Isla Vista shooting prompts new gun control proposals in California

May 30, 2014
Elliot Rodger

Elliot Rodger

Following last week’s Isla Vista shooting rampage, California lawmakers have made new proposals aimed at removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill. [CBS News]

Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner and Santa Barbara Assemblyman Das Williams introduced a bill Tuesday that would allow concerned relatives, neighbors and friends, as well as law enforcement officers, to seek restraining orders on an individual’s right to possess firearms. The bill would allow the reporting party to petition a judge to temporarily remove a person’s firearms while the court determines whether or not the individual is mentally competent.

The firearm restraining order would last until a court determines that the gun owner in question has mental competence. The bill would only limit someone’s ability to possess guns, not other weapons, like knives.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg also proposed this week the idea of requiring law enforcement officers to perform firearms searches while on welfare visits. A firearms search might involve asking roommates, neighbors and relatives whether the person being examined possesses guns.

“There is a lot we can do to prevent these kinds of horrific events in the future,” Steinberg said.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Isla Vista shooting prompts new gun control proposals in California” gee, who’d a thought? Never let a good crisis go to waste.

We all need to look around us.

Who lives near us? \

What are they like?

Who are our children rooming with?

scary stuff.

Wake up!

look around,

be aware!

Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights.

Gun owners number roughly 90-100 million people here in the USA, so we are a minority group.

What does this mean if you openly advocate for gun control?

It means that you are actively seeking the oppression of a minority groups’ civil rights. I believe that this is the same modus operandi followed by the KKK after reconstruction & up through the 50s and 60s. Take legally owned firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, thus making them defenseless.

You can’t get much lower IMHO.

rights are for the living . not for things.

You are completely correct, and thank you for your reply.

The most fundamental and necessary of our Natural Rights is our right to our lives. If you are A) dead, or B) unable to defend your life; ALL of your other rights mean nothing.

The law abiding citizens of this nation must be afforded the basic and fundamental Civil Right to BEAR a firearm for the purpose of self defense or the defense of others.

Of note: What percentage of these mass shootings occur in so called ‘Gun Free Zones’ ? That alone should demonstrate how dangerous it is to disarm law abiding citizens.

I get tired of that too… Posing a misleading equivalence of live vs things. Disarming people amounts to depriving them off the means to defend their children.

If gun ownership saves just one child… Isn’t that worth it?

Did anyone read Elliot’s manifesto? It’s an intelligent and articulate retrospective of his life. I’m sure the ‘experts’ will argue and never agree. Will we see proposals to amend the ‘Self Esteem’ protocol or just the usual gun control bell that sounds as familiar as the noise we hear when gas prices rise and we get promises from our elected officials that they will look into it? Thud.

I am left with two questions and I feel qualified to ask them after carefully reading Elliott Rodger’s manifesto:

1 – Did he and his father ever have a discussion about the facts of life and love?

2 – Would he have suffered anything more than normal teenage angst if musical instruments were as handy as the violent computer games he played with phantom ‘cyber’ friends?