This is why I support CCW

Donkey said:
Why was he able to purchase a firearm? Why did he have them on campus?

All of the above questions are answered with infractions/violations or more simply breaking the laws.

He was involuntarily admitted to a mental facility because of his actions in 2005, yet 30 days prior (est. to the incident) he purchased a 9mm Glock, against current federal gun control laws. Having his weapon on campus was against current VA state law. He broke federal and state laws, those laws did not stop what happened.

What I would like to know is why people think making something against the "law" well solve anything? History itself has proven that wrong far more than Freud has been debunked!
Click to expand...

What he did in purchasing the glock was completely legal, he did not have a criminal record, prior to these events, and was therefore legally able to buy said weapon.
 
Fox said:
His name is God, not Invisible Guy. He's not live in sky. He's in HEAVEN. For your correction. Dismissed.

Thanks,
Ex-Cadet Lieutenant Junior Grade Fox, NJROTC and Plank Owner.
Click to expand...

Allow me to dismiss you as well, you are on Ignore, have a nice life Ex-Cadet.
 
Damien435 said:
What he did in purchasing the glock was completely legal, he did not have a criminal record, prior to these events, and was therefore legally able to buy said weapon.
Click to expand...
But according to CNN and Fox, he had a track record with the campus police, his English professor threatened to resign if he wasn't moved out of her class because of his derranged plays and ranting monolouges, and he was admitted to a mental hospital...Now we get to blaming the system...How in the world was someone like THAT attain a weapon of ANY kind?
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
But according to CNN and Fox, he had a track record with the campus police, his English professor threatened to resign if he wasn't moved out of her class because of his derranged plays and ranting monolouges, and he was admitted to a mental hospital...Now we get to blaming the system...How in the world was someone like THAT attain a weapon of ANY kind?
Click to expand...

From what I understand his plays and writings werent outright threatening, as in, they didnt meantion killing anyone. Because of this, the campus had no basis to take any kind of penalizing action against him. The times where he was talked to by the cops for stalking were not taken to the farthest extent because as I understand, the girls in question did not press any sort of charges or take any sort of action against him. Because of this, his record was completely clean.
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
But according to CNN and Fox, he had a track record with the campus police, his English professor threatened to resign if he wasn't moved out of her class because of his derranged plays and ranting monolouges, and he was admitted to a mental hospital...Now we get to blaming the system...How in the world was someone like THAT attain a weapon of ANY kind?
Click to expand...

1. He had run-ins with campus police for stalking.

2. At Mental Hospital in 2005 where he was diagnosed as mentally ill and suffering severe depression less than a year before he bought his first gun.

Same thing of what happened last week in Michigan. How was a person able to buy a shotgun when he FAILED a handgun background check (reason not known) just 2 days before.

Shouldn't have these incidents rung any alarm bells? How can anybody say that the current gun control laws work if their are errors as BIG as this.
 
mmarsh said:
1. He had run-ins with campus police for stalking.

2. At Mental Hospital in 2005 where he was diagnosed as mentally ill and suffering severe depression less than a year before he bought his first gun.

Same thing of what happened last week in Michigan. How was a person able to buy a shotgun when he FAILED a handgun background check (reason not known) just 2 days before.

Shouldn't have these incidents rung any alarm bells? How can anybody say that the current gun control laws work if their are errors as BIG as this.
Click to expand...

Medical records are covered by the privacy act. Can't run background checks and have that come up due to privacy issues.

Failing to be able to purchase a handgun does not preclude you from buying a shotgun. They do not run background checks on rifles and/or shotguns (as far as I know).

So not sure what alarm bells should have been going off . . . apply a little logic and you could have answered your own question.
 
C/1Lt Henderson:

Looking at your posts you seem to be questioning the men on the ground at the time. I figure this is due to your ignorance of their tactics and SOPs.

From what I read just in the forum it seems that call 1 made at 1300. Police responded and secured the area. Call 2 was made at 1500. 2 hours later. Plenty of time for the guy to secure the doors and all that he did BEFORE he ever started shooting.

You don't have the facts. You were not there. You have not had the training. As far as I can see you have no right to call anyone to judgement for their actions.
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
But according to CNN and Fox, he had a track record with the campus police, his English professor threatened to resign if he wasn't moved out of her class because of his derranged plays and ranting monolouges, and he was admitted to a mental hospital...Now we get to blaming the system...How in the world was someone like THAT attain a weapon of ANY kind?
Click to expand...


In his two instances with the campus police he was not arrested, charges were not filed and he was not convicted of any crime, so he had no paper record. As for his stint at a "mental hospital", that lasted only three days, hard to draw any firm conclusions from that.

WNxRogue, I've read one of this plays, McBeef or whatever it was called, at the end the step-dad kills his 13 year old step-son. However I don't believe these can be considered warning signs until after the author has snapped and done something terrible.
 
Marinerhodes said:
Medical records are covered by the privacy act. Can't run background checks and have that come up due to privacy issues.

You're partly mistaken, 21 states allow a (varying degree per state) medical history check. Furthermore, Federal law prohibits the mentally ill from purchasing firearms, the problem is not the law, but the fact the FBI background database is out of date due to non-complying states.

According to Firearms Law Center:

Although persons who have been adjudicated as mental defectives or committed to mental institutions are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms, the current status of the FBI databases makes it difficult to prevent such a person from obtaining firearms if the person undergoes only an FBI background check...[A] great deal of information...is not reported to the FBI, and that agency does not currently have access to state mental health records.

Furthermore there is a bill await approval called NICS Improvement Act of 2005 that allows greater transparency of Medical records for Law enforcement. Even the NRA supports it...

According to MSNBC:

Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement...[Just 21] states provide NICS at least some names of people with serious mental illness, a disqualifier for gun purchases under federal law since 1968.

The NICS Improvement Act of 2005 would have required more record-keeping, and even the NRA supported it despite its proposal by an anti-gunner:

The NRA agrees that NICS records are inadequate -- and it notes that inaccurate or incomplete records can delay firearm purchases and result in "wrongful denials" of law-abiding gun-buyers.


------------------------------------------------
Failing to be able to purchase a handgun does not preclude you from buying a shotgun. They do not run background checks on rifles and/or shotguns (as far as I know).

You missed the point entirely, thats exactly the issue. If some goes in to buy a handgun, fails the background check. Goes back to buy a shotgun 2 days later. That should tell you that somebody is really trying to get a weapon. If I were in law enforcement or even a honest gun dealer, that would be exactly the type of information I'd want to know.

Its pretty obvious that People who want weapons that desperately have something else on their mind other than duck hunting.

http://www.therationale.com/virgini...d-check-did-not-include-mental-health-issues/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:

Furthermore there is a bill await approval called NICS Improvement Act of 2005 that allows greater transparency of Medical records for Law enforcement. Even the NRA supports it...

According to MSNBC:

Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement...[Just 21] states provide NICS at least some names of people with serious mental illness, a disqualifier for gun purchases under federal law since 1968.

The NICS Improvement Act of 2005 would have required more record-keeping, and even the NRA supported it despite its proposal by an anti-gunner:

The NRA agrees that NICS records are inadequate -- and it notes that inaccurate or incomplete records can delay firearm purchases and result in "wrongful denials" of law-abiding gun-buyers.
Click to expand...

No the law passed in 1968 clearly states that people with mental issues are bared from buying handguns, this was a chain of problems that lead to a tragic event... It has nothing to do with privacy laws if you are involuntarily committed that has to be placed in the database, however lackadaisical record keeping has prevented this in many places...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/site/newsweek/

But then again if he couldn't get a gun he seemed so determined that he would have found alternative methods, like say an explosive device...

-edit

The federal fire arms law passed in 1968 does not just pertain to handguns but all fire arms including shotguns... A felon can not purchase a fire arm period and neither can a mentally ill person...

Gun Control Act of 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act

Prohibited Persons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act#Prohibited_Persons
 
Last edited:
In the state of Florida a criminal background is done on all purchases of firearms. Whether they are pistols, rifles, or shotguns. The criminal backgorund check is a state law. Not federal law.

His medical records were sealed because of HIPAA. HIPAA was passed by those on the left ebcause they did not want Law Enforcement to have access to medical records. This is one of the outcomes from HIPAA.


Background checks check for any NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) is a system that stores any criminal records of those that commited federal crimes. Florida has a state version called the FICS (Florida Instant Criminal Background Check System) which does the samething ecpect it's for any and all crimes that were commited in the State of Florida.

The main issue with that is HIPAA. In Florida at least, if someone in Baker Acted it is public record. But if someone admits themself into a mental hospotal it is sealed medical records and cannot be accessed by the state without a long process (background checks are not allowed). That is a federal law under the issue of HIPAA.

I am not aware if Virginia has a Backer Act type law. But from what it seems, maybe not.

Florida Backer Act
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Florida law permits a mental health professional, law enforcement officer, or judge who issues an ex parte order to initiate an involuntary examination only when a person meets the following criteria:[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] f there is reason to believe that he or she is mentally ill and because of his or her mental illness: [/FONT]​

(a) 1[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and (a) disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or [/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] (a) 2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether the examination is (a) necessary; and [/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] (b) 1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or [/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] (a) 2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior.[/FONT]​
Click to expand...
 
Donkey

You missed the point, the point is that state law and federal laws are conflicting.

Federal Law states that the mentally ill are barred from buying weapons. Thats true.

BUT, as MarinerRhodes correctly pointed out, Certain State laws (and this varies on the state) prevent the Government from seeking medical records (or allow it only to a limited degree).

Its these states laws that prohibit the FBI from enforcing Federal law because it makes the FBI database incomplete.

As we saw in this tragic case, had Cho's mental history been on the FBI database he might have been banned from his gun purchase.

We we need is something like improved-NICS act which forces the states to share with the FBI people with certain mental conditions that could be harmful to themselves or others.


As for the other case

FFL only required a background check of HANDGUNS. Shotguns and rifles are not considered concealable so they are exempt.

This guy too had mental problems, for some reason (we dont know why) he was denied a handgun license but allowed a shotgun because shotguns and rifles don't require a permit. It is the loophole of the law. Thats why the moron in Michigan managed to get his shotgun, which he then used to shoot 3 people.

My point is all firearms must go through a background check.

Read here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1816413/posts


Also check out what 5.56 wrote, he's right it on the STATE level, it needs to be on the Federal one. It would make everybody's life easier, including people that should be allowed to buy guns.
 
Last edited:
Donkey said:
Last I checked a state can not reduce a federal law only strengthen it...
Click to expand...

Thats correct a state law cannot overrule a Federal one.

BUT...

The Federal Law doesn't specifically require the states to turn over medical records to federal authorities, hence thats where enhanced-NICS comes in.
 
None the less I think we see a problem that should be corrected ASAP.

It is not your medical records they are seeking it is if you have been proven to have a mental illness or have been committed, we are not talking details...Usually this would be part of a police report I would think...
 
By Ted Nugent
Special to CNN

WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in illegal possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun law. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.

Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/
 
You have to admit the guy has valid examples for limited CCW permits in the "gun-free" zones. . . well you don't have to admit it. . . but I know, and you know that in the back of your mind you are saying "Yeah, I can see where that kind of makes sense, even if I don't agree with it".


:brave: from oppression of our 2nd Amendment rights I say!! Freedom!!! Freeeeeeeddooooooom!!

Rock on brother!
And now a word from our sponsors: :spam:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top