Governor Brown Signs Wolk Bill Banning Concealed Weapons at Schools and College Campuses

A week after the tragedy in Oregon and some smaller campus shootings, Governor Brown signed legislation sponsored by Senator Lois Wolk which is an effort to control concealed weapons on school and college campuses.  The measure, SB 707, prohibits concealed weapons carriers from bringing their firearms on campus without permission from campus authorities.

“Today, we took an important step toward making our schools and college campuses safer by closing this major loophole in California law,” Senator Wolk said. “People want action. Big steps or small steps, they want action. SB 707 won’t prevent all campus shootings. But it will make our schools and campuses safer by working to ensure that the only people allowed to carry guns on campuses are law enforcement.”

SB 707 includes an exemption for honorably retired law enforcement officers and reserve officers, who may carry a concealed firearm if authorized by their former agency.  The bill also allows for police chiefs or school districts to adopt their own policies on concealed firearms on campus.

Under existing law, the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 “prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless with the written permission of certain school district officials.”

This law would “recast the provisions relating to a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm to allow that person to carry a firearm in an area that is within 1,000 feet of, but not on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive. The bill would also delete the exemption that allows a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm to bring or possess a firearm on the campus of a university or college.”

Gun control advocates are supportive of the law.

“The California Brady Campaign Chapters applaud Governor Brown for signing into law SB 707 to keep our students safe. We thank Senator Lois Wolk for her leadership on this issue because we know that this new law will save lives,” said Amanda Wilcox, Legislation & Policy Chair for the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

She added, “Hidden, loaded handguns and schools just don’t mix and parents do not want guns in their children’s classrooms.  In light of the terrible tragedies on campuses in Oregon, Arizona, and Texas over the last week it is important – now more than ever – for our students to feel and be safe in a learning environment.”

Peggy McCrum, President of the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, also supported the bill.

She said, “California’s college campuses and K-12 schools should be sanctuaries for learning, free from the fear of gun violence.” She added, “(The new law) will make schools safer and decrease students’ risk of being injured or killed.”

Law enforcement groups were also in favor of the law.

“Protecting today’s schools is a daunting task,” said Matthew Carmichael, Police Chief for the UC Davis Police Department. “With the passage of SB 707 we are providing our law enforcement officers the tools they need to keep our schools safe.”

However, gun rights groups believe the law unnecessary, with the NRA calling it “yet another misguided bill that only impacts law-abiding CCW permit holders while doing nothing to reduce crime.” The NRA added in a letter to legislators that it “raises significant concerns under the Second Amendment by further infringing the rights of law-abiding — and properly licensed and trained individuals — to possess a firearm for self-defense.”

“This bill will put thousands of innocent lives at risk,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “Criminals will know that their intended victims are totally vulnerable when they’re on California school grounds because SB 707 will ensure that they’re defenseless against a violent attack.”

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

86 Comments

  1. zaqzaq

    Another illusory piece of legislation that does nothing to make schools safer.  It in no way would  have prevented any of the recent school shootings over the last couple of years.  All it does is to prevent people with legal concealed weapons permits authorizing carrying a concealed firearm from doing so on campus.

  2. Tia Will

    As usual this is being framed as a “good guys vs bad guys” issue. What is lost by pretending that the issue is only criminals vs law abiding citizens are more global safety issues.

    There is one point that is undeniable. No one can be injured by a weapon that is not there. No gun will be discharged accidentally if it is not present. No one will lose their temper and fire a weapon that they do not have in the heat of the moment. No previously completely law abiding individual will shoot, for whatever reason, with a gun that has been left in a locked storage unit.

    I believe in the right to own guns. I believe in the right to use those guns in appropriate venues such as hunting for food, or properly isolated and security shooting ranges, I believe in the right to store them safely in one’s own home.

    I also believe in the right of those of us who do not choose to own or use guns to remain safe from the activities of those who do. I want the right to not worry that the woman shopping beside me with her toddler in the cart with her purse, is not carrying a concealed weapon that the toddler can access. I want my children to be able to go onto their campuses without worrying about whether there is a weapon in the backpack that has been set down beside them.

      1. David Greenwald

        We have seen in recent months that highly trained police officers make critical mistakes, I’m not about to trust a citizen to make the right decision under those kinds of circumstances.

        1. Tia Will

          I’m not about to trust a citizen to make the right decision under those kinds of circumstances.”

          I am not about to trust a citizen with a gun in public spaces under any circumstances. It isn’t all about the good guys preventing the bad guys from creating mayhem, although, our wild west mentality fosters this view. It is also about accidental shootings ( the toddler shooting his mom, who by all accounts was well versed in guns and gun safety), or mistaken identities ( error in judgement about who is or isn’t the bad guy when two or more individuals have drawn weapons) and “collateral damage” from both sides caught in a crossfire.

          I simply do not want guns in my environment. In your own home…fine. On a shooting range…fine. In the wild during hunting season…..fine.

          But I truly believe that I have as much right to “feel” safe in my daily life, at work, on the road, at school, in a theater, store, or restaurant as you do. So, while you may “feel” safer with a gun, the statistics on who is more likely to be injured by a gun ( a gun owner, or someone who does not own a gun) are not on your side.

    1. hpierce

      Well, if it is concealed, how would you know if an illegally carried weapon is in the backpack?  Unless there are mandatory screenings, there is no additional safety provided. According to the article the law relaxes the prohibition of possession within a 1000 foot zone around the school.

      I guess I don’t care much, as I don’t have a concealed gun permit, and if I felt a need for a gun, I’d prefer to open carry it, so the bad guys know I’m armed, and would make it easier to get to it, if needed.

      1. Tia Will

        hpierce

        I agree with your statement about open carry for one reason. Not only does it allow a “bad guy” to know that you are armed. It allows me to see that you are armed so as to be able to leave immediately. Of course, after leaving, I am going to inform any business owner or public venue that allows you in that I will no longer be using their services. What may make you feel safe, makes me feel very threatened. I guess our public schools and private businesses will just have to decide which is the greater threat, you not being able to carry your weapon, or my loss of business.

        1. hpierce

          To be clear Tia, as I’ve said many times before, I do not own, nor do I anticipate owning a gun.

          My point, which I apparently failed to make, is the law does NOT increase safety.  At most, it might create an enhancement for charges for people feloniously using a gun on school premises.  It will mean that if someone carries a weapon illegally, and takes out a Sandy Hook shooter (mentally ill, and ignoring any laws), before they can kill more victims, the ‘hero’ will have to be prosecuted as a “perp”.

      2. Tia Will

        hpierce

        Well, if it is concealed, how would you know if an illegally carried weapon is in the backpack?  Unless there are mandatory screenings, there is no additional safety provided.”

        This statement is not accurate. Whether a gun contained in a back pack is there legally or illegally does not in and of itself affect how likely it is to go off accidentally. If the individually owning the gun is indeed law abiding, he or she will not bring the gun on to school property if it is illegal to do so. Less guns on campus from the law abiding citizen who leaves their gun at home = less chance of an accidental or momentary lapse of judgement shooting. This is additional safety over the previous right to concealed carry. Numerically small effect, I grant. But then the chances of preventing a shooting by a “bad guy” intent on mass murder are statistically even less likely thereby making this an overall safety gain, at least in theory. I think that we will just have to wait to see whether it actually has any effect one way or the other.

        1. hpierce

          “I think that we will just have to wait to see whether it actually has any effect one way or the other.”  Agreed.

          I do not see any inaccuracy in my statement.  The fact of the matter is (well, actually my informed opinion is) that the odds of a mentally ill, and/or felonious individual bringing guns, illegal or not, concealed or not, which are used on a school campus to kill/injure/maim someone is orders of magnitude higher than a currently legal carry gun being used to kill/injure/maim someone, accidentally or on purpose. On the order of magnitude of every Davis resident going to the ocean, collecting a gallon of water, and avoiding would be able to effectively combat sea level change.  But that is only based on what has actually happened in the last 20 or so years. [yeah, exaggerated a bit, but the law if was in effect nationwide it would not have prevented Columbine, Sandy Hook, the Texas, Virginia Tech, Oregon, etc. massacres.]

  3. Anon

    I don’t see how this law will help, unless schools carry out regular checks for illegal weapons.  If the schools do not wand, have metal detectors, or do visual checks, this law will have absolutely no teeth whatsoever.

    1. Tia Will

      Anon

      I believe that it would help since “law abiding” citizens will obey the law and leave their weapons at home thus decreasing the possibility of an unintended or unplanned shooting.

      1. hpierce

        I suspect the number of ‘law-abiding citizens”, who have concealed carry permits, and currently bring their weapons onto a school campus, in CA, who are not exempted by the new law, might be as high as 500, Statewide.  Yeah, watershed legislation for safety.

        Again, to be clear, I have no inherent problem with the legislation, but to herald it as a “solution” is ludicrous.

        Perhaps no armed law enforcement personnel should ever enter the grounds of any school, for any reason, which would really remove guns from the grounds.

        1. Miwok

          Perhaps no armed law enforcement personnel should ever enter the grounds of any school, for any reason, which would really remove guns from the grounds.

          Once again Law enforcement agrees with this because they are exempt. I disagree because some people are exempt and are sometimes in street clothes (like detectives), and the list is long. People with CCW will not keep their guns at home when they come to campus. They will lock them in their cars, and the guns will get stolen. Is that the best way to keep them? My truck got ripped off twice in a year there. Lock tools are easy to use and conceal, and there is a law against having them too. Does it work? I think not.

          I suspect the ROTC students will now have to put away their rifles, cops should put away their guns, and go to whistles and clubs. Since it is a “Gun Free Zone” why do the UC Police even have them?

        2. Tia Will

          hpierce

          Yeah, watershed legislation for safety.”

          I agree that this isn’t watershed. But if it were my child’s life that was saved, that wouldn’t matter to me. I don’t think that anyone believes that this is “the solution”.  But if it makes us just that little bit safer, I will support that.

          People frequently want me to prescribe a “solution” for a problem for which we do not have a cure. If I offer them a suggestion that helps make their life a little better, or manages their symptoms a little more, is that not worthy? Should they reject it because it is not a “cure” ?

           

  4. Tia Will

    hpierce

    I do not see any inaccuracy in my statement”

    My objection was to your strong assertion ( as indicated by bold lettering) that you knew that”the law does NOT increase safety”

    We do not know that for two simple reasons.

    1. We do not have the comparison data.

    2. Your assertion that it will not increase safety is based solely on the basis of the “mass shooter” incidents and does not address the obvious issue that if guns are left at home by the law abiding in accordance with the law, then there will be increased protection against accidental or spur of the moment discharge which can harm nearby individuals ( as in the toddler shoots mother incident). Mention of which always is “cricket” inducing in my experience.

    1. hpierce

      Then, you have no data to refute my statement, and therefore your assertion that it is ‘inaccurate” is, by your own logic, “inaccurate”… no had you said “unsubstantiated” or “unproven”, I would have let it lie.  You would have been arguably, correct.

      1. Tia Will

        hpierce

        ad you said “unsubstantiated” or “unproven”, I would have let it lie.  You would have been arguably, correct.a’

        Agreed. Poor choice of words on my part.

    1. Davis Progressive

      several publications have analyzed each case of mass shootings and found that the vast majority have occurred in places where guns are legal, not in gun free zones.

      1. hpierce

        Can you at least offer one credible cite, out of the several that you are apparently aware of? On the subject of gun-free zones for schools, which is the topic…?  If you do, I’ll be sure to read it.

        1. Davis Progressive

          i read that too.  so on the one hand you have the anti-gun left claiming one thing, the pro-gun right claiming another.  i don’t see a good middle impartial view here.  so everyone read both and make up your own mind.  i suspect the trouble is somewhere in the middle.

        2. hpierce

          Well DP, am pretty sure I’m that middle you don’t seem to be hearing from… I get criticisms from both the gun-nuts and the anti-gun nuts.

          I challenge both because they conveniently spin the purposed “facts” to their ends.  That pisses me off, but not enough to go out and buy a gun.

          The problems with guns is not guns.. it is the criminals and/or mentally ill who get possession of guns (and ammunition) and harm society.

          This law will not affect either of the root causes… but what the hey, if it “floats your boat”, let’s try it.

        3. Davis Progressive

          the problem with guns goes beyond th people who use them as it gives people who use them an easy tool to do  a tremendous amount of damage.  btw, i think the article last week showed that gun laws are not going to stop mass killings.  however, some gun laws are common sense and yet we get the arguments like the one bp put forward opposing them.

  5. Tia Will

    BP

    All but two mass shootings over the last 50 years have occurred in places of gun free zones.”

    True as stated. And completely ignores gun deaths not related to mass shootings. I do not favor bans on guns. I do favor regulations that are geared to improving public safety. I see this as a much larger issue than you are choosing to address,

      1. Matt Williams

        BP, your statement would more accurately be “It shows that gun free zones don’t work 100% of the time!” You are using the exceptions to make the rule. For example, if the gun free zones are not working in 1 situation out of 1000 then they are succeeding in 999 times out of those 1000. On the other hand if they are not working in 1 situation out of 10, then the success rate is considerably lower. Can you share with us any statistics that tell us how often gun free zones actually succeed?

          1. Matt Williams

            Frasnkly, where did you see me swing the pendulum all the way back to a ban. My question to BP was with respect to the absolutism of his statement. Nothing more, nothing less. He appeared to be practicing some of your well-honed hyperbole.

        1. Barack Palin

          Matt, only two instances of mass murder have occurred in places where guns were allowed in the last 50 years.   How many countless mass murders have happened in gun free zones?  Twist and spin that all you want, which you seem to be very adept at, but those facts speak for themselves.

          1. Matt Williams

            Barack, forget the last 50 years, let’s just deal with the last 1,004 days (just short of 3 years). There have been 994 mass shootings in those 1,004 days, resulting in 1,260 total deaths and 3,606 injuries. Are you seriously going to tell me that 992 or more of them have been in gun free zones? This link will take you to a date by date, location by location listing of the 994 mass shooting events. The data was compiled by the crowd-sourced site Mass Shooting Tracker, which takes no political stance, simply compiles the data and shares it free of charge.

  6. Edgar Wai

    I have only heard of news of mass shooting on school campus, but not accidental discharge of firearms on campus.

    What is the actual statistics of accidental discharge on school grounds?

    1. Tia Will

      Edgar

      What is the actual statistics of accidental discharge on school grounds?”

      Fair, albeit limited question. Perhaps someone has the time and interest to address this very narrow question. I still believe that a broader view is warranted. I am convinced by the fact that gun owners and their families are more likely to be harmed in their homes from guns than are non gun owners. I am convinced by the fact that more accidental and non premeditated gun injuries will occur when people are carrying ( whether openly or concealed) than if there are no guns present at all. I do not feel that this latter point needs data as it is self evident that a gun left at home will not injury anyone at school.

  7. Frankly

    Another brain-dead, feel-good, liberal law that does not do a damn thing to solve the problem other than the problem of liberals feeling bad that they have not trampled on enough American freedoms.

    I would be less concerned about his if not for all the needless death it will cause by eliminating the ability for people to defend themselves from the insane gun wielders.

    And what is even more despicable about this?   Liberals know that this is just a step in the direction they want to go to ban gun ownership.  The end justifies the means, right?  More dead people on campuses because of the inability for people to effectively defend themselves means more media carnage to exploit for political gain.

    Despicable and shameful.

    Note to crazy people… move to California where you are much less likely to be stopped in your murderous rampages.

    1. Davis Progressive

      your comment is really ignorant and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the phenomenon of mass shootings.

      The overwhelming majority of mass shootings actually occur where guns are allowed to be carried. And according to an analysis of 62 public mass shootings over a 30 year period conducted by Mother Jones, not a single shooting was stopped by a civilian carrying a firearm. Mother Jones also found that gunmen do not choose to target locations because guns are not allowed, but rather other motives typically exist for choice of location, such as a workplace grievance.

      the last part is key because the locations are not random, they often have specific meaning for the individual – they do not simply choose to go to an easy location.  if you had spent even a few minutes doing research, you might have avoided embarrassing yourself with such prattle.

      1. Edgar Wai

        I object the relevance of the cited Mother Jones analysis. It only counts incidents with 4 or more deaths. As such, it discounts near misses where the mass shooting was prevented by someone with a gun.

        I think the legislature can also be evaluated base on how many on campus shooters had concealed carry permit, and how many accidental discharges on campus are caused by people with a legally concealed carry gun.

      2. Edgar Wai

        The Mother Jones report would discount the 5 cases where a person with a concealed carry weapon stopped a potential mass shooting listed here because each of those incidents had fewer than 4 deaths at the end.

        Also, I think while SB707 targets to reduce mass shooting, it also impacts concealed carry for the more simple reason of personal protection.

        For example, a civilian who got a concealed carry permit to go to adult school at night can no longer carry the weapon, since the purpose of the legislature is meant to grant permission only to law enforcement.

        1. Napoleon Pig IV

          Very good information and important points. Politicians generally act on partial and biased information, in addition to being motivated by grandstanding.

      3. Frankly

        you might have avoided embarrassing yourself with such prattle.

        Good line.

        Now go out a read a bit more than just what validates your hard-left political worldview.

        And while you are at it start reading about all the lives saved by guns that are never counted in statistics because there is no media feeding frenzy or political dollars at stake to motivate count.

        How do you count the rape or mugging or murder that did not happen because the victim was packing?  We don’t.  And because we don’t you cannot make your absolute claims that GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

        And here is another point that you are too ideologically bent to understand.  Those areas with more guns are generally also filled full of more law-breaking people… especially illegal immigrants.  Take away the guns from the law abiding people and the bad guys will still get them.

        Too bad we can’t all be lily white and affluent like Davis with a lower gun-per-capita ratio.

        And lastly, isn’t Switzerland and Israel two examples of inconvenience to your argument that guns kill people?  Absolutely.

        Here is the solution that protects the rights of law abiding Americans.

        1) Use a gun in the commission of a felony and get INSTANT penalty enhancements of 20 years to life depending on the crime.

        2) Stop and Frisk in all high gun crime areas.  Illegal possession of a firearm gets you 5-10 penalty enhancement.

        And BUILD MORE ASYLUMS AND CHANGE THE LAWS THAT PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE INSANE… BECAUSE THAT IS INSANE!

        What do you say about these things DP my hard-left friend?

        1. Davis Progressive

          for one thing, i’m not against guns, i have three myself.  but i’m not against cars because i believe in driver’s licenses and seat belt laws.  i’m against the gun law in california, too punitive and too reactionary.  stop and frisk ends up undermining the trust in police as its unequally applied.  cities with stop and frisk had reduced crime rates, but so did cities without it.

        2. Frankly

          I get real heated when our government bans things valued and standard and takes away valued freedoms.

          I disagree that it is common sense to ban guns as a way to reduce gun crime and mass shootings.  It is non-nonsensical given reality.   The ideas I listed are common sense given reality.

          All of the problems with gun violence and gun death are people problems.  Solve the people problems.

          Some people drink and drive.  We have not banned alcohol and cars because of this.  We increased law enforcement and the penalties for drinking and driving.

          1. Don Shor

            Some people drink and drive. We have not banned alcohol and cars because of this. We increased law enforcement and the penalties for drinking and driving.

            And we consider technologies that limit the access to vehicles by people who are under the influence. This is not the first step in taking away everybody’s cars. And nobody wants to ban cars because of drunk driving.
            In the Oregon case, we had a mother who was obsessed with weapons. I am beginning to think that obsession with gun rights and paranoia about gun confiscation is a pathology, perhaps even a mental disorder. She was stock-piling guns and fearful that the government was going to limit them. When your conservative friends say stuff like that, do you say “hey, that’s crazy”? Or do you tacitly accept their obsession and fixate on proposed regulations about access being some slippery-slope to banning and confiscating weapons? In other words, do YOU feed the paranoia, or do you acknowledge that it is part of the problem? Disturbed young men shouldn’t be living in households stocked with weapons arsenals. And when the father speaks out about it, he shouldn’t be excoriated by a pathetic Republican presidential candidate. People in that party should probably say, “Hey, Governor Jindal, you’re feeding the paranoia. You’re part of the problem.”

        3. Frankly

          The actions of President Obama and Democrats in congress are the ones feeding the paranoia, not Bobby Jindal.  Have you read about the increase in growth of the survivalist industry?  There is a growing number of people that are convinced we are heading toward anarchy.  I think their fears are as well founded as any extremist in this country.

          What I see is a political, economic and social direction that is all wrong and largely responsible for the mess of conflict we have in this country, and those with a vested interest to maintain the status quo are looking for all the scapegoats they can find and pushing placebo false-solutions for an ignorant population that pursues short-term, feel-good actions over their long-term self preservation.

          The Oregon killer was 100% responsible for the murders.   His mother was responsible for not turning him into authorities at the first concern that he was a danger.  Liberals in this country are responsible for making it much more difficult to turn him into authorities, and for the lack of asylums, and for preventing the military from labeling him bat-sh_t-crazy and not fit to own or possess any firearms. And now liberals are responsible for excluding the rights of others to protect themselves from criminals with guns.

          And liberals are also responsible for preventing tougher law enforcement and sentencing to get the people that would use guns for crime off the streets and locked away… and for telling those others that are on the fence that it isn’t worth it to use a gun in criminal activity because of the harsh, harsh penalties.

          The problem is that people are committing crimes with guns.  Deal with that and you get 100% of my support.

          1. Don Shor

            Have you read about the increase in growth of the survivalist industry? There is a growing number of people that are convinced we are heading toward anarchy.

            Yes. They’re crazy.

            I think their fears are as well founded as any extremist in this country.

            That sentence doesn’t make any sense. Their fears have no foundation. They’re crazy.

            The actions of President Obama and Democrats in congress are the ones feeding the paranoia, not Bobby Jindal.

            Bobby Jindal is responsible for the irrational and hateful words that come out of his mouth. The president has called for legislation about gun regulation. I have posted the link before. You’ve read it. There is nothing whatsoever in the president’s proposals that reasonably leads anyone to the paranoia that is apparently rampant on the far-right about gun control, confiscation, or whatever. Reasonable gun regulations are supported by an overwhelming percentage of the public. The paranoia is fomented on the right.

            His mother was responsible for not turning him into authorities at the first concern that he was a danger.

            His mother was responsible for his access to weapons. She is an accessory to murder, in my opinion. But I doubt she did anything illegal. Her access to weapons was unlimited, and so was his.

        4. Don Shor

          Gun laws in Israel:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Israel
          Excerpts:

          Civilians must obtain a firearms license to lawfully acquire, possess, sell, or transfer firearms and ammunition.
          To obtain a firearms license, an applicant must be a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, pass a background check that considers the applicant’s health, mental, and criminal history, establish a genuine reason for possessing a firearm (such as self-defense, hunting, or sport), and pass a weapons-training course. The Israeli government maintains an official registry of all residents with firearms licenses.[47]

          All those holding firearms licenses must renew them and re-take a shooting course at a gun range every three years and pass a psychological exam every six years.[48] They must demonstrate they have a safe at home in which to keep the firearm. Permits are given only for personal use, not for business in the firearms sale while holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun, and are given a lifetime supply of 50 bullets to take home.[49]

        5. Frankly

          I support most of this.

          Especially:

          Civilians must obtain a firearms license to lawfully acquire, possess, sell, or transfer firearms and ammunition.

          To obtain a firearms license, an applicant must be a resident for at least three consecutive years, pass a background check that considers the applicant’s health, mental, and criminal history, establish a genuine reason for possessing a firearm (such as self-defense, hunting, or sport), and pass a weapons-training course. The Israeli government maintains an official registry of all residents with firearms licenses.

          All those holding firearms licenses must renew them and re-take a shooting course at a gun range every three years and pass a psychological exam every six years.[48] They must demonstrate they have a safe at home in which to keep the firearm.

          Not the giving away of bullets.  And not the “one-handgun” thing.  Obviously Israel has a different set of circumstances.

          But I think if the left would stop saying “ban”, and start working on these and also stronger law enforcement and stronger criminal gun use penalties, we would have a national consensus that would overwhelm the extreme gun rights crowd.

          Use the word “ban” and the rest goes out the window.

          Look at the very low trust level the American public has for government… why would you expect that Americans would be okay with a government they absolutely do not trust banning the right to own firearms?

    2. Jim Frame

      Another brain-dead, feel-good, liberal law that does not do a damn thing to solve the problem other than the problem of liberals feeling bad that they have not trampled on enough American freedoms.

      It’s true — the first thing I do every morning is try to figure out how I can deprive Frankly of some more American freedoms.  I just don’t feel good otherwise.  It’s not easy being a liberal these days.

    3. Tia Will

      Frankly

      Liberals know that this is just a step in the direction they want to go to ban gun ownership”

      When are you going to stop lying about my intentions ?

  8. Edgar Wai

    I think the main consideration is that you can’t legislate for good behavior when the perpetrator is suicidal. The declaration that a certain behavior is unlawful, and the declaration of the resulting consequences are irrelevant to the suicidal perpetrators.

    A legislation on the behavior in such cases would only have collateral consequences.

    The only effective solutions are in areas of prevention, detection, protection, and reaction when the incidence occurs.

    1. Tia Will

      Frankly

      I get real heated when our government bans things valued and standard and takes away valued freedoms.”

      I agree. You have no idea how angry it makes me that my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been hampered by the ridiculous interpretation of the Second Amendment by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court who chose a revisionist approach by ignoring the clearly stated militia clause which has now been morphed by the NRA and their supporters into “every law abiding adult has the right to pack as much lethal firing power as they want” completely ignoring the fact that this makes me extremely uncomfortable when in public spaces.

      I guess my rights should just be subordinated to those of gun owners and advocates.

       

       

      1. Frankly

        It is the people not the guns.

        Here is how you test that.

        Say we get rid of all the people but keep the guns.  You are safe.

        Now say we get rid of all the guns and keep all the people.  You are not safe.

        It’s those damn people Tia.  Such an inconvenience for achieving utopia.

        1. Tia Will

          Frankly

          It is the people not the guns.”

          No Frankly. It requires both a person and a gun to have a gun related injury.

          However, I believe that you are on to something.

          Let’s get rid of all the people who want to own guns for any reason. That leaves only those of us who feel that we would be far better off without guns but who don’t like the idea of a ban. Its a real win-wiin.

          You all can have your guns to your hearts content in your “gun rights utopia” where all the good guys win every shoot out. And I get to have my “gun free utopia” in which there are no gun related injuries or deaths….ever.

    2. Tia Will

      Edgar

      The only effective solutions are in areas of prevention …”

      Agreed. And it seems apparent to me that fewer guns will result in fewer accidental and unpremeditated gun injuries and deaths. If we are really interested in prevention, it is important to look at the whole picture, not snap shots that strengthen limited arguments about specific scenarios.

       

  9. Tia Will

    Frankly

    So Tia, you are not afraid of being mugged or raped at knife point? You are so focused on guns you appear to have an irrational bias.”

    I do not live my life based on fear. I consider what is likely to promote safety. I am a defensive driver. That doesn’t mean that I do not drive.

     

  10. Tia Will

    zaqzaq

    Fewer guns is code for no guns.  Just be honest.”

    This may be your reality. However, it is not mine. What makes you believe that I am dishonest because I do not see this the same way that you do ?

    Do you honestly believe that only you are being “honest” on this issue ?

     

  11. Tia Will

    Frankly and zaqzaq

    OK. I am going to be completely and totally honest.

    I am disgusted with both of you. Rather than choosing to address the issue of gun safety and reasonable attempts to lessen gun related injuries, you have both chosen to call me a liar. One of you chooses to do this from behind the cowardly screen of a pseudonym.

    I have lied in the past. I no longer lie for the simple reason that I was forced at one point in my life to face the destruction that lies can wreak on one’s life and the life of those we love. I stopped lying at that point in time. So please, make your points. Argue as strongly as you like. But please stop calling me a liar when I am telling my truth. I recognize that your truth is different from mine, but would never stoop to what you are doing when you impugn my honesty.

  12. Don Shor

    Frankly: Liberals know that this is just a step in the direction they want to go to ban gun ownership.

    I get real heated when our government bans things

    why would you expect that Americans would be okay with a government they absolutely do not trust banning the right to own firearms?

    Now say we get rid of all the guns and keep all the people.  You are not safe.

    Barack Palin: Little steps at a time.  Take off a chunk here and a chunk there. Then before you know it…….

    Zaqzaq; Fewer guns is code for no guns.  Just be honest.

    The gun regulation proposals that are under serious consideration do not ban guns. They may ban certain models. They may ban certain sizes of magazines. They regulate certain aspects of the sale and purchase of guns. They propose incremental changes in dealing with mental health issues and guns.

    In NO sense is there any serious proposal to “ban guns” or “gun ownership” or start a slippery slope to confiscation or, really, any serious limits on your right to purchase and own a gun.

    This is conservative fear-mongering, arguing from a premise of extremism, and feeding the paranoia that causes some people to start hoarding weapons. You should be concerned about your neighbor who stockpiles weapons and ammunition, not some proposals to regulate the sale of guns. Your Second Amendment rights are fully intact. What is galling here is that you repeatedly impugn the integrity and honesty of Tia and others, while continuing to put forth spurious, false, and intentionally misleading arguments over and over.

  13. Clem Kadiddlehopper

     

    We need to add the below to this important law.

     Make all of the Gun Free Zone signs larger & multi-lingual to make sure all future terrorists understand that they are NOT ALLOWED to bring guns into our schools to shoot up the place!!!!!

     
     
     

    1. Barack Palin

      Is Gov. Brown going to be considered complicit when a mass murderer enters one of our school campuses and kills our kids because the murderer now knows he won’t have to worry about any concealed weapons deterring them.

  14. Clem Kadiddlehopper

     

    Aristotle,
    Automobiles, alcohol, incompetent doctors and several other things kill more people than firearms each year. Do we hear these people that are so concerned for our safety proposing that we should restrict these things? After all, as Obama said, if it might save JUST ONE PERSON we need to try. What a load of BS.
     
    I’m not a pot head, or a user of any type of drugs, however, I personally know of at least three people from which I could purchase illegal drugs. I guess all those laws restricting the use of  drugs just don’t work very well. Go figure. In addition, right now I could drive on over to the local bar and get myself rip-roaring drunk. Not a single person would move to stop me when I got back into my car and proceeded to mow down the innocent. Would there then be any uproar about my right to buy a car. Where are their priorities?
     
    A few weeks ago I read a rather funny little bit that compared gun control to motor vehicles: A small town had a problem with the local youth racing through town violating the 25 mph speed limit. Their solution to this problem was to lower the speed limit to 20 mph. Yup, that will have as much affect as gun control. The bad guys will still have access to anything they want while the good guys will be restricted.
     

    1. Don Shor

      Would there then be any uproar about my right to buy a car.

      In some jurisdictions there might be an ignition interlock device put on your car if you have a prior conviction for DUI.

    2. Tia Will

      Clem

      Do we hear these people that are so concerned for our safety proposing that we should restrict these things? “

      The answer is two fold. No one is calling for a ban on guns anymore than anyone is calling for a ban on cars.

      And yes, I am one of those who is very vocal about increasing gun safety, just as I have been very vocal in the past about speed limits and automobile, motorcycle and bike safely. I have at various points in time promoted seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws and bike lights and helmets for children and DUI enforcement. I am also very vocal about another issue facing our community because of both safety and property issues. That is steps to lessen the deleterious impacts of the nightclub scene on our downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.

      I do not expect others to share my interest in public safety. But I do expect that people will at least respect my sincerity as a doctor with an interest in personal and public safety. And even that would seem to be too much to hope for on this thread.

  15. Anon

    Tia Will: “I believe that it would help since “law abiding” citizens will obey the law and leave their weapons at home thus decreasing the possibility of an unintended or unplanned shooting.

    It is not law abiding citizens carrying out the killing sprees on campus!  Unless schools are willing to wand incoming students, or make them go through metal detectors or bag checks, there is no way this law is going to prevent anything.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for