• News Ticker alerts

Councilmember David Alvarez is calling on federal and state lawmakers to reinstate the ban on military-style assault weapons, such as those used in mass shootings at an elementary school in Connecticut and a movie theatre outside of Denver, Colorado.

Alvarez will present his draft resolution in support of US Senator Dianne Feinstein's legislation that outlaws "federal assault weapons" and "ammunition clips in excess of ten rounds" at a city council committee meeting on March 13.

The resolution calls on state lawmakers to increase funding for mental health programs and prevent "at-risk" people from gaining access to military-type machine guns.

Reads the draft resolution:

WHEREAS, although the State of California already has among the strictest gun laws in the United States including broadly defining and banning assault weapons, prohibiting the sale of ammunition magazines that carry more than ten bullets, and a 10-day waiting period to buy a gun, California residents can travel to neighboring states to obtain prohibited guns, magazines and ammunition, and

WHEREAS, the use of semi-automatic and automatic weapons with large ammunition clips allows persons intent on harm to cause more carnage than would be possible if such weapons were unavailable; and

WHEREAS, military-style weapons coupled with large ammunition clips are not necessary for sportsmen or home protection and constitute a demonstrated threat to the general public; and

WHEREAS, in 1994, Congress enacted an Assault Weapon Ban that prohibited the sale of certain semi-automatic and automatic weapons in order to reduce the levels of street violence in the United States; and

WHEREAS, in 2004, the Assault Weapons Ban expired by operation of law and, to this date, the Assault Weapons Ban has not been renewed by Congress...

If adopted the City of San Diego will be the second city in San Diego County to throw their support behind Feinstein's efforts to bring back the ban on assault rifles and high capacity machine gun clips. On February 26 the Chula Vista City Council adopted a similar resolution that calls for a ban on the manufacture and sale of more than 150 automatic firearms.

  • News Ticker alerts

Comments

HonestGovernment March 8, 2013 @ 3:14 p.m.

Good for Alvarez. At least one councilmember does something positive. Mayor Bob has his back on this, too. Can't imagine which councilmember would be against this.

0

JHSD March 12, 2013 @ 11:51 a.m.

Well, given the extreme errors of fact throughout the "resolution", I'd hope that the council would NOT express their ignorance of facts and vote for this drivel. I WOULD hope that the council WOULD uphold the civil rights of law-abiding gun owners by voting against this poorly drafted and incoherent resolution...but, given their levels of recent (in)competence, I doubt it.

1

DooDooEcon March 12, 2013 @ 11:55 a.m.

California already has the Armed Prohibited Persons System which confiscates guns through the CA DOJ with "violent" misdemeanors, felonies, and "mental instability." This resolution would target "at-risk" people, which means what exactly?

Is the goal a world where homicidally insane people can walk the streets safely? That will never happen. At least target people diagnosed as homicidal or criminally insane. Disarming law abiding good citizens is the wrong solution.

Dr. Michael Welner, The Forensic Panel, Founder and Chairman: "from my experience and from what we have learned from the literature is that a great number of people who carry out mass killings don't have a psychiatric illness they have a personality disorder. But what is common TO ALL is that they have a brewing resentment and blame an externalizing responsibility to others.

Now, if you tack on a paranoid condition and a full blown psychotic paranoid condition to THAT, well then you have an individual who has already been loaded by how he relates to the world, who then has a psychotic condition on top of that."

Maybe, instead of politicians trying to make the public "feel" safe and then limiting our ability to defend ourselves under the disguise of "safety", they should learn what the actual problems are and address THOSE issues.

Assisting parents in teaching children personal responsibility would do more to make us safe than all the "gun bans" in history. Unfortunately, that is traditionally the role of church not state.

Gun bans actually increase crime.

1

BullMoose March 12, 2013 @ noon

Poorly done, Alvarez. I should hope that our council members won't attach their names to something so aimed at curtailing our Civil Rights. I wonder why the ACLU, a group 'dedicated' to fighting for civil liberties hasn't come out against this resolution. Would they say something if they wanted to ban people from voting/speaking/assembling? Come on people, WAKE UP.

1

Linc2000 March 12, 2013 @ 12:57 p.m.

These excessive gun control laws are counter productive. They make crime victims more vulnerable and easier targets for the criminal class. Look at the cities that have tried the hardest to control guns: Chicago, Detroit, Washington, DC etc. All controlled by Democrats. All with some of the most active criminal activity in the country. These excessive gun laws also leave us vulnerable to a tyrannical government. A government that no longer believes the laws of the land apply to it and its members. Officials and members of a government that believe it needs to control the people and their lives. Officials who think serving the people is telling them what to do and how to do it. Officials who no longer respect the freedom of the people they are elected and appointed to serve. Why are so many of us willing to vote away our freedoms and our safety? Are so many of us fearful and gullible enough to give away the great gift given to us by the founders of our country?

None

1

CraigBos March 12, 2013 @ 1:11 p.m.

Lots of historical figures have been in favor of civilian disarmament over the years (look it up). And many of today's celebrities and politicians are, too.

But it is obviously a bad idea, so I'm against it.

0

SanDiegoAj March 12, 2013 @ 2:11 p.m.

Ridiculous notion to think that banning weapons stops crime.

Councilmember David Alvarez should look at the history of the previous AW ban and how little it did to lessen gun related crime.

I'll point out few facts for those who are uninformed.

1) Military "Style" weapons. ALL weapons came from the military at one point or another. Knives, Blunt objects, firearms, etc.

2) All weapons are capable of "Assault".

So to call a weapon an "Assault Weapon" is the definition of ALL weapons. Firearms or otherwise.

3) The statement "The resolution calls on state lawmakers to increase funding for mental health programs and prevent "at-risk" people from gaining access to military-type machine guns." is misleading.

A very small handful of people in the state of CA have access to a machine gun. These people do so with the consent of the State and Federal Government.

4) The statement "California residents can travel to neighboring states to obtain prohibited guns, magazines and ammunition" denotes it is not currently a crime to buy firearms and magazines out of state.

Check your federal laws councilman Alvarez. People who do this are already violating federal and state laws.

5) The statement "the use of semi-automatic and automatic weapons with large ammunition clips allows persons intent on harm to cause more carnage than would be possible if such weapons were unavailable" is a play on words and a cry for emotions.

a) Automatic weapons are NOT available to just anyone. b) If you're going to educate us on how dangerous these are, you should at least know proper firearm terms. c) If we did not have access to alcohol and vehicles, 40k people would not die a year from DUI related incidents.

Where are your tough rules on alcohol due to what DUI offenders have done, councilman Alvarez.

6) The statement "military-style weapons coupled with large ammunition clips are not necessary for sportsmen or home protection and constitute a demonstrated threat to the general public" is a matter of opinion.

Police have no duty to protect (Warren v. District of Columbia) is a matter of fact by our SCOUTS. Furthermore, my ability to protect myself is not your responsibility.

If the weapon is good enough for our police to protect themselves, then it's the same type of weapon I need to protect myself and my family including "magazine size" and "cartridge type".

7) The statement "Congress enacted an Assault Weapon Ban that prohibited the sale of certain semi-automatic and automatic weapons in order to reduce the levels of street violence in the United States" is a falsehood.

Facts are crime increased in the 10 years of the first AW ban AND further statistics show crime DECREASED once the ban was lifted in 2004. These are FACTS published by the CDC and FBI.

Where are your FACTS Councilman Alvarez?

0

SanDiegoAj March 12, 2013 @ 2:11 p.m.

Additionally, Dorian wrote:

If adopted the City of San Diego will be the second city in San Diego County to throw their support behind Feinstein's efforts to bring back the ban on assault rifles and high capacity machine gun clips.

Let me educate you on terms.

1) Assault weapon is a made up term. The rifles you speak of and believe to be so evil are just like any other semi-automatic rifle sold across the country. I dare you to define the term "Assault weapon" while not thinking of a firearm. In other words, define the term without using the words "gun" or "firearm".

2) Clips vs. Magazines. Clips feed magazines, magazines feed firearms (unless belt fed). There is a difference. If the feeding device is detachable and the cartridge is contained within a detachable container it is a magazine.

3) Bullets are the projectile, not the cartridge. There are four components of a metallic cartridge. Bullet, Case, Powder, Primer. Cartridges fill magazines, bullets exit the firearm.

4) Automatic firearms are rare in this state and in general. Not everyone can own one and when you do, you do so with the express permission of the US government. (Unless you're a criminal)

My final thought. You cannot stop bad people from doing bad things.

You are sacrificing my freedoms to try and "ensure" others are not harmed. This is not an acceptable plan.

What you need to do is get tough on those who break the laws. Our court system is a joke and criminals know it. We plea bargin down to the minimum to avoid the possibility of losing in court.

We all know there are predators and prey. What you are doing is akin to cutting off the horns and padding the rear hooves of an antelope to ensure the lion does not get hurt when attempting to kill his meal.

Why in the world would you make it easier for criminals to take what they want?

Maybe when it happens to you or your family you'll think differently.

0

solohabano March 13, 2013 @ 11:35 a.m.

We need to vote these Maoists out of office ASAP and stop the constant and increasing unraveling of our civil liberties.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close