Did Cho Commit Felony by Purchasing Firearm?

K

Keith_Yorktown

New member
It would seem to me, that someone who had a detention order placed on him, so that he could be evaluated, should have been required to answer YES to question 12F on the 4473.

You know there is already a call for more laws, when the laws we already have didn't weed out this guy.

If his mental health history were in the NICS database, might he have prevented from buying these firearms?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278

A court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous. Then it let him go.

In December 2005 -- more than a year before Monday's mass shootings -- a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.
Click to expand...
 
Found the answer to my own question...

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/...early_landed_on_list_of_t.htm?s_cid=rss:site1

Despite being temporarily detained at a mental health facility in 2005, Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui's name was not added to the federal database meant to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining handguns because he was never formally committed to the facility, U.S. News's Will Sullivan has learned.

Following accusations of stalking by two female students against Cho and concerns he might be suicidal, campus officials obtained a "temporary detention order" for him on Dec. 13, 2005, from a Virginia magistrate, citing concerns that he "presents an imminent threat to [him]self or others." Cho was sent to Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, Va., for examination.

But the next day, a physician concluded that, while mentally ill, Cho did not present an imminent danger to others or require involuntary hospitalization. Special Judge Paul M. Barrett of the Virginia District Court in Christiansburg released him.
Click to expand...
 
I think in CA if you've ever been "adjudicated mentally ill" you're barred from ever owning a gun. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
 
He was detained to determine if he should be involuntarily committed. However, he never was.

It is like the difference between being arrested and convicted.
 
"I think in CA if you've ever been "adjudicated mentally ill" you're barred from ever owning a gun. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong."

I think your wrong, Boxer, Fienstien have guns!:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top