LETTER: Troubled by military-style weapons | Letters

An AR-15 and an AK-47 are military-style weapons. During the Vietnam War, the M16-A1 rifle was used by the US Army. During training with the army, you will be taught two important facts. 1. You handle the gun so that it is always loaded. 2. You never point the gun at anyone unless the aim was to kill them. These guns can have a clip that holds either 15 rounds or 30 rounds. Every time you pull the trigger, the gun will fire. They were trained to respect the gun not as a toy but as a weapon for killing the enemy.

For us who served during the Vietnam War, it is disturbing to see citizens carrying a military-style weapon on the streets of our cities. The police are trained to use them only when necessary to maintain peace in society. I hope this helps your opinion on the use of military style weapons in an open society.

Opinion: California’s ban on assault type weapons has labored. It is constitutional and customary sense.

Abrams is a board member of Team ENOUGH, Brady’s gun violence prevention initiative, and a 2021 graduate of Del Norte High School. He is a resident of 4S Ranch.

In April, President Joe Biden did described our country’s gun violence epidemic as “an international embarrassment” and promises to address this crisis.

President Biden was right and he was quick to act – but here in California, our elected officials have long led the nation to find sensible and comprehensive solutions that save lives despite ongoing attacks from the gun lobby and industry. Lawsuits such as those recently attempting to lift California’s decade-long bans on assault-style firearms or the one aimed at lifting our reasonable demand that ammunition purchases be subject to background screening threaten this advancement and public safety.

The disturbing decision by a federal judge last month to lift the offensive weapons ban, which the appeals court later suspended, shows how concerted and dangerous these efforts are. Simply put, this federal judge was wrong. The state’s ban on assault weapons has helped keep Californians safe for over 30 years. It’s constitutional and it’s common sense.

We cannot tolerate these attacks on our constitutional and popular laws – laws that have stood the test of time. The newest Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that the firearm homicide rate in California is 30 percent below the national rate, while the firearm suicide rate in California is 45 percent below the US average. Overall, the rate for all fatalities from firearms is 37 Percent lower in California than the national rate.

It’s not just numbers – lives are saved and communities are spared persistent fear and violence.

That is not to say that our state is without arms. It is precisely for this reason that I am a youth gun violence prevention activist. I’ve seen gun violence in my community here in San Diego. I lost friends to gun violence.

We still have more work to do.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Rob Bonta Approved The latest California gun sales data shows that 2020 broke previous records for small arms sales, an increase of over 65 percent from 2019.

We also know that California, like the rest of the nation, is one top gun violence and homicides last year, which will continue into this year.

That should keep us busy. As Harvard University Professor David Hemenway in a nutshell said Reuters discussed the intersection of increased gun sales and gun violence in October: “It’s pretty clear that more guns mean more death.”

It is precisely for this reason that our elected representatives cannot cease to create strong, sensible, and comprehensive laws and guidelines to ensure our safety.

Earlier this year, Governor Gavin Newsom called for $ 200 million in dedicated funding for CalVIP in his California comeback plan, nearly quadrupling the existing grant program funding. CalVIP funds evidence-based community and hospital-based violence intervention programs that have been shown to help stop violence and heal communities to prevent trauma. It’s an investment in our communities that has only positive, downstream effects. This kind of courageous leadership is why officials in states like New York, as well as President Biden, have similarly called for investment in community violence intervention programs.

Similarly, our state legislature has passed state-of-the-art directives such as a requirement that newly introduced semi-automatic pistols contain microstamping technology, the first such requirement in the country, and a ban on the sale of ghost weapons. These laws are being investigated and emulated in other states as well as in our federal government. California is leading once again.

Our leaders cannot give up on these efforts, and fortunately they have not. Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta have remained steadfast in their defense of our state’s ban on offensive weapons, while advocating the policies and programs our state needs to further reduce gun violence and protect our communities.

I have no doubt that they will prevail in court in our state in defending the ban on offensive weapons. I also know that they will continue to put the interests and safety of Californians first as they work to establish even broader gun violence prevention guidelines. Young people in California lead the way, asking for and supporting life-saving bills. In San Diego, I look forward to our city’s leaders responding to these changes and addressing issues such as the proliferation of ghost weapons head on.

While President Biden is right that our gun violence epidemic is an international embarrassment, the country can rest assured that California is helping to correct this injustice, and we will not let up.

Effort To Pursue ‘Assault-Model’ Weapons Ban Lacks Key Allies At The Colorado Capitol

Any major push to get Colorado banned offensive weapons is becoming increasingly unlikely. Legislator’s best-known proponent of stricter gun laws says now is not the time.

“It distracts all the attention,” said Centennial Democratic MP Tom Sullivan.

Instead, Sullivan wants to focus on measures that he believes will be more effective in preventing gun violence. Technology, he said, can bypass bans on certain types of weapons.

“They work around it, with printers at home, or order piece by piece that doesn’t have a serial number on it. And they make what could be viewed as a weapon of attack. “

Sullivan got involved in politics after his son Alex was killed while filming at the Aurora Theater in 2012. He’s sponsored several gun bills, including Colorado’s red flag law of 2019 and one this year That would require people to report lost and stolen firearms. However, he fears that it will be more difficult to pass other reforms if members of his party introduce a law banning offensive weapons.

“I’ve had this conversation since the day Alex was murdered,” Sullivan said of the debate over which policies to push for. “It’s a slow process again, like all major legislative changes that affect our country, from voter and women’s rights to LGBTQ rights to civil rights and racial equality. They all take a lot of time. And I think we are on the right track. ”

For a ban to take effect, Sullivan believes that it must be done at the federal level.

“I mean, if we were to ban something here, it would be very easy to go to one of the surrounding states.”

Some democratic lawmakers began to discuss the possibility of pushing for a ban after 10 people were killed in a King Soopers on March 22nd in Boulder. The accused shooter reportedly used a Ruger AR-556 pistol, with a clamp that makes it work more like a gun.

Democratic Governor Jared Polis told CPR’s Colorado Matters that he was not focusing on the type of firearm used in the massacre. Instead, Polis said he wants Colorado to step up universal background checks.

“What stands out in this case is – how could this young man who was violent in the past legally buy a gun?” asked Polis. “I think he had two guns, right? I’m not concerned about the model of the gun at this point. Why was he able to buy a gun when he was recently convicted of an act of violence? ”

The accused shooter Ahmad Alissa, was arrested for a misdemeanor in 2017, pleaded guilty and spent a year on probation. This criminal history was insufficient to prohibit him from legally buying a gun under current Colorado law.

Polis said he wants lawmakers to talk about what “would have the greatest impact on people’s safety”.

“Let’s look at the classification of acts of violence that prohibits you from buying a gun, at least for a period of time, maybe a decade, maybe five years.”

Colorado passed general background exams in 2013 following the Aurora shootings and Sandy Hook Elementary School. That year, the state also passed a high-capacity magazine ban. More recently, Polis signed what is known as the Red Flag Gun Act, which allows the courts to temporarily remove firearms from anyone deemed a danger to themselves or others. Polis said the law could be even more effective.

“(It) could have been used in this case. The family didn’t know about it, ”said Polis. “We need a better range. It was mainly used by law enforcement agencies. We want to make sure families know about this – when parents see their child with a gun and are concerned about their state of mind and show signs of risk, an extreme risk protection arrangement can be a great tool. ”

Even without Sullivan’s discouragement, it would be a major task for the state Democrats to promote a ban on offensive weapons.

At least two other State Democrats are likely to vote against such a bill. One of them is Senate President Leroy Garcia, who was among the few democratic lawmakers who spoke out against the red flag law. He argued that politics did not respect the “rights of responsible gun owners”.

During a town hall shortly after the Boulder shooting, Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg, whose district includes the King Soopers, where the mass shooting took place, hinted at how difficult it would be to get a ban passed, even if the Democrats were for the state government are responsible.

“The Boulder County delegation, probably the vast majority of the Denver delegation, supports the most absolute and aggressive policies that can be developed regarding the prevention of gun violence,” said Fenberg. “Of course we need more than just ourselves to make it.”