California is still reeling from a serious of mass shootings that rocked the state last month. One of those took place in Monterey Park, part of Los Angeles.
The whole situation was awful, and it’s a sign that California’s gun control proposals simply don’t work. Not that gun control advocates there have agreed.
Unsurprisingly, the LA County Board of Supervisors is set to respond to the shooting. Politically, they almost have to.
However, absolutely none of the measures they’re proposing as a response would have done anything to impact the Monterey Park shooting.
Item 2, authored by chair Hahn, establishes ordinances to prohibit the sale of .50 caliber firearms and ammunition in the unincorporated areas of the county and prohibit the possession of firearms on county property, with certain exceptions. The motion also requests the Department of Regional Planning to prepare an ordinance to implement zoning regulations with a 1,000 feet buffer between firearm sellers and child-sensitive areas, as well as the Treasurer and Tax Collector to prepare the final amendments to the county code regarding business licenses to enhance the regulation of firearm and ammunition dealers in unincorporated areas of the county.
Item 8, authored by Supervisor Solis, directs the county’s chief executive office’s legislative affairs and intergovernmental relations branch to send a five-signature letter to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, with a copy to the Los Angeles County Congressional delegation, in support of S.14 and S. 25 ─ legislation to raise the minimum age to purchase assault weapons from 18 to 21 and ban the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
Item 15, authored by Supervisor Horvath, instructs county counsel to draft an ordinance and report back to the Board of Supervisors on requiring all firearms in a residence be securely stored in a locked container or disabled trigger lock and draft ordinance language that would mandate liability insurance for gun owners. The motion also requests the feasibility of implementing a county gun database and asks that the Treasurer and Tax prepare an amendment to the county code requiring signs to be displayed with specific language warning customers about the risk associated with access to firearms wherever they are sold.
That’s right. A .50 caliber ban, a ban on carrying a firearm on county property, and a request for a proposal to create a buffer between gun stores and places kids might be on one measure; one that would draft a mandatory storage proposal; then one that would push for raising the age to buy a so-called assault weapon.
What did any of those have with Monterey Park?
The killer there didn’t use a .50 caliber firearm, nor was the shooting on county property–not that it would have stopped him if it had and this restriction been in place–and it damn sure didn’t happen within any supposed buffer zone around a school.
Further, the gun wasn’t taken from someone who failed to secure the weapon and the killer was well over the age of 21.
In other words, literally none of this has anything to do with Monterey Park. Monterey Park is merely a pretense they can use to justify the things they already wanted to do.
Frankly, if one of my loved ones was killed, I’d be downright furious at this nonsense by the board of supervisors. To use the senseless murder of innocent people to push an agenda that has nothing to do with those murders would infuriate me.
Granted, it’s not like new ordinances that tried to address what happened would be much better, but they’d at least be understandable. After all, if you think laws will prevent tragedies like Monterey Park, then sure, you’re going to pass new laws.
But none of these look to be related to what happen, even if you get drunk and squint at it a lot.
Then again, you know what some people say: Never let a good crisis go to waste.
