California Shooting Proves Radical Gun Control Laws
The Gilroy festival shooter used a long gun bought legally in neighboring Nevada, but illegally transported to California. Chicago politicians regularly blame Indiana for selling guns to Illinois residents who then illegally bring them back to the state. That has anti-gun liberals claiming neighboring states are menace to public health due to relatively lax gun laws.
The aim is to generate political support to further erode Second Amendment rights at the federal level – especially if a Democrat defeats President Donald Trump during the 2020 election.
Meanwhile, liberals are blaming Nevada for the Gilroy shooting. The shooter used a military-style AK-47 semi-automatic rifle to kill three and injure several more before police gunned him down. He bought that in Nevada, where it is legal for a 19-year-old to buy such arms.
He also was residing with relatives in Nevada at the time he bought the firearms and passed all required background checks. That would not have been possible in California, where it is illegal for anyone under 21 to buy or possess such firearms. Transporting it to California, though was a violation of state law.
Anti-gun liberals say it is impossible to stop the flow of arms illegally entering the state from Nevada, Arizona and other nearby states. They intend to pressure federal lawmakers to enact more draconian national measures.
Affirming that notion is a July 30 article in The New York Times that declares out-of-state arms to be the primary source of criminal arms in several large cities. Those include Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City, where state and local gun laws make the sale of long guns to people under 21 illegal.
The problem for California is, the state only last year banned people under age 21 from buying long-guns. That removes teeth from the argument of the Gilroy shooter illegally transporting a firearm to the state. Until last year, he could have done it there, too. Frankly, the state has lots of people under age 21 legally owning long guns bought within the state just a year ago.
Another problem with the notion that Nevada gun laws enabled the Gilroy shooting is the lack of teeth in laws banning possession of certain types of firearms by certain types of people. Much like gun-free zones that rely on criminals voluntarily leaving firearms behind, California enacted a law that relies on the honor system to prevent criminal activity.
The same goes for similar laws in all other states that ban possession of certain firearms by certain people – who simply can buy them in nearby states. State lawmakers enacted laws that had no teeth – except during prosecutions after the criminal act occurred.
California has another problem with its claim that nearby states enable mass shootings in California – the state already has disproportionate number of mass shootings. Despite its well-known stance against firearms ownership and legal carry, California leads the nation in mass shootings.
Over the past five years, California accounted for 16 percent of mass shootings in the United States. Yet, the state only has 11 percent of the nation’s population. Like 97 percent of mass shootings across the nation, that mass shooting took place in a gun-free zone. Gun-free zones, like laws banning transportation of certain firearms across state lines, generally rely on the honor system for enforcement.
Even when there is armed security on hand, a bad guy intent on inflicting mass casualties will find a way to get the deed done. The Gilroy shooter cut through fencing to gain entry into the festival. He avoided armed security long enough to kill at least three and injure many more, before a good guy with a gun took him out.
Simply banning certain firearms will not reduce such events. Anti-gun politicians and those that support them, though, claim other states and access to firearms there is a major problem. The only solution they see is a national ban on military-style firearms and further erosion of the Second Amendment.
Ultimately, they would love to repeal the Second Amendment altogether. That makes it easier for a strong federal government to exercise tyrannical control over a captive populace. Yet, history shows banning military-style firearms has virtually no effect on criminal activity. The failure of the 1994 federal ban on so-called assault weapons affirms as much.
If anything, it would be more effective – and more realistic – to ban outdoor festivals. It also could help to have more armed security on hand, and allowing citizens to carry concealed and exercise the right to bear arms.