SHOULD have been committed. But then, hindsight is always 20/20.
He was adjudicated mentally incapacitated. I suspect that the state of Virginia messed up BIG TIME and those records should have gone to the nics. This one will surely be decided in the courts.
"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???
Something to keep in mind, the gun was a tool. this guy was sick, and if he couldn't get a gun either legally or illegally he would have used another tool.
When I applied for my NJ firearms card, I had to have two indivdiuals sign a document stating that I was mentally capable of handling a weapon. It might be a pain to ask someone to fill the forms out, but it probably would have prevented this guy from buying a gun. Again, he would have found a different method to do the damage he did.
It appears that questions are now being raised about his ability to buy a gun, but the articles I've seen (including those linked above by tj1231) all have those "questions" being raised by a representative of an anti-gun group. Of course, it is natural that they would want to see the laws interpreted to bar as many people as possible from buying guns. I certainly wouldn't take the interpretation of one of Sarah Brady's cohorts as gospel in a case like this.
The bottom line is that the judge in this case issued a "temporary detention order." Is that the same as declaring him mentally incompetent? I think there is a lot of room for debate on that. Perhaps what is needed is a clarification of the law, and I suspect that lawsuits will be filed in this case that might help in that regard.
I would also point out that it is important to differentiate between the specific rulings of the court and any comments that the judge makes in explaining the ruling. This is much like we've discussed before concerning Second Amendment issues. The well-known US v. Miller case is a perfect example. In explaining the ruling the judges made a lot of comments that are used by both pro- and anti-gun types to bolster their cases. But the actual ruling in the case--the part that specifically sets precedent for other cases--was narrow and limited as rulings usually are.
It is not clear to me if the judges comments about the VT shooter being a danger to himself were actually a part of the RULING, or only a part of the COMMENTS. That makes all the difference in whether he could honestly answer that he had never been adjudicated mentally defective.
Campus killer's purchases apparently within gun lawsSpecial 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.
This will be the last post on this thread as I will close it. We are rehashing something that has been settled.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein