Part of the Bay Area News Group

Gun-control bills tailored for SF, Oakland advance

By Josh Richman
Friday, September 6th, 2013 at 6:28 pm in Assembly, California State Senate, gun control, Mark Leno, Oakland, Rob Bonta, Uncategorized.

The Legislature on Friday sent two city-specific gun control measures – both for the Bay Area – to Gov. Jerry Brown.

The state Senate passed AB 180 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, which would give Oakland special permission to pass and enforce gun registration and licensing ordinances that are stricter than state law.

Bonta on Friday noted FBI statistics show Oakland last year had California’s highest violent-crime level, and the nation’s third highest. The city had more than 4,000 firearm-related crimes and 131 homicides in 2012; it has had 65 deaths by firearm so far in 2013.

“No one can deny that Oakland is suffering,” he said in a news release, adding his bill “is a smart and sensible bill that empowers Oakland and provides local control in addressing gun violence—where it is needed most.”

Bonta was appointed chair of the Select Committee on Gun Violence in the East Bay this year, and he and fellow committee member Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, will hold a news conference Monday morning in Oakland to urge Brown to sign this and other bills.

Meanwhile, the Assembly on Friday passed SB 475 by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, which would require permission from the San Francisco and San Mateo County boards of supervisors in order for gun shows to be held at the Cow Palace – in effect, banning any future gun shows there.

“For years, residents, community organizations and elected leaders from the neighborhoods surrounding the Cow Palace have asked to have a voice in the decision to hold gun shows in their backyards, but they have been ignored,” Leno said in a news release Friday. “Meanwhile, firearms related crimes persist in these communities, tearing apart the lives of innocent families who reside in the surrounding area. This proposal gives local communities a say in determining whether they want gun shows in their neighborhoods, especially when they live in daily fear of gun violence.”

The Cow Palace straddles the county line, and is operated by the state Department of Agriculture’s Division of Fairs and Expositions. Leno twice before has authored bills to impose flat-out bans on gun and ammunition sales at the Cow Palace: AB 2948 of 2008 failed on the Senate floor, and SB 585 of 2009 was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • RR, Senile Columnist

    Oaktown has been for too long the OK Corral of the Bay Area. Dudes from all over the East Bay are settling scores there. As for the Cow Palace folks, guns are less dangerous than pit bulls that thrive in that ‘hood.

  • JohnW

    I’m a gun control advocate. I’m in favor of national gun registration. I think the 2nd Amendment sucks. But I don’t see how new registration and licensing requirements that apply just within the boundaries of Oaktown would stem the black market flow of guns into the city and into the hands of the bad guys.

    A few hundred more cops and stop and frisk would help.

  • Elwood

    Want to talk ridiculous?

    Alton Smith bought some guns legally in AZ.

    As soon as he crossed the CA border with them he became a criminal.

    You figure it out.

  • Alcoahead

    @2 –

    They don’t need more cops — they just need to give the existing ones the right to stop, and frisk (and disarm, and handcuff, and haul away, and lock-up, etc.)

  • JohnW

    #2

    They need both. They don’t have enough cops to be out on the beat to do the stop/frisk etc. They’ve cut uniformed officer headcount by 20 percent and didn’t have enough before that. Response times are horrendous.

    But you and I are in agreement about the stop & frisk part. I’m a law & order Democrat.

  • Bob Templeton

    I am the owner of Crossroads of the West Gun Shows. We have been doing gun shows at the Cow Palace for 28 years and there has never been any report of any gun sold at the gun show being used in a crime in the “neighborhood”. The problem is not with the gun show, where all activities are conducted legally, with direct law-enforcement oversight at the show by the California State Department of Justice and the Daly City Police Department. The problem lies with the illegal guns which circulate on the streets of San Francisco and Oakland between drug dealers, drug users and other criminals. The solution does not lie in banning the gun show, which is a legal and carefully-regulated gathering of law-abiding gun owners, but in providing local law enforcement with the authority to randomly stop and search those in the high-crime neighborhoods who are suspected carrying firearms illegally.

  • JohnW

    #6

    It’s rare that I agree with a gun rights advocate, but I agree with you on this. However, we also need robust trafficking laws to stop the guns from getting to the streets in the first place — that whole pipeline that starts with a “legal” purchase by a straw buyer somewhere in Texas, Arizona or Georgia.

  • Alcoahead
  • JohnWs

    “Sadly, I envision a similar fate for you.”

    A few thoughts on that prediction.

    First is the fate that you predict for me that I live to 107 or that I get shot by a SWAT team? Both seem highly improbable. I don’t own a gun, and that kind of longevity is not in the family DNA.

    Second, if I did live to 107, I might prefer a SBC by the local SWAT squad.

    Third, despite this old coot’s age, it appears he gave the cops plenty of reason to return fire.

  • JAFO

    @8 Way to keep it classy.

  • JohnW

    #9

    I posted a previous response to #8, but it doesn’t seem to be here. I couldn’t determine whether the “fate” predicted for me was living to 107 or my demise at the hands of a SWAT team. I don’t own a gun or have the genes for longevity, so neither fate is likely.

    Unfortunately, I see nothing in this story to suggest that the SWAT team responded inappropriately. The gentleman kept shooting. Perhaps this was SBC.

  • Alcoahead

    @10 –

    @3 was Elwood, NOT you.

    I know how much he loves to gush about his dearly beloved right to own as many guns as he wants, and protect himself against self-described “abuses by the State” — so I was merely providing him (and you bystanders) an example, “ripped from the pages of today’s news”, of a person with similar views and what they ultimately encountered.

    @9 –

    I do what I can.

  • Elwood

    One of the frequent posters on here is seriously deranged.

    You may remember him as Goose Plucker or Moose ****er or something like that until he was banned by Josh and came back as Alcan Pan.

  • JohnW

    @11

    Oops! My bad. I always get my 3′s and 5′s mixed up.

  • JohnW

    #3

    So, who is Alton Smith? Tried Googling it, but didn’t find anything.

  • RR Senile Columnist

    Lincoln was shot and Ford and Reagan were shot at. Guns did these terrible things. Poor folks shoot each other all the time. Police mistakenly shoot people, too. Islamists prefer bombs so they can kill lots of people at a time. I say: Abolish people and the world will be more peaceful.

  • Alcoahead

    @15 –

    Great idea (abolish people) — let’s start with you. ;-)

  • Elwood

    @ 14

    My bad. It was ALDON Smith, 49ers linebacker.

  • Elwood

    Our seriously deranged poster (the former Goose Plucker, Moose ****er etc.) seems to derive pleasure from anticipating the deaths of other posters.

    See 8 & 16 and probably future posts as well.

  • Alcoahead

    @19 –

    Everyone dies — it’s a fact of life. Be at peace with it, Elwood — let go of your fear and enjoy each day that you have, with or without the guns you dearly covet.

  • MichaelB

    @2

    I think your reasoning process sucks.

    Make the law abiding people register their guns or get a license to own/keep them and expect the criminals to care and “comply”? When has this process actually worked to reduce violence before? Any other Constitutional rights you would like to do away with?

    Registering/licensing guns is NOT going to be like the DMV. All the records are going to be used for is left wing politicians wanting to get rid of guns later on/reduce ownership to an acceptably “low” level for so called “prevention” reasons. All “for the children”, of course.

    Guns legally owned could easily be “reclassified” as “assault weapons” or “unsafe” handguns with owners informed they need to get rid of them or face penalties. The same thing is happening right now (bill in the legislature) with magazines legally owned with more than 10 rounds in the state.

    Also expect so called “progressive” groups wanting to “out” law abiding people legally owning guns in communities as was done recently with pistol permit holders in the New York City area – thinking they were “informing” people in the area about the next “suspects” in a future school shooting.

    So called “gun violence prevention” advocates don’t want anyone owning guns at all despite all the predictable “reasonable” and “sensible” nonsense coming from them. Everything they want always has a habit of being “sensible”. It’s not and neither are they.

  • MichaelB

    @6

    The so called “solution” from gun control advocates/progressives is to slowly and surely shut down the legal process to own guns. And make it socially unacceptable to own them with the help of willing media/entertainment outlets.

    It doesn’t matter to them that law abiding people legally own them/purchase them from licensed dealers/do not abuse them. Will JohnW ever figure this out? Will he ever pay attention that Democrats in Sacramento come back every year wanting more gun control laws in a state with some of the strictest already?

    You can’t have a rational discussion with them regarding how gun control regulations (ignored by criminals) have not been successful. They will claim we just need more or the “gun lobby” or gun manufacturers are to “blame” for street violence.

  • JohnW

    #21 & 22

    Oh darn! And here I thought you would greet my view of the 2nd Amendment with loud applause.

    Obviously, my view of the 2nd Amendment is of little importance, since we already have it. But I refuse to any longer be one of those who talks out of both sides of the mouth, saying how I love the 2nd Amendment but favor common sense laws.

    I’m not against guns. I’m all for the statutory right of law abiding people to own guns for hunting, sport, protection etc. But I’m also for laws that WOULD keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. I’m in favor of restrictions on carrying weapons in public places and on people who build up arsenals of heavy weapons in anticipation that they are someday going to “take back my country.” Yeah, I’d really love living under the rule of those people!

    If gun sanity involves inconveniencing the law abiders a bit, so be it. There are plenty of democratically-governed countries that have nothing comparable to the 2nd Amendment but where people still have a right to own guns, including our neighbors to the North. But they haven’t made a religion of it. I love it when I hear people talk about the “God-given right to own guns.” Seriously?

  • MichaelB

    @23

    Oh darn! I thought you would have figured this one out by now.

    There is no “right” to own guns in Canada – you need a government license/permission to do it. How is that a “right”? You have a “right” to ask and hope they will let you do it. I understand that they also require “character references” from others beforehand.

    A “sane” person or organization would advocate legislation that would work/have a history of doing so while respecting those already obeying laws. They would have enough common sense to know criminals would not comply with new laws or bans. The fact that most gun control supporters do not do this speaks volumes.

    They would not be wasting time on emotionally based/ feel good measures that don’t work (“assault weapons” bans/expansions/magazine turn ins/retroactive licensing for legal owners, banning gun shows), saying “it’s for the children”, there are just “too many” guns or trying to shift the blame on the gun manufacturers or the “gun lobby” for violence.

    I love when people try to justify all this as just wanting “common sense” laws. They’ve made a religion out of rationalizing bad behavior – guns somehow “doing things” all by themselves, people not having control over themselves and calling “gun violence” a “disease” (that’s somehow being “transmitted” by 2nd Amendment supporters).

  • Elwood

    @ 23

    ” But I’m also for laws that WOULD keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.”

    Won’t you please explain to us how that would work, John? Who decides who should have guns and who should not? Our beloved government? The NSA which has a record of every phone call, email and text you’ve ever made?

    I’m sure you can give us an outline of your proposed legislation. And don’t forget to include provisions which will induce gang bangers, drug dealers and assorted crazies to give up their weapons.

  • JohnW

    #24

    2nd Amendment fanatics act as though the right to bear arms is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It isn’t. Not even close. I would be palpably less free without the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. I would be just as free as I am now, and would still be allowed to own guns, without the 2nd Amendment.

    Our per capita private gun ownership is twice as high as Switzerland and Finland and three times as high as Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Germany, and Iceland and six times as high as Australia. Are we more free than those countries? Are we safer? Are we less oppressed? If there were an “Arab Spring” uprising in the U.S., do you really think success would depend on our higher per capita gun ownership, or that we would have greater chances of success than similar uprisings as in those other countries, where people have guns, but not under the protection of constitutional rights? I think the First Amendment would have far more to do with success or failure.

    You’re technically correct when you note that, if you need a license, it isn’t a right. In the narrow legal sense, you don’t have a “right” to own and drive a car. But, everybody who is old enough, can pass the test and who hasn’t done something to have their license yanked, gets to own and drive cars. If I had to choose between having 2nd Amendment rights and the privilege of owning and driving cars, I’d go with the latter.

    Imagine if the Founders had thought to add another amendment in the Bill of Rights, stating, “Mobility, being necessary to the existence of a free State, the right to own and drive cars shall not be infringed.” There would be an NVA (National Vehicle Association) challenging every traffic law, parking restriction, vehicle registration, driver licensing, vehicle safety standard, etc. as violations of constitutional rights. Anybody suggesting that these were “common sense” would be branded a “leftie” who just “doesn’t get it.” We’d be hearing about how we shouldn’t have the laws, because, you know, law breakers won’t obey them, leaving the law-abiding drivers vulnerable to the actions of reckless drivers.

  • JohnW

    #25

    See #26

  • Elwood

    @ 27

    World English Dictionary
    non sequitur (ˈnɒn ˈsɛkwɪtə)

    — n
    1. a statement having little or no relevance to what preceded it
    2. logic a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

    [Latin, literally: it does not follow]

    You might as well have posted a recipe for dip, John.

  • JohnW

    Nice try Elwood, but I recall previously telling you in great detail exactly what is needed. Did that a couple of different times. Just like you challenged me to do at #25. You rejected my views, but that’s the way it goes.

    I’m for universal background checks and serious anti-trafficking laws — shutting down the black market express. Right now, thanks to our friends at the NRA, we are awash in PRO-trafficking laws. Meaningful anti-trafficking entails being able to trace every gun used in a crime back to the last person (straw buyer) who “legally” purchased it and then illegally sold it into the gun trafficking pipeline. Yes, that requires gun registration, which I’m pretty sure the courts have never said would violate the 2nd Amendment.

    If there are non-sequiturs, they come from those who like to list a bunch of slippery slope calamities that would befall the Republic.

    I hope MichaelB isn’t going into cardiac arrest reading this.

  • Bruce R. Peterson, Lafayette

    JohnW does not know what he/she is talking about. He/she parrots the same propaganda as Senator Dianne Goldman. They both defy logic.
    When a region or country, runs out of food. Guess who eats? The person with a gun, or the person without a gun?

  • JohnW

    #30

    Interesting argument. We’re all going to starve unless we have guns. You should pass that one along to Wayne LaPierre.

    If you don’t think I know what I’m talking about, you might want to be a tad more specific and counter with facts rather than talking about parroting propaganda. As they say about trial law: If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If both are against you, call your opponent names.

  • Elwood

    You just don’t get it, John.

    None of your fine rhetoric addresses my post #25.

    Registration is the first step to confiscation.

    And flying pigs will come to your house to pick up your registration slip.

  • MichaelB

    @29

    What is “needed” is for you to understand that the gun control movement (and the left wing politicians that support it) does not want people owning firearms to begin with. Otherwise they would not have defended failed firearms bans (for the law abiding) in Washington DC.

    Most people support the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. You seem think it’s some special permission slip to be given out by government to those who have a “need” for it.

    Gun control advocates have openly praised other nations that have prohibited gun ownership/disarmed their own people. They have complained about “too many” guns in this nation and how law abiding people really do not “need” to own them in the first place. They have lied about their political agenda (coming back over and over wanting more things banned for the law abiding). So why believe anything they say/do? They have spoken. And apparently you have ignored them.

    The “non-sequitur” is you peddling the feel good “common sense” argument that all of the information from government registration of guns (what the gun control movement wants) is just going to be used for “tracking” and “tracing”. We do NOT have politicians/activists demanding motor vehicle bans and driver license revocations for the public at large after well publicized car accidents or issuance of traffic tickets. We DO have politicians demanding firearms bans for law abiding people (2nd Amendment violations) after well publicized acts of violence by criminals.

    Elwood is right on this – you just don’t get it. Letting gun control supporters dictate legislation (what you refer to as an “inconvenience”) on who can own a gun is the equivalent of having female employees expecting salary increases/promotions from male chauvinist bosses. Their performance will never be good enough to justify either and they will always be treated as inferiors.

  • MichaelB

    @26

    Gun control fanatics act as though criminals will comply with new gun control laws and disarming the law abiding will stop crime. Not even close.

    You’re not addressing my earlier points regarding the justification used by politicians to pass new gun laws. It’s emotionally based, it lacks substance and has no previous record of success. But I guess we just “need” it anyway?

  • JohnW

    #32

    “Registration is the first step to confiscation.”

    Indeed, just like vehicle registration was the first step to confiscation of cars.

    This is the slipperiest of slitherly slippery slope arguments.

    Is there any evidence of the validity of this argument based on the experience of other Western democratically governed countries where gun ownership is part of the fabric of everyday life, but where there is nothing comparable to our dearly beloved 2nd Amendment?

  • JohnW

    #34

    Your reasoning seems to be that we shouldn’t have laws (on guns or anything else), because criminals will never comply. The laws I favor are designed to make them comply. But God forbid that we should inconvenience law abiding gun owners a bit so that we can achieve the result of stopping the law breakers! By that reasoning, we shouldn’t have ANY security checks at airports.

    If, per chance, gun rights activists are right that gun registration would lead to confiscation, then we have bigger problems in this country’s noble experiment with self-government than just whether or not people can own guns.

    But, not to worry. I “get it.” Your side is winning. Someday, we’ll be sending every third grader to school armed with a Glock. You know, they need to protect themselves. As Wayne LaPierre might put it, “The only thing that stops a 6th grader with a gun is a third grader with a gun.”

    What amazes me is that the more victories the gun rights lobby wins (and just about every victory during the past 20 years has been on that side), the more they act as if they are being victimized and having their Constitutional rights infringed upon.

  • Elwood

    @ 35

    World English Dictionary
    disingenuous (ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnjʊəs)

    — adj
    not sincere; lacking candour

    See also JohnW trying to equate vehicle registration with gun registration. Honest to God, John, sometimes you amaze me. Vehicle registration is to protect a piece of property worth thousands of dollars. And the only purpose of gun registration (which will never happen in this country) is to attempt to further punish law-abiding gun owners and lay the groundwork for confiscation.

    When the flying pig arrives at your house, be sure to hand over your gun registration promptly.

  • JohnW

    #37

    No, Elwood, the purpose of gun registration would be have a record of the sellers and buyers of lethal weapons for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting criminal activity. If confiscation were the purpose, we wouldn’t need to wait for gun registration to start that ball rolling. After all, there are already some records of gun ownership. So we could start with those.

    You are correct that the primary purpose of vehicle registration is different. But vehicle registration data is also used to prevent and investigate crimes involving vehicles. Even though the primary use of ammonium nitrate is as a fertilizer, we track the buying and selling of that product. Thank you Tim McVeigh!

    Sadly, you are also correct that gun registration is highly unlikely in this country in my lifetime or yours. But you are incorrect in characterizing it as punishment of law-abiding gun owners or as a precursor to confiscation. Again, I ask where is there any evidence of that in other countries that do have more gun regulation than we have? I’m talking about other developed, democratically governed countries,

    Should this country ever somehow fall into a dictatorship, resulting in a revolution, it won’t be the absence of guns that get us into the dictatorship, or the availability of guns that get us out of the dictatorship. But, if guns were part of it, all the gun registration laws in the world would not prevent rebels from getting their hands on guns through international sources.

  • Bruce R. Peterson, Lafayette

    Handguns bought from a dealer in California, have been registered for over 30 years. Long before the date listed on the internet. The new law for registering long guns, is supposed to start in 2014.
    Vehicles stolen, are listed in the local propaganda. I have heard about people getting their stolen vehicles back, or what’s left of them. I have never heard about anyone getting their stolen registered handgun back. When burglaries & vehicle break ins, are reported in the propaganda, they seldom mention the theft of handguns. Many of the people I talk to, who have been burgled, say their gun was taken. So gun registration is just so much hot air.
    As for dictators and revolutions: We are in a police state. Becoming more totalitarian by the day. Most people don’t know or care, as long as their sports team wins, or not.
    I would say 98% of the people in Lafayette could not name our Mayor. 99.8% don’t know that his/her house was torn down.

  • MichaelB

    @36

    When all else fails ignore how many gun laws California already has/politicians coming back wanting even more. And fall back on the predictable the “you don’t want any gun laws at all” or bring up the emotional buzzwords like “Wayne LaPierre”, “NRA” or “third graders with guns”.

    If you had any reasoning you would not be supporting ANY legislation promoted by people who voted to preserve an outright on firearms ownership in Washington DC, who blame gun manufacturers for violence or who want to make law abiding people surrender their legally owned property to the government. NONE of this has anything to do with identifying/stopping criminal activity.

    When the Governor of New York State (who some say wants to run for President) says “gun confiscation is an option” in response to the Sandy Hook shootings it’s amazing that you still think it’s just an “inconvenience” or “common sense” for people to support more gun control/everything is just fine. Clueless.

  • MichaelB

    @38

    England confiscated legally owned/registered firearms from law abiding people after a well publicized shooting there. Australia did a mandatory government “buyback” of semiautomatic firearms from their legal owners.

    Just an “inconvenience” and “common sense” to those who owned them previously/did nothing wrong them them? The criminals lined up to comply?

  • JohnW

    #40

    Your commment: …and fall back on the predictable “you don’t want any gun laws at all…”

    Well, do you?

  • JohnW

    #41

    Firearms are, indeed, tightly restricted in England. Based on the linked article, I don’t sense that the Brits would trade their approach for ours or that they think they are on path to tyranny due to their gun laws. I like what the article says about the effect on gangs.

    The British approach obviously wouldn’t fly in the U.S. But perhaps reasonable people could agree that somewhere between two extremes is the right place to be.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/01/british-gangs-use-flare-guns-now-because-they-cant-find-real-ones/

  • Bruce R. Peterson, Lafayette

    I do want gun laws. A law that tells children that guns are dangerous, deadly weapons, not toys. Tell children to never point a gun at anyone. But we have a big problem. Many movies and TV programs have the main characters walking around with guns. Except the British programs. Why don’t the politicians outlaw guns in movies & TV? Like they outlaw 1st to 5th grade potty talk & naked people?

  • MichaelB

    @43

    Who are these so called “reasonable” people since you like to use that term so frequently?

    Would they be the ones like you that claim if you don’t agree with government licensing/registration for law abiding owners (because the criminals will ignore it) they are really in favor of “third graders with guns” or that the NRA/Wayne LaPierre has brainwashed them? The ones that claim that other nations are “better off” because their citizens do not own as many guns or none at all?

    Perhaps they might also be ones who know little, if anything, about guns and get all of their information/sound bites about this subject from mainstream media outlets (that are in the tank for the gun control movement)? The leadership of a major political party and many of its members who never saw a gun control measure they didn’t like?

    Why negotiate with those who want to erode the Constitution to enact measures that have a history of NOT being effective in reducing crime/violence? There’s nothing “reasonable” or “common sense” about that.

  • Publius

    RE: 1-45

    Our well intentioned over zealous leaders should ban single mothers and stop subsidizing poverty.

    Gun violence problem solved.

  • JohnW

    #45

    Who are these “reasonable” people…?

    What, you want a list or something? Well, okay. How about we start with a couple of gun enthusiasts, like Senator Joe Manchin (who had a top NRA rating but still proposed stricter background checks) or U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (Vietnam combat vet)? I’m pretty sure those guys know at least as much about guns as you claim to know.

    As for the line about third graders, that was obviously a parody of Wayne LaPierre’s infamous quote after Sandy Hook. But there are many advocates for college students carrying firearms around campus and in classrooms. I’m guessing you are such an advocate. Out of curiosity, how would you feel about high school students being allowed to keep a gun in their school lockers or in the car in the school parking lot? Where would you draw the line?

    Gun rights advocates keep getting caught at airports with loaded firearms in their baggage and always claim that they forgot. So, let me ask you. Should they be allowed to carry the guns in their baggage? And, if they forgot, what does that say about their claims to being responsible, law-abiding gun owners?

    I’m pretty sure that most people in democratic countries that have more gun restrictions and fewer guns per capita believe that they are better off in terms of public safety. Gun killing statistics support that view. I would turn your question around. Do you think we are better off by being awash in 300 million guns, twice as high per capita as the next highest country? If so, in what sense do you think we are better off?

    “Perhaps they might also be ones who know little if anything about guns…” See my previous references to Joe Manchin and Mike Thompson.

    “Why negotiate with those who want to erode the Constitution to enact measures that have a history of NOT being effective…?” That seems to be the “take no prisoners” mantra of the political right on just about everything these days. If you don’t agree with something, claim that it is somehow unconstitutional and refuse to find common ground.

    I’m not aware that the courts have suggested that things like background checks and even gun registration would violate the Constitution. You might want to re-read Justice Scalia’s comments in the Heller case about limits on Second Amendment rights. The proposed measures have been extremely effective in other countries where they are applied universally rather than city-by-city or state-by-state.

  • MichaelB

    @47

    So what? Most of the gun control movement doesn’t “compromise” – they just have a list of demands and offer nothing in return. What gun laws are Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Andrew Cuomo and Joe Biden willing to repeal or scale back as part of a “compromise” to restrict something? Any at all?

    Most high school students can’t legally purchase/own guns to begin with. Despite the naysayers there were no “wild west shootouts” that gun control supporters predicted when more states started issuing concealed firearms permits. You can’t legally carry firearms on aircraft on carry on baggage. How many is “many” in terms of percentage of permit holders vs. violations of aircraft boarding with guns?

    Mike Thompson wants the federal “assault weapons”/magazine ban renewed. The US Senate hearing on that subject indicated it was ineffective when enacted earlier. So what does he “know” and why bring it back? And why do what “take no prisoners” Dianne Feinstein wanted – make you register it with the government and pay a fee to keep it? Here’s what I do know – the criminals are not going to register theirs or pay the fee.

    So now it’s the “awash in guns” argument? How many is enough to make you feel better? This is just another example of why gun control supporters are NOT to be trusted with a licensing/registration system. It will used to reduce ownership to an acceptably “small” amount regardless of the background/character of the individual who has them. Because I guess the bad guys are being “forced” to abuse guns/have no control over their actions because someone’s neighbor legally owns one? Would this still be the case if there were only half as many in circulation as there are now? What’s the magic number that is “acceptable”?

    With the population of the United States and a 2nd Amendment you can do the math – there’s going to be lots of guns around. And they’ve been around for years (with less restrictions) when violent crime was lower. The difference today is our culture – so called “progressives” have made it fashionable to do whatever you want to and then blame someone/something else for it later on. They won’t go near this because it doesn’t fit in with their political agenda. It’s SO much easier to blame guns, “gun lobby” or some honest person who owns one for violence.

    Try getting away from the idea that guns “cause” things all by themselves. It’s physically impossible and insulting to those who take the time (the majority) to follow the rule/use them properly.

  • Bruce R. Peterson, Lafayette

    MichealB wins this argument. Give up John Wuss. When people are forced to have their guns locked in a safe, the guns become useless. Home invasions will increase dramatically.
    Think about the woman who refused to answer her doorbell, when I rang it. Ten minutes later, the Lafayette cops had me surrounded by the street. I was picking up trash. What would have happened if I was a burglar? Burglars break down doors, when no one answers. What a surprise for the burglars. What would they do with the silly woman with a phone in her hand? This was a over a year ago. Recently the silly woman sent me a request on Linkedin. She has a business in Lafayette called Back To The Table. I guess the silly woman forgot what her neighbor looked like. Out of kindness, I deleted her Linkedin request.

  • JohnW

    #49

    If you’re going to proclaim yourself the judge as to whether somebody won or lost an argument, you might at least want to refer to the actual argument. I don’t recall that either MichaelB or I discussed the merits of forcing people to have their guns locked in a safe. My arguments have mostly been about how to curtail the gun trafficking express that fuels the daily carnage in our cities. Nobody seems interested in discussing that. Gee, I wonder why?

    I’m sure there is a point to your second paragraph, but I have yet to decipher it. Maybe you shouldn’t have deleted the lady’s LinkedIn request. You only have three contacts there.

    Your attempt to insult people by messing with their names is a bit juvenile, don’t you think?