Skip to main content

We hear it after every mass shooting: politicians on both sides of the aisle intoning their deepest condolences to the victims and their families. We hear a lot about thoughts and prayers and sympathies. We especially hear it from politicians who kowtow to the NRA and the gun lobby, usually framed in the language of unnamed inexplicable evil that mere humans cannot control.

But the father of one of the victims of the Isla Vista shootings put it best when he said:

“I don’t care about your sympathy. I don’t give a s--- that you feel sorry for me,” Richard Martinez said during an extensive interview, his face flushed as tears rolled down. “Get to work and do something. I’ll tell the president the same thing if he calls me. Getting a call from a politician doesn’t impress me.”
Damn straight.

Well, some politicians do take their jobs seriously, and have the courage to get to work and do something. And I'm very proud to say that they just so happen to represent me in the California Assembly and State Senate. Das Williams and Hannah-Beth Jackson are taking action to help keep guns out of the hands of disturbed individuals by giving family members and friends more power in preventing problem individuals from obtaining firearms:

Today, California State Assemblymembers Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) and Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara) announced legislation to help prevent mass killings like this weekend’s tragic Isla Vista rampage near UC Santa Barbara that claimed the lives of six students.

The proposed legislation would create a gun violence restraining order, establishing a system where concerned family members, intimate partners or friends can notify law enforcement of someone who is demonstrating a propensity to commit violence toward themselves or others.

“When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more," Skinner said. “Parents, like the mother who tried to intervene, deserve an effective tool they can act on to help prevent these tragedies."

Under current law, therapists can notify law enforcement that their client is at risk of committing a violent act allowing authorities to investigate the individual. Law enforcement can prevent the person from buying or owning firearms.

“The tragic incident in my hometown of Isla Vista is not a result of gun laws failing. Rather, it is a horrific example of how our mental health laws and gun control laws are not working together,” said Williams.

The proposed legislation would grant this authority to concerned family members, friends and intimate partners, creating a mechanism to intervene and potentially prohibit the purchase of firearms and/or remove the firearms already in possession. Law enforcement would have the ability to investigate threats and ask a judge to grant an order prohibiting firearms purchase or possession.

In most cases involving an individual in crisis there is no mechanism to limit firearm access while the individual is seeking or receiving needed help (e.g., mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment, anger management).

Family members may call law enforcement to intervene. However, as evidenced by law enforcement's response to the mother's call regarding her concerns about the shooter in the Santa Barbara incident, if no crime has been committed, or the individual does not meet the criteria for an involuntary civil commitment to mental health treatment, there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent that individual from purchasing firearms or to temporarily remove firearms from their possession during the crisis.

Senator Hannah Beth Jackson will be joining Williams and Skinner as a principal co-author of the legislation.

Republican Assemblymember Jeff Gorell is running against Congresswoman Julia Brownley in Ventura County just south of Santa Barbara. He has a 92% rating from the NRA, and tweeted his condolences. I challenged him to prove his concern by doing something serious about firearms control. He and all the other Republican politicians will have a chance to prove the weight of their concern for the victims of gun violence by taking an affirmative vote on this bill.

If they fail to support this commonsense legislation, they will prove the emptiness of their hollow sympathies and betray their condolences for what they are: empty speeches by hypocrites, eager to actively deflate the righteous anger that must precede real change.

Let this also be a lesson to the cynics who think both parties are alike, that voting doesn't matter, and that the inside game of politics is worthless. Both Das Williams and Hannah-Beth Jackson faced Democratic primaries from more centrist opponents when they came into office. Many of us worked hard to help make sure the more progressive candidates won. That work mattered, and will make a real difference to help prevent the next tragedy because we have good progressive Democrats in office who are willing to stand up for what's right.

Cross-posted from Digby's Hullabaloo

Originally posted to thereisnospoon (David Atkins) on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:16 AM PDT.

Also republished by Firearms Law and Policy, Shut Down the NRA, and California politics.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Makes sense. No real downside that I see. N/T (7+ / 0-)
    •  People with mental illness deserve the same con... (0+ / 0-)

      People with mental illness deserve the same constitutional rights and due process as any other citizen. While the intent of the law may seem clear, mental illness affects approximately 20% of the population. This bill opens the door to search and seizure on shaky grounds and to emergency detention and involuntary commitment. All of which have lasting, stigmatic impacts on people with mental illness.

      I believe in gun regulation and I know we need massive improvements to mental health care and delivery. People with mental illness are vulnerable to civil rights abuses. These proposed laws can open a door to police behavior suspect to abuse. The laws are reactive to the recent and horrible Santa Clara tragedy. Isolating and increasing stigma or creating a culture of shame around mental illness and treatment when only a very small group statistically is considered violent is dangerous too. People fear the consequences of seeking help and suffer far longer than necessary.

      •  You have "due process" backwards. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        silverfoxcruiser

        Due process is not preemptive.

        Think about an arrest.

        On probable cause, the police can search you, incarcerate you, and put you in danger from the prison population. Happens a hundred thousand times a day in America. And is completely constitutional.

        You get due process, but the police get to stop you from being a danger while you put due process into play.

        The crazy person will get his guns back when due process has run its course and it turns out he's not crazy to the degree that the state feels he's dangerous, amplified infinitely by the wielding of a gun.

        And if it turns out that the report of your craziness was not reasonable and the police did not have probable cause, then you can deal with that exactly as you would if they falsely arrested you.

        That's due process. That's what you have a right to. Not to be a crazy person with a gun.

      •  Yes, except that the law as written (0+ / 0-)

        doesn't seem to me to apply only to people who have been identified as mentally ill, but to people who are feared of being a danger to others. That catches a lot of people, potentially, who may have no identifiable mental illness at all.

        Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.
        ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

        Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

        by peregrine kate on Fri May 30, 2014 at 09:35:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tid'd and Rec'd (19+ / 0-)

    Thank you for diarying this.

    If you live in California, tell your state senators and members of the assembly to support AB 1014.  Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson introduced it to the state senate.

    "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure" - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100, dissenting; opinion

    by HugoDog on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:08:35 AM PDT

  •  And now, the X Factor... (13+ / 0-)

    ...Fuck the NRA!  What happens when one of the foreign gun manufacturer that the NRA fronts for challenges laws like this in the WTO as an infringement on "Free" Trade?  Is it any wonder that the president, a full-out supporter of corporate-friendly, people-hurting, community-devastating "Free" trade deals, hasn't done more than give speeches about common-sense gun safety regulation?  And blah blah blah about Republican'ts having the majority in the House and the filibuster in the Senate.  He didn't even try, despite the vast majority of not only the people, but a solid majority of Republican't voters being in favor of doing something...

    •  Good point (7+ / 0-)

      and its not an exaggeration.  It seems highly likely the new "free trade" agreements will make it even more difficult to enforce sensible laws on weapons and ammunition.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:49:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How could they? The rest of the world has (4+ / 0-)

      plenty of restrictions on the importation of arms along with a long list of other dangerous items, and these are not being adjudicated by the WTO.

      •  TPP and Euro-version enhance corp's power (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wilderness voice, kfunk937

        to fight state/local/national laws that impinge on their profits.  They can sue for 'lost profits' if they are blocked by silly laws.

        The Third Way ain't My Way!

        by JVolvo on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:46:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Depends on exactly what they signed. (0+ / 0-)

        How NAFTA Jeopardizes Health, Safety and Environmental Standards

        Similarly, under NAFTA, nonfood health, safety and environmental measures may not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. More specifically, if a standard operates to exclude an imported product, NAFTA requires that the import be permitted if the product satisfies the standard's legitimate objective.

        The impact of this provision is illustrated by the trade-based arguments presented by the Government of Canada in an amicus brief filed in a court challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's phaseout of asbestos. Canada contended that a less restrictive alternative would involve banning the most harmful type of asbestos, while still permitting the use with restrictions of less harmful types of asbestos, which are produced principally in Canada. The court decided the case on domestic law grounds without reaching the trade issues. Under NAFTA, however, Canada would succeed in such a trade challenge, if it could show that banning imports of the Canadian type of asbestos is not necessary to achieve the legitimate public health objective of the phaseout.

        Asia and Europe aren't signatories to NAFTA, obviously, but this kind of Trojan Horse via treaty is really bad.

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:04:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let's Everybody Blame the President -- (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maggiemae, nominalize, VPofKarma

      who isn't in charge of the Congress,

      who isn't in charge of the UN,

      therefore cannot dictate policies.

      What are YOU doing to communicate your views to YOUR representatives, in at least effort to offset the crazies who DO communicate their views?

      Right: you're sitting on your butt bashing gov't, and the President, as excuse to do nothing but bitch about how powerless you are.

       How powerless is the more than 90 per cent who want universal background checks, and otherwise increased gun control?

      We have the numbers:

      The NRA claims to have 5 million members:

      5,000,000.

      That leaves more than 3 hundred million who are NOT NRA members:

      300,000,000.

      We have the numbers.  We have the power.  When are we going to get off our butts and act on that power, instead of waiting for someone else to take responsibility for us?

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Thu May 29, 2014 at 01:51:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, dear. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blackhand, AoT

    I am all for making sure that we don't let more criminals go on murder sprees.

    But it's been my experience that a piece of paper (restraining order) even if it doesn't delay intervention in a crisis (go get a warrant) often isn't enough to stop a determined criminal.

    LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

    by BlackSheep1 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:14:21 AM PDT

    •  ^ Predictable gun aficionado naysaying… (21+ / 0-)

      Who saw that coming? Other than everyone?

      Awfully "sporting" of you to concede this:

      I'm all for making sure we don't let criminals go on murder sprees
      You're right… There's nothing we can do… may as well buy more guns, right?

      Baby, where I come from...

      by ThatSinger on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:21:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  All laws are mere "pieces of paper." (28+ / 0-)

      Same with regulations and court orders.  Your comment is yet another example of the argument against all laws.

      That argument goes like this:  Since there are always some people who disobey gun laws, this proves laws are ineffective, and therefore laws to prevent gun violence must therefore be useless.

      Of course, there's not a law on the books that someone, somewhere, at some time hasn't violated.  But we don't take that as evidence that laws themselves are a failure.  

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:31:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Although, there is a valid point when it comes to (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ThatSinger, BlackSheep1, kfunk937

        enforcement: what criteria will apply in the investigation and judgement, when it comes to potentially disarming a reported individual?

        I like this type of legislation in the manner that it begins to make people think more comprehensively about the relative safety of being around guns, at least through the lens of focusing on individuals who own them.  I guess it remains to be seen how quick and effective it can be to help prevent these types of situations, so seems positive to try.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:19:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  a restraining order is enforceable on the spot by (5+ / 0-)

          police - the court has already ordered the restraint.  All it takes is for someone to report the violation to law enforcement, and they can make an arrest if they deem it appropriate.

          •  I was addressing the investigation phase, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wilderness voice, BlackSheep1

            not the restraining order already being in place.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:44:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  if relatives bring worrisome behavior (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TRPChicago, wader

              to a judge's attention, the judge is very likely to grant the order, because the downside of wrongly failing to do so is huge compared to the downside of granting the order unnecessarily.

            •  And in Rodger's case, the investigation was ... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Penny GC, wader, BlackSheep1

              ... shallow. We may not know precisely what his parents told the police that got them to interview him. But whatever it was should have been enough to produce more than some shrugs and "have a nice day."

              2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:14:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I understood he'd been seen by cops at least twice (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wader, VPofKarma

                before he went off, and his social worker and/or parents initiated what the cops carried out as a welfare check within the last six weeks.

                Be interesting to find out when he bought the firearms -- were the purchases recent enough he should've been flagged?

                Because there already is a system -- it's called NICS. It's underfunded and it's flawed, but we can make it better if we try.

                LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                by BlackSheep1 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 02:21:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Two points -- (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VPofKarma

                1)  Having been brought up in a 'good' family, Rodger was well socialized enough to put up an acceptable front to the police in April.  He'd been sliding under the door for quite some time.  

                Did his parents even know he had guns?  I read somewhere he used tuition money to buy the guns and ammo.  How do you devise a system which would monitor ill people, without it becoming abused, with people giving false reports to hassle others?

                2)  We are often expecting too much of police in these situations.  Too many times they learn about mental illness on the job.  If they attended a good community college or other criminal justice classes, they probably had to take some sort of Deviant Behavior Psych class.  This only begins to touch the many situations they will encounter on the job.  And increasingly they are confronted with the effects of drugs on top of mental illness.  

                His parents had too few choices.  If anyone failed in this situation, it was the 'professionals' he was seeing.  

                One size shoe does not fit all.  

      •  The Constitution (cue church choir) is paper. (9+ / 0-)

        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

        by We Shall Overcome on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:41:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Your "concern" is duly noted. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA

      n/t

    •  'Fallacy of the perfect solution' (15+ / 0-)

      Nothing stops a 'determined criminal'. So we should all say 'fuck it' and disband our police departments?

      Heck, cars get stolen all the time. Let's give up on locking them or having keys altogether. A determined car thief will always be able to steal the car anyway.

      The whole point of something like this proposal would be to stop someone like Rodgers -- identified by therapists and parents as mentally unstable, not to mention all those horrific videos he made -- from walking into a gun store and saying, "I'll take one of those, one of those, and one of those... oh, and 400 rounds of ammo and enough clips to load every round."

      For f*ck's sake, it's easier to end up on this country's No Fly list than it is to end up on the "can't buy a gun legally" list.

      I write this as someone who actually IS a gun owner. We need to put at least some effort into ensuring the loonies and the criminals can't buy a gun nearly as easy as buying a loaf of bread.

      We need universal background checks, and we need some legal regime to keep firearms out of the hands of those who openly plan mayhem with them.

      "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

      by Technowitch on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:37:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And one more thing... (13+ / 0-)

        We're way past the point where the right to buy a firearm with minimal wait and inconvenience -- without having to prove mental fitness or ability to handle firearms safely at all -- is considered an 'essential liberty' that supersedes the right not to be killed by criminal or mentally deranged individuals.

        "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

        by Technowitch on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:45:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Technowitch: cars (0+ / 0-)

        are used to kill people, mostly inadvertently, in shocking numbers every day in this country. Should we then ban all cars in hands not belonging to the military or the police -- and then be upset that the police / military use also leads to injuries and deaths?

        It is exactly the same thing.

        The problem here is the person using the object.

        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 02:23:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really? (7+ / 0-)

          You're doing the cars=guns thing?

          Cars are for driving. They take people places, and they can be dangerous if used recklessly.

          Knives are used for preparing food. They can be dangerous if used recklessly.

          Guns are for shooting and killing things. They cannot take people places. They cannot chop celery. Their only function is to kill. They are dangerous, in anyone's hands.

          So, so tired of this false equivalency.

          Mediocrity cannot know excellence ~ Sherlock Holmes

          by La Gitane on Wed May 28, 2014 at 02:42:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If you're going to make that silly equivalence... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kfunk937, zozie, FindingMyVoice

          Cars require licenses to drive. You have to prove you are capable and know the applicable laws. If you fail to comply with the laws -- including carrying the applicable liability insurance -- your privileges to drive a car can be taken away and your car seized.

          In any event, cars and guns are not and never have been 'exactly' the same thing.

          "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

          by Technowitch on Wed May 28, 2014 at 02:53:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've repeatedly said here and otherwhere (0+ / 0-)

            I'd be good with licensing the USER.

            yes, indeed: cars and guns are exactly the same thing: sophisticated tools, inanimate objects, things people can wilfully misuse or abuse to hurt others. Or be stupid with.

            We ought to, and the test ought to include knowing how to safely store, transport, and use -- then clean and maintain -- the firearms in question. Ought to be a regular requirement to re-test. It's been 30 years since I handled a grenade launcher, and the new version I saw at Cannon AFB's Open House Saturday was a revelation. also? had no obvious chamber-access control.

            I'm getting old ...

            LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 03:35:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  are you fucking serious? (0+ / 0-)

          If car laws were as lax as gun laws, we'd see hundreds of thousands of people killed by them each year.

          But we don't, because we actually do regulate the use of cars.

          We require registration, which among other things puts the owner on notice that they are liable for things done by that car.  And to add to that, we require liability insurance.

          And we require car manufacturers to incorporate safety features.   And we hold them (at least minimally) liable if the design of their cars contributes to people dying.

          And we require drivers to be licensed to drive.  And we require them to pass a variety of test to get and renew those licenses.  And we revoke the licenses if the driver exhibits reckless behavior.

          If it were "exactly the same thing", we wold have similar laws controlling guns as well.   And our homicide and suicide rates would plummet.

          People will always have problems, and some will always present a danger to others.  Rather than wring our hands over things we have minimal control over, we need to exert robust control over the things we CAN control:  guns.

        •  Cars are a great example of safety regulation (0+ / 0-)

          I'm glad you brought up cars!

          Due to 50+ years of serious "car control"--- regulations on builders (i.e. the cars themselves), sellers, buyers, owners, and drivers, the rate of automobile death in the US is one-seventh what it was in 1950.  And it keeps dropping.  Car control has worked wonders, despite intense efforts from lobbying groups, because Americans, car-lovers included, admitted there were safety issues and resolved to reduce them, even if it infringed on some people's lifestyles.

           And we haven't had to confiscate people's cars (even though we've registered them ALL! OMG tyranny!)

          Contrast that to firearms, where we hide our heads in the sand, due to intense efforts from (frankly, paranoid) lobbying groups.  Some of us trot out the same tired excuses over and over (they're not new, really), hoping to quash even an admission that there is a problem, out of fear that the solution to that problem might infringe on their lifestyle [constitutionally protected or not, it's just a lifestyle].  The result: Gun deaths hold steady, despite a drop in violent crime overall (thanks to getting lead out of the air!).   By next year, there will be more gun deaths than auto deaths. In some states, there already are.  

          We keep hearing the same excuses.  But excuses get old.  And as the 100,000 Americans who are shot every year can testify, we've got a problem.   As the millions of Americans who are friends or family with one of these 100,000 can testify, we've got a problem.  Incidentally, it's a problem shared by exactly zero other industrialized countries, some as full of immigrants and poor people as we are.  

          The question is: Are we gonna reduce this problem like we did with auto safety? Or are we gonna keep making excuses while other countries succeed?

          Nobody deserves poverty.

          by nominalize on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:03:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Cars are not the same as guns. (0+ / 0-)

            Cars are regulated because people use them every day and we interact with each other on the roads. Failures of one car or driver cause the death of others who are simply using the same roadway. An angry, violent person could still use a car to kill someone, regardless of the amount of auto regulation we have.

            People want guns for a different reason than they want cars. Many people want a gun for protection. That can be protection from other people, or from the awesome power of the government. You may not agree with those reasons for having guns, but reasonable, sensible people all over our country DO agree with that gun ownership purpose. These people are not paranoid or stupid. They just disagree with you.

            Regulation of guns is generally a good idea (training, safety certification, etc.). Most states DO have gun regulation. But the real issue today is how much we want to restrict access to guns, or magazines. Some think we should limit magazine size. Maybe that would help. Maybe the crazy shooter will just bring extra magazines.

            I like the idea that someone close to a potential shooter can act to have that person's access to weapons limited. That's a better strategy than what we currently have. Did you know that in many states you can lose your right to have a gun if you commit a felony theft? That means if you run away from store security after shoplifting, you could lose the right to have a gun. You don't lose the right to have or drive a car just because you shoplifted and then ran away from security. Why would society peg you as a potential murderer who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun just for running from security? This is an example of a needless restriction. A shoplifter is less likely to murder strangers with a gun than a mentally ill person is to murder strangers with a knife.

            We need sensible restrictions on guns. I don't think we're going to find good solutions while the left is refusing to work with those who don't want excessive or needless restrictions. They're not all mislead by the NRA. Nor are they stupid or backwoods hicks clinging to their shotguns. Some just don't agree with you.

        •  That stupid argument deserves no reply. (0+ / 0-)
    •  Had the mother's concern (7+ / 0-)

      been actionable (as the proposed law cited here) and this guy's guns been taken away and he had no way to get new guns, three of his victims would likely still be alive.

      A "determined criminal" will get around almost any roadblock to the crime he intends. But that absolutely doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws defining crime, laws facilitating the prevention of crimes, and a system meting punishment for crime.

      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

      by Joieau on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:54:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The police could have impounded his knife/knives (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau

        as well...

        All 6 of them might still be alive... well, 5 if you ask Norm in Chicago...

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        Baby, where I come from...

        by ThatSinger on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:57:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think that's reasonable. (7+ / 0-)

          He was living in a student apartment with three roomates. Why should college students not be allowed common kitchen tools?

          If he was so dangerous that having knives in the apartment would be a serious concern, the proper thing would be to remove him to somewhere 'safe' where he didn't have access to anything that might be used as a weapon (and innocent others on which to use them). i.e., involuntary commitment.

          And yes, that would have required his roommates to have been cognizant of his mental issues and aware that he was dangerously close to full-on psychosis. It shouldn't have been their job, but if they had been cognizant/aware they'd probably still be alive. So would the others Rodger killed.

          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

          by Joieau on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:15:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  One roommate had already complained to his (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Penny GC, Joieau

            parents and wanted to move out...

            http://www.nbcbayarea.com/...

            I'm not aware of the type(s) of knife/knives he used to murder the young men in his apartment, perhaps they were common kitchen knives, but if not, the police could have confiscated them...

            Baby, where I come from...

            by ThatSinger on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:25:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As part of an arsenal, of course. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ThatSinger

              Along with the pistol-action short-bolt crossbow, the Samurai swords, the Hobbit dwarf axe, and the SuperExtra Voltage stun gun from BudK disguised as a flashlight... §;o)

              There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

              by Joieau on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:43:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Black Sheep: Won't Work, Not Enough, Nothing ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, BlackSheep1

      ... left to try. All those arguments take options off the table and members of the public who are are left with nothing at all.

      Surely, we can do better - and are worth more - than nothing.

      2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:11:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't say it wouldn't work (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        just another vet

        Said we need to put teeth behind the paper.

        Ever answered a domestic disturbance call as a cop (yeah; those are the nastiest calls we ever rolled on, because if you managed to stop them fighting nine times out of ten they'd both turn on you, the cop) or EMT?

        Ever had to knock a knot on a pimp's head to get him to quit beating one of "his girls" 'cause "she didn't get me enough money tonight"? (I saw that arrest -- that SOB made bail in an hour, just like he bragged he would, in 1986. The girl spent three days in the hospital. The county judge gave the deputy a warning about excessive force, 'cause the pimp had a knot on his head when he got to the jail...)

        Ever worked in a women's shelter?

        Ever escorted somebody to a Planned Parenthood clinic?

        How about (and I've done this myself as a civilian over 40) sat in the booth next to somebody too scared to go meet her ex in a restaurant to get her child support check, because he might hurt her or her kids, without backup? The weapon I carried that day (well, ok, other than my attitude and the knife I never go anywhere without) was a cellphone.

        Cops are limited in how far they can go to prevent rampages, because the badge and the regs limit them. Usually that's not necessarily a bad thing, but when it is a bad thing, it's a gods-help-us-all bad thing for the person who needed 'em on-scene five minutes ago.

        I can't fix it, and I sure can't fix it by myself. But we all have to step up or it's gonna get worse....

        there aren't enough cops, and not enough good cops even more so, or nobody'd ever have heard of Amadou Diallo or Oscar Grant. We don't treat cops and firefighters like we think they do good work; look around at how they're commented on here at Daily Kos. Nothing's ever said about a cop who's NOT abusive, here....

        And you know what? Big money likes it this way.

        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 02:38:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Current lousy enforcement is another problem (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlackSheep1, PinHole

      that should be addressed.

      We should be demanding that police/Sherrif's actually serve the PO and compel temporary surrender of all firearms. Of course that will take money and time and manpower that most don't want to pay for.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:21:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and by most, I understand you to mean (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, PinHole

        politicians and incumbents and the Gee O Pee, especially.

        With which I agree.

        Taxes are the tickets we buy for admission to civilization....

        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:18:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This sounds good but a question (8+ / 0-)

    did anyone know that the UCSB shooter had a gun?  I have not read where the mother or Psychiatrist knew he had a gun(s).  Whose responsibility would it be to identify if the disturbed person has a weapon and how far will law enforcement be allowed to "search" for a gun and what happens if the search turns up something other than a gun that could be illegal.

    I'm not nay-saying but I'm trying to figure out how this all works - and would there be a penalty if it's a "false call" meaning a family member was pissed and figured this would be a good way to put someone through a bunch of red-tape and embarrassment (not that any family member would ever do that.......).

    It's seems reasonable but I don't think the application will be so simple - it needs to be well thought out.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:28:10 AM PDT

    •  His parents probably did (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo

      They're the ones who paid his credit card bills.  My understanding is that he didn't have a job or any income of his own.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:51:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He was given lots of money over time, ... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SoCalSal, wader, Mr MadAsHell, PinHole

        from which he was able to save out over $5,000 in cash.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:58:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        Read his manifesto.  Accuracy matters.  This new law would not have stopped this crime.  No one new he had his guns.  His father sent him $500 per month and over time, he used that money to purchase his 3 weapons.  I'm assuming the knife, too.  The last weapon, the car, was purchased used by the mother.

        •  Why can't interviews include searches when ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Penny GC, LilithGardener

          ... behavior that warrants them is reported to law enforcement?

          Yes, that suggestion begs the question - and this whole area of reporting aberrant behavior can be misused as a sword - but sentient law enforcement should be alert to possibilities.

          During the interview based on a sensible report, police can ask, "Do you mind if we look around?" If the answer is No, a warrant can be a phone call away.

          2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:20:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, due process is part of the reason (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Angryallen, LilithGardener

            I'd bet that one opens up all kinds of 4th amendment issues.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:56:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps, but warrants are issued all the time ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              ... based on "facts and circumstances" from various sources deemed reliable. And they can be granted quickly. Essentially, it takes the cops off the hook and puts a judge on the spot. Usually, an unfruitful warrant makes no difference if searches are conducted reasonably.

              I'm no expert in criminal law nor on California practice, but the parents' alert flags, past reports, a long history of psychiatric treatment and evasive behavior during an interview - all these amount to alerts.

              True, liberality in searches can be abused by officious cops, faulty reports, etc. And you can point out Rodger had the guns legally, 400 rounds of ammo isn't an unreasonable amount, etc. Like a lot of cases, there needs to be judgment here, and it may not have paid off. But I think the description - such as it was - of the police interview with Rodger a week or two before the shootings sounds pretty shallow, based on what they knew going into it.

              2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Wed May 28, 2014 at 02:10:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  In California, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          all firearm sales are recorded by the state.  Private sales have to go through a licensed dealer.  You can't buy a gun without passing a written test and getting a Handgun Safety Certificate.  So, certainly the state knew he had guns.

          •  Sure do (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            Says a lot about the cops.  They were face to face with him.....and did nothing.  This new proposed law gets us to this scenario.  Family member complains.  Then it's up to the police to investigate.  They did.  What would be different, now?

        •  Well doesn't Calif have gun registration? (0+ / 0-)

          Not sure how they are set up but if relatives expressed concern and they had a computerized registration they could easily see if he owned any guns whether anybody knew about it or not.

    •  When someone is suicidal (0+ / 0-)

      there is reasonable cause to ask about and search/sweep a home and vehicle in order to remove lethal means.

      I'm neither a lawyer nor a cop and don't know where the legal boundary is.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:28:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the last legal owner of the gun should be liable (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NewtC

      Somebody somewhere manufactured that gun.

      Then they gave it to someone who distributed it to a retailer.

      Then than retailer sold it to someone.

      Then that owner perhaps sold it to someone else, etc.

      And finally the last owner allowed the shooter to have possession of it.

      Put the liability on the manufacturer and only allow it to be removed if they can PROVE that they transferred possession to someone else of sound mind, legally permitted to own it and in possession of several million dollars of liability insurance.

      If those profiting from the distribution were held accountable, your question would likely be moot in the future, since the market would prevent guns from being given to people prone to commit mass murder.  And in the rare case where such tragedies did happen, at least the families would receive some meaningful compensation, putting the bad actors out of business along the way.

      •  I agree with this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JMcDonald

        I always thought there should be the same regulations for private owner sales as there is for retail sales - there has to be guidelines and a process to be followed that would ultimately allow no recourse on the seller.  It would spurn a business for sales facilitators who you could have perform the procedure (for a % or flat fee) - facilitators would have to be licensed and insured and if so, any and all liability are transferred to the facilitator.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Thu May 29, 2014 at 03:37:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Great news! (11+ / 0-)

    A step in the right direction.

    Then again, the corruption of some Dem candidates is pathetic.

    Case in point, CA Senator Rod Wright, was endorsed by the Democratic party in the last primaries when I supported Paul Butterfield because Rod Wright was one of the 6 senators who scuttled Single Payer SB-810 in 2012.  He received a lot insurance company money.

    He received the NRA highest rating also.  And I assume NRA $$$.

    Recently I also found out that Senator Wright receives more "dirty energy" contributions than any other politician in California.  (his district lies on top of one of the fracking battlegrounds in Los Angeles).

    But he got the endorsement of the Democratic party.  I am all for better Dems but I dont't see much courage in general in the California Democratic party.  Starting with Governor Brown.  

    This kind of "more" Democrat I can do without big time.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:28:38 AM PDT

  •  Courageous? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i saw an old tree today, wader

    I don't think this is courageous at all.

    They aren't proposing ANY regulation that would ban assault weapons, high capacity ammo or magazines, etc.

    All they are proposing is way for family members to report potentially dangerous behavior to police?  Can't we do that now?  This latest murderer was reported by family and was investigated by police.  In fact, he had ALREADY bought the guns by then.  Even if this law were in place weeks ago, it would have made no difference.

    Sorry, but this is weak.  Show me some REAL legislation proposed by a politician willing to fight for common sense restrictions, then I might call it courageous.

    This looks to me like just another lame attempt from politicians too scared to propose some REAL change.

    •  California already has high-capacity ammo bans (8+ / 0-)

      we have some of the toughest laws in the nation on that front. Can't have more than 10 rounds.

      •  OK then explain to me (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today

        how this proposal is "courageous".

      •  Yet (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today, wader

        He had semi-automatic handguns and over 400 rounds.

        And a phone call to the cops from his parents did nothing to stop him from using them.

        •  that's the point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Penny GC

          with this law they would have been able to get an enforceable restraining order

          •  I'm not sure I follow it myself. (0+ / 0-)

            No one knew he had the guns. By the time everyone knew he might become violent, he already had guns and ammo that no one knew about.

            So, what would a restraining order do?

            What would have worked is an "evaluation of public safety" (or other name) custody period, where an allegedly unstable person is taken into police custody and their residence checked for weapons or bombs, etc.

            A restraining order to prevent him from buying or having guns wouldn't have done much without everyone (or someone) knowing there were guns already.  

            I may be missing something. I fully admit that I have not been able to keep up with this case due to medical issues. If I have missed something, explanations would be appreciated.
            Thanks.

            "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

            by YucatanMan on Wed May 28, 2014 at 02:58:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  To be effective a Temp Restraining Order (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan

              needs to be served on the party and there needs to be immediate surrender of any/all firearms. That would mean accounting for all the guns on record with the state AND searching the residence, the vehicle, and any other places where the person has a locker or closet that could be used to hide a firearm. E.g. a locker at a gym, etc.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:37:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  which is not the reinstatement (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader

        of the assault weapons ban nor the proposal in the Democratic party platform, as I understand it, texh has a point

    •  Educate yourself. (3+ / 0-)

      California already has all of that jazz: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      None of it helped. This would have.

      •  He had semi-automatice handguns (6+ / 0-)

        and over 400 rounds of ammo.

        Current CA law allows all that, doesn't it? It also allows assault weapons if acquired before a certain year, it allows  many high caliber bullets, and it allows lots and lots of ammo as long as it comes in magazines <=10.   It seems that what we are claiming as "restrictive" gun laws, aren't very restrictive are they?  To me, courage would be calling out that fact.

        Oh, and his parents did report him.  The police investigated him a month ago.

        How would this law have made a difference?

    •  This would have helped presumably (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catwho, Smoh, wader, JVolvo, Penny GC, kfunk937

      The putz went to a gun dealer apparently. If they were forced to respect a background check/mental health watchlist system maybe this would have been effective.

      Mind you, from the manifesto, it is not clear whether his parents detected such an issue of violence before he got the guns. If the idiot had been caught with his petty assaults of couples with various and sundry drinks, if the parents had been notified or were aware, that could've gotten him into the system.

      This putz was being monitored by his parents to some extent though, and they had therapists and help for him. So maybe that alone could've gotten him into the registry under the framework of the proposed bill.

      •  They are foreced (0+ / 0-)

        to respect a background check. It is a weak-ass background check, but he did pass it and buy the guns legally.

        Again, my point is that this proposal is not courageous at all.  Show me a politician fighting for comprehensive, universal background checks, then I will be impressed.

      •  Wait (0+ / 0-)

        Are you saying that a person should be labeled mentally unstable/dangerous (for life) for throwing a beverage at someone?

        •  On repeated occasions, in fact. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Penny GC, Mr Horrible, kfunk937

          It wasn't even a one-off incident, and he also upped the number of people he doused in later incidents. Then, of course, he graduated to attempting to push women off of a 10-foot ledge.

          Someone with poor impulse control like that and no sense of proportion should be kept far, far away from deadly weapons.

      •  He went to three different dealers in (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs, PinHole

        three different cities for each of his guns.

        My understanding is that the violent manifestos he began posting happened after he purchased the guns - which makes sense, since he wrote about how "empowered" he felt once he had them.

        Given that the parents were giving him cash allowances, they wouldn't have known about the guns.  So, up until the time he started posting, the only people who knew he had them were himself, and the three dealers.

        "The truest measure of compassion lies not in our service of those on the margins, but in our willingness to see ourselves in kinship with them." Father Gregory Boyle, Homeboy Industries

        by Mr MadAsHell on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:16:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's much more constructive than an 'assault' ban (0+ / 0-)

      which at least one manufacturer has gotten, simply by taking off a few cosmetic items from a rifle.

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:21:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe this law gives a little extra (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC, YucatanMan

      power to search for guns and not just stand at the door and decide the person was "nice and polite".  When the order is given, any weapons can be seized.  

      If this man's weapons were taken during the police visit to his apartment, no dead people.

      Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

      by PsychoSavannah on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:50:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

        Do we really want to have police searching homes based on suspicions of family members or friends?

        This proposal has a lot of problems and won't do much to solve anything, I'm afraid.

        As I've said all through this thread, this is a lot of things, but courageous is not one of them.

        •  Yes, most of us DO. It's time we just stop (4+ / 0-)

          saying "no one could have predicted", "you never know when this kind of thing will happen", blah, blah, blah.....then finding out that lots of people knew the person was in crisis and had no way to DO anything....22 years old for the last one.  Mom and Dad had no legal way to commit him.  Obviously, his therapistS did not put his name on any "may not purchase weapons" database.....because no COURT had said he was unstable.

          Too many people have too many damn obstacles to overcome to stop these kinds of things.  One will be removed with the passage of this law.

          And you know what?  I don't give a flying fuck on Dumbo's ears if a few people get inconvenienced by this new law.  They will still be alive, which is a lot more than can be said of the victims of the spree killers.

          Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

          by PsychoSavannah on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:14:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

            I for one am glad the police can't search my house, your house, or anyone's house based on a phone call from a family member or friend.

            It's a major founding principle of our country and constitution and I don't want to live in a time where our right against random searches and seizures is taken away from us.  We just keep giving up more and more of that right, and that should scare you, not please you.

            There are better (and more courageous) ways to do this.

            •  Who said it's just a phone call? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Penny GC

              Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

              by PsychoSavannah on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:31:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  From the press release (0+ / 0-)
                The proposed legislation would create a gun violence restraining order, establishing a system where concerned family members, intimate partners or friends can notify law enforcement of someone who is demonstrating a propensity to commit violence toward themselves or others.

                “When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more," Skinner said. “Parents, like the mother who tried to intervene, deserve an effective tool they can act on to help prevent these tragedies."

                •  Says absolutely nothing about one phone call (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PinHole

                  Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

                  by PsychoSavannah on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:59:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It says absolutely nothing (0+ / 0-)

                    about the notification process.  How do you think the parents, friends, or family members will notify authorities?  A notarized letter?  A fax?  Or perhaps a phone call?

                    It also says NOTHING about any due process to insure this "notification" triggering all kinds of legal action doesn't stomp all over our constitutional rights.

                    This is like the left's version of the shock doctrine.  We can't let this tragedy lead to laws that restrict rights, with little to no due process, while not doing much to solve the problem.

                    As I've said over and over, there are better ways to do this.  

                    •  You've not put forward any ideas (0+ / 0-)

                      Of course, I haven't read all of your posts, but the ones I saw were "this is not courageous" and that's it.  You can say that over and over, but without any ideas, your comments add little to the discussion about solutions.

                      This law is concrete action.

                      And it seems to me that you don't just call the police station and get a restraining order of any kind....at least I was never able to do that.  Don't see how this kind of restraining order would be different.

                      Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

                      by PsychoSavannah on Wed May 28, 2014 at 03:05:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  This is a discussion (0+ / 0-)

                        on this particular solution.  One which the diarist claims is "courageous". The diarist never asked for better ideas, he seems to think this one is great.   I disagree.

                        And it seems to me that restraining orders have never been very effective.  Neither will this law.

                        You said you read some of my posts, but you apparently missed the ones where I said calls for certain weapons bans, restrictions on ammo, and comprehensive, UNIVERSAL background checks would be more courageous than this political fluff.

            •  The police can certianly search your house (0+ / 0-)

              based upon a phone call.

              Try this, call the police and tell them that you hear your neighbor screaming "help" and see what happens.  Or call the police and say that your best friend has just called and told you he is planning on killing himself and see what happens.

              The police just need probable cause.  I would suggest suicidal or violent threats would meet the probable cause thresh hold.

      •  Searches based on what? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Petered

        The family had no idea he had firearms, according to his manifesto.  So, if a family member reported unstable behavior to the police, you'd be in favor of searches 100% of the time, just in case someone has a weapon?

    •  For instance? (0+ / 0-)

      What courageous changes?

  •  The NRA will NOT like this legislation (4+ / 0-)

    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

    by fcvaguy on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:52:50 AM PDT

  •  I think it is good to keep these numbers in mind (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, SoCalSal, JVolvo, Penny GC

    http://www.fbi.gov/...

    2/3rds all homicides, according to the FBI, are by guns. 1/2 are by handguns.

    "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure" - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100, dissenting; opinion

    by HugoDog on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:54:37 AM PDT

  •  I like the idea! nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i saw an old tree today, Smoh

    Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:54:57 AM PDT

  •  of course california is taking action (5+ / 0-)

    california is a leader, not a follower. I expect states in which democrats are in control to take action. the others, not so much. the nra has a stranglehold on red states, and nothing will happen.

  •  NRA should support this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC

    As they are so very concerned with the mental well-being of the USA populace, particularly those own guns or have access to them.

    I won't hold my breath.

    Seems like constructive legislation. Obviously, the Devil's in the details...But it seems much more constructive, useful and potentially effective then some other feel-good legislation that has been proposed in the wake of other tragedies.

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:24:58 AM PDT

  •  Richard Martinez is the one who will (9+ / 0-)

    make the difference. I just feel it. This man will not take any sh*t from anyone. It is so unbelievably cruel what he is going through, what he has lost - it's hard to fathom. I believe he will be the one who hangs on and won't let up.

    Richard - How can I help?

  •  Your last paragraph negates much of the value of (0+ / 0-)

    what you said.  Misrepresenting those who disagree with you never wins.

    Let this also be a lesson to the cynics who think both parties are alike, that voting doesn't matter, and that the inside game of politics is worthless. Both Das Williams and Hannah-Beth Jackson faced Democratic primaries from more centrist opponents when they came into office. Many of us worked hard to help make sure the more progressive candidates won. That work mattered, and will make a real difference to help prevent the next tragedy because we have good progressive Democrats in office who are willing to stand up for what's right.
    Many of us have worked hard along with you KNOWING the limited value of elections in the big picture.  Both parties are part of the ugly oligarchy and they help keep it in power.  If you are too naive to understand that at least do not malign those who do.

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:35:06 AM PDT

  •  Actually, legislative courage would have been (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, Penny GC, nominalize

    to have passed this bill years ago. However, I'm still happy to see Skinner has introduced this legislation. It's just a small step, but at least it's a step. Skinner's local stands have been appallingly 1%er- developer-friendly - she's played her appointed role in the Tom Bates machine - but this is a good step and I'm happy to have my rep introduce it.

  •  No one says voting doesn't matter except those (0+ / 0-)

    who need a strawman to replace the sincere criticism that would be otherwise difficult to explain.

    I am very critical and yet I have never said 'don't vote' nor have I ever seen anyone else that wasn't some random troll make such a claim.

    I only see 'voting doesn't matter' in diaries like yours, where everyone who posts from a critical stand point almost always says something like 'for all their faults they are still better than repubs'. The parties are not exactly alike, they just aren't different enough in a number of important areas.

    I don't know if you are sincere (actually I do, but for the sake of argument) or just trying to marginalize the critics.

    So I sincerely ask you to link examples of people saying not to vote. Otherwise you are being as much a tool as someone who actually said don't vote.

    And for the record writing a bill is not that brave when you are a legislator, because writing bills is just your job. Not to mention the state is pretty much a Dem lock so what is so brave about it?

    If we are going to pretend to be reality based then I am going expect it from both sides.

    Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:38:56 AM PDT

  •  California's restrictions are insufficient. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr Horrible, nominalize

    We need far more comprehensive gun control than what anyone has so far attempted to pass.

    As a start:

    1) Absolute prohibition of any handgun at all.
    2) Absolute prohibition of any semi-automatic long arm.
    2a) Manual-action repeating arms with a magazine capacity of 5 rounds or less will be permitted. Exceptions for historical or antique weapons or other sporting or defensive arms in common use may be applied for on a case by case basis; until such exceptions are granted non-compliant weapons shall be surrendered to and safeguarded by local law enforcement. Upon denial such weapons shall be destroyed, upon grant they shall be returned to their original owner subject to such restrictions as the issuing officials shall deem necessary.

    3) 45-day grace period to surrender any currently in possession. After that, possession would be a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or on probation, a second offense would earn life without parole.

    4) Licensing to own a firearm would require 160 hours of state-approved training and a minimum application fee of $1000, adjusted for inflation.

    5) Weapons would be limited to a muzzle energy of 1 kilojoule - that's roughly a .357 Magnum or similar, plenty for any sort of medium game. An upgraded permit would be available for big-game rounds, requiring further training, up to a maximum of 6.5 kilojoules. No rounds of greater than 10mm diameter will be permitted in any case.

    6) No person may possess more than 100 rounds of ammunition under any circumstances. Possession of more is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 12 months in county jail and a fine of up to $2000. Second offense will constitute a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

    7) Permits must be renewed annually. Failure to do so in a timely manner will result in a warrant being issued for the seizure of the permit holder's firearms.

    8) Guns will be stored in approved security containers which must be rated to resist both forced and surreptitious entry. One such security container may be equipped with a quick-access lock using a key or biometric or cryptographic authentication to permit rapid access for self-defense.

    9) Gun owners will be subject to unannounced inspections by law enforcement, for which judges shall issue search warrants unless due cause exists to deny. Should failure to store weapons in accordance with the law be discovered, the owner shall be arrested and charged with a felony punishable by up to two years in prison, their permit shall be permanently revoked and all weapons shall be confiscated and destroyed. All adults residing in the same location shall be jointly and severally liable for violations under a standard of strict liability. The only applicable defense shall be lack of knowledge which shall serve only to mitigate the offense to a misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail.

    10) Gun owners shall be subject to periodic mental health audits. Auditors shall have the authority to initiate involuntary civil commitment proceedings.

    11) Authority to revoke permits shall rest with the Governor or his duly appointed agent. Should a permit be revoked, for whatever reason, law enforcement shall confiscate all weapons in the possession of the former permit holder by any means necessary.

    •  Omitted a point (0+ / 0-)

      Forgot one -

      4a) The permit granting process shall include an extensive and comprehensive background investigation to include political activities, work history, criminal history, health history, personal contacts, interviews with friends and family and periodic reinvestigations. Should be similar to holding a security clearance.

      4b) A further permit shall be issued for the purchase of a single qualifying firearm upon demonstration of possession of appropriate security containers. Further purchase permits may issue upon adequate demonstration of need if and only if, in the sole judgement of the granting authority, there is sufficient cause to authorize additional purchases. Denials shall not be subject to appeal. No more than one purchase permit per year shall be issued for a given person except with the express authorization of the Governor. Following a denial, no purchase permit application may be submitted for at least 90 days.

      4c) More than three purchases in any four-year period shall trigger a mandatory mental health audit at the applicant's expense to a maximum of $10000 adjusted for inflation. Costs beyond this shall be borne by the state unless there is evidence of incapacity or criminal wrongdoing.

      •  Hmm, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Prognosticator, a2nite

        no. I am all for regulation but no. Life sentences? Really? Of course the private prison industry would like this, but no. Unannounced searches? People who didn't even know about them getting 6 months? You sure seem to like stripping people of their right to vote what with all of the felons you want to create.

        Pardon me, but your authoritarian slip is showing.

        "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

        by just another vet on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:16:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would a lesser penalty suffice? (0+ / 0-)

          I'd prefer not to revoke voting privileges, but that's an unfortunate side effect of how our penal system is structured. Pretty much any crime punishable by more than 12 months is considered a felony, and the penalty would probably need to be quite severe to ensure compliance.

          I could be wrong, here. Maybe it'd be possible to enforce with just confiscations, fines and administrative action. That would surely be preferable, in the general case. But I worry that people would be inclined to flout the law if they were not faced with severe consequences for non-compliance.

          •  Well, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Penny GC, a2nite

            that is something that needs work. I support registration, training, things like that. But you lost me on the incarceration. I want less Americans in prison, not more.

            We don't have a real data base showing who owns what now, so I am a little concerned about we find out who has them. Mandatory searches is just too authoritarian for me. Maybe others here disagree. But I do think registration and licensing are both good ideas. As to the rest of your list, I really need to chew on it for a while.

            "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

            by just another vet on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:35:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't like the idea of (0+ / 0-)

              door-to-door searches either, at least, not for everyone. The idea is that after the turn-in grace period, anyone caught with a gun that they don't have a permit for is in serious cowpoop and will never legally own another one. Perhaps it would make sense to have a yearly amnesty day where you could surrender any illegal or questionable guns, no questions asked.

              The inspections for permit holders are mostly meant as a hedge against future Adam Lanzas, so that everyone living in a house would be aggressively vigilant about making sure that their guns are locked up and the safes they're locked in are strong and difficult to steal. (I'd stop short of requiring them to be bolted to the foundation or frame because of rental homes, apartments and the like)

              In order to still comply with the Second Amendment (), the initial permit would be granted on a shall-issue basis once the requirements are met, but the requirements would be extensive enough to require a serious commitment of time and funds.

              () - wantonly flouting the constitution would be a bad precedent, so it might be necessary to repeal the 2A and replace it with something guaranteeing a reasonable qualified right to self-defense and prohibiting the total prohibition of weapons while allowing regulation and enforcement.

              •  There are enough guns flying around in stores, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                restaurants, and public highways, to keep everyone busy for a long long time before they go door to door.

                GunFAIL

                Gun Crazy USA

              •  One example of a revision of the 2nd A. (0+ / 0-)

                Comes from our neighbors to the south, in Article 10 of their Constitution:

                The inhabitants of the United Mexican States are entitled to have arms of any kind in their possession for their protection and legitimate defense, except such as are expressly forbidden by law, or which the nation may reserve for the exclusive use of the army, navy, or national guard; but they may not carry arms within inhabited places without complying with police regulations.
                Which is basically what our 2nd Amendment says, after the Supreme Court's interpretations.  

                Nobody deserves poverty.

                by nominalize on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:08:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  C'mon guys, nobody's talking about banning guns. (0+ / 0-)

      Well, at least not 100% of them.

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:00:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Neither am I. (0+ / 0-)

        What I'm suggesting is that ownership should be restricted to those of good legal standing and of sound mind and body, and should be limited to those arms reasonably useful for hunting, target shooting and home defense (against violent assault, not mere trespassing).

        Something like a Mauser Gewehr 98 was sufficient for the German Army, and it would be legal under this scheme too, albeit only with a big-game license. The standard sorts of weapons I'd expect would be simple .22LR bolt-actions for target shooting and small game hunting and possibly .357 Magnum lever-action carbines for medium game and home defense. The energy limits pretty much rule out shotguns except .410 bore, except for big-game hunters.

        The strict requirements are there to ensure that people who are likely to go on a violent rampage are disarmed and, if necessary, deleted from society before they can cause harm. The fees also place a sufficient burden to ensure that only those who have given serious thought and consideration to their decision will be able to acquire weapons. It won't be something you do on a whim, unless you have a few tens of thousands in expendable cash.

        •  Deleted from society? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm getting a little creeped out here.

          "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

          by just another vet on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:18:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Deleted" was probably too harsh a word. (0+ / 0-)

            I meant essentially removed or isolated, not killed. Someone with violent tendencies needs to be kept away from others to prevent atrocities. That decision could be revisited at a later time if they cease to be violent.

            Obviously, the isolation would have to be fairly comfortable, though, or we risk making an already unstable person far worse. But, the stakes are very high, and an incarcerated person can be freed and compensated, while a dead one cannot be revived.

            •  A little. (0+ / 0-)

              I think getting people the help they need is always a good thing. How we go about it I will leave up to those more qualified in that field than myself.

              "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

              by just another vet on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:37:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There are shortages of everything except assholes (0+ / 0-)

              I hate to let my monarchism show, but I think "delete" is fine.

              Focus on the love! The Republicans can keep the disco.

              by Mr Horrible on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:50:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I'm still for creating an ammo tax. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr MadAsHell, PinHole, JMcDonald

    You can buy all the guns you want but Uncle Sam is going to put a massive tax on bullets, the revenue from which will go to support hospitals and victims.  

    "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

    by Reepicheep on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:16:52 PM PDT

  •  Finally, somethign that sounds sensible (0+ / 0-)

    Instead of all the bullshit gun control like magazine limits, registration, insurance, bans on certain fire arms.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:40:51 PM PDT

  •  Read a very interesting piece... (0+ / 0-)

    by pick-up artist Mark Manson about the shooting.  Don't agree with everything he wrote, but he raised some interesting points, which made me go look stuff up.

    For instance, there's been talk of how mass shooters are almost always white.  But did you know that when it comes to school shootings at a university, the three deadliest ones in the 21st century in the U.S. were committed by two Asian guys, and now a half-Asian guy?  What does that say, if anything?

    And what does it say that almost nobody in this country even remembers the second one of the three?  Most of you are probably also confused by which shooting I'm referring to.

  •  Interesting idea (0+ / 0-)

    and well meaning, I'm sure.

    Not going to pass muster, though. First, the idea that someone can just call the cops and say I feel threatened is enough to investigate, but not enough to take away property.

    Mental health issues need to be entered into the system early, and always be considered when it comes to buying and owning weapons.

    There is so much wrong with what we're doing I don't know where to start.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Wed May 28, 2014 at 02:04:43 PM PDT

  •  Hannah Beth and Das Williams are terrific (0+ / 0-)

    proud to have voted for them them and volunteered as well.

    But I am not impressed that this simple legal device was not done many years ago and widely, c'mon, how hard is this to imagine?

    Yes indeed, there are civil liberties issues as well but judges and legislators should have done those long ago!

    As a taxpayer I am constantly amazed at the lack of substance from paid judges, legislators, and elected officials, including county sheriffs.

    This better pass and be implemented  because whoever blocks it with their bullshit will be seriously politically damaged if they do.
    This man's case was a known problem, that there was not apparently the slightest linkage to his officially approved legal gun purchases is ridiculous and negligent. Oh look, another good deal just appeared on my screen from something I looked at a few minutes ago....

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:24:39 PM PDT

  •  America needs to make it a lot harder (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PinHole, Miss Jones, nominalize

    To buy any gun that isn't specifically designed for self-defence or for hunting for food.

    As soon as you permit individuals to purchase guns that are meant for military or aggressive actions then you are going to have these tragedies.

    There should also be ironclad restrictions on licensing and training requirements. Yeah, I live in Canada, but people in America have to get a dose of reality before they need to hire a private army to protect themselves from everyone else.....

    the future begins

    by zozie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:52:42 PM PDT

  •  Great diary (0+ / 0-)

    I'm in California and very proud to read this.  And good for you for challenging Gorell to step up to the plate.

    3 guys walk into a bar. The fourth one ducks.

    by penelope pnortney on Thu May 29, 2014 at 12:54:39 AM PDT

  •  Gun should be banned. (0+ / 0-)

    Guns should be banned.

    There are 30,000 gun deaths in the United States every year, most of which are not homicides, but accidents or suicides.

    I find the NRA and gun owners' claims of needing and using guns for self-defense to be exaggerated beyond belief.

    No guns in society means that criminals will also have a much harder time getting them. And thousands of would-be suicides and accidental deaths would be avoided.

    •  But how many people are killed or injured in other (0+ / 0-)

      ways?  Why is it that more people are injured by frying pans and knives than guns, but we are not compaigning to end people owning them?  More people are injured by air bags in cars, but every time that is pointed out, some idiot says we are safer with them.

       Let's solve the problems of the people who do stupid things and quit focusing on the items they use.

  •  GEE, WHAT ARROGANT COWARDYYLNESS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ppiklapp

    WHILE WE ARE AT IT LET'S DISARM THE POLICE WHO are killing unarmed innocent people constantly, as well as our military. We could call it "Solders without Guns".
    Then think we should build 50 steel reinforced castles instead of homes And t high walls everywhere so the cowards can feel safe.

    I think you folk's who want to ban guns, should also ban knives, swords, baseball bats, frying pans, insecticides, darts, poisons of every sort, golf clubs, tigers and  lions and bears (OH MY!)

    In my life before and after military service, I never fired a shot at anyone and I do not hunt, but because my grandad owned guns, between the two of us, with confident use of firearms we saved one girl from raped, 3 groups from robbing and worse our homes, and a lunatic with a shot gun. In all we saved 3 women from rape, and as many as 8 more people from possible death, which we could not have done sans guns. Yeah give up your guns and soon the criminals will be the only people armed aside from the police who seem to love killing unarmed people.

    If I were as dull and afraid of everyone as some of you I would indeed build a giant stone castle and never leave it.

    In every study we have studied, cities of well armed citizens had the least crime by far.

  •  New (0+ / 0-)

    Sensible tool for alerting law enforcement of a pending mass shooting. One state at a time and one inch at a tie so we can all live together.

  •  Legislation (0+ / 0-)

    This is excellent legislation, exactly what is needed.

  •  So let me get this straight (0+ / 0-)

    If I want someone to be forced to give up their guns, all I have to do is go crying to the police and with no proof what so ever, they will go confiscate the guns.  BAD LAW!!!!!

  •  What legislative courage on gun control looks like (0+ / 0-)

     WE DO NOT NEED GUN CONTROL LAWS. WHAT WE NEED ARE LAWS TO CONTROL PEOPLE WITH GUNS.

     RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THESE SUGGESTIONS:

     It is my belief that we do need additional Laws and Controls on "People with Guns" and I recommend the following: NOTE there is no removal of any Gun from any Individual.

     1.] Mental and Physical [eye] testing of the individual who is applying to get Gun Ownership.

     2.] Mandatory “Gun Handling Classes.” With Mandatory Requirements set to “Pass.”

    3.] Mandatory “Gun Shooting Classes.” With Mandatory Requirements set to “Pass.”

    4.] Mandatory “Gun Instructor Training Classes” to be developed by and taught by members of the ATF. With Mandatory Requirements set to “Pass.”

    5.] Mandatory re-evaluation of all “Gun Instructors” every 4 years. To be performed by the ATF.

     6.] Mandatory re-evaluation of all Individual Carry Permits every 4 years, by local Police Departments.

     7.] Law that would Mandatorily require that there be a Ballistics Test of every weapon Manufactured or Imported in to United States of America on file with the ATF. The Ballistics Test would be associated directly to a specific Weapon and Serial Number. The various Police Departments could have the Bullet that they have which was involved in a crime compared to the Data Base.

     8] Mandatory “Electronic Trigger Locks” that only the Owner can use.

     9.] Mandatory requirement that every Gun Owner must have a Metal and Self-Locking Gun Vault.

     10.] Mandatory Requirement that NO weapon can hold more than 7 Cartridges.

     11.] Mandatory Requirement that NO Magazine, Clip or Canister hold more than 7 Cartridges.

     12.] Mandatory Requirement that NO Owner possesses more than two Magazines, Clips or Canisters.

     13.] Mandatory requirement that every Gun Owner be required to have the same minimum Liability Insurance Coverage on their guns as they are required to have on an automobile in the State in which they reside.
     THESE WERE WRITTEN AND PROPOSED BY THEODORE ZIOLKOWSKI.

  •  Is NRA accessory? (0+ / 0-)

    Accessory definition: "A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support."

  •  My granddaddy told me that my car is no differe... (0+ / 0-)

    My granddaddy told me that my car is no different than a loaded gun. I choose to drive a car, and I suppose I could also choose to take public transportation. Because of my choice to drive a car my government insists that I pay taxes on my car, carry insurance in case I should harm myself or anyone else, have a license identifying who I am at all times when I am driving a car and show some sort of competency and ability to operate a vehicle. I don't find this terribly burdensome in the least bit and am happy to comply for the privilege and luxury of driving a car. I don't suppose that if I were to decide to own another lethal weapon, such as a gun, that it is too far a stretch for my imagination that the requirements of me for operating my vehicle would somehow also apply. I'm surprised that the insurance industry and legal system hasn't latched on to gun lobby efforts. It would be just a little bit better knowing that a gun owner is competent, identifiable and is able to sufficiently compensate anyone harmed as a result of the operation of their lethal weapon just as anyone else with lethal weapons such as cars. And the tax money recieved from the gun carriers and owners couldn't hurt.

Meteor Blades, Pat K California, Thumb, RakDaddy, Sylv, Bill in Portland Maine, oofer, hester, Trendar, Gooserock, Emerson, karlpk, Shockwave, Fabienne, just another vet, cotterperson, eeff, dsb, emelyn, jancw, niemann, workersuntie, 88kathy, whenwego, otto, ivote2004, vmckimmey, fumie, Iberian, Everbody, wader, Texknight, tidalwave1, psnyder, Miss Jones, pat bunny, ranger995, Steven Payne, papercut, eodell, Will Rockafellow, lcrp, zerelda, WisVoter, Steven D, sbg, Frank Vyan Walton, oortdust, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, rapala, marina, ichibon, chimene, Technowitch, basquebob, dewtx, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, fixxit, majcmb1, HugoDog, Inland, Burned, Ice Blue, Steve in Urbana, PinHole, SBandini, Ginny in CO, FindingMyVoice, peacestpete, Alan Arizona, We Shall Overcome, ThatSinger, begone, Mother Mags, cybersaur, tobendaro, Yellow Canary, cookseytalbott, AoT, Rosaura, SadieSue, JVolvo, doinaheckuvanutjob, middleagedhousewife, Turbonerd, onionjim, IL clb, CA Nana, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, BB10, Stripe, blueoregon, kurt, Ian Reifowitz, crystal eyes, Mr Horrible, nhox42, AllanTBG, BentLiberal, GoldnI, pat of butter in a sea of grits, FoundingFatherDAR, john07801, Ken in MN, bvljac, peagreen, Loudoun County Dem, camlbacker, gloriana, EdSF, LillithMc, Matt Z, HCKAD, jayden, wilderness voice, SeaTurtle, jnhobbs, carpunder, RudiB, Timmethy, Assaf, keyscritter, TomP, fb, sand805, mconvente, BobBlueMass, MikePhoenix, mamamedusa, Sixty Something, Youffraita, cindymutti, Involuntary Exile, Laughing Vergil, jamess, mikeconwell, Lujane, tofumagoo, boatjones, Jeff Y, mofembot, petulans, BYw, GrannyOPhilly, oldliberal, legendmn, maggiejean, pileta, LinSea, don mikulecky, dRefractor, papahaha, hyper, kevinpdx, sfarkash, commonmass, FogCityJohn, serendipityisabitch, gramofsam1, David Harris Gershon, batchick, pixxer, Publius2008, Betty Pinson, kenwards, Oh Mary Oh, slice, theKgirls, Reetz, kerflooey, ladywithafan, slowbutsure, implicate order, Mr MadAsHell, La Gitane, deeproots, Alice Olson, marleycat, sethtriggs, thomask, dle2GA, BarackStarObama, abbotkinney, worldlotus, TRPChicago, peregrine kate, sound of progress, poliwrangler, randomfacts, Miggles, SoCalSal, RLMiller, jaebone, Mathazar, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, nominalize, i saw an old tree today, ridemybike, clubbing guy, cwsmoke, Eric Nelson, AnnieR, Joieau, a2nite, FloridaSNMOM, martinjedlicka, peachcreek, jan4insight, carolanne, Free Jazz at High Noon, Lilredhead, Boogalord, MartyM, Buckeye54, wxorknot, rat racer, Glen The Plumber, George3, GoGoGoEverton, Greenfinches, Lurker in the Dark, remembrance, gypsytoo, HedwigKos, ggfkate, howabout, Smoh, librarisingnsf, LilithGardener, night cat, The Marti, karma5230, hamjudo, gordonio, Penny GC, santas, ginimck, rduran, ladyblue, bonnybedlam, hbk, cjtjc, JuliathePoet, wiggin01, Cynthia Hobgood Strauss, kfunk937, tech guru, BMScott, Gunnar Thomas, bobcat41702, J Williams, jazomatic

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site