New Gun Laws After Isla Vista Murders?

Lois Capps Leads Charge for Stricter Regulations

Thursday, July 10, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Six weeks after Elliot Rodger killed six people in Isla Vista, three of them with semiautomatic handguns, area politicians have promised to strengthen gun-control laws. Uniting at the federal, state, and county levels, a group of elected officials gathered Monday on the Isla Vista bluffs at Walter Capps Park. There were several “red flags” prior to Rodger’s deadly pursuit, and the proposed measures seek to address the nexus between mental health and gun control, several officials noted.

Lois Capps
Click to enlarge photo

Kelsey Brugger

Lois Capps

Heading the event, Representative Lois Capps (pictured) spoke first and told reporters about two bills in the pipeline. One is dubbed the Pause for Safety Act and would grant funds to states that adopt specific law enforcement practices. These steps include checking gun databases before responding to welfare checks and allowing families to secure court orders that would temporarily confiscate firearms or prohibit their purchase. Another of Capps’s bills would expand protections for all (not just spouses or cohabitants) affected by domestic violence and stalking.

Following the Sandy Hook shooting at a Connecticut elementary school in 2012, various attempts to strengthen gun control at the national level have stalled. Gaining considerable attention were congressional bills that sought to implement “universal background checks” — eliminating exceptions for private dealers and gun shows — but such measures have since been tied up in partisan wrangling. Answering a question from a reporter, Capps said the difference in the Pause bill is that it allots money specifically for law enforcement to give them another “tool in the tool chest” when dealing with mental illness cases.

At the state level, Assemblymember Das Williams — working with State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson — authored similar state legislation that would allow a family member or roommate (for at least six months) to temporarily separate a person in question from a firearm, though permanent confiscation would “ultimately be up to the judge.” Last week, the supervisors and District Attorney Joyce Dudley backed the bill. Since May 23, almost one shooting a week has shaken a different community in the country, Williams said. Joyce Dudley, Supervisor Doreen Farr, Police Sgt. Riley Harwood, and James Joyce, deputy district director for State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, were also in attendance on Monday.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

The Pause for Safety Act sounds like a positive, logical step that would give law enforcement the ability to decrease the potential danger of those who are of concern or may lack the stability and rationale necessary to responsibly own firearms.

imnewintown (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm all for it as long as they impose stricter laws on knives and BMWs. I left my gun out the other day on the kitchen table and...low and behold... It didn't shoot at anything or anyone. It was wild. I was like "go for it hand gun, shoot something". It did nothing as if it were mocking me. So I put it back in the gun safe where it belongs. Apparently I have one of those guns that don't do bad things that warrant more stupid laws aimed at good citizens.

vonG (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Meanwhile, police forces will be issued high power machine guns, armored vehicles, drone support and access to your iphones.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2014 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"allowing families to secure court orders that would temporarily confiscate firearms or prohibit their purchase. "

So if someone says "my (fill in the blank) is acting weird", then people with guns show up at the person's door and take their guns away?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2014 at 1:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Makes perfect sense!

This guy broke 43 federal, state and county laws. If we just had 44 instead of 43, everyone will be safe!

Maybe if we had an even 50 laws against guns we would start to see unicorns jumping over rainbows in Ms Capps's back yard.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2014 at 6:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@vonG This Act specifically addresses people that require mental support or are of concern to their family. I fully support your right to own a gun until you are no longer of the mental capacity to operate it responsibly. The same way I support your right to drive a BMW until you are no longer of the mental capacity to operate it responsibly...but there are already laws for that.

You're right, @realitycheck88, we should just abolish all laws because people break them. Good plan.

@billclausen YES! Well, not exactly. I'm pretty sure getting a court order is a little more complicated than the phrase "acting weird". If a judge is presented with examples that warrant legitimate concern, then he or she should have the authority to order a confiscation. The short amount of time that person will spend without a gun (note that the article was specific about the orders being temporary), is FAR less concerning than the people that may be in danger otherwise.

imnewintown (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2014 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One problem with temporary court orders is that courts are biased toward violent psychopaths (my experience); they're great actors, confident and convincing, kind of like lawyers, and in SB, at least, will succeed in disarming those who need to defend themselves against them.

Rather than another staged performance like Sandy Hook (which paid Sandy Hook residents $100 million - all mortgages paid off, new town hall, donations to "victims families, etc), how about staged home invasions by armed attackers at homes of unarmed legislators who propose gun control laws?

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2014 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe if we had an even 50 laws against guns we would start to see unicorns jumping over rainbows in Ms Capps's back yard.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2014 at 6:06 a.m.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2014 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)




APRIL 29, 2014

"It is important to recognize an often misleading perception in society that individuals with mental illness are violent. A person with a severe mental illness who has no history of substance abuse or violence has the same likelihood of being violent as any member of the general public. The risk of violence statistically attributable to serious mental illness is estimated to be 3 to 5 percent. Because serious mental illness affects a small percentage of the population, it makes—at best—a very small impact on the overall level of violence in society. In fact, people with serious mental illnesses are anywhere from 2.5 times to nearly 12 times more likely to be the victims rather than the perpetrators of violence."

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Link to petition to stop UN gun ban.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2014 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: