VA Governor on the loophole err law
Virginia’s governor said Tuesday he may be able to single-handedly close the loophole that allowed a mentally ill Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech.
Federal law bars the sale of guns to people who have been judged mentally defective. But it is up to states to report their legal proceedings to the federal government for inclusion in the database used to do background checks on prospective gun buyers.
In Cho’s case, a special justice ordered outpatient psychiatric counseling for him in 2005 after determining he was a danger to himself. But because Cho was never committed to a mental hospital, that order was never entered in the database.
Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said in a radio interview that he may be able to tighten that reporting requirement by issuing an executive order.
“This is the magnet we’re all really focusing on. This grabbed our attention,” Kaine said later in the day in an interview with The Associated Press.
Similarly, the chairman of a panel appointed by Kaine to review the massacre said the reporting requirement must be tightened.
“It’s pretty clear: He should not have been able to obtain a weapon,” said retired Virginia State Police Superintendent W. Gerald Massengill.
I don’t think there’s a loophole. There’s just not a provision in VA to get this info in the NICS since Cho was not committed. And that was how it was. Recognizing the effects of that now and doing something about it doesn’t make it a loophole. It represents, instead, a shortcoming of the state in its reporting. Loophole is apparently a synonym for Oops, didn’t think of that.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:47 am
That sounds like a pretty good working definition of “loophole” to me. What do you think the word means? Whether the guv has the authority to close said “oops, didn’t think of that” without legislation is, of course, a somewhat trickier question.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Loophole generally implies some sort of scheming to bypass a law.
On the guv, seems EOs exist entirely to create law these days.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:15 am
I think they intentionally used the word “loophole” in relation to guns in order to tie it to the “loophole” they believe exists at gun shows. We know the anti-gunnies hate that “loophole” and will do anything to close it. By labeling a law that need updating as having a “loophole” – and that lacking resulted in deaths via guns – the anti-gunnies are pulling on an emotional string.
If they can say “A loophole allowed this to happen!”, they can get a positive pull on “We need to close loopholes!”, which will be applied to the private sale transactions at gun shows, because they’ve been calling that a “loophole” for quite a while.
Pretty clever of them, actually.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I’ve always understood “loophole” to refer to inadvertent omissions on the part of lawmakers, not intentional “scheming” on their part to enact a law allowing X while prohibiting Y. If legislators really considered the issue of involuntary commitments vs. judge-ordered counseling, and made a deliberate decision to include the former but not the latter in NICS, then that distinction is NOT a loophole. To the extent a loophole is about scheming, it’s scheming on the part of the individuals seeking to exploit it, not on the sloppy legislator who inadvertently created it.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I mean scheming on the part of the one who is trying to get around the law that they are not violating. Not the lawmakers.
I think the term is applied too broadly. If we took the term to mean what everyone seems to think it means, I’m using a loophole when I drive 55MPH in 55MPH zone. I mean, I shoulda been doing 50MPH.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Nah, it’s a loophole if they screwed up. It’s not a loophole if they meant to allow what they allowed. If the Legislature voted to make the speed limit 55 mph, they meant to draw a line in the sand, saying it’s OK to drive that speed. Anyone who argues that you should have driven slower under ordinary road conditions is arguing against the law itself. Ditto for this example. If it can be shown that the General Assembly made a deliberate decision to provide information about involuntary commitment, but not about involuntary treatment on an outpatient basis, in NICS, then it’s not a loophole. If they just screwed up, it is.