Roanoke County Police arrest man under “Cho law”
Roanoke Co. Police mugshot
Richard Horne Senior
Roanoke County Police say they’ve arrested a man, after receiving a tip that he was planning to kill a neighbor.
Officer J.N. Herron arrested Richard Horne Senior this past Saturday.
Horne Sr. is accused of violating a protective order for stalking. Horne Sr. is charged with having a gun, although he had been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution.
That’s a law the General Assembly strengthened after the April 16th tragedy at Virginia Tech, and has been termed the “Cho law.“
In court documents, Officer Herron wrote that he found a rifle hidden behind the headboard of Horne Sr.‘s bed.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Talking about guns, it was a few incidents this week-end of shooting into houses. That one was in Danville and a child was hit as I understand.
Now those individuals do not need weapon ownership, truly. I see in in another paper two juveniles were shot and wounded. Yes, those people do not need to have weapons.
That is what happen when the law try to protect the innocent people and the criminals are made access to weapons and do their act.
Maybe the United States Constitution should be re-examined by the Supreme Court of the U.S. and spelled out through an amendment to the Second Amendment what class of people can bear weapons. The Constitution is too vagued written in many aspect of society.
Society has changed from 1787 to 2009 and the Constitution should be changed to reflect the time, and that is done through amendments as I understand the aspect of the Constitution after two thirds of the states agree to it.
I would have to agree that it is too many guns in the hands of the wrong members of our society. Most of the time we are not safe in our homes.
In Georgia this pass week a family member killed eight people of his family. And the killing goes on and on.
Maybe soon the government will help end all of this violence against members of society. Lets hope so!
I have just re-read the 2nd Amendment and it is confusing. Are the people the militia? Or are the Founders adressing two different sets of circumstances…the people and/or the Militia? There is no way to know, in my opinion. How can we possibly know in what context the Founders wrote this amendment? They could not possibly conceive of what today is like in this country. They didn’t have electricity, indoor plumbing, cars, street gangs,internet,etc..What I do know is that mentally unstable people should not have guns. And I applaude the police for taking this guy’s gun. They saved a life or two.
Mike24065:
The right to bear arms was here before the NRA came on the scene. The Contitution was written in 1787—there was a clause of right to bear arms in that document. The people are the milita.
The law protects us all or suppose to. What really constitutes a reason to take a gun from a person’s home? It would be interested just to see how the U.S. Supreme Court would rule on that clause and the laws states have passed since the Constitution was written and ratified.
Maybe one day that question will be addressed. Thanks for the reply. And make sure you go through the drive-through and get your shot of whiskey.
Thanks!
i am not opposed to people having guns, just CRAZY PEOPLE having guns. personally i don’t feel i need a gun to compensate for a lack of manhood, but i guess some people do.
I think you had better read the second admendment.It starts a “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state” There is allot of anti gun people that would like a ruling ,as to determine is your home, a Militia.We just accept that right and the NRA says it is.But we have made laws to protect people,and if someone makes a threat with a gun, they have broken a law that is well written and will stand up in court.Think you had better think that over again about taking that right to the courts to rule on.
i believe that you kenfwallace are delusional. something tells me that if this man who was arrested were to be stalking your wife or daughter or sister you would not feel comfortable with him toting a gun after violating a protective order. he was INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO A MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTION. do you really think we need to allow mentally ill people to carry guns? what an excellent idea. while we’re at it we should start allowing restaurants to start serving alcohol at drive-thrus.
It appears the “Cho Law” violates people’s right to bear arms under the United States Constitution. The man arrested has not committed a felony to lose his gun rights.
And if a person commits a felony and gets convicted,that person loses his or her gun rights too. It appears it would be a violation of the Consitution also to take his or her gun away. It is not written in the Constitution if a person is convicted of a felony that person loses his or her right to bear arms.
That right is guaranteed in the Constitution and Congress or a state General Assembly cannot write a law that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.
If those laws were to be challenged in the federal court system, I believe all of them would be ruled unconstitutional.
All of these states are passing laws to take our gun rights away. Why don’t the police take off their weapons because it is a lot of police officer walking around who should not have access to weapons. Look at the people they kill, even dogs.
Now that would be a good case to carry through the federal court system—the Cho Law.
Thank you.
Advertisement