Gun Control

Does California's Latest Mass Shooting Show the Country's Strictest Gun Laws Are Not Strict Enough?

Maybe it shows that the existing restrictions are not working as advertised.

|

A mass shooting that killed six people and injured 12 in Sacramento last weekend predictably provoked immediate agitation for stricter gun control, including policies that seem utterly irrelevant to the facts of the case. That's a familiar pattern in the gun policy debate, which consists largely of reiterating previous proposals in response to mass shootings, regardless of whether those ideas have anything to do with the most recent example.

The Sacramento Bee described the weekend's apparently gang-related violence, which began around 2 a.m. Sunday in a downtown area where nightclubs had just closed, as "the worst mass shooting in city history." The Los Angeles Times says "the shooting was California's single deadliest in 2022," although "there have been worse in the last year." While these incidents supposedly underline the need for gun control, they simultaneously cast doubt on that argument, since California already has the strictest gun laws in the country.

Everytown for Gun Safety implicitly acknowledges that inconvenient fact in its press release about the Sacramento shoot-out. "Gun sense champions in California have continually responded to gun violence tragedies by taking action on life saving gun safety policies," it says. "Strong gun laws save lives—and California is a clear example of that. The state continues to have one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country while their lawmakers are leading the gun violence prevention movement."

California does have a relatively low rate of gun-related deaths: the seventh-lowest in the country, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its ranking is less impressive, however, when you focus on firearm homicides, which is what Everytown for Gun Safety ostensibly is talking about in this context. Based on data from 2010 through 2017, California's gun homicide rate was middling: lower than the rates in 24 states but higher than the rates in 25 states, including many with looser gun laws.

If you want to make the case that California's firearm restrictions have resulted in fewer homicides than otherwise would have occurred, you need to look at what happened after those laws were passed and compare it to what happened in otherwise similar places that did not enact such laws. The observation that "California continues to have one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country" (if you include suicides) as legislators pass one gun law after another hardly shows those laws are working as advertised.

Even as Everytown for Gun Safety argues that California's strict gun laws have been effective, it says they have been stymied by the failure of other states to follow California's example. "Gun violence continues in the state because it is surrounded by states with weaker gun laws and has become the epicenter of 'ghost guns,'" it says. "California is only as safe as the nearest state with weak gun laws, so we need federal action to ensure that every state in the country requires background checks on all gun sales."

The reference to "ghost guns"—i.e., homemade firearms without serial numbers—seems like a red herring based on what we know at this point. The investigation of the Sacramento shooting, which so far has resulted in three arrests, is ongoing. The Los Angeles Times says Sacramento police believe it started with a dispute between gang members. So far, however, I have not seen any reference to "ghost guns." In any case, California already requires serial numbers on all guns, including homemade ones as of 2016. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, the state nevertheless "has become the epicenter of 'ghost guns.'"

Police said more than 100 rounds were fired by multiple people during the Sacramento shooting. One of the weapons, they said, was a handgun that had been illegally modified so that it qualifies as a "machine gun" under California law, meaning a weapon that "shoots, is designed to shoot, or can readily be restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." California prohibits possession of such firearms without a special, rarely issued permit, and they are strictly regulated under federal law, which has banned sales of newly produced machine guns to civilians since 1986.

What about requiring "background checks on all gun sales"? California has required "universal background checks," covering private transfers as well as sales by federally licensed dealers, since 1991. A 2019 study found that requirement "was not associated with a net change in the firearm homicide rate over the ensuing 10 years in California." Another study suggested that such requirements are widely disregarded, finding that background checks increased when Delaware enacted a law like California's but not when Colorado and Washington did.

The problem, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, is that many states do not mandate universal background checks, which is why we need a federal law imposing that requirement on the entire country. But there is little reason to think that people will be more inclined to follow this requirement, which in practice means that all gun transfers have to be mediated by a federally licensed dealer, simply because Congress joins California et al. in saying they should. More to the point, it is hard to see how such a requirement is relevant to what happened in Sacramento.

The converted handgun that police recovered after the shooting was stolen, which is not the sort of transfer that would be affected even by perfect compliance with a law requiring "background checks on all gun sales." According to a 2019 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, just 10 percent of guns used in crimes were obtained from a "retail source" such as a gun store, a pawn shop, a flea market, or a gun show. Nine out of 10 were obtained from informal sources, including friends or relatives, the "underground market," and theft.

It makes sense that criminals would prefer such sources, especially if they have felony records that disqualify them from legally possessing firearms. But given these longstanding workarounds, expanding background-check requirements so that they notionally cover all transfers cannot reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on criminals' access to guns.

To suppose that a federal law requiring "background checks on all gun sales" could have prevented the Sacramento shooting, you would have to believe that the perpetrators 1) would have failed background checks and 2) evaded them by obtaining guns from private sellers in other states who would have complied with such a law. That is clearly not true of the converted handgun, and it seems unlikely that it will prove to be true of the other firearms used in the shooting.

Everytown for Gun Safety also suggests that California legislators should respond to this incident by approving 10 bills, including "legislation to require schools to notify parents and guardians about secure storage laws," "legislation to allow lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms for the harm caused by their product," "legislation to further restrict ghost guns in California by ensuring that these parts and kits cannot be sold until they are treated as firearms under federal law," and "legislation to create a private right of action for the residents of California that would allow citizens to sue anyone who is found to be in violation of the state's firearm laws relating to the illegal manufacturing/transferring/selling of either assault weapons or ghost gun parts."

What all this has to do with the incident that supposedly demonstrates the need for such measures is anybody's guess. "After the Sacramento shooting," an NPR headline informs us, "the state with the most gun laws may soon get more." The Sacramento Bee notes that "California has [the] toughest U.S. gun laws" and wonders: "After [the] Sacramento shooting, what else can lawmakers do?" The Bee describes some of what they have done so far:

They've banned high-capacity magazines and cracked down on assault weapons. They've made it so Californians have to pass a background check to purchase a gun and ammunition. They've prohibited buyers from having ammo or "ghost" gun parts shipped directly to their homes. When it comes to gun laws, California's legislators have passed some of the most stringent regulations in the country, checking off nearly every box on national gun control advocates' wishlist.

The Bee omits some of the other boxes California has checked, including gun registration, a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, a broad "red flag" law that shows little regard for due process, and a carry permit policy that treats "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as a privilege to be granted at the government's discretion. But there are always more boxes on "gun control advocates' wishlist." Everytown for Gun Safety was ready with a dozen ideas. Whether they are good ideas—and in particular, whether they plausibly could prevent the sort of violence that Sacramento saw over the weekend—is another matter.

NEXT: Major League Baseball: Don't Nationalize it, Privatize it!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "legislation to allow lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms for the harm caused by their product,"

    Fine by me as long as the law is amended to include automobiles and legislation.

    1. I'm waiting for the first lawsuit to be filed against a manufacturer after the police wrongly use a firearm. Hopefully the firearm and ammunition industry will stop selling to California.

      1. "They marketed their firearms products to police, who are known to kill unarmed black men at alarming rates."

        1. In what fantasy world is that happening?

      2. In a sane world, this would result in the law's repeal. In California, home of "do what we meant, not what we said" legislation, the law would merely be amended to exclude shootings by law enforcement from the actionable cases.

    2. Right?

      How many people died in the "mass murder" in Waukesha?

    3. When will people learn that laws mean nothing without enforcement. Criminals continue to kill, flaunt gun laws, illegals cross our borders without punishment, law makers make illegal deals, and on and on. Gun laws don't stop criminals. They only attack where there are no guns. More lawful gun owners would result in less attacks. Period. Enforce the second amendment, not keep it from law abiding citizens. Just make it harder (almost impossible) for criminals to get them.

  2. I wish Karen would grow a pair of balls and focus all efforts on repeal of the second amendment. Put it out there and see just many people actually support the end game.

  3. Next up; a firearm permit is required to have a social media account, and to vote.
    Let's see how many of these laws are "common sense" and how many are infringements.

  4. More laws would have no effect on the criminals and their actions. It would simply put more paperwork and fees on law-abiding gun owners who have no intention of using their gun in a crime in the first place. Do these people really think the gang-bangers check to see how many laws they are breaking before they start firing at another gang-banger?

    1. See my post below about the University of Washington trying to correlate rural "youths" carrying handguns to the same outcomes as urban "youths" carrying handguns. You would almost conclude that they first came up with the conclusion and then worked backwards from there, but no one would do that.

    2. We need more laws to stop criminals and murderers from breaking the law.

    3. The purposes of these laws is not to stop crime but to create more criminals.

      1. Exactly. Feature, not a bug.

        The more laws you have to deal with, the more controlled you are. Mouth off and they'll be able to find SOMETHING to pin on you, something you're guilty of.

    4. Yes, but somehow we must make sure that the innocent are punished.

      I blame public schools that don't teach civics and manners.

  5. "California is only as safe as the nearest state with weak gun laws, so we need federal action to ensure that every state in the country requires background checks on all gun sales."

    Hmm. How does that work? Let's see. If I live in California, and want to purchase a handgun from out-of-State, it has to be shipped to a licensed firearm dealer in California, who does the background check. This is federal law, applying to all States. So just WHERE are the "weak laws?" Maybe in their minds?

    1. They aren’t honest people. They want more laws and don’t care if they work or not.

    2. Their tangent seemed to be aimed at "ghost guns" which you can still buy in CA but its scarier when they come from out of state.

      1. Actually not buy, but can possibly make - except that most “ghost” guns are AR-15s, which are most often much to large to conceal, and thus are very rarely used by criminals. In short, a red herring here.

    3. Notionally, a criminal from CA would go to AZ and purchase a firearm for cash in a face to face transaction. Yes, obviously, if they were buying it from a legitimate dealer and having it shipped they'd face a background check, but they wouldn't by buying it in person.

      I'm not saying this is justification for such a law, but it is the circumstance they're arguing against.

      1. But I walk into the store, examine the guns, talk to the dealer in person and wait for NICS to take it's sweet time, usually coming back in a few days.

        Next up: we need gun control in Mexico and will withhold foreign aid to coerce it.

    4. The "loophole" is that I can buy larger magazines and parts in Reno and Phoenix. Seriously. If I want a reasonable sized magazine it's only a three hour drive, but a legal brothel across the street and gambling afterward.

      Oh hell, just print out what I need. A cousin prints out his magazines.

  6. Now that they are investigating this as a shooting between two gangs, it shows that nothing they do will keep criminals from being armed. The same gangs are likely selling drugs that the government can't keep them from getting. Heck, you have to be very careful hiking in the public land areas of California because of drug growing and manufacturing.

    1. Pot is legalized in California. So why the black market and national forest pot acreage? Because legal pot has been all but regulated out of existence. Even where it's available it's more expensive than the black market.

      The obsessive impulse to finely regulate every aspect of life has led California to screw up even marijuana legalization. They expected billions of new tax revenue to come pouring in, but it's not there because pot is still essentially illegal. Idiots.

      Fully legalize and decriminalize pot, and then tax it at exactly the same rate as alcohol. Problem solved. Revenue comes in. Everyone but the micro-regulating karens are happy.

    2. The shooters appear to have committed multiple felonies already:
      - felon in possession
      - purchase of a firearm without a background check
      - unlicensed possession of a machine gun
      - unlicensed conversion of a firearm to a machine gun
      - assault with a deadly weapon
      - 1st degree murder
      - etc

      Let’s see how many of these are charged and tried. And there are federal charges, in case Biden and Garland want to show that they want to be tough on gun law violations.

  7. Read an article this morning about a University of Washington study (federally funded of course by the Department of Health) on rural youths carrying hand guns. The authors of the paper and the article were doing the best to imply that 1/3 of rural "youths" (the range was from 12-28 yo) reported having carried a handgun at least once in their lives, far higher than urban youths in the same age group. They did mention the strong gun culture, and the fact most were raised with respect for guns and gun safety from a very early age because of the gun culture, but then went on to say the study is a preliminary study needed to address this problem and find ways to mitigate it. They implied that this could result in more accidents or school shootings but failed to mention if they found data to support those fears (although there were several sentences that implied they found the exact opposite). The purpose of the study appeared to be to verify if their pet gun violence prevention teaching would be effective in lowering this rate, as if it's a foregone conclusion that the high rate itself is a problem. They didn't list under what circumstances the "youths" carried a hand gun, and didn't address the legality of these circumstances. My bet is a lot of it has to do with hunting and or protection from wildlife, for both them and quite possibly their livestock.

    I bought my first pistol when I was 25 after I got caught between a doe black bear and her cub while bow hunting elk in the Bitterroot mountains. I carried it constantly when bow hunting after that, because I realized the danger I was in and how defenseless I was if that sow got aggressive. I had grown up shooting rifles, and have been around guns since birth. I was raised that long arms, rifles and shotguns, were meant for serious work, while pistols weren't. My Dad rarely uses pistols, and has only owned one, a Ruger single six .22. I wish he hadn't got rid of it, because they're worth a pretty penny today and for a SAA clone were pretty damn good plinking guns.

    I now own four pistols, but mainly carry a .22 magnum revolver mainly for dealing with varmints when I am working on the ranch (not to many bears here in North Eastern Montana). It's usually loaded, five in the cylinder, with the hammer closed on an empty chamber (it has a safety bar, but I was raised to always carry a single action with the hammer closed on an empty chamber, and can't break the habit, I also carry my .44 redhawk with the hammer on an empty chamber even though it's a double action). Last night while checking cows (it's calving season) we took my son's vehicle, and came across a badger, and I reached for my revolver, and realized it wasn't there. Damn badger ducked into his hole before I could run him down with the jeep. My sons have both carried that pistol when we've been deer hunting or bird hunting (mainly for coyotes and gophers). I'm betting a lot of those kids who reported they carried a hand gun have had similar experiences. We've also used the pistol to slaughter lambs before butchering them.

    1. My bet is a lot of it has to do with hunting and or protection from wildlife, for both them and quite possibly their livestock.

      Is/was education an option? My kids would've answered "Yes." to carrying the Ruger MkII that I made my Dad buy when I was in shooting sports at their age. Cogent wrt the urban/rural divide as going East, into the city, there isn't any place for them to shoot, even if only under strict supervision at paper.

      1. Once Coney Island (just to mention one spot) had multiple shooting ranges, and going to the range was a common Sunday afternoon pastime for New York City residents.

        1. My mother disliked guns, but never objected that I was gun trained. (for her mindset, when she built a pool, we all got swimming lessons. Even me, and I was a newborn, but I was able to swim at 9 months of age.)

          As a kid I went to a friend's house to shoot. His father was VERY good at gun safety. I never realized it until I was older, but he taught us right and even BB guns we handled were handled properly while we were plinking cans or shooting ants from the back porch.

          As a teen I took a marksmanship course at the local national guard armory. I also shot air rifles at the same armory and was pretty damned good, and really enjoyed it. Some other kids were even better and competed, and they all had their own rifles. They also all had other guns as soon as they were old enough. As a young adult we would buy a brick of 22 and run it through the ruger, and a snub handgun my buddy owned (which was fun to fire a night because high velocity 22 has slow burning powder so it made a massive muzzle flash) , and occasionally we'd get some 303 and run it through an Enfield.

          Everyone did this. Everyone I knew learned gun safety, most had firearms or access to their parent's firearms. Not way out there country, but Suburban/exurban California in the 80s, and this wasn't grampa's generation, it was just pre-millennial/helicopter-parenting era. Yet none of us had any problems.

          The divide between rural (or semi rural in my case) and inner city is stark, and that divide is entirely cultural. Rural guns are tools, urban problems are most often gangs. Period. Any academic study ignoring these facts probably ranks slightly below covid masking meta-studies for quality.

          I know it is an impossible thing to test, but it sure would be interesting to see what the gangland issues would have been had drug prohibition not led to them divvying up neighborhoods and fighting turf wars over a very profitable black market.

          1. Yeah, I started shooting when I was five, but my Dad was extremely strict about gun safety, even didn't like us disobeying gun safety with toy guns or cap guns (I am the same way). His thought was it's better to learn right when you're young than to have to unlearn bad habits. I did grow up in the country, and we were constantly plinking with our BB guns or shooting gophers with a .22, but if we ever got caught abusing the gun, no matter what it was, we wouldn't sit right for a year and it didn't matter if you were 12 or 18, those were the rules. A gun was a tool, but like all tools, you treat it with respect and be cognitive of safety.

          2. As to mother's disliking guns, mine did too, but she wanted us to learn to use them from an early age, since they were in the house, we hunter and everyone we knew hunted and had guns in their home.

            1. In fact we just assumed everyone owned a gun, and it was always a real surprise when we found out someone didn't have at least one, that's how common guns were. Hell, even the outspoken Democrats in town usually owned at least one gun.

      2. Well Sacramento is fairly small, land wise, and borders on one of the largest duck hunting area in the western US. Shooting ranges are common. Plenty of places to legally shoot. That wasn't the problem in Sacramento.

        1. The study was UW and doesn't indicate where subjects under study lived besides 'rural'.

    2. My dad used to carry his Sig Sauer handgun with him when we would go up into the woods in Southeastern Missouri to cut deadfall. You never know when you're going to run into a bobcat, mountain lion, or a black bear.

      1. If you’re going to run into a bear, you’re going to need a 44 magnum.

        1. Only if you plan to actually shoot the bear, and I would be leery of that even with the .44 - it's amazing what can bounce off those bones, skull in particular. They move very fast when agitated.

          I've pulled once on a Black Bear while hiking and fired a round into the ground to scare it off.

      2. Shit, ran into a grizzy in California once while trout fishing. Damned .357 would have done nothing but piss it off. The gun was for the rattlers. We let it amble away while we kept absolutely still.

    3. I'm shocked it was only 1/3 that were familiar with firearms, that number is appalling. Need more gun safety lessons for kids.

      I remember running wild with a .22 rifle and my pellet gun, shooting fruits off cactus and occasional rabbits (it mandated I eat anything I killed, which was a great lesson).

      Got into carrying a .22 pistol living in a mountain town for the dying deer I'd find on the side of the road a couple times a year. Moved to a bigger city for more work and upgraded to a .45 for my safety. Never locked my truck before that.

      1. There's a rule that I learned from the book Freakonomics.

        Never trust a survey on a politically sensitive issue or any issue that can cause any form of shame for an answer. A surveyor will far more likely than not get the answer the people think they want, not the answer that is real.

        1/3 of the students ADMITTED to a surveyor, whom they knew or suspected was stringently anti-gun, that they carried pistols.

        (Additionally, since the survey is about carrying pistols, many of the kids were probably trained on rifles or learned but didn't carry one).

  8. This weeks (CA) news....
    No more pork.
    No more eggs.
    No more guns.
    Homeless getting thrown out of their tents.

    Thank goodness CA is ran by Democrats.... /s
    Oh Detroit too... My those Democrats sure do know how to make a mess.

  9. Here's a crazy idea, maybe California could start actually enforcing the laws already on the books before passing any gun laws. The guys who allegedly pulled the triggers were violent felons with long rap sheets, including gun charges, who should have been in PMITA jail, not out on the streets.
    If the only point of any new gun laws is to harass law abiding citizens while letting violent felons walk free, then the gun grabbers can kiss my ass.

    1. I actually suspect that the incident is going to fade from the news cycle quickly now that it's been declared "gang related". Makes it really hard to push the narrative that the typical mass shooter is a "white guy with an AR-15" unless the MSM spikes coverage of "black-on-black" crime except for using gang shootings to pump-up the number of "mass shootings" which have happened in any given year.

      Luckily for Everytown, nobody really pushes back when they alternate between claims of hundreds of mass shootings every year with memes showing the "pattern" of 15-20 mass shooters (spanning from Columbine to Las Vegas) as white males with "assault rifles".

      1. No doubt. There was an incident around here a few years ago where a white guy shot up a church. The press instantly lost interest when it turned out the guy was legally prohibited from owning a gun, but the cops never bothered filing the paperwork that would have flagged him on a background check.
        (Although the Vegas shooting definitely raises a ton of red flags.)

    2. One of the shooters was a two-time felon who violated parole just three years ago. There's no legal way he could ever purchase or own a hand gun. How in the hell he wasn't in prison is beyond me. He's one of the shooters but for some reason they aren't charging him with murder.

      Another of the shooters beat his girlfriend to a bloody pulp in 2016 (something this pair of brothers seemed to have in common) and already had a long rap sheet, and he was supposed to serve a minimum of 10 years. For some reason he was out in half that. And it was all because the state of California used "emergency measures" to amend the parole regs without any legislative or public input.

      California's problem is California. They can't handle the fact that some black people commit crimes and mess up their incarceration numbers, so they release people without any concern of their likely danger to the community. It looks bad if they have too many black people locked up, so in the name of "equity," they have to let them out on occasion so they can go kill more black people.

      It's frankly disgusting.

      1. Let's face it, the people that are getting rich by advocating for "equity" aren't being impacted by these shootings. I doubt the parole board members who let these guys out live in the 'hood. They don't go to the kind of clubs where people are likely to get shot.

        And if a few poor black people have to die to salve some rich person's white guilt, that's the price of progress.(-ivism)

      2. Funny how that is totally overlooked in the article.

  10. "Does California's Latest Mass Shooting Show the Country's Strictest Gun Laws Are Not Strict Enough?"

    No.

    Criminals don't obey the law.

    They likely already broke a number of laws before they had an illegal shoot-out.

    I mean murder is illegal and that didn't get those guys to say "Stop, this is against the law" when the first guy pulled a gun out.

    1. Mind point me to a reference for a legal shoot-out? Just curious how that works.

      1. You say something about me on social media.
        Someone who actually has a social media account tells me about it.
        I track you down and throw my glove at your feet.
        You choose pistols as the weapons.
        We meet at dawn on a foggy field. (the cops are still eating donuts)

      2. A properly declared war would probably count as a "legal shoot-out". Two teams of police blazing away at each other in a case of mistaken identity would probably also count. Tragic but not illegal.

      3. As long as it's not in the furtherance of a crime, the concept of a shoot out, e.g. two pistoleros drawing on each other, could arguably be considered self defense. In many states self defense is justified if you perceive that your life is threatened or someone else's, you don't actually have to establish that it truly was. In the case of a fast draw, it's plausible a lawyer could argue that the plaintiff (possibly both involved) had a reasonable perception of harm and that is why they both drew and fired. This would only apply if it was a spontaneous event as opposed to an arranged duel (most shootouts in the west were spontaneous, there is only one known recorded instance of the arranged duel type, and that involved Hickock, in Missouri). I'm not certain if a jury would buy it, but it isn't outside the realm of possibilities, either.

        1. The shooters appear to have committed multiple felonies already:
          - felon in possession
          - purchase of a firearm without a background check
          - unlicensed possession of a machine gun
          - unlicensed conversion of a firearm to a machine gun
          - assault with a deadly weapon
          - 1st degree murder
          - etc

          Let’s see how many of these are charged and tried. And there are federal charges, in case Biden and Garland want to show that they want to be tough on gun law violations.

      4. Laser Tag.

      5. After the dust settled on Ruby Ridge, the only charges all around were against Weaver for bail jumping.

  11. Perhaps the real issue in this case was not guns but the parole board putting a violent felon back on the streets years before he finished serving his last sentence.

    1. If reason admitted to that though, they'd have to admit that not all justice reforms are a good idea, and we can't have that.

    2. Just for the record, the recidivism rate for executed murders is zero.

      1. Unfortunately, the wrongful conviction rate isn't zero.

  12. Doing it wrong.

    Licence people not the gun.

    A well regulated militia.

    1. Militia having a somewhat different context at the t8me the Bill of rights was drafted. But we all know you’re looking for something along the lines of your precious Third Reich.

      1. "regulated" also had a very different meaning in that context back in the late 18th century.

        When 2A was written a "well regulated" militia was one that could be assembled quickly from among the public and supplied from common supplies of ammunition and other equipment. In order to have that in the modern day, the M4 rifle (or something compatible like the AR-15) would have to be among the most commonly owned weapons by members of that militia so they'd all be able to load up from a common stockpile of 223/5.56mm Nato ammunition and compatible spare magazines; which is the opposite of any push to get "weapons of war" out of civilian hands.

      2. Technically, the meaning hasn't changed. The most current militia act Congress passed still says all males of sound mind and body, not excused for conscious reasons, between the ages of 17 and 45 are members of the irregular US militia. It's one of the reasons that selective service can operate. Technically they aren't forcing you into the military, just activating members of the militia.

        1. Dancing on the head of a pin.

          The phrase in 2a immediately preceding as a prerequisite to the right to bear arms was talking about meeting criteria, aka licensing.

          The criteria will change with the requirements of responsibility and proficiency to function as a well regulated militia of the day.

          1. No, that is not a prerequisite. Never has been and never will be despite your furiously-scrambling attempts to rewrite history.

            1. You ram away with your tail between your legs the last time we discussed this.

              There is also no other reason to talk about a regulated militia immediately prior to the right to bear arms other than as a prerequisite. What else has a militia got to do with the right to bear arms?

              Don’t run away from the question this time.

            2. Pussy.

      3. I believe the 3rd has fallen, should be 4th. But who is counting, except you? I heard the gay nazi's for christ are opening their ranks? Maybe you should join? Finally you could find a place where you belong.

    2. Licence people not the gun.

      So, if someone was found with a gun and without a license, would the gun be illegal or the person? Got a place in mind where these licenses would be checked or would it just be some sort of roving, abstract social construct? Asking for an amigo.

      1. Got a drivers license, a professional license?

        Recently commit a relevant crime, can’t demonstrate proficiency, lose it. A periodic practical recertification.

        Can’t possess a gun without it. Make the penalties severe.

        1. OK, so an English license or a tax license would fly by your standards. Get caught unable to speak English or consuming public services without paying taxes and off you go. Living in this country is a privilege, like driving, right?

      2. There needs to be real penalties for breaking laws.

        When lobbyist judges give criminals a slap on the wrist, justice goes out the window. Why wouldn’t it?

    3. And gold stars for SOME people, right, Herr Misek?

      Today is a great day to follow your leader!

      1. Fuck off troll.

  13. Everyone should be free to own whatever weapons they want.

    1. Have you met everyone? I've met a few that shouldn't be permitted to operate spoons much less firearms.

      I agree with the sentiment but he reality isn't that simple. If anything though we need to start by restricting the yes of weapons police forces have access to.

      1. Start with a list of reasons a person shouldn’t own a firearm, before it’s all over having the wrong opinions will disqualify you.

      2. re: "met a few that shouldn't be permitted to operate spoons"

        I agree with that sentiment but the reality here also isn't that simple. Who can be trusted to define the list of people who should and should not be permitted to have firearms? How do you prevent that arbiter of "truth" from exploiting the power for personal or political gain? How do you overcome the rather considerable list of examples in history of abuses of that power?

        Dangerous as guns are, letting anyone in government decide who may have them is even more dangerous.

  14. Chicago leads the way!

  15. As many of you have heard by now, the alleged shooter is a black man who was released early from prison. The incident is no longer useful for the purposes of anti cop or gun control narrative and is being memory holed among the MSM.

    The pivot to gun control after these kinds of incidents (that involve white shooters) is obviously a transparently dishonest attempt to deflect from the fact that dem run cities have huge crime issues. Even high gun crimes in "lax gun law states" are almost certainly coming from blue urban zones. Are there many shootings in rural America, where the population is mostly white?

    Why isn't Montana a murder haven like Baltimore? People can buy guns like candy there, right? Will lefty pro pot activists admit that the concept of prohibition and black market applies to guns too?

    1. What if I'm a gun owning righty pro pot activist? Where do we go?

    2. What if I'm a gun owning righty pot activist? Where do we go?

  16. Knowing how the "great minds" in the CA legislature operate, they might actually pass a new law restricting the theft of firearms (which is already a felony in the state) to only those with a FFL, and prohibiting the re-sale of stolen weapons without a background check.

    Federal law already prohibits any kind of interstate transfer (including private sale to residents of another state) without processing through a FFL dealer who is then required to adhere to whatever requirements apply in the buyer's state of residence. Anyone crossing state lines to purchase firearms via private sales in a "less restrictive" state is already breaking Federal laws which have been on the books for over a decade, as are the sellers in those transactions, unless those sales are processed by a FFL dealer (in which case, they'd be subject to both State and Federal checks if they're residents of CA). I'd love to see anyone from Everytown explain what additional law would induce compliance by those who already aren't complying.

    As for "ghost guns", that horse is leaving the barn while multiple levels of government are trying to figure out which way the door moves. There are already NC machines and programs available to cut AR lowers from blank blocks of metal (as opposed to the "80%" kits), and 3D printing will likely be able to produce workable Glock frames without a kit within a few years, if they can't already. By the time Congress gets the regulations figured out, there could be a "ghost gun" factory on every block of every neighborhood which wouldn't need any of the regulated parts; good luck regulating Aluminum plate stock and 3D printer resin as if they were "firearms" just because the part of a gun that's legally the "gun" is one of the thousands of things that could be made from them, while they're at it they should start regulating lumber as weaponry since a stack of 6x6 beams can be built into a trebuchet as well as being built into a (very solid) deck.

    1. > I'd love to see anyone from Everytown explain what additional law would induce compliance by those who already aren't complying.

      A federal requirement that all firearm sales go through an FFL would reduce the number of people willing to conduct a face to face transaction significantly.

      The criminal was already willing to break the law, but a lot of people don't think before they sell a firearm, in states where it's legal to do face to face transactions. Heck, I've bought firearms, cash, no ID, out of the newspaper.

      But NM made that illegal a few years ago, and while I admit I haven't looked since then, I imagine it would be a lot more difficult now.

      I presume that would be the justification they would give as to how this would notionally affect the behavior of criminals.

      Now, I don't think that's actually a path by which many criminals acquire firearms, because it's way easier for a gangbanger in LA to buy something illegally locally than drive all the way to Arizona. And realistically, I understand that they're real motivation is making it that much more annoying for the rest of us to buy firearms, and probably as a way to start backdooring a national registry. But the line of argumentation they'd use there isn't that difficult to anticipate.

  17. The latest “mass shooting” in California shows, it seems to me that, the so-called Criminal Justice system of California is a very bad joke. In addition, it is obvious that this Every town mob, as well as the rest of the anti gun/anti gun rights cabal is and remains ignorant of existing law in California, and that such ignorance is based on calculated choice.

  18. Have we discussed banning guns in Mexico?

    Clearly the issue is illegal firearms flooding into the state, so we need to address root causes of this gun violence epidemic - obviously because guns shoot people and BadOrangeMan.
    And really, systemic racism from BadOrangeManCultists is what drives these innocent young non-birthing persons to a life of crime and domestic violence. With a UBI to guarantee the free expression of their politically defined unique cultural characteristics we would be past this, and everyone would respect the signs again.

    Oh, but literacy is racist. Maybe speakers installed, or that lovely robotic societal caretaker we saw in Shanghai?

  19. In a widely circulated, highly emotional editorial about the Sacramento shooting the author stated that there were too many felons with guns on the streets, and then proceeded to rant about the need to pass more gun laws. She missed the obvious point in her own editorial, that there are too many felons, armed or not, on the street in California. California has been on a tear the past ten years or so, freeing felons early and emptying the jails. Yes, we have too many felons on the street with, or without guns, in California and that's where we should be focusing efforts to prevent further shootings like the Sacramento. It's not the guns causing the problem, it's the criminals.

  20. It was a gang shooting. By gangs. From everything we know, it was not some white dude going postal, it was instead gang land violence.

    So... gangs use illegal and stolen guns all the time. No gang stands in line to get on a waiting list. In fact, most mass shootings across the nation are indeed gang violence. Gun control laws do nothing to stop this kind of violence.

    These knee jerk laws are stupid and are designed to make legistlators feel good about themselves rather than actually do anything to solve the problem. Hell, that's nearly all legislation, red or blue, just there to make people feel good while doing nothing substantial to solve their nominal problem.

    The real issue is the gang land violence. Except for the state government, Sacramento is a sleepy little burg. It's a cow town. So why the gangs? Fresno has the same problem. Sleepy little burgs up and down I-5 and 99 have gang problems. Why? To the Lefties it's because that's the redneck part of California. But the truth is simpler. It's poverty. Not only that, but government managed poverty that traps the poor into a bureaucratic system.

    The working poor will always be with us, and not every poor teen becomes a criminal. But being trapped in system that treats you like a cog with no way out leads a lot of people into crime.

    Solution: Free economic zone up and down the Central Valley corridor, even down into east L.A.. Get the damned government out of the way. If you're going to fund the poverty, at least do it in a dignified way, without the welfare offices being the major employer in town. Let people work, don't ban them from working because they are not "essential", let them start tiny businesses of their own. Get the fuck out of their way. Stop discouraging work.

  21. What California needs is stricter criminal control. The prime suspect - who out on bail by way - was released from prison 4 years early after being convicted for his last violent crime.

    1. Exactly. I think I saw that two of the assumed three shooters were prohibited persons who couldn't buy any gun. I don't think the narrative is going to age well once the full truth is out. No doubt it will race to some random page and appear at the bottom, well below the fold if at all.

  22. I would go so far as to say that calling this a mass shooting falls under clear and deliberate misinformation. This wasn't a person shooting into a crowd trying to murder as many people as possible (the typical situation for this description). This was a gang war in the clearest sense of the word.

    1. Right. It highlights the hypocrisy/destructive moral flexibility. Red SUV driving into a Christmas parade, killing 6 and injuring dozens? Not a mass shooting. Nothing to see here!

  23. If we want to lower gun violence end drug prohibition.

  24. We need common sense criminal control.

  25. Gang battles like this one will be prevented only by imprisoning the members. Imprisoning their firearms doesn't work.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.