The Virginian-Pilot is reporting that Governor Tim Kaine is looking into whether he can use an executive order to close the loophole which allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to purchase his weapons.
Seung-Hui Cho had been ordered by a court to undergo psychiatric counseling after he was ruled to present a danger to himself.
But because Cho was treated as an outpatient and never committed to a mental health hospital, the court finding never made it into the database that federal law requires gun dealers to check before selling a firearm.
[…]
Kaine said federal regulations on what must be reported about mental commitments by courts are vague, and their interpretations differ among states.
The talking heads on Sunday’s political shows said that Virginia’s interpretation of the regulations was blatantly wrong. I believe the Governor on this one. If an executive order can correct this, it would be great. If not, it should be the first issue that the General Assembly takes up when it convenes in January. Or perhaps there should be a special session to get it done before then.
Technorati Tags: Tim Kaine, Virginia Tech
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
The Governor’s interpretation is correct. I spent the weekend screaming at TV pundits pontificating about Virginia law and their misunderstanding of it. As an outpatient who voluntarily committed himself Cho was not considered an involuntarily committed mentally ill individual as contemplated by the federal statute. I have been involved in numerous such cases and am well aware that the statute regulating involuntary commitment REQUIRES that the mental patient be unwilling to commit himself voluntarily for treatment. As long as he voluntarily commits he’s in great shape and can avoid determination that he is in fact mentally ill.
I agree. Cho was never adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed. The TDO was just a temporary order that allowed him to be picked up for the later hearing.
As I understand it, the authorities could also have sought a protective order against Cho for stalking the two women. That would have prevented him from buying a gun.
Yes, I know, hindsight is 20-20. However, I do hope that this incident will lead to a closer examination of the effectiveness of changes in the involuntary commitment process over the last few years, and the unavailability of inpatient psychiatric beds.
My understanding is that the authorities cannot seek a protective order if the women did not seek to press charges against Cho or unless some other less-subjective crime has committed.
The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, and I think that the issue deserves a public debate in the general assembly rather than an executive order. On the other hand, moving to close this loophole immediately is critically important, and I imagine we’re not going to get a whole lot of debate from people who don’t want to keep firearms out of the hands of folks like Cho at this point anyway–anyone who voted against the Governor’s recommendation in a pre-election special session might as well submit a letter of resignation with his vote, as far as his consituents are concerned. Hopefully we can revisit the discussion in January and make sure we have an effective system with appropriate safeguards to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous folks while still protecting the right to bear arms for stable, law-abiding Virginians.
As far as I know we have not heard from these two women, but my guess is that the women decided not to press charges because Cho was picked up on the TDO. What we haven’t heard is why he wasn’t involuntarily committed, and how infrequently dangerous people are in fact involuntarily committed, due to the lack of inpatient beds. There are some common sense recommendations on the right of the mentally ill to treatment by those who should know, their families, at the NAMI Virginia website:
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Other&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=45532
VAB – your message ended up in my spam filter. I deleted the second one since it appeared to be a duplicate.