Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: VT lawyer asks for more gun laws

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Memphrica, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    72

    Post imported post

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/..._mental_health

    Saw this and thought it would be good to post for the fine gun totin' folks of Virginia.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    Most lawyersfeel, the more laws the better and that laws solve all of life's problems. Lawyer Bill Clinton comes to mind on his famous "assault weapons ban." Whenthatstupid lawpassed,all of the left-wing politicians gave each other a feel good back slap. Now comes another lawyer type who wants to solve a "problem" by passing another symbolicgun law.What measures are in place to make sure thatthe poor guy who goes to see a therapistfor depression orwhatever, does notwind up on the"no guns for you" list.How easy would it be to correct amistake if there is an error on the list?It could happen.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Tricorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    898

    Post imported post

    mlands wrote:
    Most lawyersfeel, the more laws the better and that laws solve all of life's problems. Lawyer Bill Clinton comes to mind on his famous "assault weapons ban." Whenthatstupid lawpassed,all of the left-wing politicians gave each other a feel good back slap. Now comes another lawyer type who wants to solve a "problem" by passing another symbolicgun law.What measures are in place to make sure thatthe poor guy who goes to see a therapistfor depression orwhatever, does notwind up on the"no guns for you" list.How easy would it be to correct amistake if there is an error on the list?It could happen.
    The more laws the better means more work (and money) for the lawyers. If laws solved all of life's problems, we wouldn't have all these lawyers fighting over their meaning.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Virginia, ,
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    That article is scary for 2 reasons.

    Thomas Fadoul, an attorney working with many of the families, said Monday that the families want an apology for any notion that they may be too emotional or unable to ask intelligent questions.(In refering they are being kept off the panel because they are too emotional)
    How come your overcome with emotion that it offends you that someone presented a argument that you might be too emotional but you can serve on the panel without letting emotion overcome you? Ouch, LOGIC, it hurts.

    The families want full and open access to all of Cho's records instead of waiting for his family's consent, Fadoul said. "Quite frankly, the families don't want to depend on consent by the Cho family for every single thing that they need to find," Fadoul said.
    Reasons for being able to have access to medical records is what? Are you all of sudden law enforcement officers on this case? Even crazy people have some rights to privacy. Family has rights too. Your crazy if you don't think some of the records will have details about his family members who are still alive.



    I understand that family is grieving and I probably could never relate to the grief they are feeling but one must not let emotion trample over everything.



    EDIT: Clean up some syntax, I hate this board software.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    To have a better society, we need more good people.

    If we have more good people, we need less laws.

    If we have less laws, we'll needless lawyers.

    Interestinghow there are more lawyers per capita in America than anywhere else in the world, and accordingly more laws.

    Makes you think...







  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I posted in another thread that I do supportcorrecting the flaw in the systemto report when someone has been declared nuts.

    It is possible to get placed on the list and denied a gun... but that happens already with the other lists. If anyone is just a little crazy... I want it to be a little harder for them to get a gun. But that is just because I have seen so many crazy people and fear them having a gun.

    I do not think we need MORE gun laws.. Maybe tweak the ones we have a little.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I posted in another thread that I do supportcorrecting the flaw in the systemto report when someone has been declared nuts.

    It is possible to get placed on the list and denied a gun... but that happens already with the other lists. If anyone is just a little crazy... I want it to be a little harder for them to get a gun. But that is just because I have seen so many crazy people and fear them having a gun.

    I do not think we need MORE gun laws.. Maybe tweak the ones we have a little.
    Who declares that someone is a little crazy?

    A judge who thinks that anyone who would own a handgun is crazy? Backed by 3 psychiatrists who think that anyone who would own a handgun is crazy? Backed by 12 jurors who wasn't smart enough to get out of jury duty who really don't care one way or another?

    Don't think it'll happen? uh-huh...

    Ohhh, but they say. It'll be overturned on appeal. Ok, does the law say that if you win an appeal and are found to really *not* be "a little crazy" that you will automatically get your gun rights back? Well, no. You can hire attourneys to petition to get your gun rights restored... Eventually... Perhaps....

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    I posted in another thread that I do supportcorrecting the flaw in the systemto report when someone has been declared nuts.

    It is possible to get placed on the list and denied a gun... but that happens already with the other lists. If anyone is just a little crazy... I want it to be a little harder for them to get a gun. But that is just because I have seen so many crazy people and fear them having a gun.

    I do not think we need MORE gun laws.. Maybe tweak the ones we have a little.
    Who declares that someone is a little crazy?

    A judge who thinks that anyone who would own a handgun is crazy? Backed by 3 psychiatrists who think that anyone who would own a handgun is crazy? Backed by 12 jurors who wasn't smart enough to get out of jury duty who really don't care one way or another?

    Don't think it'll happen? uh-huh...

    Ohhh, but they say. It'll be overturned on appeal. Ok, does the law say that if you win an appeal and are found to really *not* be "a little crazy" that you will automatically get your gun rights back? Well, no. You can hire attourneys to petition to get your gun rights restored... Eventually... Perhaps....
    I'm not one to "back a cop" usually, but LEO229 has a point.. What's the problem with firmly redefining that anyone who has been "committed by a judge" should definately be banned? Under Federal law, this is currently a "gray area", the FED's say the person should be banned, but it doesn't always get done.

    As an added bonus, Vet's who were previously screwed get their rights back.

    You've gotta be pretty "FUBAR" to be declared a danger to yourself or others by a judge. That doesn't happen by going to a shrink, that happens when you GO NUTS and law enforcement intervenes.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    I posted in another thread that I do supportcorrecting the flaw in the systemto report when someone has been declared nuts.

    It is possible to get placed on the list and denied a gun... but that happens already with the other lists. If anyone is just a little crazy... I want it to be a little harder for them to get a gun. But that is just because I have seen so many crazy people and fear them having a gun.

    I do not think we need MORE gun laws.. Maybe tweak the ones we have a little.
    Who declares that someone is a little crazy?

    A judge who thinks that anyone who would own a handgun is crazy? Backed by 3 psychiatrists who think that anyone who would own a handgun is crazy? Backed by 12 jurors who wasn't smart enough to get out of jury duty who really don't care one way or another?

    Don't think it'll happen? uh-huh...

    Ohhh, but they say. It'll be overturned on appeal. Ok, does the law say that if you win an appeal and are found to really *not* be "a little crazy" that you will automatically get your gun rights back? Well, no. You can hire attourneys to petition to get your gun rights restored... Eventually... Perhaps....
    Been down this road before....

    There is "he must be crazy to think that" and then there is "He must be crazy to run around talking to himself and punching people in the face while cutting his chest with broken glass"....

    Who certifies that someone is crazy? A certified professional that has been trained in mental healthwill make such an assessment. The Judge would be likely to view your current behavior and if he agrees with the professional anddeem your crazy.

    Iam not doc.. But I have seen a ton of crazy people!!! There is a obvious line in the sand here. You can easily determine who is nuts and a danger.

    The courts correctly determined the Cho was crazy. The failure in the system was that Cho did not get his name on the ban list. So sorry that a few people might be mis-diagnosed and blocked but this could have stopped Cho from shooting people so easily.

    But..Cho probably had no criminal record and was a law abiding citizen... Cho has rights too... "The right to commit mass murder." We do not want to stop him from exercising that right. This is obviously more important than stopping crazy people from getting a gun.

    Your name is not going to just get dropped onto the list without just cause. You are going to have to do something extraordinary first just to get into the head doctors office first.

    And if you do... and your deemed a threat to yourself and the public... I don't want you having a gun till your better. I hope that they keep you locked up so that you do not get a knife or drive a car. But even crazy people have rights and are released back into the public.


    Sorry, "NO GUN FOR YOU!" :P



  10. #10
    Regular Member vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490

    Post imported post

    May I direct people to read this thread posted at thehighroad.

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=283879

    It started when this article was posted.

    Man with guns arrested at HACC

    Posted by Tom Bowman/The Patriot-News June 20, 2007 12:57PM
    Categories: Crime, Dauphin County, Education, Midstate

    A man armed with a 9 mm pistol who police said talked about Virginia Tech was arrested yesterday inside Cooper Student Center at Harrisburg Area Community College.

    The man approached a student and said he had guns in his car, Harrisburg Police Chief Charles Kellar said.

    "It would be worse than Virginia Tech if someone broke into my car. I have guns in the car," Dauphin County First Assistant District Attorney Fran Chardo quoted the man.

    John Sakkas of Lemoyne said he heard about a man with a gun at Cooper Student Center during his 8 a.m. speech class today.

    The student told an armed HACC security guard that the man had a pistol, and the guards called Harrisburg police, then watched him until police arrived, said HACC spokeswoman Tracy Mendoza.

    City police searched the man, found the 9 mm loaded handgun in his backpack, then took him to the police station, Mendoza said.

    Kellar said the man had a concealed weapons permit and was legally allowed to carry a pistol. Police searched his car and found a second pistol there and another firearm in his home.

    Police talked with Chardo about charging the man. Chardo said what the man said would not qualify as a terroristic threat because there has to be an intent to terrorize another person.

    "Because of the statement I was greatly concerned about this fellow," Chardo said. "I contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked. And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms because he was committed involuntarily."

    Chardo said the law says a person cannot possess a firearm if they have been adjudicated incompetent or involuntarily committed for inpatient mental health care.

    A source close to the police said the man lives in the 3700 block of Green Street, Susquehanna Twp. The Patriot-News is withholding the man's name because he has not been charged with any offense.

    Neither HACC nor Harrisburg police released any information on the incident yesterday.

    After the man was arrested, HACC chief spokesman Pat Early sent out an e-mail to the college staff explaining the incident. Early said he did not tell the students or the public about the incident.

    "It was something that was handled quickly, quietly. There wasn't anything to tell," Early said. "Our (security) officers approached the man when the Harrisburg police arrived. They determined indeed he was carrying a weapon. He was taken into custody and removed from the campus."
    This is a story about a man who may or may not be crazy... I don't know the guy so I don't know. Another article reported that he had a ski mask and black gloves.

    First remember that like Virginia it is legal to have a weapon on a college campus in Pennsylvania. So while he made some pretty stupid statements, he did NOTHING ILLEGAL and his CCW was revoked and he was committed so he has lost his RKBA. I own a ski mask and black gloves, I talk about Virginia Tech... am I crazy?

    Now maybe this guy was about to go crazy and kill people... but what should scare us even more is how quickly his rights were snatched away before he did anything against the law. Apparenly it is not so hard to be declared insane; all it takes is an overzealous DA.

    It is my personal opinion that the freedom this country was founded on is more important than the safety of a few.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    vt357 wrote:
    First remember that like Virginia it is legal to have a weapon on a college campus in Pennsylvania. So while he made some pretty stupid statements, he did NOTHING ILLEGAL and his CCW was revoked and he was committed so he has lost his RKBA. I own a ski mask and black gloves, I talk about Virginia Tech... am I crazy?

    Now maybe this guy was about to go crazy and kill people... but what should scare us even more is how quickly his rights were snatched away before he did anything against the law. Apparenly it is not so hard to be declared insane; all it takes is an overzealous DA.

    It is my personal opinion that the freedom this country was founded on is more important than the safety of a few.
    I wasn't expected an "I told ya so" so quickly..

    It appears the DA requested involuntary commitment as an "end-game" to get rid of this guy & his guns.

    IE: You've done nothing wrong, but we're going to "VERIFY YOU'RE NOT CRAZY" -- Oh, and by the way, we seized all your guns too. -- Have a nice day.

    But, on the flip-side, it's pretty #@&$ stupid to be advertising that you've got guns on campus&make a flippent VT COMMENT around liberals

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    vt357 wrote: Holy crap! That's scary stuff...

    How do we know the context that this persons comments were made in?

    And they "searched his car and house"? WTF? Searched by what probable cause, not breaking any law? Or did he (foolishly) consent to these searches that would be illegal if he had not?
    This story stinks, bad!


  13. #13
    Regular Member vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490

    Post imported post

    I was neutral on the NRA-McArthy compromise until this story came out. I'm 100% completely against it now. Theres an old saying that goes "You're not paranoid if they REALLY ARE out to get you."

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    vt357 wrote:
    I was neutral on the NRA-McArthy compromise until this story came out. I'm 100% completely against it now. Theres an old saying that goes "You're not paranoid if they REALLY ARE out to get you."
    I, too, was neutral on the NRA-McArthy deal. People here made some good arguments against the bill, but I was still unsure that it was a bad thing.

    On the way to work this morning, I was listening to an audio biography on Alexander Hamilton. Something was said that, I think, is equally applicable to all rights, but in the context used, it was in reference to Hamilton's US Bank plan.

    [ I will be severely paraphrasing here, but provide the gist of the statement]

    He admitted that the the bank plan was subject to occassions of ill fate by dishonest speculators, but that the relaxed regulations enabled persons of limited or no means to utilize the system and prosper. Therefore, for the common good of the community, the occassional exploitation by speculators was acceptable because the benefits to the community outweighed that of the risks.

    I think it supports something that I have always believed in. People always claim it's their right to do this and do that. However, one person's rights end where they impeed on another's rights. Had the banking plan not been implemented, then it would have impeeded on the rights of the honest citizens.

    The same theory can be applied to guns and gun control. Gun control impeeds on the pro-rights American right to keep and bear arms....

    As a result, my neutral favor of the deal is becoming more and more a distaste for it.

Posting Permissions

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