Local News Comments

Finally. A start!

Kudos to this Senator for taking a stand somewhere, creating a starting point, although, I am sure it was not easy for him to do so!

Only one thing I'm confused about, he said, "ever agin", but earlier in the story, he said that upon completion of treatment, one could petition to own again.

Either way, YES, a start!!

This is boiling the frog one degree at a time. We have a law, how many "Ill" people fit this law and get a gun after a Judge give an order to possess a gun? How many just go get one! We need ways of identifying potential nut jobs that are a risk first then providing proper care until they are no longer a risk. That takes lots of money we do not have because the same Senators spend it like it was water. Senator Ted Gaines do the harder job not just spotlighting.

I don't want to seem uncaring about what happened in Conn. and correct me if I am wrong but haven't the gun laws that are in place now in Ca been successful in stoping these type of incidents? There hasn't been an incident in Ca since James Huberty went on a rampage in 1984 in San Diego. Why do we need stricter gun laws in Ca now? Is Mr. Gaines just jumping on the bandwagon to promote himself for re-election in the next election? Sure looks like that to me. I will repeat what has been said a million times. When we outlaw guns for the Law abiding citizens only the law breakers will have guns and it has been proven in Conn. there aren't enough Policemen to protect us from them.

This is what we need! More laws. We already have laws saying mentally ill people can't have firearms until a judge says they have been rehabilitated. We also have laws banning these assault weapons everyone is screaming about. So are we going to lock up a mentally ill person for possessing a firearm. We cant even keep the sane criminals in our jails or prisons who violate violent felonies. I think we need to address the cause of the problem and not the effect. Politicians need to get off the band wagon and do what we are paying them to do. Quit using this tragedy as a stage!

ask the question how many people declared mentaly ill by a judge actualy get a clean bill of health and then apply for the right to get a firearm ?

We need well thuoght out answers not just do some thing for the sake of
saying you did somthing !

WE all have take personal responsibilty for our selves and family.

Has any one compiled a list of the current laws and of thoughs the courts
ignore bargain away . enforce the law as it was written first . I have read most of the gun laws on ca. gov site the seem to restict every thing already .

At least it's not Berryhill, coming out saying he was concerned about gun laws, simply as a divisive distraction.

whoknew, among other examples, I just want to mention, Santee March 5 2001.

has any one compiled stats. on country's whith total gun bans ? like china mexico , how many european countries ban guns altogether . does it work , are they safer ? what are the facts !

jump on the band wagon

He actually said nothing...just gibberish to take advantage of the deaths of 20+ children to further his time on the public dole.

I don't own a gun because I choose not to. I am a member of the NRA in the hope it helps keep that choice up to me. If I did own a gun and someone broke into my home, I already know I wouldn't fire it, even after brandishing it. At that point it becomes available to the intruder. Not a good scenario, but a possible one. But be assured I'm a fervent supporter of the second amendment. I support Senator Gaines' proposed law. Actually I'm surprised it isn't in place already. But such a law must be carefully annualized. Will it restrict the rights of a perfectly normal gun owner if, say, they have a close relationship with a person who's been declared a public danger? There would be other peripheral issues with this law. Even so, something must be done!

This is exactly what needs to happen. Gun laws created by people who use guns.

These "assault weapon" bans are created by people who largely have never used an assault weapon and the laws are nearly all completely idiotic and ineffective, which makes a logical gun owner crazy to see these dumb laws passed that are worthless.

I think mental health is probably where a lot of these laws need to be focused IN ADDITION TO how did they get access to the guns. With guns comes responsibility.

Look at the serial killer Edmund Kemper (Co-ed Killer) case. Mental health, and juvenile privacy laws let him slip through the cracks for a long time.

To my fellow gun owners, gun laws are coming, you better hope that people who use guns are in volven make them, as opposed to people who fear them.

wethehonestppl, glad your on board with a Republican Senator. Honestly, Republicans want the carnage to stop. Lets keep the ideas flowing.

I think this is a very positive first step. and I compliment Gaines on at least getting things moving. Two other areas that we need to address, however - 1) how do we prevent "legal" weapons becoming "illegal", which seems mostly to occur through theft (such as the burglary in Tuolumne last week, in which 4 handguns were stolen), and 2) how do we address the issue that most of the shooters in these mass killings are young white males? No women, almost no minorities to speak of. These seem, to me at least, to be the two major issues we face.

So the Senator wants to pass a law giving a judge power to limit a persons 2nd amendment rights.They have already eroded our 4th amendement rights..Go for the "biggie" 1st amendment rigts..then the judge can say "shut the f*** up..And this guy calls himself a Republican?

Crockett, I am on board/off board with what people say and do and stand for.
If this Republican Senator has the gall to speak up, I admire that. If I were to dismiss what this guy said based solely on his party affiliation, I add to the problem and stay ignorant.
I believe/agree with you that Republicans want the carnage to stop. I respond by saying I believe/aggree with Democrats that they simply want DISCUSS this complex argument.

Thank you for not responding to me with names and insults.

There is definitely a need to keep mentally ill people from getting weapons that come with consequences they don't understand. There are already laws on the books, but enforcement is difficult.

First, who determines the mental status? A judge certainly isn't qualified. What about a bitter ex-spouse? If they file a frivolous restraining order, should that count? It currently does.

Second, there needs to be a way to successfully petition to to over-rule it, and that will place responsibility on the doctor who argues in favor of the applicant. It seems like we need a Grand Jury of psychologists who are also NRA members to make the decision.

Third, there needs to be consequences for those deemed unfit who continue to attempt to buy guns. Their application might eventually slip through.

Restrictions by mental illness. I like the idea, but I have to wonder who is defining, "Ill". Most shrinks are nutjobs.

Ah yes, the official "how do you like my now?" statement from another professional talking head. Pick your party, pick your poison. More laws, that's what the country is in desperate need of. The millions we have now just aren't controlling our lives enough. No doubt if there were even more gun laws the evil, whack job, who committed this horrendous act would have dropped any thought of his murderous ways. Or, at least it would have forced him to travel to Mexico and buy his weapons from Eric Holder and the fast and furious boys. BTW, when are we going to get those state waiting periods for renting a van full of cow manure and lamp oil, or is that just an Oklahoma problem?...SHEEPLE....it's what's for dinner America!

The idea of banning guns is unnecessary. All that is necessary is for all the "do something so I feel good" people to pass a law banning evil intent. When that has proven successful, then you can talk to me about giving up my rights and ability to successfully protect myself and my family from a single, group, gang, or army of people intent on taking what I have spent my time and labor providing.

What do you suppose the chances are that the desire to keep a loaded firearm in one's home, might be defined as a 'mental illness' by it's own right?

Maybe we're on to something.

Bert says it best:

"There is definitely a need to keep mentally ill people from getting weapons that come with consequences they don't understand."

Excellent information here: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/

Here we go again, more grandstanding on an issue that is certain to negatively affect many unsuspecting and innocent gun owners. It's a slippery slope. Here's an idea. For those criminals who use a gun in a crime and lives are lost, mentally ill or not, they face immediate death! We're not talking self defense, but an actual crime. No appeals, no long term in jail, but death, quick and simple. I can hear the liberals jumping up and down right now and screaming about the criminal's rights and how they are just raised poorly, abused souls that deserve second chances and rehabilitation. That's where our problems are. Sickening.

To correct what someone here commented: In Stockton CA in 1989, Patrick Purdy shot and killed a bunch of children attending Cleveland Elementary School with an AK-47. This act was the reason California passed tough assualt weapons laws. With 300 million guns in America, I doubt that any new gun laws will prevent the whackos who already have them from going postal; but it is a start. Making sure that those with mental issues get help is also a start.

Complex issues like this discussed between citizens and not politicians may result in better ideas, answers and get there faster.
I think the post reflect good ideas on both sides towards safety and rights. Some ideas may need refinement like would a bio-metric trigger work for Him & Her or would you need two guns ? Will the state finance development and give gun manufactures a tax brake to keep consumer cost affordable ? Will cost force lower income folks out or would that be the idea ? I am very uncomfortable with who decides who has mental illness. Local stories abound of despicable " local services" misdiagnosis and quick to chemical therapy. Maybe a jury at state cost would be the most fail safe.
Too bad this thread is almost done ......