California church shooter prohibited from lawfully owning guns

ValynPi14 / Pixabay

On Tuesday, I wrote about the horrific shooting at a church in Sacramento, California. Four people were killed before the killer turned the gun on himself.

The gunman’s three daughters were among the slain.

Honestly, calling it “horrific” is far too mild a term. And this happened in gun control haven California, a state with all kind of laws such as red flag laws that are meant to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Plus, as I speculated yesterday, the fact that this happened during a supervised visitation suggested there was a violent past.

It seems that there was.

The man who authorities say shot his three children and their chaperone before he killed himself at a Sacramento, California, church Monday had been arrested five days previously and accused of battering a police officer.

[Name redacted], 39, was arrested Feb. 23 on suspicion of drunken driving in Los Banos, Merced County Sheriff’s Deputy Daryl Allen said. He said Mora ended up in jail based on additional charges of resisting arrest and battery on law enforcement after an attack on a California Highway Patrol officer.

[He] spent a night in jail before he posted bail, Allen said. The arrest was first reported by the Merced Sun-Star.

[He] was under a domestic violence restraining order, requested by the children’s mother last year, that specified that he could not have guns and had to undergo 16 sessions of anger management counseling.

Under the order, which had been set to expire in 2026 but could have been modified if he completed anger management, Mora was allowed to have four-hour visits with his children under the supervision of a man identified as Nathaniel, said to be a friend of the children’s mother.

However, he hadn’t undergone that anger management training. Clearly.

Yet, as noted, this is California. They have tons of laws that we’re told will prevent this sort of thing from happening.

They didn’t.

Especially as the killer was prohibited under the law from owning any firearms, and yet, he had a gun and used it to claim the lives of his own children.

I’m sorry, I’m never going to understand that.

On the same token, though, I don’t understand how anti-Second Amendment types continue to claim that these laws will save lives when they clearly don’t.

What would have saved lives was if someone else there had been armed. Frankly, if the gunman had a history of violence, being armed would have been prudent. Now, I can’t say that if the law had been different, then the chaperone would have been armed.

However, with California law being what it is, it wouldn’t matter either way since it wasn’t an option. In my mind, that is a crime. A crime that cost three little girls and an innocent man their life.

I sincerely wish these jackwagons would reverse the order of their shooting victims by starting with themselves for a change. While it would be awful for the kids, at least they’d be alive to learn to deal with it and the piece of crap would still be gone.