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commitment amount to a scarlet letter, branding an individual for life — even if he has been successfully treated and no longer represents a danger?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