Reply #48: At the time he purchased the Weapons, he had NOT be even CHARGED with being Insane, [View All]

The key to ANY refusal to being able to buy a weapon is that someone with the required authority has ruled the person a danger to himself or others. People can suffer from some severe mental problems and still be sane as far as the law is concerned (The Classic example is Winston Churchill, he suffered from what we now call Bi-polar, then called Manic Depression, when he was up, he was up, when he was down, he did some real stupid moves, such as ordering the sinking of the French Fleet at the time of the Surrender of France in 1940, the British Admiral who did the sinking called it stupid, worse, would HARM British efforts to stop Hitler, but the Admiral followed orders, sunk the French Fleet, and when British forces invaded France in 1944, all their vehicles were marked with American Stars, for the French liked the Americans, but still hated the British for sinking their Fleet in 1940).

More on the Sinking of the French Fleet in ALGERS, where Hitler had no ability to take them over:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/merselkebir.aspx

My point is simple, the issue is the LEVEL of the Defendant's mental restrictions. A person can suffer mental impairments that prevent him or her from working, but still be sane when it comes to Criminal Acts. Churchill suffered from Bi-Polar, but no one ever questioned his sanity. The same with the Defendant at the time he purchased the weapons no one called into question his sanity, so it was possible for him to buy a weapon. Today, a JUDGE has ruled him to suffer from enough mental problems that he needs medication. Notice the difference, a JUDGE has made a ruling. The 9th Circuit only ruled that the decision of the Judge has to follow the law, and the Law requires a finding on incapacity before someone can be FORCED to take Medication. The Prosecution does NOT want a finding of incapacity, for that would mean the Defendant was incapacitated at the time of the Killings.

The Problem here is the Prosecution wants it both ways, the Defendant is sane enough to be tried for Murder, but NOT sane enough to refuse medication. At the time of the purchase of the weapons no one was even questioning the mental hearth of the Defendant or that would require the expenditure of Prosecution Money for someone who had committed no crime as of that date. Prosecutors want cases that make headlines where they are the "Good Guys" such as Murder Cases, NOT motion to rule someone insane, that if it is reported it is a back page report AND the Prosecution is looked upon as the "Bad Guy" for taking someone's rights away from them. Prosecutors prefer the former and avoid the later if they can help it.