Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 4/18/2007 7:04:39 AM EST
Watching right now, and they seem to be talking about how the shooter was in a mental institution and if he was still there this would have never of happened.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:09:10 AM EST
Maybe it wouldn't have.

I'd rathre have them focusing on mental health than on guns.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:14:07 AM EST
If involuntary commitment to a mental facility due to concerns that an individual might cause harm to themselves or others was included in the NICS just like it is in many State-run background checks, this may have been prevented.

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:29:31 AM EST

Quoted:
If involuntary commitment to a mental facility due to concerns that an individual might cause harm to themselves or others was included in the NICS just like it is in many State-run background checks, this may have been prevented.



Involuntary commitment to a mental facility IS a part of the Virginia form.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:44:18 AM EST

Quoted:
Watching right now, and they seem to be talking about how the shooter was in a mental institution and if he was still there this would have never of happened.


... I hope you're not talking about Jeff Cooper
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:49:39 AM EST
Someone who had a history of being involuntarily committed would never lie on a form, now would they.  Many psych patients will agree to a voluntary admission to avoid having a record of an involuntary committment.  

How about the other rediculous questions on form 4473.

"Are you a fugitive from justice?"

Yeah, I'm going to really answer that one truthfully if I'm a criminal on the lamb.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:54:58 AM EST
Well, they have to blame this on somebody.  Surely it couldn't be the gunman's fault.  Someone in this country take the blame for something they actually did?  Forget about it.  :)
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:02:31 AM EST
The press is causing a rush to judgement.  We don't even know the complete story they are clamouring for revising the mental health system.  What happened to global warming and acid rain?
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:05:50 AM EST
They will tie into gun control one way or another. I seem to remember that they mentioned they may have proof he was on anti-depressents.

The next debate will be mental health background checks for gun owners.

I don't use any anti-depressents or anything of that nature, although I know some very lucid, non-violent people that do. And it will be their rights that are held in the balance.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:06:48 AM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:
If involuntary commitment to a mental facility due to concerns that an individual might cause harm to themselves or others was included in the NICS just like it is in many State-run background checks, this may have been prevented.



Involuntary commitment to a mental facility IS a part of the Virginia form.


It is part of the 4473 that is used by the State of Virginia. However, we had a crazed nut here in michigan get pinched on the MSP background check while trying to buy a pistol because of psychiatric problems in 2004...He went down the street and bought a shotgun (not subject to MSP purchase permit background check) and shot his boss and two other people. He is now pleading insanity.

I fully understand that it appers the guy lied on the 4473 and in doing so committed a felony. The question is, are psychiatric treatment events a part of that NICS database?  

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:09:47 AM EST

Quoted:
.
.
Involuntary commitment to a mental facility IS a part of the Virginia form.



It is part of the 4473 that is used by the State of Virginia. However, we had a crazed nut here in michigan get pinched on the MSP background check while trying to buy a pistol because of psychiatric problems in 2004...He went down the street and bought a shotgun (not subject to MSP purchase permit background check) and shot his boss and two other people. He is now pleading insanity.

I fully understand that it appers the guy lied on the 4473 and in doing so committed a felony. The question is, are psychiatric treatment events a part of that NICS database?


It can be, if the government wants to track it.  In Calif mental capacity is part of the background check, and mental health care providers are require to report it to the state by law.  Now we are talking about medical privacy, another can of worms.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:11:15 AM EST
We need to ban crazy people!!
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:13:32 AM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If involuntary commitment to a mental facility due to concerns that an individual might cause harm to themselves or others was included in the NICS just like it is in many State-run background checks, this may have been prevented.



Involuntary commitment to a mental facility IS a part of the Virginia form.


It is part of the 4473 that is used by the State of Virginia. However, we had a crazed nut here in michigan get pinched on the MSP background check while trying to buy a pistol because of psychiatric problems in 2004...He went down the street and bought a shotgun (not subject to MSP purchase permit background check) and shot his boss and two other people. He is now pleading insanity.

I fully understand that it appers the guy lied on the 4473 and in doing so committed a felony. The question is, are psychiatric treatment events a part of that NICS database?  


As I understand it, no, they are not.  Psychiatric history is considered part of your medical record and as such it is protected by Federal Law under the "The Privacy Rule" of the "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act"  (HIPAA) as enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:15:55 AM EST
I am not defending the shooter but those who undergo mental health examinations are not necessarily diagnosed and committed with a mental health disorder.

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:16:35 AM EST
I was watching "On the Record" last night  on Fox and Geraldo ( I know, I know) said something about the shooter being on anti-depressants. A buddies wife is doing a paper on this subject and she says that the Columbine shooters were on anti-depressants and that there is a high suicide/violence rate among young people who are on anti-depressants.

Earlier today on local news they play a clip off CNN where a woman neurologist has studied over 30 hard criminals and found that all had abnormalities in the frontal lobe of the brain. She also said that the shooter in the 1966 school shootings had a tumor in his brain that was discovered during his autopsy.

Maybe there should be some focus in these areas. But I doubt that the drug companies will come under fire. Too many influential people and too much money involved.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:16:41 AM EST

Quoted:
Maybe it wouldn't have.

I'd rathre have them focusing on mental health than on guns.


+1

They NEED to be focusing on mental health, specifically how they hand out
psychotropics like candy.

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:18:07 AM EST

Quoted:
I was watching "On the Record" last night  on Fox and Geraldo ( I know, I know) said something about the shooter being on anti-depressants. A buddies wife is doing a paper on this subject and she says that the Columbine shooters were on anti-depressants and that there is a high suicide/violence rate among young people who are on anti-depressants.

Earlier today on local news they play a clip off CNN where a woman neurologist has studied over 30 hard criminals and found that all had abnormalities in the frontal lobe of the brain. She also said that the shooter in the 1966 school shootings had a tumor in his brain that was discovered during his autopsy.

Maybe there should be some focus in these areas. But I doubt that the drug companies will come under fire. Too many influential people and too much money involved.


Probably because people get MORE depressed and isolated knowing they are depressed with mental health problems (ie,  having to take anti-depressants).

They start to think something REALLY is wrong with them and they think they are social outcasts with no hope of normalcy.

My opinion.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:47:47 AM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If involuntary commitment to a mental facility due to concerns that an individual might cause harm to themselves or others was included in the NICS just like it is in many State-run background checks, this may have been prevented.



Involuntary commitment to a mental facility IS a part of the Virginia form.


It is part of the 4473 that is used by the State of Virginia. However, we had a crazed nut here in michigan get pinched on the MSP background check while trying to buy a pistol because of psychiatric problems in 2004...He went down the street and bought a shotgun (not subject to MSP purchase permit background check) and shot his boss and two other people. He is now pleading insanity.

I fully understand that it appers the guy lied on the 4473 and in doing so committed a felony. The question is, are psychiatric treatment events a part of that NICS database?  


As I understand it, no, they are not.  Psychiatric history is considered part of your medical record and as such it is protected by Federal Law under the "The Privacy Rule" of the "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act"  (HIPAA) as enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996.


Detailed medical records and specific treatment data are protected. However "events" can be subject to tracking by Government agencies. When someone is in the hospital for medical treatment, the fact that they are there is not a secret. Specifics on their condition, treatment etc are protected.

The NICS has rejected people from a purchase because they got busted 10 years ago for having prescription drugs not in their original bottle and had to provide a detailed explanation before they would be allowed to complete the purchase. You would think that simply being committed to a mental facility or subject to a court detention order for psychiatric evaluation could be subjected to the same Q&A by the BATF since they actually ask question f. in the first place.





Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:00:52 AM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If involuntary commitment to a mental facility due to concerns that an individual might cause harm to themselves or others was included in the NICS just like it is in many State-run background checks, this may have been prevented.



Involuntary commitment to a mental facility IS a part of the Virginia form.


It is part of the 4473 that is used by the State of Virginia. However, we had a crazed nut here in michigan get pinched on the MSP background check while trying to buy a pistol because of psychiatric problems in 2004...He went down the street and bought a shotgun (not subject to MSP purchase permit background check) and shot his boss and two other people. He is now pleading insanity.

I fully understand that it appers the guy lied on the 4473 and in doing so committed a felony. The question is, are psychiatric treatment events a part of that NICS database?  


As I understand it, no, they are not.  Psychiatric history is considered part of your medical record and as such it is protected by Federal Law under the "The Privacy Rule" of the "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act"  (HIPAA) as enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996.


Detailed medical records and specific treatment data are protected. However "events" can be subject to tracking by Government agencies. When someone is in the hospital for medical treatment, the fact that they are there is not a secret. Specifics on their condition, treatment etc are protected.
The NICS has rejected people from a purchase because they got busted 10 years ago for having prescription drugs not in their original bottle and had to provide a detailed explanation before they would be allowed to complete the purchase. You would think that simply being committed to a mental facility or subject to a court detention order for psychiatric evaluation could be subjected to the same Q&A by the BATF since they actually ask question f. in the first place.







Hence, you are unable to determine if the person was in the hospital to have their gall bladder removed or due to a "Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified."
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:13:51 AM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If involuntary commitment to a mental facility due to concerns that an individual might cause harm to themselves or others was included in the NICS just like it is in many State-run background checks, this may have been prevented.



Involuntary commitment to a mental facility IS a part of the Virginia form.


It is part of the 4473 that is used by the State of Virginia. However, we had a crazed nut here in michigan get pinched on the MSP background check while trying to buy a pistol because of psychiatric problems in 2004...He went down the street and bought a shotgun (not subject to MSP purchase permit background check) and shot his boss and two other people. He is now pleading insanity.

I fully understand that it appers the guy lied on the 4473 and in doing so committed a felony. The question is, are psychiatric treatment events a part of that NICS database?  


As I understand it, no, they are not.  Psychiatric history is considered part of your medical record and as such it is protected by Federal Law under the "The Privacy Rule" of the "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act"  (HIPAA) as enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996.


Detailed medical records and specific treatment data are protected. However "events" can be subject to tracking by Government agencies. When someone is in the hospital for medical treatment, the fact that they are there is not a secret. Specifics on their condition, treatment etc are protected.
The NICS has rejected people from a purchase because they got busted 10 years ago for having prescription drugs not in their original bottle and had to provide a detailed explanation before they would be allowed to complete the purchase. You would think that simply being committed to a mental facility or subject to a court detention order for psychiatric evaluation could be subjected to the same Q&A by the BATF since they actually ask question f. in the first place.







Hence, you are unable to determine if the person was in the hospital to have their gall bladder removed or due to a "Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified."



Where did I say that someone's admission to a hospital for surgery should be on NICS? Surgical or other medical treatment would not warrant any information transfer to NICS. The mere fact that NICS had some kind of admission information would make it obvious that it was for something psychiatric in nature.

If a person is admitted for psychiatric evaluation it really isn't that hard to make an exception (Michigan State Police backgroind check) to HIPAA to make it is made a part of NICS. Frankly I doubt any such exception is even needed. Following that, some bureaucrat can deal with the nutballs to make sure they should be allowed to complete a purchase. I am not asking for ANYTHING ADDITIONAL HERE.  

NICS asks question F for some reason. I don't really know how they are going to find out if someone passes the NICS check and is not lying on the form if that category of information doesn't exist in NICS.  

EDIT: I would rather live in a world without NICS and the 4473. I don't like them personally. Nonetheless, we all get asked these questions whether we like it or not when we make a purchase. If informaton regarding psychiatric care is under a blanket of privacy, they may as well remove the question from the 4473.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 10:41:26 AM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If involuntary commitment to a mental facility due to concerns that an individual might cause harm to themselves or others was included in the NICS just like it is in many State-run background checks, this may have been prevented.



Involuntary commitment to a mental facility IS a part of the Virginia form.


It is part of the 4473 that is used by the State of Virginia. However, we had a crazed nut here in michigan get pinched on the MSP background check while trying to buy a pistol because of psychiatric problems in 2004...He went down the street and bought a shotgun (not subject to MSP purchase permit background check) and shot his boss and two other people. He is now pleading insanity.

I fully understand that it appers the guy lied on the 4473 and in doing so committed a felony. The question is, are psychiatric treatment events a part of that NICS database?  


As I understand it, no, they are not.  Psychiatric history is considered part of your medical record and as such it is protected by Federal Law under the "The Privacy Rule" of the "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act"  (HIPAA) as enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996.


Detailed medical records and specific treatment data are protected. However "events" can be subject to tracking by Government agencies. When someone is in the hospital for medical treatment, the fact that they are there is not a secret. Specifics on their condition, treatment etc are protected.
The NICS has rejected people from a purchase because they got busted 10 years ago for having prescription drugs not in their original bottle and had to provide a detailed explanation before they would be allowed to complete the purchase. You would think that simply being committed to a mental facility or subject to a court detention order for psychiatric evaluation could be subjected to the same Q&A by the BATF since they actually ask question f. in the first place.







Hence, you are unable to determine if the person was in the hospital to have their gall bladder removed or due to a "Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified."



Where did I say that someone's admission to a hospital for surgery should be on NICS? Surgical or other medical treatment would not warrant any information transfer to NICS. The mere fact that NICS had some kind of admission information would make it obvious that it was for something psychiatric in nature.

If a person is admitted for psychiatric evaluation it really isn't that hard to make an exception (Michigan State Police backgroind check) to HIPAA to make it is made a part of NICS. Frankly I doubt any such exception is even needed. Following that, some bureaucrat can deal with the nutballs to make sure they should be allowed to complete a purchase. I am not asking for ANYTHING ADDITIONAL HERE.  

NICS asks question F for some reason. I don't really know how they are going to find out if someone passes the NICS check and is not lying on the form if that category of information doesn't exist in NICS.  

EDIT: I would rather live in a world without NICS and the 4473. I don't like them personally. Nonetheless, we all get asked these questions whether we like it or not when we make a purchase. If informaton regarding psychiatric care is under a blanket of privacy, they may as well remove the question from the 4473.


Hospitals DO NOT report psychiatric admissions to the government, therefore NICS does not have this information.  (To report such information would be a violation of the federal government,s own HIPPA ACT.)

As I stated in my first post in this thread, most psych patients, when push comes to shove, will agree to a voluntary psych admisson so as not to have an involuntary committment on record.  They may be crazy, but they are not totally stupid.  They know how to work the system.

Question F has no bearing on voluntary psych admissions to hospitals and does nothing to prevent violent crime.  Furthermore, no person in their right mind, or not so right mind is going to answer that question truthfully, if they are attempting to obtain a firearm in violation of the law.  Questions on government forms do nothing to prevent violent crimes.  More than 500,000 people were disqualified from purchasing a firearm on their NICS check during the Clinton administration, yet almost none of these people was arrested or proscecuted by the federal Government.

Question F pertains to being "adjudicated mentally defective" or being "committed to a mental institition".  These are events that occur in a court of law, not in a hospital (and therefore are public record.)
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 11:59:43 AM EST
As it now turns out, he was adjudicated mentally ill in 2005.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278


VT Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit
Harassed Two Female Students; Concerns He Was Suicidal
By NED POTTER and DAVID SCHOETZ
April 18, 2007 — - A Virginia court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous. Then the state let him go.

In 2005, after a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho was either a danger to himself or to others -- the necessary criteria for a detention order -- he was evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.

According to the "Temporary Detention Order" obtained by ABC News, the doctor found Cho's "mood is depressed."

"He denies suicidal ideation. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder," the doctor wrote. "His insight and judgment are normal."

The evaluation came from a psychiatric hospital near Virginia Tech, where Cho was taken by police in December 2005, after two female schoolmates said they received threatening messages from him, and police and school officials became concerned that he might be suicidal.

That information came to light two days after Cho, a Virginia Tech senior, killed 32 people and then himself in a shooting rampage on the university's campus.



Police obtained the order from a local magistrate after it was determined by a state-certified employee that Cho's apparent mental state met the threshold for the temporary detention order.

Under Virginia law, "A magistrate has the authority to issue a detention order upon a finding that a person is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment.

"The magistrate also must find that the person is an imminent danger to himself or others," says the guideline from Virginia's state court system.

Wendell Flinchum, the chief of the Virginia Tech police department, said that it's common for university police to work with state-affiliated mental health facilities instead of on-campus counseling because it is easier to obtain a detention order.

"We normally go through access [appealing to the state's legal system for help] because they have the power to commit people if they need to be committed," Flinchum said at a press conference Wednesday morning.

Cho was taken to Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, Va., a private facility that can take 162 inpatients, according to court documents.

It's unclear whether Cho went to the hospital with police on his own or was taken there under protective custody, a possibility under the temporary detention order obtained by police.

Authorities did not say how much time Cho had spent at the hospital.

One of the young women complained in November 2005 that Cho, then 21, was stalking her, but she declined to press legal charges against him. Police interviewed Cho for the first time and referred the case to the school's internal disciplinary board.

It's unclear whether any action was ever taken by the school, although Edward Spencer, a school vice president, said that it's not uncommon for a complaint to never reach a full hearing.

A second girl, less than two weeks later, told authorities she received disturbing instant messages from Cho, and asked police to make sure there was "no further contact" from him.

Police spoke to Cho the next day. They say that shortly after, they received a call from an acquaintance of his, expressing concerns that he might be suicidal.

For a third time, police met with him. "Out of concern for Cho, officers asked him to speak to a counselor," Flinchum said. "He went voluntarily to the police department."

Police say Cho talked with a therapist from a local mental health agency not affiliated with Virginia Tech. That agency had authority to seek the detention order from a local magistrate.

The student complaints that brought Cho to the attention of authorities came during the same time that creative writing professor Lucinda Roy went to administrators to voice her concern about violent themes in Cho's writing.

Roy told ABC News that Cho seemed "extraordinarily lonely -- the loneliest person I have ever met in my life."

But authorities said they had no contact with Cho between then and Monday's mass killings.

While the school, citing privacy laws, did not conclusively say that school counselors had ever worked with Cho, they did say that a system for working with outside mental health agencies and local authorities is in place.

"Clearly, mental health professionals have a legal and moral responsibility," when a student presents a possible risk, said Christopher Flynn, head of the university's counseling center. "We have a duty to warn."

But Flynn also said that signs of trouble in Cho's behavior were not a clear indicator that action would follow. "It is very difficult to predict when what someone perceives as stalking, is stalking."


A Loner, Mysterious Even to His Roommates

Seung Cho was quiet -- so quiet that some classmates of his say they never heard his voice in three years. His roommates reported he was distant and private, eating by himself night after night, and watching wrestling on TV.

Cho's roommates say he obsessively downloaded music from the Internet. One of his favorites was the song "Shine," by Collective Soul, which he played over and over

He even scribbled some of the lyrics on the wall, they said -- lyrics like, "Teach me how to speak; Teach me how to share; Teach me where to go."

He was early to bed and early to rise, normally in bed by 9 p.m., and sometimes up by 5:30 the next morning. His roommates tell ABC News they would see him in the morning putting in his contact lenses, taking prescription medication and applying acne medicine to his face.

"He pretty much never talked at all," said Joseph Aust, who shared a bedroom with him in a six-person dorm suite in Harper Hall. "I tried to make conversation with him earlier in the year. He gave one-word answers.

"He pretty much never looked me in the eye," Aust said.

In recent weeks his routine had changed. His roommates say he went to the campus gym at night, lifting weights to bulk up. He went for a haircut -- surprising them by coming back to the room with a military-style buzz cut.

Aust and another roommate, Karan Grewal, say they were aware that Cho had pursued women on campus. They said he also seemed to have an imaginary girlfriend, a supermodel named "Jelly."

Students say he seemed as quiet as ever in the days before Monday's rampage.

Trey Perkins, a student who saw Cho during the shooting spree, said it was unreal, "being that close to a monster."


Looks like the State of Virginia dropped the ball hard on this one.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 12:06:39 PM EST

Quoted:

Looks like the State of Virginia dropped the ball hard on this one.



You mean Big .GOV fucked up again, letting another potential spree killer loose on the unknowing and disarmed public ?

Color me surprised.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:03:48 PM EST

Quoted:
As it now turns out, he was adjudicated mentally ill in 2005.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278

. . . snip . . .


No, he was not.  At least not according to the information you have presented.  That article is nothing but misleading sensationalism.

Here is an example of how the process works (in a very limited fashion.)

Your sister comes to me and tells me you have been "acting strange lately."  She states you have been spending all your time alone in your computer room.  One day she walked into your computer room and found you on a website where "they talk about guns all the time."  Your sister states she thinks you must be depressed because you only talk about "the end of the world as we know it" and "shit hits the fan" situations.

Your sister says you have been spending all your money on guns and she's afraid you might hurt someone with them.  Your sister says she's worried you have lost touch with reality becuase you walk around talking in criptic language. For example, you talk about trying to find some "XM193" or "5.56 TAP."

Together, your sister and I file a "Petition" with the local court.  We explain your behavior to the court and the court decides you have displayed symptoms of mental illness that "may present a harm to himself or others" and issue an order for you to be picked up by the police and EMS if necessary and be transported to a hospital (against your will if necessary) to have an evaluation.

(Different counties/states have different names for the above process.  The "Temporary Detention Order" as described in the article would seem to be Virginia's equivalent to a "Petition" and "Order for Transport and Examination." This process does not equate to being "adjudicated mentally defective.")

The police detain you, handcuff you, and take you to a local emergency room, (even though you are not under arrest.)  At the emergency room, you fight with the ER staff, screaming that they have no right to keep you there.  (They have every right and more importantly are obligated to keep you there under state law.)  Because you fight with the ER staff you are strapped to a gurney using leather restraints.

An emergency room doctor examines you (as you lay restrained to the gurney) and because of the information provided by your sister, he decides you might be at risk of "harming yourself or others" and because he doesn't want to risk having a law suit filed against him by your sister if he lets you go and you then hurt yourself or someone else he fills out a "Physician Certification" on you.  The "Petition" filled out by your sister, and a "Physicans Certification" are all that are necessary to now admit you to the psychiatric ward against your will.  You still have not been "adjudicated mentally defective."

While in the psychiatric ward you will receive a psychiatric evaluation by a Psychiatrist.  The psychiatrist can determine:
a.) you are not mentally ill and you will then be released or
b.) you are mentally ill and need to be kept in the psych ward for treatment (again against your will.)

The psychiatrist will mostly likely go with option B and at this point, you will have a lawyer appointed to you and be given a court hearing date.  You will be held in the psych ward until your hearing date (which is usually within a few days.)

(According to the article you presented, the VT shooter never even made it to this stage.  Once again, he was not "adjudicated mentally defective.")

At your hearing, the state's representative, along with the psychiatrists findings will present his case and you and your lawyer will present your case.  At this point, if the judge rules that you are indeed mentally ill and need to be confined to a psychiatric facility for further treatment (all against your will) then you have been "comitted to a mental institution" and are disqualified from purchasing a firearm.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 10:41:22 AM EST
Wow!
Top Top