New York Times
Michael Luo
PULASKI, Va. — In May 2009, Sam French hit bottom, once again. A relative found him face down in his carport “talking gibberish,” according to court records. He later told medical personnel that he had been conversing with a bear in his backyard and hearing voices. His family figured he had gone off his medication for bipolar disorder, and a judge ordered him involuntarily committed — the fourth time in five years he had been hospitalized by court order. When Mr. French’s daughter discovered that her father’s commitment meant it was illegal for him to have firearms, she and her husband removed his cache of 15 long guns and three handguns, and kept them after Mr. French was released in January 2010 on a new regime of mood-stabilizing drugs. Ten months later, he appeared in General District Court — the body that handles small claims and traffic infractions — to ask a judge to restore his gun rights. After a brief hearing, in which Mr. French’s lengthy history of relapses never came up, he walked out with an order reinstating his right to possess firearms. The next day, Mr. French retrieved his guns.
Is it really this easy? How does this all work? Should the chronically mentally ill be denied gun rights? How do we balance protecting Virginians (and others) from unstable people and protect people who have had minor emotional illnesses from government abuse?
That’ utterly outrageous. The 2nd Amendment does not apply to crazy people, despite what the gun fetishers would have us believe.
I have heard recently that gun control was one of the latest pushes for the far left, and lo and behold, here it is! In almost all of these cases, there are current laws that would work just fine if they were enforced properly. Alas, our executive branch of government has long since abandoned its job of enforcing laws. Infinitely scarier than Mr. French owning a gun is the notion that responding poster #1 here owns a gun.
In Virginia, once your gun rights have been taken away, it is a long, lengthy and expensive process to have them restored.
I think I want guns controlled if they are in the hands of the seriously mentally ill. Those aren’t the people I want to know have an arsenol.
The danger seems to lie in how mental illness is defined. Someone with acute depression after the loss of a loved one is a lot different than someone who has been known to loose all touch with reality.
What is the mechanism to have gun rights removed?
Considering all the issues, speeches and actions around Virginia Tech, you would think someone would have brought up the issue of the weapons. Even just the question asked by the Judge as to why the daughter removed them. Sad, really sad.
I find it amusing that the piece is so slanted as to slam our judicial system – as if Judges in the General District are not competant enough to understand ‘law’.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.1C3
The above link is the Virginia law for restoration of gun rights for the mentally ill. I don’t see the issue here. The burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to prove to a judge that a person is a danger to themselves/society.
So, what exactly is the issue?
Judging from the info Marinm cited, I think enough safeguards are in effect provided the petitioner’s full pysch history is made available which doesn’t seem to have been done in the French case. I would hope that the judge is allowed to view the entire history and not merely the events that led to the last commitment. Otherwise, the law needs to be tweaked.
Agree with Censored. the issue appears to be implementation of the law that already exists.
If someone is involuntarily placed in a mental health facility, by a court order, they lose their right to own a gun. If someone is under a protective order, they lose their right to own a gun.
I also agree that the mentally ill should not have access or ownership to firearms.
Steve,, what if a person willingly commits his/herself to a mental health facility?
Also, if they lose their right to own a gun, who enforces this? Is that in Virginia or all over? Since most commitment is only for 72 hours, how does the law catch up the guns? I can see a lot of room for error. Also, some times people have events in their life that push them over the edge. They are committed and then come out, get well, and lead normal lives. I think the proper balance would be hard to achieve.
Unfortunately, the first indication most of us have that someone is unstable is after a rampage. However, I don’t know what you do about it. Just an observation.
I think we all would feel better if there was a magic bullet to help us spot those who would do us harm, before the fact.
No truer words have ever been said about gun laws. Thank you Elena.
We don’t need new laws just to enforce existing laws. The NYTimes piece is very slanted, biased and doesn’t actually explain the current law.
I think #11 captures what most people feel about this. That as long as a person is ‘OK’ again then they should get their guns back. The measure that the General Assembly has adopted is for the General District Court to have a Judge figure out if the Commonwealth has a case in keeping a citizen from having and exercising a fundamental right.
I think the law is fine as is.
If I recall correctly…practically anyone in AZ could have placed a simple telephone call and had Mr. Rampage (can’t think of his name off the top of my head, which means he didn’t get what he probably wanted for himself) checked out rather thoroughly for mental issues. I even believe that incident would have cropped up in his background check (or it should have but wouldn’t because of our inability to enforce laws).
Slowpoke, were people aware that he had guns? I guess the problem is, he wasn’t involuntarily committed.
If you want to keep your guns, commit yourself.
It doesn’t seem like we can work up much of a fight on this one. We all seem pretty much in agreement.
If you voluntarily commit, then you do not lose your rights to own firearms. Marinm is correct: once your rights are revoked, it is a judicial review process required to reinstate them (except in the case of felons. I believe a felon must petition the Governor, as with voting rights). The laws are more than adequate. What is needed is better enforcement. But we see this in many other areas as well. DSS and child-neglect cases, child abuse. Family court where protective orders aren’t issued when needed, and not enforced when violated. and on and on. Repeat offender sentencing guidlines ignored. Zoning enforcement. etc. etc.