Did He Buy the Guns Legally?

[peejay 327]

Did He Buy the Guns Legally?

A federal background check cleared Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui to buy weapons. It should have stopped him cold.

By Michael Isikoff

Newsweek

Updated: 7:07 p.m. CT April 19, 2007

April 19, 2007 - The disclosure that Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui was once involuntary detained for mental illness may change the typical debate over gun control that inevitably follows gun-related tragedies.

At the time Cho legally purchased the weapons used in the shootings, he had no criminal history and was a permanent legal resident with a green card. He followed the law and underwent the required background checks. Thus, in the immediate aftermath of the shootings, law-enforcement officials said there was nothing that would have prevented him from buying the guns—short of major changes to the gun laws that most members of Congress were clearly not ready to support.

Were they wrong? Contrary to initial reports, Cho may not have been legally eligible to acquire the two semi-automatic weapons that he used to murder more than 30 students at the school on Monday. Critics say Cho was able to collect his firearms without a hitch because of a gaping hole in the enforcement of existing federal gun laws that routinely allows mentally unstable people to buy deadly firearms.

In the three months before the shooting, Cho bought two handguns: a Walther .22 that he picked up on Feb. 9 at a Blacksburg pawnshop, and a second, more powerful, Glock 9mm, purchased on March 16 at a Roanoke firearms store. Cho filled out the required federal form, and a federally-mandated background check was conducted by the Virginia state police. But he was immediately cleared to buy the guns when no “hits” showed up in police data bases indicating he had any history of criminal activity.

That has led Virginia state police officials to declare that Cho’s firearms purchase were perfectly legal. But the same 1968 federal gun law that bars convicted criminals from buying firearms (passed in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy) also prohibits gun purchases by those who have a history of mental illness. Indeed, when Cho bought the guns, he had to answer the following question on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Form 4473: “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or … committed to a mental institution?” Cho answered “no.”

According to court records that surfaced Wednesday, April 18, Cho had begun to show clear signs of mental instability long before he bought the guns. A Virginia magistrate issued a temporary detention order for Ho in December 2005. In so doing, the magistrate found that Cho presented “an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment.”

The magistrate acted after Cho was taken to—and evaluated by—a local psychiatric hospital, following complaints to Virginia Tech campus police made by two female schoolmates. The two women said that Cho was contacting them with “annoying” telephone calls and e-mail messages. When campus police got a phone call from another acquaintance of Cho’s, expressing concern that he was suicidal, they sought and obtained the temporary detention order from the magistrate in the Montgomery County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Cho was then voluntarily but briefly admitted to Carilion Saint Albans, a local psychiatric hospital doctor there reported that Cho was "depressed" but “denies suicidal ideations" and did not "acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder,” according to records obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.)

Since Cho was never “committed to a mental institution”—but rather was only briefly detained for evaluation—Virginia officials continued to insist today that even this incident was not a barrier to his buying a gun. "An individual who is detained for evaluation under a Temporary Detention Order" but who is referred for outpatient care "is not prohibited from purchase under the applicable state laws," said Donna Tate, manager of the Firearms Transaction Center for the Virgnia state police.

But Kristen Rand, an analyst with the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control advocacy group, points out that the other criteria in the 1968 federal law—whether the gun applicant has been “adjudicated as a mentally defective”—seems to apply to Cho’s circumstances. The definition of "mentally defective" under a federal regulation states that it applies to anybody who has been determined by a “court, board, commission or other lawful authority” to have been a “danger to himself or others.”

“I don’t think it could be any more clear cut. He was not eligible to buy those guns,” says Rand.

But Rand and others—including federal officials—say that enforcement of the provision in the law barring the mentally ill from buying handguns has been erratic at best. More than 20 states don’t report any mental health records—including court records of mental commitments—to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the central federal database for background checks on firearm purchases, according to Paul Bresson, a FBI spokesman. Other states, including Virginia, do report some records, but officials acknowledge that the state and federal databases are complete. Asked if Virginia should have submitted a record of the Temporary Detention Order on Cho to the bureau, Bresson responded: "We rely on the state to submit the data to us. We don't interpret the law. All we're doing is providing a database for them." Still, Bresson added, "based on what we now know, it would seem that it would have been a record that should have been in the NICS.”

The gun lobby—typically opposed to any attempt to tighten federal gun controls—doesn't disagree. The National Rifle Association has decided to make no public comment about any aspect of the Virginia Tech tragedy, according to a spokesman. But a source close to the gun lobby (who asked not to be identified because of the organization’s sensitivities about making any political points related to the tragedy), pointed out that pro-gun lobbyists and groups like the NRA have long supported adding all relevant mental-health records to background check databases. "We have no problem as long as one is adjudicated mentally incompetent [in denying gun purchases] and we have no problem with mental health records being part of the NICS," the source said. "The problem is not with the gun community. The problem is with the medical community" that has traditionally opposed making such records available on privacy grounds.

Whatever the reason, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, contends that every year thousands of gun purchases by mentally unstable and other unqualified people have been falling through the cracks. McCarthy has been sponsoring legislation that would offer incentives to states to report more records of mental illness and commitments to federal and state databases.

The issue isn’t new. McCarthy began sponsoring the bill four years ago, after a mentally unstable constituent killed a few parishioners and a priest at a church in her Long Island district. Lawmakers in Washington are certainly aware of the problem. In 1998, a man named Russell Weston killed two police officers in a shootout at the U.S. Capitol, using a .38-caliber gun that he had acquired with a gun permit he got from his home state of Illinois. When he filled out his federal form, he answered, like Cho, that he had no record of mental illness. Illinois officials were unaware that Weston had been ordered to a mental institution for a 90-day evaluation in Montana two years earlier. Why didn't they know? Montana's strict privacy laws prevent the reporting of commitments to law enforcement. The gap in reporting was duly noted in some news stories at the time, and quickly forgotten, until this week.

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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem is with the system of checks and balances - the guy was able to buy guns because there was no way to determining whether or not he was "mentally incompetant". There's no point in asking that question on the application if you have no way of following up on it. Its there, like some of the immigration questions of that nature merely as a legal disclaimer to be used to prosecute someone if they lie on their application.

Doctors are generally bound by doctor-patient confidentiality on issues like this - unless it is felt that a person poses an imminent danger to themselves or others, and even then its hard to make that determination without a demonstrable history of disturbed behaviour. Given the fact that the guy wasn't actually diagnosed with anything based on the evaluation - why is it the court records granting the TDO were not available?

Edited April 20, 2007 by erekose

[Caladan 19]

This is a tough one, because patients do and should have a right to privacy, first off because it's no one's business, and second, because of the risk of discrimination in hiring (want your boss to know you had syphillis?), and third, because of the stigma of treatment. It's hard enough to seek help when you're depressed without knowing that it will be the first thing up on your record for the rest of your life.

Cho was recommended to an institution for evaluation, but he wasn't involuntarily committed. That doesn't trigger any of Virginia's gun laws, so it seems the purchase was legal. And the question is, do you want someone to have to make their medical history completely available, or as part of a criminal database?

I don't think that's right; better, I think, to leave the law as it is and improve screening and treatment. Cho *should* have been committed; the failure's there, not with the law.

[Robor007 0]

Anyone deemed a danger to themselves and/or others should not be allowed to buy a firearm and IMO their right to privacy is trumped by public safety. It's amazing that it's a 6-12 month process to determine if the fiancee or spouse of a USC is allowed to immigrate here but nearly a rubber stamp if someone wants to purchase a firearm.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone deemed a danger to themselves and/or others should not be allowed to buy a firearm and IMO their right to privacy is trumped by public safety. It's amazing that it's a 6-12 month process to determine if the fiancee or spouse of a USC is allowed to immigrate here but nearly a rubber stamp if someone wants to purchase a firearm.

But that information cannot be made available without first removing that right to privacy from everyone to begin with...

What's wrong with having everyone submit to a psych exam as part of the application process?

Edited April 20, 2007 by erekose

[Robor007 0]

Anyone deemed a danger to themselves and/or others should not be allowed to buy a firearm and IMO their right to privacy is trumped by public safety. It's amazing that it's a 6-12 month process to determine if the fiancee or spouse of a USC is allowed to immigrate here but nearly a rubber stamp if someone wants to purchase a firearm.

But that information cannot be made available without first removing that right to privacy from everyone to begin with...

What's wrong with having everyone submit to a psych exam as part of the application process?

That's exactly what I was going to suggest.

[almaty 19]

Anyone deemed a danger to themselves and/or others should not be allowed to buy a firearm and IMO their right to privacy is trumped by public safety. It's amazing that it's a 6-12 month process to determine if the fiancee or spouse of a USC is allowed to immigrate here but nearly a rubber stamp if someone wants to purchase a firearm.

But that information cannot be made available without first removing that right to privacy from everyone to begin with...

What's wrong with having everyone submit to a psych exam as part of the application process?

That's exactly what I was going to suggest.

1st of all, there is no quickie psych test or eval...that will determine this..the best would be the mmpi or the cpi and spin-offs..2nd, it is a long test and has to be scored and eval.. third, the cost factor and the lack of enough trained professionals..there are many applications for guns daily..probably the waiitng list be in the months, if not years ...not practical

[Robor007 0]

Anyone deemed a danger to themselves and/or others should not be allowed to buy a firearm and IMO their right to privacy is trumped by public safety. It's amazing that it's a 6-12 month process to determine if the fiancee or spouse of a USC is allowed to immigrate here but nearly a rubber stamp if someone wants to purchase a firearm.

But that information cannot be made available without first removing that right to privacy from everyone to begin with...

What's wrong with having everyone submit to a psych exam as part of the application process?

That's exactly what I was going to suggest.

1st of all, there is no quickie psych test or eval...that will determine this..the best would be the mmpi or the cpi and spin-offs..2nd, it is a long test and has to be scored and eval.. third, the cost factor and the lack of enough trained professionals..there are many applications for guns daily..probably the waiitng list be in the months, if not years ...not practical

If we're talking about making sure gun owners are not a danger to themselves or the public then cost and time shouldn't be a factor - practical or not. Again, all of us here are going through a long and expensive visa process. Why is it so easy to determine a person is fit to be a gun owner when it takes so long to determine if a person is fit to be a visa holder?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Coincidentally, people might be interested to know that English Bill of Rights - a document dating back to 1688 which was used as the model for the US one also has a provision for a "right to bear arms".

The difference in Britain is that we don't have an equivalent of the (wealthy) NRA* to shoot down any legislation that amounts to even the whiff of restriction. Hence I wonder why it is that so many people think that the interests of a lobby group, are actually their interests too.

*The NRA being vehemently opposed to extending the time needed for background checks.

Edited April 20, 2007 by erekose

[almaty 19]

Anyone deemed a danger to themselves and/or others should not be allowed to buy a firearm and IMO their right to privacy is trumped by public safety. It's amazing that it's a 6-12 month process to determine if the fiancee or spouse of a USC is allowed to immigrate here but nearly a rubber stamp if someone wants to purchase a firearm.

But that information cannot be made available without first removing that right to privacy from everyone to begin with...

What's wrong with having everyone submit to a psych exam as part of the application process?

That's exactly what I was going to suggest.

1st of all, there is no quickie psych test or eval...that will determine this..the best would be the mmpi or the cpi and spin-offs..2nd, it is a long test and has to be scored and eval.. third, the cost factor and the lack of enough trained professionals..there are many applications for guns daily..probably the waiitng list be in the months, if not years ...not practical

If we're talking about making sure gun owners are not a danger to themselves or the public then cost and time shouldn't be a factor - practical or not. Again, all of us here are going through a long and expensive visa process. Why is it so easy to determine a person is fit to be a gun owner when it takes so long to determine if a person is fit to be a visa holder?

i like the idea, but it never fly in the states or with the feds...i bought a gun at a gas station once with a box of shells in kansas...and i see no change in the process as the VT, will only add to the concealed weapon argument, more than stricker gun control laws...hell, he bought one of the guns off the internet

[mybackpages 0]

Anyone deemed a danger to themselves and/or others should not be allowed to buy a firearm and IMO their right to privacy is trumped by public safety. It's amazing that it's a 6-12 month process to determine if the fiancee or spouse of a USC is allowed to immigrate here but nearly a rubber stamp if someone wants to purchase a firearm.

But that information cannot be made available without first removing that right to privacy from everyone to begin with...

What's wrong with having everyone submit to a psych exam as part of the application process?

That's exactly what I was going to suggest.

1st of all, there is no quickie psych test or eval...that will determine this..the best would be the mmpi or the cpi and spin-offs..2nd, it is a long test and has to be scored and eval.. third, the cost factor and the lack of enough trained professionals..there are many applications for guns daily..probably the waiitng list be in the months, if not years ...not practical

Bro Dean, no need for all that. here is one they can take on the internet http://www.quizilla.com/score/display.php?item_id=4704807 and its only 4 questions and scores instantly, so that will cut down on the waiting period Oh and i scored 50%...is that good or bad?

[almaty 19]

Anyone deemed a danger to themselves and/or others should not be allowed to buy a firearm and IMO their right to privacy is trumped by public safety. It's amazing that it's a 6-12 month process to determine if the fiancee or spouse of a USC is allowed to immigrate here but nearly a rubber stamp if someone wants to purchase a firearm.

But that information cannot be made available without first removing that right to privacy from everyone to begin with...

What's wrong with having everyone submit to a psych exam as part of the application process?

That's exactly what I was going to suggest.

1st of all, there is no quickie psych test or eval...that will determine this..the best would be the mmpi or the cpi and spin-offs..2nd, it is a long test and has to be scored and eval.. third, the cost factor and the lack of enough trained professionals..there are many applications for guns daily..probably the waiitng list be in the months, if not years ...not practical

Bro Dean, no need for all that. here is one they can take on the internet http://www.quizilla.com/score/display.php?item_id=4704807 and its only 4 questions and scores instantly, so that will cut down on the waiting period Oh and i scored 50%...is that good or bad?

that is good enough to get you a 45 caliber ..30 clip magazine glock, in 45 states in america.

[mybackpages 0]

Anyone deemed a danger to themselves and/or others should not be allowed to buy a firearm and IMO their right to privacy is trumped by public safety. It's amazing that it's a 6-12 month process to determine if the fiancee or spouse of a USC is allowed to immigrate here but nearly a rubber stamp if someone wants to purchase a firearm.

But that information cannot be made available without first removing that right to privacy from everyone to begin with...

What's wrong with having everyone submit to a psych exam as part of the application process?

That's exactly what I was going to suggest.

1st of all, there is no quickie psych test or eval...that will determine this..the best would be the mmpi or the cpi and spin-offs..2nd, it is a long test and has to be scored and eval.. third, the cost factor and the lack of enough trained professionals..there are many applications for guns daily..probably the waiitng list be in the months, if not years ...not practical

Bro Dean, no need for all that. here is one they can take on the internet http://www.quizilla.com/score/display.php?item_id=4704807 and its only 4 questions and scores instantly, so that will cut down on the waiting period Oh and i scored 50%...is that good or bad?

that is good enough to get you a 45 caliber ..30 clip magazine glock, in 45 states in america.

but less funny if you think about how true it probably is

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What I find funny is how everything is an argument against gun control - or at least better safeguards to ensure disturbed people can't acquire things that they should get.

2 guys shoot up a school in 1999. They acquire their guns illegally - yet firearm availability is not to blame.

1 guy shoots up a school in 2007 with legally bought weapons obtained easily. That too is apparently an argument against control.

Its just sad that while many people care about the victims, they don't seem to care enough to prevent this from happening again by addressing the causative factors that allowed a mentally disturbed man to act out a depraved revenge fantasy.

[Marc and Olga 0]

While I do not have any answers fact is, if someone wants something bad enough, they can get it!

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns