Quote:
Originally Posted by speeder
I can imagine a pretty strong argument that, "the smaller the clip, the smaller the body count". He was stopped when it was time to re-load. Most average nutbags can't reload in a crowd of victims faster than 5 people can tackle him.
Expanding the criteria for keeping guns out of the hands of nutbags would be an excellent idea. It sounds like the current safeguards in AZ. are a complete joke.
|
Surprisingly, California is probably no more strict than any other state when it comes to mental health and guns.
I once stood outside in the hot sun for 3 hours while a self proclaimed "gun nut" holed up inside his parents house, refusing to come outside after threatening his family members who in turn called the police. (This guy was the proverbial "on the internet in his mother's basement" without the basement loser)
Anyway, after 3 hours, he came out, and I placed him on a 72 hour mental health evaluation hold (5150 W&I Code). Other officers took MANY guns out of the house for "safekeeping", including several military style rifles with high capacity mags.
45 minutes later he was released. And we had no charges on which to arrest him. (family members always cease to cooperate the split second after you get the "problem" out of their house.) So No Victim = No Crime.
I would bet a paycheck that there were other guns in that house that we could not find. And I'm sure that the guns were released back to him (or one of his parents) after a "waiting period."
You want a remedy? Make it a Felony with mandatory sentencing and minimum times served for possession of any magazine with a capacity higher than 5 rounds.
I am a staunch defender of the second amendment, but Speeder has it right on this one. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms but I see no protections for "accessories". And don't give me that "implied" argument. We conservatives can't have it both ways. We are either strict constitutionalists or we are not.