East Bay political leaders praised President Obama's announcement Wednesday that he was taking executive action to enact gun control legislation.
The presidentincluding ones to enhance background checks and expand the options for mental health professionals to report threats of violence.
He also asked Congress to approve legislation for universal background checks on gun purchases, restore a ban on assault weapons and limit magazines to 10 bullets.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) announced his support of the president's directives.
“The president has put together a bold plan to reduce gun violence and Congress needs to enact the legislation called for, like the ban on assault weapons, without delay. We cannot just sit on the sidelines and wait for another tragedy to happen," said Swalwell. "It is long overdue for members of both parties to rise above partisan differences and do what is right to protect the American people.”
Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) was quick to praise the president's actions.
“I applaud President Obama for moving so quickly to develop a comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence in the United States and in our schools," said Miller. "I support his proposal and urge Congress to work quickly to pass it."
Miller added he will work with other congressional representatives to increase safety in the nation's schools.
"Nothing is more important than the safety of our children. We must act now,” he said.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) said she hopes Congress will quickly adopt measures to renew the ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines as well as require background checks on all gun sales.
Lee added she wants to improve mental health and violence prevention programs.
“I am encouraged by the actions taken by President Obama today to protect our children and communities from gun violence," said Lee. "However, there is much more work to be done in Congress and I will continue to fight for common sense solutions to the violence that plagues our nation and our communities."
State representatives also praised the initiatives.
State Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) said she hopes to follow the president's lead at the State Capitol and adopt gun control measures at the state level.
"The president is setting the tone for the national conversation that has to take place. I strongly agree with him that we need to take action in order to protect our children," said Hancock. "As someone who represents Oakland, I’ve seen the tragic consequences of gun violence - too many children are dying."
State Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) agreed.
“I applaud President Obama for presenting a comprehensive plan that will help reduce the gun violence ravaging our communities and, hopefully, stop the rash of mass shootings that have become an all-too-common occurrence," she said.
Last week, Skinner unveiled legislation to ban high capacity clip kits and enact safeguards on bullet sales.
Gun rights advocates, however, said President Obama's directives don't have a lot of teeth.
Charles Nichols, president of California Right to Carry, said the president's 23 executive orders require $5 billion in funding that Congress needs to approve.
He added the president doesn't have the authority to enact gun bans. That, he said, must come from Congress. Nichols said congressional approval of gun prohibitions is unlikely.
"President Obama's much hyped proposals were revealed this morning and despite all of the doomsday prophecies to the contrary, Mr. Obama all but conceded defeat," said Nichols.
Read more about gun control issues on Patch:
- President Obama Calls for Universal Background Checks—Your Thoughts?
- Gun Advocates: Owning A Weapon Is A Civil Right
- Guns – Time for More Controls? A Ban?
There is no(!) difference in the tools a typical law enforcement officer needs to survive a lethal encounter and that of the average citizen. The three basic tools are a semiautomatic handgun (with 15+ round magazines), a pump shotgun, and an semiautomatic rifle (on an AR platform with 20- or 30-round magazines. You are a fool to believe otherwise.
The founding fathers didn't base the 2nd Amendment of "extreme unlikely scenarios" the lived it, fought for it and gave it to us to preserve it. I am thankful that you and I have not had to endure life under tyranny, but many millions have and died defenseless (Stalin, Lenin, Mao se Tung, Khmer Rouge, Hilter, Saddam Hussein). The problem with being so insulated from it is that you develop the mindset of "well that can never happen here". I am sure that Polish Jews in the late 30's had a similar mindset. The problem with banning weapons or magazine capacity is that it will not accomplish what we both want, keeping all guns out of the hand of criminals and the deranged. It's flawed logic....Ban AR15's and they will never be used again, Ban magazine that hold more than 10 and they will disappear, put a sign on a school claiming it a gun-free zone and the psycho will leave his gun in the car. These laws only affect law abiding citizens. If we draw a new gun regulation "line" after every tragedy will my grandkids be able to own a gun? How much liberty do we give up for perceived security? The irony is the more we disarm law-abiding citizens the less secure we are. The second amendment and it's purpose is timeless and just as relevant today as it was when it was conceived because Human nature has not changed.
Not like this..... "Which guns should we ban for all?"
1. The mother should have had all her gun locked in a safe with no possible access for her son. 2. The mother and family (who were afraid of the shooter) should have recognized the son's shift in behavior and sought help for him earlier. 3. The school should have had an armed trained resource officer that may have been able to intervene. Thanks
This absolutely has been the case for 30 years. The anti-gun zealots wait for a tragedy and then swoop in like vultures while emotions are high and push their agenda. They use the victims for their agenda, shameful!!!!
Let's not forget all of the constitution including the clauses of Article 1: Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. So if you want to take view your right to bears arms in a 1776 view be prepared to be called to patrol the border, or hop a flight to defend an embassy in the middle east. Or maybe you'll be called up to help the DEA. If you want to look at current supreme court rulings you'll see that the government has the right to limit the types of arms you can own, but they cannot tell you what to do with legally owned guns in your own home. On another note, where in the constitution does it say that felons cannot own guns and that background check are required? Source: http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/47-militia.html
All that I see in a pretty constant number of murders for 10 years after the gun ban, then a spike over the following 10 years from which we've fallen over the last 15 years. Looks like the author picked specific data points to support his argument. Just another liar making me and other gun owners look bad. Source data: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm Please note their disclaimer: District of Columbia's 2005 Cities crimes and Rates as reported in the FBI's September 2006 release of the "UCR for Metropolitan Statistical Areas" (MSA) -- Statistics not available for all MSA'a
You can get a summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller