Despite having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, it remains relatively easy to illegally acquire and use a firearm in California. So easy, in fact, that a juvenile who was already busted for illegally having a gun once before was allegedly able to get his hands on another and use it to shoot three people at a San Jose mall on Black Friday.
Prosecutors in Santa Clara County (where it costs residents about $2,000 to obtain a two-year concealed carry permit) have charged a 17-year-old with three counts of attempted murder and several weapons-related offenses for the shooting, which authorities have said was gang-related. According to police, the suspect saw someone at the mall who may or may not have a been a rival gang member, drew his (illegally carried) gun and started shooting, hitting both his intended target and two shoppers.
On Monday, authorities revealed that the teen was on probation for a concealed-gun possession charge from February, after receiving a deferred judgment requiring him to fulfill counseling and rehabilitation measures that, if successfully completed, would have led to the charge dismissal.
That the teen was arrested nine months later for a shooting that garnered national headlines prompted San Jose Police Chief Paul Joseph, Mayor Matt Mahan and Rosen to renew their criticisms of juvenile justice laws they argued inadequately account for the threat posed by minors accused of gun crimes — regardless of whether a weapon was fired — and other more explicit acts of violence.
They referred to an infamous Valentine’s Day stabbing that killed an unsuspecting 15-year-old boy at nearby Santana Row, another upscale shopping site, allegedly at the hands of a 13-year-old boy. Juvenile crime laws, they asserted, have spurred a gang pathology that deploys young males to carry out violence expressly because of lax punishment.
Mahan and Rosen are right about California's dysfunctional juvenile justice system, but they should also be criticizing the state's gun control laws. If a 17-year-old with gang ties can be caught with a gun and get nothing more that probation, of course his cohorts are going to think they can get away doing the same.
Meanwhile, a Santa Clara county resident who wants to legally carry a gun to protect herself has to first go through more than a dozen hours of training, a psychological evaluation, fingerprinting, and hand over more than $1,000 to the county just to apply for a permit... and then wait for months on end to be approved. Sure, she could carry illegally too, but she doesn't want to risk even a probationary sentence, and there's no guarantee that she wouldn't go to prison if she's caught with a gun.
This 17-year-old didn't go through a 10-day waiting period to get his hands on his illicit firearms. He didn't submit to a background check when he acquired the ammunition that he loaded into his gun. He didn't apply for a carry permit. He violated multiple gun control laws in California, and when he was caught the criminal justice system essentially shrugged and gave him a slap on the wrist.
As good California Democrats, Mahan and Rosen wouldn't dare acknowledge the fact that not a single of the state's restrictive gun laws stopped this teen from repeatedly getting ahold of a gun, and if they did it would only be to demand even more restrictions aimed at people who are trying to lawfully exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Even without openly criticizing the state's gun control regime, though, the pair are essentially making the same argument that Second Amendment advocates have been saying for years: the way to stop criminal activity is to punish criminals, not lawful gun owners. This isn't rocket science. It's common sense. But in California, common sense rarely prevails when it comes to public safety and our Second Amendment rights.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member