Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Common Sense Prevails: The Looney Loophole Closed

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has issued an executive order closing the loophole that allowed Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho to purchase two handguns. From now on, any Virginian subjected to a court-ordered, involuntary commitment for outpatient mental treatment will be barred from purchasing a gun. The court order must be entered into a state database used for background checks and shared with federal law-enforcement agencies. (See Michael Hardy’s treatment in the Times-Dispatch.)

As far as I’m concerned, this is common sense. Mentally unstable people should not be allowed to purchase guns, any more than felons convicted of violent crimes should be. The measure was backed by Attorney General Bob McDonnell, indicating that support cuts across partisan divides.

However, I’m not under any illusion that this is the end of the story. First of all, the executive order won’t stop all mentally unstable people from buying guns, only those who have been ordered to receive mental treatment. Secondly, someone — lawmakers, perhaps; judges, more likely — will have to determine exactly how this rule applies.

Question: Does an an involuntary commitment amount to a scarlet letter, branding an individual for life — even if he has been successfully treated and no longer represents a danger?

Question: What rights of appeal does a mentally ill (or formerly mentally ill) person have to prevent the loss of civil rights granted other citizens?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

32 responses to “Common Sense Prevails: The Looney Loophole Closed”

  1. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    Interesting questions, Jim. I wonder if those all hot to restore the liberty of convicted felons to vote will be equally enthusiastic about restoring their liberty to bear arms.

  2. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    The order is a good step, but IMO it’s mainly forcing the state’s mental health services to interpret the current code strictly:
    “…direct the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services to revise DMH 1006”

    As far as I know, like felon status, adjudicated status is permanent; a scarlet letter There is a procedure for felons to regain rights through the Governor’s office; I’m not aware of an equivalent for mental health.

    On the subject (I’d understand if you’re tired of Provo-v-Patrick) I just posted a link to new, breaking research on mental health, institutionalization, and jail incarcerations

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Not interesting questions, Jim. Am sure the world has a lot more serious things to worry about rather than some libertarian conceit that a reformed mentally ill person might somehow be allowed to buy guns at some oint in the future
    Wonder what the families of the Tech dead would say about that?

  4. Ken Cuccinelli Avatar
    Ken Cuccinelli

    Jim,

    Re your 2 questions:

    1) An involuntary committment does stay with an individual for life, though unlike questions about criminal arrests/convictions, you do not see as many organizations asking about mental illness findings (convictions are for criminal cases).

    2) Hearings for those alleged to be mentally ill and a threat to themselves or others, etc. are held in General District Court. Most GDCs appoint special justices which are lawyers that sit as judges just in these cases determining whether the Respondent should be committed or treated. Like any other GDC case, a Respondent that is found to be mentally ill and a threat has a right of appeal to the Circuit Court. I have been working in such hearings for about 8 years now in Fairfax County, and I am only aware of a few cases in which the losing Respondent decided to appeal.

    Also, once adjudicated as mentally ill and a threat to oneself or others, the only way for such a person to get their right to own a gun back is to go back to court and petition the court for that right. This is something that a felon canNOT do, and I don’t know of anyone ever actually filing such a petition. I’m sure someone, somewhere in Virginia has filed such a petition, but I’ve never heard of it.

    I hope this helps.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    First of all, we don’t need anything new to fix the “problem.” After all, Tech was a “gun free” campus. As the Tech spokesman put it when a bill was killed to let mature adults exercise their right to protect themselves with guns on campus, “we all feel safer now.” End of story.

    Secondly, this executive order would have done nothing to keep the Tech killer from getting his guns.

    Do we all still feel safer now??

    By the way, did everybody notice the way the police hid behind trees and buildings as that nutcase fired off 200 shots killing 32 unarmed people.

    If only one of them had had a gun.

  6. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    anonymous-

    Well said.

    Jim Patrick needs to have someone
    in his family injured or killed by
    someone bearing a firearm that he
    should not have had the right to
    purchase….then he might get off
    of his stock, pro-gun, with no limits positions !!!!!!!!

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Won’t affect most of us. As I just read somewhere it’s liberals who go to therapy. Conservatives go to church.

  8. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    anonymous #2-

    You must have more faith in our
    ability to do better by each other
    than the fatalistic views you have
    expressed.

  9. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    Wow! Talk about therapy — somebody’s fixation is getting fanatical.

  10. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    Ken –
    Constitution of Virginia; Article II, § 1:
    “. . . No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority. As prescribed by law, no person adjudicated to be mentally incompetent shall be qualified to vote until his competency has been reestablished.”

    Article V, § 12 establishes that clemency and pardon for Virginia crimes rests solely with the Governor.

    Other appropriate authority means federal felons may be restored by the President; a felon in another state may be restored by the that state’s Governor; a felon in another state may be restored by automatic restoration. (AGs’ opinions)

    Virginia § 53.1-231 et al details the investigation of clemency cases, required notification to felons about restoration of civil rights, and how to petition civil rights restoration via (not by) the courts.

  11. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Ken, If I understand your clarifications correctly, a person who was involuntarily committed will *never* have his gun-buying rights restored. Isn’t it likely that someone eventually will be committed, receive treatment, get better, rejoin society as a normal, productive citizen, want to acquire a gun, be barred from doing so, and then challenge the rule?

  12. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Jim Patrick-

    You continue to have a lack of
    compassion for those amongst us
    who want society to protect them
    from those who acquire firearms
    and want to harm others.

    Your lectures about the felons
    rights, the constitution and other
    points misses the mark relative
    to the issues on the minds of
    many in wake of the recent
    sad news from Blacksburg.

    I want to commend Ken Cuccinelli for clarifying the rights of the
    mentally ill in Virginia that you
    and Jim Bacon failed to do in your
    earlier posting and Jim’s essay that launched
    this discussion.

  13. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    Roger ‘Your family should be killed’ Provo lectures on compassion? Give us a break, that’s absolutely unbelievable!

    Ken stated that felons couldn’t petition a court for restoration of rights; they can.

    Further, no-ones addressed whether the (state) court restorations are valid. Form 4473 clearly states “Have you ever been adjudicated … or have you ever been committed …”

  14. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Jim Patrick-

    I think those who have lost a son
    or daughter, a husband or wife to
    a shooter who was deemed mentally
    at risk to himself and others and
    bought two pistols in a state that
    allows us to purchase one a month,
    in violation of federal law would
    take issue with your ramblings and sniping
    about this issue so
    important to our state.

  15. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    Roger Provo said, “I think those who have lost a son or daughter . . . would take issue with your ramblings and sniping about this issue so important to our state.”

    But those people haven’t criticized, so the ‘I think’ part is just a delusion. That’s another fact that Mr. Provo will probably ignore. Just like he’s disregarded the facts that firearms restrictions don’t make us safer; they don’t reduce violent crime.

    Coming from someone who says differing views ‘. . . need to have someone in their family injured or killed . . .’, this false sorrow is rubbish You’re exploiting the Virginia Tech murders; manipulating them for political profit.

    But you have company, like the Brady Campaign that Groveton’s always quoting. By 3 PM on that fateful day they were exploiting the murders to collect donations; a sort of ‘Virginia Tech special’. Governor Kaine said such people were loathsome, and it’s true.

    Banning or restricting firearms doesn’t reduce violent crime or make us safer.

  16. roeger provo Avatar
    roeger provo

    jim patrick –

    My guess is that the families of
    those lost on April 16th at Va
    Tech are so grief stricken that
    participating in exchange with the
    likes of you would not be a major
    priority for them at this time …

    You are a gun lover with no social
    regard …

    Delusion …. just because one
    takes issue with you. What rubbish? What manipulation?

    Is our right of free speech so tarnished in your world that one can’t articulate a differing view of public policy?

    Prove to me I have some basis
    for manipulating these sad events
    for political profit.

    Your rude remarks continue to provide no constructive benefit to those of us who advocate reasonable gun laws …something you hold in utter contempt.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ordinarily I have enough sense to stay out of two-way stand-offs, but I never got the impression that Jim Patrick is against all gun restrictions. He even said that “The order is a good step”.

    BTW, Jim Bacon, my sister-in-law refuses to believe that it is even remotely possible for the UK to have a higher assault and robbery rate than the “gun nut” filled US. I know better; you know better. I gave up trying to explain.

    Deena Flinchum

  18. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Deena, My wife refuses to believe the same thing. I cited the Department of Justice source for the data, and she still doesn’t believe it. A lot of people still have a romantic image of England as a place where bobbies with night sticks still keep everything in order.

  19. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Deena, Jim-

    What is in dispute between Jim Patrick and myself are these issues:

    -we do not need to sell cartridges
    that can hold 19 bullets, which the
    Va Tech shooter used

    -we do not need our laws to allow selling one gun a month to consumers, which the Va
    Tech shooter used to buy two guns over a 60 day period

    -we do not need to sell guns to
    those with mental health issues,
    as the federal government prohibits,
    though the Va Tech shooter lied on
    has application form about this
    issue and our reporting system did
    not include his history in the
    data base used for background checks

    -nor do we need to hold gun shows
    that allow consumers to buy guns
    without background checks.

    None of this has anything to do with gun laws in the UK and their
    bobbies, but it does have alot to
    do with responsible public policy
    in Virginia which many of you do
    not want to address.

  20. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    “Responsible public policy in Virginia” addresses issues to maximize citizens’ life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Life is a primary concern, and restricting firearms has proved detrimental or —at best— make no improvement. Restrictions don’t save lives, and often murder rates get worse.

    By acknowledging that fact, we can get on with addressing policies that actually can save lives. Conversely, by obsessing over firearms, Roger derails discussion on realistic, rational solutions.

    Controlling or limiting types of firearms has proved detrimental or —at best— make no improvement; it won’t save lives and often murder rates get worse.

    Maybe it’s deliberate, maybe he can’t help it; but Forrest Gump had it right. It’s still a shame that productive conversation gets wrecked.

    Mr. Provo will (already has on this thread) derail dialogue about Virginia’s mental health problems and failure to treat; about truly de-stigmatizing people with mental health problems.

    Many people with physical handicaps are restricted from ordinary rights and civil liberties (driving while nearsighted), and it seems reasonable to allow medical restrictions based on mental health. That’s a far cry from today’s standard that requires judicial action; but we don’t require judicial acts for physical imperfections.

  21. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    jim patrick-

    About your last posting, more of the same from the pundit from the Valley who is unable to acknowledge some of the issues
    relative to our gun laws that need
    to be addressed.

    Let’s end this fruitless exchange
    with this note.

  22. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    Roger, it wasn’t more of the same. My post was A) on topic, and B) a fairly provocative try to advance the conversation on the limits (or balance) of civil rights in pertaining to mental health.

    As predicted, Mr. Provo tries to block this, believing guns cause all crime. No apologies for the sarcasm, but it’s too predictable. Next thing you know, ‘cartridges with 19 bullets’ will be to blame for NOVA’s traffic and the obesity epidemic. LOL

    ABC’s 20/20 just reported on Roger’s wish for gun control; it was on their list of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. More than enough data’s been posted to explode any myth that gun control reduces crime. There are two remaining choices, Roger’s pick.

  23. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    jim patrick-

    Most of Jim Bacon’s postings deal
    with constructive discussions about
    issues and solutions for them ….
    something you have an inability to
    do.

    You think we should allow the sale of one gun a month to the likes of the Va Tech shooter.

    You think we should allow the sale of cartridges containing 19 bullets
    to the likes of the Va Tech shooter.

    You think we should allow the sale
    of weapons at gun shows without
    background checks.

    Given the grief at Virginia Tech,
    in our state and nation, your sarcasm
    about these issues now linking them
    to traffic problems and obesity
    is beyond belief.

    You are a man with no moral center
    and sense of social responsibility.

  24. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Jim and Rodger, You two are talking past each other. Maybe we can focus your interchange so as to make it more constructive. Personally, I see multiple factors at work to explain something like the Virginia Tech shooting. There are broad cultural factors (an American proclivity toward violence). There are institional factors (the failings of our treatment of the mentally ill). And there is the ready availability of guns.

    The United States is so awash in guns, and our borders are so porous that even if we banned and confiscated every gun in the country, the drug runners and coyotes would fill the void. We will never deprive the criminal class of guns. We will never eliminate gun-related crimes.

    But could we deprive the Chos of the world of guns? Could we at least reduce the incidence of gun-related crimes by keeping them out of the hands of crazy people and others, like temporarily deranged ex-husbands angry at their wives and new boyfriends? Or, if we can’t keep the Chos from getting guns, could we at least limit the deadliness of their rampages by controlling the type of guns (and gun clips) they can acquire? I don’t have the answers, but those, in the context of the times, are the more relevant questions to pursue.

    The challenge is to strike the balance. The United States will never ban all guns. I certainly wouldn’t advocate it. At the same time, we won’t allow just anybody to have guns. Ex-felons and the mentally ill are two categories that most people agree upon. Likewise, while we permit people to carry guns of various types, most of us agree that it would not be appropriate for private citizens to acquire bazookas, anti-tank guns, shoulder-to-air missiles, mortars or rocket-propelled grenades.

    I think your conversation would be more constructive if you focused on the question: Where do we strike the balance between individual rights and public safety, within the constraints of the wording of the constitution?

  25. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Jim Bacon-

    I agree with Groveton’s postings
    about the constitutional provision
    relative to our right to own guns.

    That provision should not be used
    by those who think it justifies
    allowing the mentally disabled
    to arm themselves with handguns
    capable of using cartridges that
    contain 19 bullets.

    Nor does it mean we should allow
    the sale of one gun a month nor
    the purchases of guns at shows
    without background checks.

    Heck, when that document was drafted
    weapons were single shot, hand
    loaded.

    They were used in a country that was a
    wilderness to defend one’s home and to hunt for
    food.

    That environment is along way from
    what happened at Va Tech on 4/16/07.

  26. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    Jim, the problem (talking past each other) is true. But if you’ll indulge me, it goes directly to a problem you’ve run into with other issues.

    It’s blatantly clear that traffic congestion and transportation ills aren’t solved with “mo money”, that education isn’t improved with “mo money”, and the key to bad land use isn’t “mo zoning”. Etc., etc.

    No matter how obvious, there are a huge number of people who refuse to consider looking at real, root causes. Money is spent on failing schools to see them deteriorate more; zoning (to reduce growth) results in more sprawl; road building results in more traffic; and so on.

    On firearms, there have been waves of gun control; most in reaction to fear. The 1968 black riots, 1920’s immigration, 1870’s black freedmen, 1850’s abolitionist crisis, etc.; all saw gun control measures along with other restrictions.

    Through it all, special interest groups are profiting from the issues by diverting attention from the real reasons. They know fixing —or even investigating— the root causes will put them out of business.

    The end result of not asking the hard questions is impoverishment: we gain nothing from simplistic non-solutions, and we lose heavily to unintended consequences. We load the free enterprise system with tax, we slip toward authoritarian rule.

    So . . . Mr. Bacon . . . you say, “strike the balance between individual rights and public safety”. I agree if you are discussing a solution.

    But unless you can show that a proposal actually works —is at least capable of mitigating the problem— it should be pointless to discuss “balancing rights”. You cannot ‘balance’ something of value against something worthless.

  27. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Jim Bacon –

    Now Jim Patrick has turned on you.

    I think your comments were very
    constructive and I respect your
    position.

    Unlike the Pundit from the Valley,
    I do not hold the thoughts of others in
    utter contempt – but I do reserve
    the right to take issue
    with his unchecked views of guns
    in our society.

  28. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Jim Patrick-

    I would invite you and others to
    read Margaret Edds column in this
    morning’s edition of the Virginian-
    Pilot (simply Google Virginia-Pilot) about
    the holes in our gun laws.

    Jim Patrick, the system you are
    defending is supply guns to New
    York City criminals to sell on
    the streets of Harlem. They buy
    handguns in Virginia for $300 @
    and retail them on the streets
    there for four times that amount.

    We need to make the changes in our
    laws I have been advocating on this
    blog site. I have shared this
    column with our local delegate and
    senator. I would urge you to do
    the same and demonstrate you have
    a sense of social responsibility.

  29. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Correction- Para 2

    Jim Patrick, the system you are
    defending supplies (not is supply)
    guns ….

  30. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Correction -Para 1

    (Google Virginian-Pilot)

    not

    (Google Virginia-Pilot)

  31. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    It’s interesting that the article wants to shackle Virginians for crimes committed in New York. Interesting because it doesn’t mention that existing Virginia laws restricting sales —passed at New York’s request— didn’t make any difference.

    The article is another data point of anti-gun obsession leading to lunacy:
    ‘When a law doesn’t work, do it more.’

    It also shows that —by fixating on firearms— murderers are allowed to run free. The example given was about being able to trace a firearm, but they didn’t find the murderer. In fact, there wasn’t any mention of trying to find the murderer; leading to the conclusion NYC isn’t bothered murderers are free to ply their carnage.

    All the article accomplishes is show that A) Roger has fellow travelers on this obsession, and B) laws restricting certain products have no effect on those with malicious intent.

    Gun control laws don’t work; they don’t make us safer. In contrast, malicious-person control laws have proven to reduce crime, as have violently-insane-people control laws.

    An aside on “violently-insane-people control laws”. This thread, on Governor Kaine’s executive order, is exactly that: It strips some civil rights from people who are judged a danger to society. We automatically restrict rights of convicted felons (malicious intent) and we remove the right to buy alcohol (incapacity) of habitual drunkards. Those are common sense.

    But laws to restrict firearms don’t do a bit of good, and are often harmful.

  32. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Jim Patrick-

    You and I have a different view
    about life and society — I feel
    sorry for you. I hope you enjoy
    the dark side of the street you
    choose to walk along …

Leave a Reply

Read More