New York's SAFE Act Needs Fine Tuning

Despite the swift bipartisan action in New York to amend the state's firearms laws to address high capacity ammunition holders, types of illegal firearms, and providing mental health services and exclusions from firearms ownership as well as periodic licensing for lawful owners, the state legislature did goof on one aspect of the law.

As written, it would appear to make firearms owned and operated by law enforcement and even military forces in New York illegal and subject to criminal penalties.

A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws.

The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers.

Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March.

As the statute is currently written, it does not exempt law enforcement officers.
Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries hand guns that have a 15 round capacity.

A spokesman for the governor's office called Eyewitness News to say, "We are still working out some details of the law and the exemption will be included, currently no police officer is in violation."

The Patrolman's Benevolent Association President released a statement saying, "The PBA is actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers."

This isn't a fatal defect though, as the state law already has exemptions in place for law enforcement on several fronts, and the New York State Penal Code is not to be strictly construed. The proposed changes will clarify things, but the NYS Penal Code also has rules of construction that would have carved out a law enforcement exemption by application:

S 5.00 Penal law not strictly construed.
The general rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed does
not apply to this chapter, but the provisions herein must be construed
according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice and
effect the objects of the law.

In other words, a court could have construed the application of the limitations as not applying to law enforcement but only to criminals.

Then, there's specific exemptions:

S 265.20 Exemptions.
a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11,
265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
1. Possession of any of the weapons, instruments, appliances or
substances specified in sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05
and 270.05 by the following:
(a) Persons in the military service of the state of New York when duly
authorized by regulations issued by the adjutant general to possess the
same.
(b) Police officers as defined in subdivision thirty-four of section
1.20 of the criminal procedure law.
(c) Peace officers as defined by section 2.10 of the criminal
procedure law.
(d) Persons in the military or other service of the United States, in
pursuit of official duty or when duly authorized by federal law,
regulation or order to possess the same.

Seeing that 265.01 is the base charge (misdemeanor) and exemption applies to law enforcement, one could extrapolate that it too applies to the other more serious charges - since the penal code isn't to be strictly construed.

The correct thing would have been to specifically amend NYS Penal §265.20 to include the references to the ammo amendments and other newly created felony counts. That's probably what the amendments will offer up.

Further, there are calls to amend the state's laws to address privacy issues of owners.

Here's a FAQ on how the new law applies to existing firearms, owners, and various registration and licensing requirements.

New York Set To Adopt Stronger Gun and Mental Health Regulations: UPDATE: Gov. Cuomo Signing Tonight

The NYS State Senate passed their gun control/mental health comprehensive bill yesterday, and the Assembly is set to pass it today. Gov. Cuomo will probably sign before the end of the week (there's a 3-day waiting period unless a message of necessity is attached).

So, what does the bill include? The bill summary holds the key.

Ammunition limits:
The bill will cap magazine/clip size at 10 - anything more is illegal regardless of date of manufacture. Going forward, max clip/magazine size is 7. A mechanism is going to be put in place to identify high volume purchasers of ammo and these buyers will have to be run through the NICS database. The bill requires that any seller--whether located in New York or out of state-ship the ammunition to a dealer within New York for in-person
pick-up.

Licensing:
While the existing law granted non-expiring licenses, the new law will require relicensing every five years. Failure to recertify means revocation of the license.

Kendra's Law:
Well, it extends Kendra's Law through 2017 (granting judges the authority to issue orders that require people who meet certain criteria to regularly undergo psychiatric treatment and that failure to comply could result in commitment for up to 72 hours - such persons are not forced to take meds though).

Gun sales/transfers:
Background checks must be completed for all gun sales, except for immediate family. Private sellers may transfer a gun only if the buyer has obtained a federal "NICS" check. Further, dealers must maintain records of private sale background checks, and private sellers may charge a fee of up to $10 on a transaction. Transfers between immediate family members will be exempt from the requirements of this section.

Storage:
For persons who live with those who are not allowed to own firearms, there's a new requirement for the lawful owner to safely secure those weapons (gun lock/safe).

Mental health:

Persons who are mentally ill and dangerous cannot retain or obtain a firearm. First, mental health records that are currently sent to NIDCS for a federal background check will also be housed in a New York State database. The law will require mental health professionals, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, to report if an individual they are treating is likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to him- or herself or others. A good faith decision about whether to report will not be a basis for any criminal or civil liability. When a Section 9.46 report is made, the Division of Criminal Justice Services will determine whether the person possesses a firearms license and, if so, will notify the appropriate local licensing official, who must suspend the license. The person's firearms will then be removed.

Criminal penalties:
Criminal penalties are added or increased across a range of crimes, including straw purchases, increased penalties for firearms on school buses and school properties.

School safety:
The state will increase reimbursement to school districts seeking building safety upgrades (think bullet resistant glass, secured entry areas, etc.)

Most of these changes are reasonable, though there's reason to expect the NRA or others to challenge the mental health provisions, particularly when someone who is declared mentally incompetent to possess firearms has to have those firearms seized by local law enforcement. The NRA might also challenge the ammunition hold (clip/magazine) limits, but that's likely to pass Constitutional muster.

One of the reasons that these provisions passed the State Senate so easily is that these are really common-sense enhancements to existing law and eliminates loopholes in the existing law. It also addresses the mental health law and need to strengthen criminal penalties for straw purchases.

Upon passage, this will be among the strongest gun regulations in the nation, and it could also form the basis for provisions that the Obama Administration might take up to deal with the issue on a national basis.

UPDATE:
Gov. Cuomo will be signing the SAFE act into law at a signing event in the Capitol Building at 4:45PM in Albany. It is the first major legislation taken up by any legislature in the country in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre and represents a significant tightening of registration and ownership rules for firearms. It will not be without controversy.

One Way To Reduce Gun Crime - Solve Nonfatal Shootings

Gun control and the right to bear arms has been on the minds of many since the Newtown massacre and the murder of two firefighters responding to a fire outside Rochester, New York. There are some things that can be done without even addressing the issue of gun control. One of them involves better law enforcement investigation of nonfatal shooting crimes.

A startling amount of them go unsolved for one reason or another.

If someone is murdered in NJ for example, 65% of the cases are closed as solved. For nonfatal shootings, the percentage plummets to 21%. Figure that many of the nonfatal shooting perps go on to commit other crimes.

A more concerted effort to solve the nonfatal gun crimes could have a significant effect on the crime rates and firearms incidents statewide. Heck, many police departments don't even track that kind of information.

It's an area ripe for reform and concentration of effort.

"You’ve got dozens and dozens, if not scores, of dangerous people who commit heinous crimes, who walk away and who are not held to account, and that has all kinds of implications for public safety in those towns," said Eugene O’Donnell, John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor in Manhattan, and a former assistant district attorney. He said failure to track nonfatal shootings underscores "the medieval approach that police have to crime statistics. You would think that this would be a barometer of the safety climate and the police would be on top of it."

While trying to gather information for this story, The Star-Ledger found few police departments track nonfatal shootings or the number of those cases solved. In some places, like Jersey City, the data was readily available. But most agencies needed several months to compile the statistics because the incidents first had to be identified then organized.

Because the category is not tracked as closely as homicides, experts said many law enforcement agencies may not comprehend the full extent of the problem. That would be a mistake, said Wayne Fisher, a professor at the Rutgers University Police Institute and its former director. The low closure rates in New Jersey, he said, can pose a serious threat to the public.

"What’s left on the street is both the firearm and the person that’s willing to use the firearm," Fisher said. "Let’s face it, an offender who is willing to shoot a gun at another person is an obvious threat to the public safety, whether or not that bullet, misses, injures, or takes the life of the intended victim."

Earlier this month, a 19-year-old Newark man was shot multiple times while driving through the city’s South Ward, an attack for which he remains hospitalized and barely conscious, investigators said.

Police have not identified a suspect, and no witness has stepped forward. The teen’s passenger, who was the intended target, has barely spoken to police, and the victim has been unable to communicate.

If police were forced to take a better look at nonfatal shootings and devote more resources to those crimes, they could not only bring down the crime rates, but close those cases and bring the criminals behind them to justice.

There are serious roadblocks to overcome, notably because many of these crimes go unsolved because of a lack of witnesses or other evidence that can be used to track down those responsible.

It will also involve spending more money on investigations, including crime labs and technologies that some police departments can ill afford in the current economic climate. Yet, focusing on these particular crimes could pay dividends in the long run and improve public safety considerably.

Surprising Statistic of the Day

I knew that New York City was one of the most restrictive environments in which to lawfully carry firearms, but I didn't think it was that restrictive.

New York City is home to 8 million people.

Only 37,000 are licensed to carry firearms in the City. That works out to 0.2% [fixed thanks to shout out from anonymous emailer] (excluding former law enforcement officers and security guards) of the population that are entitled to possess firearms in all of New York City.

It's astounding to believe that the City considers a fraction of a percent trustworthy to carry firearms or obtain firearms for their homes. While the City is immeasurably safer now than it has been in decades, one has to wonder whether the city would have been safer still if the City were not so restrictive on its firearm policy.

Heller Hauling DC Back Into Court

Dick Heller, the man who took the District of Columbia to court and won over its unconstitutional restrictions on legal firearms possession, is again taking the District back to court because their new restrictions are in violation of the Second Amendment. One requirement would require that the gun remain in a gun lock or disassembled at all times unless in imminent harm (a standard that is patently absurd on its face), and the other relates to the definition of acceptable firearms:

The lawsuit challenges the District’s requirement of trigger locks for revolvers and continued refusal to allow residents to keep semiautomatic handguns.

Police earlier this month denied Heller’s application to register a Colt Model 1911 semiautomatic pistol on the basis that the pistol constituted a “machine gun,” the lawsuit states.

Under D.C. law, any weapon that has the capability to fire 12 rounds without reloading is considered a “machine gun.”

The District considers a semiautomatic firearm that shoots fewer than 12 shots without reloading, such as Heller’s World War I-era Colt, to be a machine gun under the theory that it “can be readily converted or restored to shoot” more than 12 shots, the lawsuit said.

The definition essentially prevents the usage of all handguns except revolvers, the lawsuit alleges.

“That’s a very weird definition,” Halbrook said. “It’s the only one like it in the world.”

One of the three plaintiffs, Amy McVey, the first D.C. citizen to register a handgun this month, is also suing over the District’s requirement that handguns be kept secured by a trigger lock or in a gun safe. D.C. requires that the handguns be kept secured unless there’s the “perceived threat of immediate harm to a person.”

The District hasn't learned. They refused to listen to the majority opinion, which noted that a statutory scheme that made it nearly impossible to comply would be struck down as unconstitutional just as surely as the one at issue in Heller, and now will spend taxpayer money to defend itself from a suit it is nearly guaranteed of losing.

District of Columbia Rejects Heller's Gun Application

There's de facto (in fact) violation of a constitutional right, and there's de jure (in law) violations. The Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's de jure violation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Now, the District appears hell bent on engaging in a de facto violation by making completely unreasonable and overly restrictive limitations on gun ownership and handling of firearms that puts the District squarely at risk of spending millions of dollars to lose in court yet again.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

Besides obtaining paperwork to buy new handguns, residents also can register firearms they've had illegally under a 180-day amnesty period.

Basically, the District is claiming that only six shooters are eligible to be registered as firearms. 9mm automatic handguns, such as those used by police forces around the country, would be illegal under the District's interpretation.

The District further intends:

Firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and disassembled, and secured with either a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. The new law will allow an exception for a firearm while it is being used against an intruder in the home.

Yes, I'm sure that an intruder will wait and give a person the time to assemble a gun to be used. Asinine doesn't begin to cover this. More here.

Of course, the District runs afoul of the Heller decision, which anticipated this kind of chicanery.

Heller Good

So, it's the day after the US Supreme Court handed down a plate of serious red meat for those who pay attention to such things. District of Columbia v. Heller is one of those court cases that on the face appears to change everything, but the actual response will be something different. It depends on what happens next.

Yes, the case does clearly enunciate what people have suspected for 232 years - that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is an individual right and that the federal government cannot infringe on that right with an outright ban as per the District of Columbia's restrictive laws.

That doesn't mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional. It just means that some of the most restrictive laws around the country may need to come under closer scrutiny. Lawsuits will likely be filed in places like New York City and Chicago to question the constitutionality of laws that are unduly restrictive, though the outcome is not assured given that Heller did not address the issue of incorporation (that the decision applies to the states). Given that the District of Columbia may impose new laws to limit gun ownership, this is hardly over.

Prof. Reynolds provides his take on the decision here.

Cities led by politicians with instinctive desire to limit gun ownership decry the ruling claiming that it will lead to an increase in crime. They say that the decision will not hinder their efforts to prevent more bloodshed. Well, if those efforts include establishing NYC style policing and tactics to deal with crime - the broken windows theory, then they're on to something. However, if it means an ongoing attempt to restrict lawful gun ownership, then they are not solving the problem and people living in high crime areas are at the mercy of the criminals in those areas and would have to wait for law enforcement to clean up the mess after it's happened.

At least one law professor claims that the Heller decision is nothing more than judicial activism from a conservative bent. Hardly. The plain language of the Second Amendment is clear, and one has to look no further than the putrid dissent by Stevens and Breyer to see the tortured logic of trying to claim that the right to bear arms is anything other than an individual one.

So, how should one approach gun control laws on their constitutionality? Well, this is one approach, and I think it has significant merit for the reasons explained therein.

UPDATE:
Randy Barnett sees that this case will eventually be applied to the states via incorporation, and has further thoughts.

One Heller of a Ride

Today, the US Supreme Court will end its term with one of the most awaited cases to come down in a long time. District of Columbia v. Heller presents the Court with an opportunity to revisit the meaning of the Second Amendment. The question can be boiled down as whether the District of Columbia can restrict the rights of individuals who are not members of a militia to own guns in their homes for their private use.

The decision is expected to be handed down at 10AM EDT.

UPDATE:
According to Tom Goldstein at ScotusBlog:

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.


Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

UPDATE:
The 157 page case, including syllabus and dissents, can be found here.

UPDATE:
I'm still reading through the case, but Scalia drops nothing but heaping scorn on Breyer's separate dissent from pp. 59 through 64. Indeed, Scalia notes that Breyer misreads the law, tries to apply laws designed to keep homes safe from a fire threat (keeping gunpowder in a home could pose a fire/explosion risk back in Colonial days), and a single law from a single jurisdiction in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary to claim that the right to bear arms is not an individual right and restrictions imposed by DC were reasonable.

From Scalia:

But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

UPDATE:
So, how will this apply to states and cities? That's a question certainly floating around right now. According to the majority, the question of incorporation is an open one. It wasn't being decided by this case, which means that state laws and city laws may find themselves subject to suit along the same lines as Heller and may eventually wind up at the Court for determination. See the footnote on page 48:

With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas, reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

It appears that Scalia was intent upon restricting the decision to the matter at hand - the constitutionality of the laws of the District of Columbia and the federal government. The issue of laws imposed by states and their jurisdictions remains an open one.

Some states and cities may move to adjust their laws according to Heller. Cities to watch for responses - New York City and Chicago, which have both been home to gun control advocates in the form of Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Daley. Bloomberg's statement on Heller notes that the case puts to rest the issue of the right to bear arms, but leaves open the question of getting guns out of the hands of criminals.

"Today's decision by the Supreme Court upholding those rights will benefit our coalition by finally putting to rest the ideological debates that have for too long obscured an obvious fact: criminals, who have no right to purchase or possess guns, nevertheless have easy access to them," he said in a written statement.

"Mayors and police chiefs have a responsibility to crack down on illegal guns and punish gun criminals, and it is encouraging that the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of reasonable regulations that allow for us to carry out those responsibilities."

Meanwhile, I think some gun control advocates may be putting the cart before the horse:

In New Jersey, a gun control advocate says the ruling does not threaten the state's tough firearms laws.

Ceasefire NJ executive director Bryan Miller notes that the high court on Thursday also affirmed licensing and registration for weapons.

Miller says the ruling means that any new challenge to New Jersey's assault weapon ban would fail.

The state firearm laws were not at issue in the ruling, so there's no change for now. If the state laws end up in the Court, the most restrictive of those laws may end up like the DC ban on handguns - found unconstitutional as violative of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court Hears Heller

The US Supreme Court heard the Heller case (transcript here) today, and while Instapundit thinks that the sentiment on the Court appears to be leaning towards striking down the District of Columbia's gun ban and that it would actually be a bad thing for the GOP and McCain, I actually have a slightly different take.

The Heller case shows what putting conservatives on the Supreme Court can do to controversial cases and actually could burnish the GOP chances in the fall if McCain plays this right. Big "if". I know.

Conservatives like Alito and Chief Justice Roberts have started to push the court to the right, and the next President will likely get to nominate two or three more justices to the court. That makes a world of difference, and if Stevens and/or Ginsberg leave the court, you could seriously tip the balance to the right. Now, many cases might have Kennedy running as the swing vote, but if one or two conservatives are elevated to the Supreme Court, you will have a solid bloc on the right of five or even six justices (CJ Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, plus the one or two new justices). It could be transformative in how the court approaches various legal disputes. However, if either Clinton or Obama wins, they would likely only be able to replace existing liberals on the Supreme Court with other liberals - holding the ideological line on the Court.

SCOTUSblog has more in depth coverage of the Heller case.

Supreme Court To Tackle Second Amendment Case

The US Supreme Court will hear a case that will determine the extent to which the government can limit an individual's right to bear arms. ScotusBlog has the details. The Court will be framing the question as they see fit:

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290, and it is the first time the Supreme Court is tackling a Second Amendment case in 68 years.

While I think Roberts might try to get a unanimous ruling, precisely because of the right at stake, I expect a 5-4 ruling - and the swing vote would likely be Kennedy.

For those that need a reminder, the Second Amendment is as follows:

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hot Air is not excited about the prospects, especially because of Kennedy being the swing vote.

UPDATE:
As I didn't explicitly state above, the key is how the Court is framing the issue. It's a DC law at issue, and the question is whether individuals who are not members of a state based militia have a right to bear arms. Could this be a bit of insight into how the Court may rule on the matter?

Only time will tell.

UPDATE:
The order is here.

Into the Mind of a Killer

What was Cho Seung-Hui Cho thinking in the days and weeks leading up to the massacre at Virginia Tech? That's the big question that investigators are trying to figure out.

Was he taking a page out of the demented playbook of other mass killers like the Columbine school massacre duo?

He was definitely training for something major in the days and weeks before the massacre as he went to a rifle range to train.

Cho honed his deadly skills during at least two visits to an outdoor public firing range in the Jefferson National Forest, a short drive from the university campus, and a separate session in Roanoke, Va., in mid-March.

"When I saw him up here, he was kind of mediocre," said Randy Elmore, 54, of Pembroke, Va., who regularly visits the range.

"He wasn't that great of a gunman."

Once he wore camouflage, Elmore recalled. He would occupy shooting stalls at the edges, in either the first or 10th of the 10 booths. He never brought a target and mostly shot aimlessly at an open range, Elmore said.

Karan Grewal, 21, a Cho suitemate, told The Post the troubled gunman started working out in February - making daily visits to the university gym to pump iron.

"Even when I didn't go, I saw him getting ready to go to the gym," Grewal said.

But the loner never used free weights, since he had no one to "spot" him. "I didn't see him bench-press, ever," Grewal said.

At around the same time his workout regimen began, Cho began stockpiling guns and ammo.

On Feb. 2, he ordered a Walther P22 pistol from a Green Bay, Wis.-based Web site, thegunsource.com, paying $267 with a credit card. The gun arrived six days later at JND Pawnbrokers, across the street from the university. Cho picked up the weapon on Feb. 9.

Around March 12, Cho bought a Glock 9mm from Roanoke Firearms.

Investigators also believe Cho used eBay to buy ammunition for his slaughter.

The eBay account for Blazers5505, which has been linked to Cho, bought two 10-round magazines for the Walther P22 - one of the weapons used in the massacre. The clips were bought from a gun shop in Idaho.

Once again, we see that there is no mention of extended ammo magazines. The question still remains how Cho's mental health status was not entered into the FBI database that would have flagged him as being ineligible to purchase firearms.

More details have also come out about his family life, and the continue to reinforce the impression that he was a loner and very quiet in most aspects of his life.

In Seoul, there was never much money, never enough time. The Cho family occupied a shabby two-room basement apartment, living frugally on the slender proceeds of a used-book shop. According to relatives, the father, Seung-Tae Cho, had worked in oil fields and on construction sites in Saudi Arabia. In an arranged marriage, he wed Kim Hwang-Im, the daughter of a farming family that had fled North Korea during the Korean War.

Their son was well behaved, all right, but his pronounced bashfulness deeply worried his parents. Relatives thought he might be a mute. Or mentally ill. “The kid didn’t say much and didn’t mix with other children,” his uncle said. “ ‘Yes sir’ was about all you could get from him.”

In 1984, relatives who had moved to the United States invited the family to join them. It took eight years to get a visa. In 1992, they arrived in Detroit and then moved on to Centreville, Va., home to a bustling Korean community on the fringe of Washington. They found jobs in the dry-cleaning business and worked the longest of hours. Dry cleaning is a favored profession among Koreans — some 1,800 of the 2,000 dry cleaners in the greater Washington area are run by Koreans — because it means Sundays off for church and sparse need for proficient English, exchanges with customers being brief and redundant.

The goal, of course, was to own one’s own business. But it did not happen for Seung-Tae Cho. He began as a presser — an 8 a.m.-to-10 p.m. job — and that is what he is today. His wife worked in the same capacity until a few years ago, when she accepted a job in a high school cafeteria so the family could have medical insurance.

They lived in a nondescript row house in a modest section of town, friendly but not overly sociable. Jeff Ahn, president of the League of Korean-Americans of Virginia, said the family was uncommonly private among the throbbing Korean-American community of about 200,000 in and around Washington. They shunned the more prominent Korean-language Christian churches, and prayed at a small church outside of town.

High school did not help Seung-Hui Cho surmount his miseries. He went to Westfield High School, one of the largest schools in Fairfax County. He was scrawny and looked younger than his age. He was unresponsive in class, and unwilling to speak.

And that haunted face.

Classmates recall some teasing and bullying over his taciturn nature. The few times he was required to speak for a class assignment, students mocked his poor English and deep-throated voice.

Virginia Tech Massacre: New Questions About Cho's Gun Purchases

Should Cho ever have been able to purchase the guns in the first place? According to the New York Times, the federal background check should have resulted in a denial of the gun purchase.

How then was Cho able to buy the gun when the federal background check found no problems?

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.

The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.

A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.

The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”

Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.

As suspected, Virginia provided an incomplete picture of what they knew about Cho and his mental health treatment as required by the court in 2005.

Authorities are also trying to figure out whether anyone else may have known that Cho was about to go on the rampage. They've been looking at computer and cell phone records to see if he spoke with anyone in the runup to the massacre, and have also been looking at the computer files of Emily Hilscher, who was Cho's first victim at Johnston Hall.

Also, Cho's sister issued a statement on behalf of the Cho family and it is in marked contrast to the statements issued by other relatives.

On behalf of our family, we are so deeply sorry for the devastation my brother has caused. No words can express our sadness that 32 innocent people lost their lives this week in such a terrible, senseless tragedy. We are heartbroken.

We grieve alongside the families, the Virginia Tech community, our State of Virginia, and the rest of the nation. And, the world.

Every day since April 16, my father, mother and I pray for students Ross Abdallah Alameddine, Brian Roy Bluhm, Ryan Christopher Clark, Austin Michelle Cloyd, Matthew Gregory Gwaltney, Caitlin Millar Hammaren, Jeremy Michael Herbstritt, Rachael Elizabeth Hill, Emily Jane Hilscher, Jarrett Lee Lane, Matthew Joseph La Porte, Henry J. Lee, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan, Lauren Ashley McCain, Daniel Patrick O'Neil, J. Ortiz-Ortiz, Minal Hiralal Panchal, Daniel Alejandro Perez, Erin Nicole Peterson, Michael Steven Pohle, Jr., Julia Kathleen Pryde, Mary Karen Read, Reema Joseph Samaha, Waleed Mohamed Shaalan, Leslie Geraldine Sherman, Maxine Shelly Turner, Nicole White, Instructor Christopher James Bishop, and Professors Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Kevin P. Granata, Liviu Librescu and G.V. Loganathan.

We pray for their families and loved ones who are experiencing so much excruciating grief. And we pray for those who were injured and for those whose lives are changed forever because of what they witnessed and experienced.

Each of these people had so much love, talent and gifts to offer, and their lives were cut short by a horrible and senseless act.

We are humbled by this darkness. We feel hopeless, helpless and lost. This is someone that I grew up with and loved. Now I feel like I didn't know this person.

We have always been a close, peaceful and loving family. My brother was quiet and reserved, yet struggled to fit in. We never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence.

He has made the world weep. We are living a nightmare.

The family is under police protection.

Victims Remembered and Questions Swirl Around Response

Condolences continue to pour into Blacksburg from all corners of the country and President Bush attended a special service on the campus to remember and memorialize those who died.

So, we learn that other students began to realize that Cho was a ticking time bomb and that even some professors thought something wasn't quite right and referred Cho to counseling because of several creative writing pieces that included extremely disturbing themes.

He was a chubby-cheeked campus creep who stalked at least three pretty co-eds - terrifying one enough that her parents called the cops on him - before he wound up unleashing Virginia Tech's bloodbath.

"I stopped telling friends to come to my room, especially girls," the shaken roommate of mass murderer Cho Seung-Hui, identified only as John, revealed in a chilling interview yesterday.

One night earlier this year, the twisted Cho "closed the door [of their room] and turned to me and said, 'Hey, you want to know why I went up to that girl's dorm room the other night?' " John said.

The brother of a roommate of Cho said that Cho was an extremely quiet person who didn't say much of anything to him in the eight months they lived together. There were several times when his brother commented that Cho's quiet demeanor creeped him out and that Cho wouldn't even return simple greetings like "hello" when they would pass in the halls. He was a loner and spent quite a bit of time on the Internet.

The New York Times is reporting that the two hour delay was due to chasing down a lead that turned out to be false.

And new information emerged that may help explain a fateful two-hour delay by university officials in warning the campus of a gunman at large. According to search warrants and statements from the police, campus investigators had been busy pursuing what appears to have been a fruitless lead in the first of two shooting episodes Monday.

After two people, Emily Jane Hilscher, a freshman, and Ryan Clark, the resident adviser whose room was nearby in the dormitory, were shot dead, the campus police began searching for Karl D. Thornhill, who was described in Internet memorials as Ms. Hilscher’s boyfriend.

According to a search warrant filed by the police, Ms. Hilscher’s roommate had told the police that Mr. Thornhill, a student at nearby Radford University, had guns at his town house. The roommate told the police that she had recently been at a shooting range with Mr. Thornhill, the affidavit said, leading the police to believe he may have been the gunman.

But as they were questioning Mr. Thornhill, reports of widespread shooting at Norris Hall came in, making it clear that they had not contained the threat on campus. Mr. Thornhill was not arrested, although he continues to be an important witness in the case, the police said.

Of course, folks are getting into the overheated debate over gun control and whether the concealed carry restrictions played a role in this horrible criminal act. Some would like to see the Second Amendment repealed. Good luck with that. No way in hell that would happen. Besides, criminals by their very definition, are going to violate whatever laws are on the books to obtain the weapons. Law abiding citizens are the ones would be most harmed by such restrictions.

Some folks who are commenting on the weapons used have no clue about what weapons were involved, let alone the gun laws that are applicable in the case. Keith Olbermann for example. He decides to blame President Bush and the GOP for letting a certain law expire that would have prohibited the sale of high capacity ammunition clips. Big problem Keith - the weapons actually used in the massacre could not even use the expanded ammunition clips. Confederate Yankee slices and dices Olbermann's feeble argument and takes ABC News to task for peddling that bogus argument about expanded ammunition clips despite no evidence they were even part of the criminal acts at Virginia Tech.

There's a separate question of whether the screening process to purchase handguns was sufficient, and that is an issue that should be examined. I wonder just how much screening would actually be sufficient to avoid selling a weapon to someone who is mentally unstable. Are you going to prevent sales to people who are taking certain medications - such as those used in treating mental illness, sleep disorders, or even acne.

Meanwhile, the training and tactics of the police responding to the developing situation at Virginia Tech is being scrutinized from all corners.

UPDATE:
Confederate Yankee posts another lengthy rejoinder to the misstatements about the state of firearms laws over the past decade and its application to the extended ammo clips.

UPDATE:
The more we learn about Cho, the more people are realizing just how much of a ticking time bomb this guy was. He appears to have had serious issues and worried the heck out of a lot of people.

Flopping Aces note that the police appeared to have acted reasonably based on the information that was developing from the initial crime scene - Johnston Hall where the first two people were found shot to death. The police were going on evidence that pointed to a lovers' quarrel and that a complete shutdown of the campus wasn't warranted.

We also learn that Cho was taken to a mental health facility in December 2005. Apparently they were quite concerned about his condition. It's quite difficult to deal with someone suffering from mental illness, let alone someone who may not be willing to be treated or recognize that something is wrong.

And Hot Air points to a mental health expert who believes that Cho wasn't simply suffering from depression, but schizophrenia.

How he related to his roommate was just too bizarre to be depression. The bizarre content of his plays — mashing a half-eaten “banana bar” in someone’s mouth, the hypersexual, nihilistic (death obsessed) obsessions in the absence of depressive guilt or tearfulness are another clue. The progressive decline of a period of years. Those with schizophrenia, especially in their earliest years, are not readily recognizable as such — their condition is evolving. But here was someone who, as early as 2005, was carrying himself so strangely that he was a spectacle. The depressed withdraw and disappear. Those who are so peculiar in their manner so as to be inappropriate (taking cell phone pictures of his teacher, speaking inaudibly, pulling a cap low over his eyes) exhibit signs and symptoms more indicative of schizophrenia. He was communicating in a rambling manner reflective of what we appreciate as autistic thinking — characteristic of schizophrenia. In a similar vein, Mr. Cho’s stilted communication in his homicide note (deceitful charlatans — not the language of a 23-year-old college kid) is also the manner of a schizophrenic’s communications, as is his pronounced delay in responding to questions.

I'd actually be interested to read what the mental health experts who actually treated Cho in 2005 had to say on the matter - since they actually interacted, or attempted to interact, with Cho.

Ace makes an interesting observation about why people don't come forward when they see someone acting strangely. It's part of our cultural experience. Two of the women who were harassed by Cho declined to press charges. Maybe people don't want the hassle. Maybe people second guess themselves. And more to the point is whether people should report people who simply act weird.

I have no idea if it's a good idea, on balance, to start reporting the chronically strange to the authorities. I'm not sure what the cops could do, precisely, if they do in fact determine someone is deeply weird -- which is itself not an accepted diagnosis in the DSM IV. And cops can't "keep an eye" on certified weirdos forever.

But maybe it is about time people stopped being so damn nice and nonjudgmental and acted a little bit nosier and a little bit more the tattletale. Previously we've seen assassins and mass-murderers described so, so many times as "quiet" but "no one I'd ever imagine was capable of doing something like this." It's been speculated that that last bit was bullshit all along -- that people did suspect they were capable of doing something precisely like that -- and, perhaps because that cliche has been so well parodied, people are now much more willing to admit, "Yeah, I figured he was nuts, and maybe a pedophile, and maybe likely to shoot up the joint one day."

We'd probably have the police chasing after half the population that may act weird from time to time. There is no way to separate out the genuine weird and potentially dangerous from the transitory weird and nonthreatening types.

Besides, as it was pointed out elsewhere yesterday, you could find similar disturbing screenplays and themes written by Hollywood types and that wouldn't make anyone blink an eye, but Cho's writing in the university setting did raise eyebrows.

UPDATE:
Here come the copycats, including an incident at a New Jersey high school. Friday also marks the anniversary of the Columbine massacre, so there may be yet more threats called in forcing the shutdown of schools and facilities around the country. And for one student it cuts real close. Regina Rohde was at both Columbine and Virginia Tech when gunmen went on their shooting sprees.

UPDATE:
The updated list of victims can be found here. The VT College Paper is also covering various aspects of the crisis and its aftermath, including interviews with people in the English Department who interacted with Cho, along with a suspicious incident that was called in this morning and turned out to be a bogus threat.

UPDATE:
This is definitely going to be the lede on tonight's news broadcasts. What makes this stuff newsworthy? Is anyone in the media balancing the need to know versus the way this information may affect the families who lost loved ones or might spur copycats. Cho sent a package to NBC News - with the intent to become infamous in his last murderous acts. Well, he's succeeded in the murderous intent and his name and visage is definitely known to many.

UPDATE:
Hot Air has more details and analysis. How was Cho able to take the video in the window of time between the shootings, and where exactly was it shot? It would also appear that he used hollow point bullets, which would be particularly lethal ammo.

Others blogging: Sister Toldjah, Dan Riehl, and follow the links at memeorandum.

Virginia Tech Massacre: Where Things Stand

Once again, I want to extend my condolences to the families and friends of those affected by yesterday's murderous rampage on the campus of Virginia Tech.

Reading the news reports this morning doesn't exactly shed any new light on the incident. The basic questions - who, what, when, where, why, and how are still unknown for the most part. We only have a vague description of one person who was involved in the shooting and officials are leaving the door open to the possibility of another gunman or co-conspirator involved. An Asian man was identified as a gunman in one of the two shooting locations. He was apparently a student at the university.

Results from forensics and ballistic tests are being run to determine whether the two shootings are related and if the same weapons were used in both.

MSNBC, among others, conflate the total number dead - those murdered and one gunman - to bring the total death toll to 33.

“We learned that the shooter in the second instance in Norris Hall is an Asian male who is a resident of one of our dormitories on campus,” university president Charles Steger said in an interview with NBC’s “Today” show, confirming that the killer was a student. His name was not released.

“We’ll be getting the ballistics report this morning to see whether or not the gun in the first shooting is the same weapon ... used in the second.”

Injured victims in stable condition
At least 15 people were injured during the shooting, some seriously. Victims were reported early Tuesday to be in stable condition at two area hospitals.

Local authorities have scheduled a media briefing for 9 a.m. Tuesday.

President Bush and first lady Laura Bush will attend Tuesday’s convocation at Virginia Tech to remember those affected by the deadliest campus violence ever in this country.

The names of all the victims have not yet been released by law enforcement, but that doesn't mean that people don't know who some of the victims are. Virginia Tech students have been using online community sites to share information and find out what is going on. Some of those murdered have been identified:

Liviu Librescu,76, engineering science and mathematics lecturer, according to Ishwar K. Puri, the head of the engineering science and mechanics department.

-- Kevin Granata, age unknown, engineering science and mechanics professor, according to Puri.

-- Ryan Clark, 22, of Martinez, Ga., biology and English major, according to Columbia County Coroner Vernon Collins.

-- G.V. Loganathan, 51, civil and environmental engineering professor, according to his brother G.V. Palanivel.

No one knows any other details about the shooter, other than the reports that the individual had two handguns. No word on extended ammo clips. No word on how, where, or if the guns or ammo were purchased. Debate began almost immediately over concealed weapons bans and gun control. Campus security was also questioned, especially considering the timeframe and location of the two shootings.

Speculation on such topics appears to be the name of the game at many of the media outlets and on some blogs. My coverage yesterday pointed out some of the stories.

Politicians are jumping into the fray as well, though some are cancelling appearances out of respect for the families and victims. Sen. John McCain for one issued a statement on the Second Amendment and his support for lawful gun ownership. That's just what we need is for bloviation by politicians before all the facts are even known. One gets the sense that McCain just loves to hear his voice. I don't. I think he needs to really back off here. It's unseemly.

Indeed, this is a time for prayer, remembrance, and support of the university community.

UPDATE:
Via Michelle Malkin, here's a clearinghouse of information for Virginia Tech students, faculty, family and friends who are trying to get information about loved ones. Also, an Israeli lecturer was among those murdered. Dan Riehl has more.

UPDATE:
A more complete list of those killed in the attacks is here. The New York Times is now reporting that the same gun was used in both the Norris Hall shooting and the Johnston dorm.

The name of the shooter has also been released:

Ballistics tests confirm one handgun was used in both shootings. Name of shooter is confirmed as Seung-Hui Cho, a 23-year-old English major from South Korea. A 9 milimeter handgun and a .22 caliber handgun were recovered at Norris Hall.

UPDATE:
Hot Air has more on Cho's background:

Seung Hui Cho, a permanent resident of the United States, a Korean national and a Virginia Tech student has been identified as the gunman in the shootings that left 33 people dead on the Virginia Tech campus Monday, ABC News has learned.

The student left a “disturbing note” before killing two people in a dorm room, returning to his own room to re-arm and entering a classroom building on the other side of campus to continue his rampage, sources said.

Cho’s identitiy has been confirmed with a positive fingerprint match on the guns used in the rampage and with immigration materials. It is believed that he was the shooter in both incidents yesterday. Sources say Cho was carrying a backpack that contained receipts for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol, sources said. Witnesses had also told authorities that the shooter was carrying a backpack. Sections of chain similar to those used to lock the main doors at Norris Hall, the site of the second shooting that left 31 dead, were found inside a Virginia Tech dormitory, sources confirmed to ABC News.

It is interesting that there was a series of photos taken of an Asian man being detained somewhere on the campus as the incident was progressing.

Also, Hot Air notes that one of the professors murdered, Prof. Liviu Librescu had been trying to keep the door shut was a Holocaust survivor and gave his students time to escape through the window before being shot.

UPDATE:
Reports now indicate that Cho may have been behind the bomb threats called into the campus two weeks ago.

A bomb threat directed at Virginia Tech engineering school department buildings was found Monday at the scene of the mass shooting at Norris Hall, an engineering building, according to a search warrant affidavit filed this morning in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

The affadavit said the suspect in the shootings, who has been named as 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui, was believed to have multiple firearms, including but not limited to Walther P22 and Glock 9mm handguns. The affadavit goes on to say that an investigation has revealed the suspect recently purchased a handgun at a Roanoke firearms store.

"It is further reasonable to believe suspect is the author of the bomb threat note," reads the affadavit written by a Virginia State Police special agent.

The warrant was taken out to search a dorm room at 2121 Harper Hall for tools, documents, computer hardware, weapons, ammunition, explosives, instructional manuals for criminal acts of mass destruction, writing utensils and/or paper similar to that used to communicate threats to Tech's campus in the recent past.

The contents of another note, left by Cho, has not been released.

UPDATE:
Details relating to the note :

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationhave been releasedThe note included a rambling list of grievances, according to sources. Cho had shown recent signs of violent, aberrant behavior, according to an investigative source, including setting a fire in a dorm room and allegedly stalking some women.

A note believed to have been written by Cho was found in his dorm room that railed against “rich kids,” “debauchery” and “deceitful charlatans” on campus.

The English major from Centreville, Va., a rapidly growing suburb of Washington, D.C., came to the United States in 1992, an investigative source said. He was a legal permanent resident.

His family runs a dry cleaning business and he has a sister who graduated from Princeton University, according to the source.

The legal permanent resident would appear to be the reason that no red flags were raised when Cho went to purchase the two guns used in this horrific attack.

UPDATE:
Fox News is reporting that at least one family is calling for the Virginia Tech President and police chief fired. Expect to hear more reports such as this, but I'd caution against making these kinds of conclusions before all the information is available.

UPDATE:
Fox News is reporting:

According to the Chicago Tribune, the note railed against "rich kids" and "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus.

The Tribune also said Cho had been behaving strangely lately, setting a dorm room on fire and allegedly stalking women.

Sources told the Tribune that the words "ISMAIL AX" were also found written in red ink on the inside of one of Cho's arms.

The reference may be to the Biblical sacrifice of Abraham, in which God commands the patriarch to sacrifice his own son. Abraham begins to comply, but God intervenes at the last moment to save the boy.

In the Jewish and Christian traditions, the son is Isaac, father of the Jewish people; in Islam, it is his older half-brother, Ismail (Ishmael in Hebrew).

Beats me what to make of that, though it is quite possible for people to conclude that Cho may have been a Muslim based on the scrawled name and biblical references. It is quite curious.

UPDATE:
Apparently Cho's writings were so disturbing that he was referred to the university's counseling service.

Professor Carolyn Rude, chairwoman of the university's English department, said she did not personally know the gunman. But she said she spoke with Lucinda Roy, the department's director of creative writing, who had Cho in one of her classes and described him as "troubled."

"There was some concern about him," Rude said. "Sometimes, in creative writing, people reveal things and you never know if it's creative or if they're describing things, if they're imagining things or just how real it might be. But we're all alert to not ignore things like this."

She said Cho was referred to the counseling service, but she said she did not know when, or what the outcome was. Rude refused to release any of his writings or his grades, citing privacy laws.

The Chicago Tribune reported on its Web site that he left a note in his dorm room that included a rambling list of grievances. Citing identified sources, the Tribune said he had recently shown troubling signs, including setting a fire in a dorm room and stalking some women.