Taking a look at legislation enacted in California and Colorado in the wake of deadly gun violence incidents.
California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, a fact which many believe is behind the sharp decline in gun violence in our state over the past decade. However, as the recent Santa Barbara shooting and stabbing incident shows, not even California with all its gun laws is immune to gun violence. In response to this and similar shooting spree incidents, states across the country are struggling to create laws that protect the public without violating gun owners’ constitutional rights. Let’s check in on developments in two states, California and Colorado.
Colorado’s Gun Laws Survive Challenges
A shooting spree in a Denver movie theater in 2012 prompted Colorado lawmakers to introduce new measures to help limit gun violence in their state. The laws, which were passed in 2013, banned magazines holding more than 15 rounds and instituted mandatory background checks for private gun sales and transfers.
These laws were unpopular from the very start, and recently were the focus of a civil trial. At the end of June, a federal judge ruled that the laws were constitutional and did not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights. First of all, the magazine ban was constitutional because it did not restrict a citizen’s ability to defend themselves. None of the law enforcement officials who testified in the case were able to think of a single case where a civilian had fired 15 shots in self defense. The background checks were also found constitutional and the judge noted that the 15-minute checks pose no hardship to gun dealers or buyers.
Proposed California Gun Law Takes Different Approach
In California, we already have dozens of gun control laws restricting the type of guns and ammunition that may be owned as well as who may own them. But as gun rights advocates have noted, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The latest new gun control law working its way through the California legislature seems to finally address this issue.
If passed, the law would provide for a “gun violence restraining order” to be issued against a lawful gun owner based on their mental health. This would provide family members the means to have firearms legally removed from a loved one’s possession when they believe that person poses a “credible risk of harm” to himself or others. Such restraining orders would last for one year.
It is not yet clear what standards would have to be met for family members to prove to the court that a loved one posed a danger. Hopefully there will be some stringent standards such that gun owners will not be deprived of their rights purely on a he-said, she-said basis.
With gun laws ever-evolving, it is not unheard of for individuals to get brought up on weapons charges they didn’t even know existed. If this happens to you, call Dan E. Chambers immediately.
