California gun-control laws cut flow

Topspin

Verified User
California gun-control laws cut flow to Mexico
Dan Freedman, Hearst Newspapers
Sunday, May 29, 2011

California's tough gun-control laws are targeted at armed criminals in general and mass-shooters in particular. But they appear to have had the unintended consequence of making California gun stores unattractive to purchasers buying weapons for the Mexican drug cartels.

A Hearst Newspapers survey of guns purchased in the United States and funneled to Mexican drug traffickers found that out of 1,600 guns identified by brand name and purchase point in court documents, a mere 70 came from California.

The results dovetail with the findings of a federal law enforcement analysis earlier this year of 2,921 guns recovered in Mexico and traced to original U.S. purchases between December 2006 and November 2010.

The report concluded that 1,470 guns - 50 percent - were from Texas. A total of 852 guns - 29 percent - were from Arizona. California, by contrast, accounted for 90 guns - 3 percent of the total.

"Our assumption is that California's laws have had a dissuasive effect on traffickers purchasing weapons in the state," said Eric Olson, coordinator of several reports on gun-trafficking to Mexico that were joint projects of the Mexico Institute at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center and the University of San Diego's Trans-Border Institute. "They haven't stopped traffickers from going through California to deliver guns to Mexico, but they have stopped California being a source state."

California legislators approved a flurry of laws in the wake of the 1989 massacre in Stockton, in which a gunman with an AK-47 killed five children in a school playground, and the 1993 shootings at a law office at 101 California St. in San Francisco, which claimed eight victims.

Among other things, California gun laws now stipulate a 10-day waiting period on all gun purchases and outlaw rifles with military-style "assault-weapon" characteristics, .50-caliber sniper rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines.

In addition, all firearm transactions involving licensed gun dealers, sales at gun shows or between individuals must be registered. Background checks for all gun purchases are also required.

"We believe the laws have had a huge impact, especially in view of the state ban on assault weapons," said Juliet Lefwich, legal director of Legal Community Against Violence, a San Francisco-based advocacy group for gun violence prevention. Violence in Mexico is not why the laws were passed. But she said making purchases in California more difficult for gun traffickers is "an unintended benefit."

A study by retired anthropologist and computer industry consultant Griffin Dix of Kensington, found that between 1990 and 2007, California's gun mortality rate went down 44.5 percent. It was a greater reduction than the rest of the country by 16.5 percentage points, the study concluded. Dix has devoted himself to gun control in the wake of the accidental shooting death of his 15-year-old son, Kenzo Dix, in 1994.

In the Hearst survey's lone California case, Ayman Nabil Ghaly, a federal agriculture inspector at California-Mexico border posts, was charged last year with purchasing 70 guns, mostly handguns, for resale in Mexico. He bought them at gun stores in the San Diego area from June 2005 to September 2006, mostly one or two at a time.

Ghaly pleaded guilty and was sentenced last year to five months in prison and three years of supervised release.

This article appeared on page A - 10 of the San*Francisco*Chronicle
 
you're scared of an inanimate object and you call me a pussy?

LOL

how many times did your boyfriend pistol whip you...diminutive wrestler of men in tights?
 
but i'm not a lawyer gay wrestler....i'm a meter maid. why do you keep fantasizing about me being a lawyer? why do you need so desperately for me to be a lawyer? is your boyfriend too stupid to figure things out for you?
 
You claim on the other site to be a lawyer not me. I know your not. And I know your afraid to back up the words and fight. U pussy
 
i'm not a lawyer. i'm a meter maid. why are you so obsessed with my profession? is your boyfriend beating you so bad that you have to obsess over some anonymous POLITICAL board member's profession?

good lord topgayster.....does it really matter what i do for a living? i'm not interested in you, so you can stop trying to figure me out.
 
California's tough gun-control laws are targeted at armed criminals in general and mass-shooters in particular. But they appear to have had the unintended consequence of making California gun stores unattractive to purchasers buying weapons for the Mexican drug cartels.

this opinion lost all credibility with it's opening bullshit statement.
 
It's hardly surprising. We can expect to see more - not less - gun regulation in the future. In this, we have only ourselves to blame. Get used to it.
 
Recent USSC decisions and state laws seem to indicate otherwise.

That’s not the case by a long shot. You should know that the Second Amendment does not provide any rights. Whatever rights are protected under the Second Amendment exist only by law; which means that they are not unlimited, they are subject to legal regulation. Indeed, the recent Supreme Court decision left intact the laws that do just that. As Justice Antonin Scalia stated for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller:

‘Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (Citation Omitted) For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Citation Omitted) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (FN 26 Omitted)

‘We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." (Citations Omitted)’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
 
If the Second is not unlimited, why does it use the limitless word "infringed" as opposed to more limiting words such as "denied" or "removed?"
 
Again, the Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). The problem, in a nutshell, is that the prohibition against “infringement” does not preclude “regulation.” Whatever rights that are “protected” under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unrestricted, much less absolute. You can bet that we shall all soon find ourselves the more “well regulated.”
 
Back
Top