typical political garbage, has no value but will anger the public especially those who are honest citizens.
We dont need more paperwork, just keep the criminals in prison so they dont repeat
and on a similar note lets face it statistically the illegals are overcrowding our prisons for violent crimes and we continue to allow more and more to come here, but our local politicians want this really dumb bullet stuff and yet they cannot protect our borders.
Our politicians are truly gutless, useless, and leaderless

Criminals will get thier ammo the same way they get thier guns...... Legislators need to wake up and smell the cordite..

This is a stupid law that only creats more and more paperwork, the criminals and gangs do not buy ammo in stores they get it the same way they get guns. If they take away the guns form the citizens only the criminals will have guns. This laws needs to be repealed asap. The law makers need to wake up and abide by our 2nd amendment.

While it's great to have many comments on Amy's article, some folks have not read our Terms of Use -- which are really easy to understand, unlike almost all the other legalese you see on the Web, and well worth a couple of minutes of your time: http://napa.patch.com/terms

I really, really dislike taking people's comments down and I've had to do it three times today -- once at the commenter's request, because he wasn't willing to stand behind his post by using his real name, and twice because people chose to use gutter language that we specifically request that Napa Patch commenters avoid.

Please: Use your real names. We do.
Please: Skip the profanity, either spelled out or masked with keyboard characters. We don't curse at you.

Thanks, all.

I lived much of my life in California. I watched the crime and violence escalate as the gun laws there became stricter. They have solved nothing except creating many new government positions and lot's of red tape! When you look at the statistics from all the States that now have "Right to Carry" laws, you will see that crime has continued to gone down in those states. This new law in California solves nothing, takes away more of our liberties, and potentially gives the government more control over the average law-abiding citizen. When will the madness stop?

If you want crime to go down, take a lesson from the other states. Get rid of the current "liberal" politicians in Sacramento, and get rid of California's unrealistic gun laws. Remember... "An armed society is a polite society!"

Rev. Philip E. Evans
Comanche, OK

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone in Napa has an opinion on these new laws, or if it's all folks from out of town?

Sadly, so soon after my earlier reminder of our Terms of Service (click at bottom of every Napa Patch page), I just had to delete another post from someone who did not wish to stand behind his or her comments by using his or her real name. Here's a tip: if you wouldn't introduce yourself at a party by the name you use online, then it's probably not a real name and I'll probably delete your comment.

Requiring thumb prints of law abiding citizens is the same thing as presuming guilt over innocence. We are on a short trip from living in a police state where none of our civil liberties will be in effect. Those living in California need to wake up to this inherent threat to the freedoms that come with living in this great country. I live in Indiana where it uses a common sense approach to gun control. I have also lived in New York where the liberals have an unreasonable approach to gun control. I hope that I never have to live under that kind of burden again.

This is just more Govt. control. They want to know who has what, and they can do that by what you buy. We have to register firearms, so now we'll be monitored by the ammunition we buy. There is nothing we can do about this, nothing. Even the NRA can't fight this. As long and the citizens of this country have guns, they can't just take control. And that, they do not like.

I had to provide a thumb print -- twice -- to renew my California driving license recently. I wonder if that's because the license is the "ammo" for my driving?

Anyone else out there from Napa?

I'm from Napa, and I think this is the stupidest bill out there. It will NEVER stop a "gang" member from getting ammo. This also will inpact alot of compatition shooters. I just see it as a "feel good" law. Vety stupid on the side of Nazifornia, and I hope it get repealed!

It seems that Politicians will never get it. Only law abiding citizens obey laws the criminals do not care. All the new laws create problems that tie the courts up and fill the prisons with a lot of people that are not dangerous but confused with all the laws that even attorneys can't keep up with. I do not understand how people can't see what happens when you take something away from someone they will compensate with something else. Timothy McVeigh is an example if the guns are all taken from law abiding citizens then only criminals will have guns. If they don't then they will use something improvised out of basic everyday materials (diesel fuel and fertilizer are 2 that come to mind). We need to find a way for everyone to get along or people killing each other will continue no matter what laws are written.

Lousia stated "I had to provide a thumb print -- twice -- to renew my California driving license recently. I wonder if that's because the license is the "ammo" for my driving?"

When I got my permit to carry a handgun I had to submit to a FBI background check complete with fingerprinting. When I renew my permit I need to show a passport and second form of photo id. There is also another criminal background check. This is similar to your driving license analogy above. How would you like to be finger printed and show ID to purchase gas for your car? Would that cut down on unregistered drivers, hit and runs, and other automobile crimes? Handgun Permit is to Drivers License as Ammo is to Gas.

The major question is "Does penalizing the law abiding deter the criminals?" I am from CT but I am concerned with what I see happening in CA because it shows what might happen here.

As far as I am concerned, there can never be enough control over guns and ammo. While I don't get it, I do respect a person's right to own a firearm and to hunt (although it would seem to me to be more fun and exciting if the field was level and the deer had guns too). The goal of the new bill is to reduce gun violence. It is illogical to think that to accomplish this we need to make it easier for people to get guns and ammo. I am open to any viable suggestions on curbing gun violence except the idea that more guns and ammo and easier access will reduce gun violence. Simply does not make sense.

The problem with the Scalia interpretation of the second amendment is that in 1789 when it was written we probably did need a "well regulated militia" and the congress of the US at the time recognized this. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Hard to imagine that we need a militia today. Second Amendment does not say we all have a right to unregulated ownership of firearms and ammo-the Constitution REQUIRES the government to regulate American's right to bear arms. The new law does NOT infringe upon your right to have a gun-just makes it more regulated-what's not to like?

Interesting that this discussion made it to Nazi in only 7 posts! Not bad.
John Ruch
Napa

Michael, welcome, and thanks for the amplification -- no, I sure would not like to show ID to buy my gas.
FYI, if you're in Connecticut, chances are good your community also has a Patch -- you can locate the nearest ones from our map at www.patch.com. The network has grown to more than 500 sites around the country, each operating locally and pretty much autonomously. See what you think.

Hey John -- We actually had four other posts; but I had to take them down because one commenter got cold feet about using his name and begged us to delete his post, a couple of others wouldn't stand up and use their names either and two folks chose to sling profanity. There was some overlap.

AB962 is going to cause more crime (not less), and aside from that it is going to further drive commerce out of this state. Criminals will drive out of state and buy massive quantities of ammunition that they can then sell at a premium in the newly created "California Ammunition Black Market". It WILL happen. We can't keep millions of illegal immigrants, thousands of pounds of drugs, or a whole list of firearms that the State of Kalifornia has outlawed from entering this state on a daily basis. Think about all the money that will be spent out of state to acquire that ammo, and not a single cent of it will be taxed in California.
About 20 years ago, the US Congress repealed a very similar national law because IT DID NOTHING BUT COST MONEY (and California has enough money problems already I think).

California should be a warning to the rest of the country about what bad laws and politicians run amok will do. California is a living, breathing (I'd say gasping on life support) example of what 20 years of unchecked illegal immigration will do to a state economy; of what 30 years of building a welfare economy will do to a state economy; most recently we are a textbook example of what bad tax laws will do to drive business out of your state.

The people of this state need to get their heads out of the sand and start paying attention to what all these laws have ACTUALLY DONE to this state, rather than pretending that passing a "feel good" law will actually have some impact.

@John K. Ruch

As much as you "don't get it" is that you "refuse to believe it", statistics do not lie:
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/moreguns.htm
http://prevarication.net/2010/05/2009-fbi-statistics-show-more-guns-less-crime/
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5857
Since I'm sure you'll say that the NRA is twisting the facts, go to the source:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009/crime2009

You're not getting it because you have preconceived notions about it. The 2nd Amendment is not about what you are referring to as a militia, and the word regulated was commonly used to mean supplied when it was written.

If you actually do some research about what the men that wrote the Amendment were thinking, the Second Amendment was solely and simply signed into the Bill of Rights to facilitate the people of this country overthrowing their own government, should it become necessary. But that is an entirely different discussion.

AB962 is another example in a VERY long line of California gun laws that are what men like Bruce Schneier refer to as "Security Theater"; it does nothing but provide the illusion of security, while actually making you less secure by covering up the underlying security flaw.

More laws are clearly not the answer.

If Sarah Brady could wave a magic wand and cause all of the guns in the world to go to the Moon, I could have a gun by tomorrow afternoon. It's one of the oldest and simplest technologies known to man. Take a steel pipe, some charcoal, some sort of nitrate oxidizer(cheep fertilizer will do), some fishing weights, a wooden handle... It's quite simple to make a gun! It would likely be larger than .50 caliber and if anyone else has no gun, then a single shot pocket gun rules the world.
Do you REALLY want criminals making their own firearms? They will do it in a hidden garage or basement in a neighborhood (YOUR neighborhood perhaps). Many of these black-market manufacturers will be sloppy with their quality control.
The point is... no matter what laws are enacted, criminals WILL have guns... even if they have to make them themselves!

I believe that criminals will always be able to get guns, so I don't think any law will ever be able to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but a "God Given right?" I think this privilege is in the Constitution, not the Bible.

Just out of curiosity, before this law, what kind of information was required by the buyer to purchase a gun?

Hi Sandy -- Excellent point and well expressed! The Constitution and our other founding documents were not handed down from on high, but written by men. One, Roger Sherman, is supposed to be a direct ancestor in my family and we are definitely human.
Amy may be able to answer your question about handgun sales --but the new law imposes restrictions on the sale of handgun ammo, not the guns, likely because the handguns transactions are already regulated so strictly.

Hi S.R.,
I can't claim it's "as I say," as I was just referring to another comment on this story: "Purchasing a firearm in California, along with the rest of the US, requires a back ground check to take procession of the firearm, even at gun shows. In Ca, to buy a handgun you need to take a test in order to get a Handgun Safety Cert. and demonstrate that you know how the handgun functions."
You seem to have answers, so let me ask you -- what's your answer to your own question about why criminals have handguns?
And how do they get their criminal records in the first place?

The Constitution "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This is the EXACT quote.

Also, if law enforcement is behind this (and I would assume this is how this Bill was created), then I am behind our Honorable men and women in uniform who walk the streets everyday dealing with these scumbags. If this new law prevents just one Officer or innocent bystander from being killed, then the end justify the means.

This is just another incremental step towards make it harder for those who are law abiding gun owners to do that which is legal and reasonable. Why should lawmakers leave folks to live their lives when they have such wonderful opportunity to micro-manage their lives and spend their money? What is entirely unreasonable is that law makers (and too often judges) should allow their personal ignorance and irrational paranoia overcome reason and good laws which previously served very well. By way of extrapolation it is logical to conclude that the majority of voters (& to some extent the heavily gerrymandered district boundaries) have contributed to the pervasive mess this state is in by not digging deep enough into the cause & effect of legislation written by those they elected. We will whine tirelessly when we don't get our way but will continue to re-elect those who offer us the best bribes by way of big political promises which appeal to whatever our favorite form of selfishness might be. With liberty comes responsibility. What we sorely need is for the population of California to become in every way more responsible which among other things would cause us to dismiss all those in our too massive over-reaching government who fail to understand that their job is to govern with minimal rather than maximum invasiveness. There is no other way to preserve our fiscal well being or our liberty.

Stuart Bryant, Atwater, Calif.

OK, it was the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't change the fact that I am still searching for the quote in the Declaration of Independence where it says the Creator says it's our unalienable right to bear arms. Looks like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to me. Please cut and paste the quote you are referring to.

Ammunition registration was part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The first result was a sharp increase in store breakins to steal the bound book ammunition records were kept in. The bound book that contained the name and address of every ammunition buyer. The second was a sharp increase in the number of stolen guns. That idiocy was eventually dropped when it was proven that not a single criminal had been caught as a result of ammunition registration, but it had resulted in thousands of crimes.

The new law will drive up the cost for ammunition and drive down the demand because people who value privacy will decline to "register" the fact that they purchased ammo. That's just how these anti-gunners want it. Death of a civil right by a thousand cuts masquerading as safety measures.

Voting has a far more profound effect on government than how many guns are owned law abiding citizens. Imagine if for a second that the right to vote were predicated by a requirement to exercise that right only in person, providing a thumbprint, filling out a questionnaire form under penalty of perjury, showing government issued ID, submitting to a NICS check to ensure you're not a felon, dishonorably discharged, a repatriated citizen, drug user, under a restraining order or a wife beater? Then there's the matter of a poll fee to cover the cost of a NICS check. Finally, to exercise your voting right, the government requires you to show up twice - once to be checked out and then again three days later to actually vote after you've had time to cool off.

I'm curious as to why the states with higher CCW numbers have the lowest crime rates? Is it is ONLY one of two things-either the higher number of CCW's prevents crime or a BETTER breed of people in other states? If I knew nobody could defend themselves and they had something I wanted there is absolutely nothing preventing me from taking it from them. A person can cover 21 feet (width of most streets) in less than 3 seconds, how long does it take to call 911? (Vallejo 911 you leave a message and they will dispatch a unit when they have time) As Oakland has proven the LEO's are not everywhere at once. Then what about the Vets and handicapped individuals that no longer have thumbs? Do they no longer have the right to enjoy shooting sports due to the over reaching liberal agenda? I am supporting all lawsuits against the state of CA and Pelosi, Deleon, Boxer et al.

Life, liberty - neither of which can be secured without the availability of arms. But I digress, it may be too much of a stretch to ask that you buy that the first sentence of the document encompasses the bearing of arms. How about direct from the Bible?

Ecclesiastes 3:1 "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: "
Ecclesiastes 3:8 "A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace."

Timothy 5:8 "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." (providing includes providing for their security)

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 11:21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe;"

I could go on.

The entire history of Man has shown that without the means to defend oneself, man is at the utter mercy of those with weapons (recent history including the Holocaust, which would have been entirely impossible had the populace been armed).

This law (AB962) is not only unconstitutional but will further drive business out of the state. I don't know anyone who is going to submit to his law and are forming "ammo runs" to drive to AZ or NV to purchase for groups who are pooling monies. Most of these people shoot every weekend and some compete spending on average $2500 per month each on ammo. X that by say 1000 and you have a 1.3 million $ a year spent out side of the state. BTW it is not nor will be against the law to buy out of state and drive back. Nor will it be a crime to have a person (relative) out of state ship you ammo (just no internet ordering) so this law is really as dumb a they come.

J

Great dialog here, but for all those that find reasons to oppose this new law, can we get a few suggestions as to how to curb gun violence? Again, arming the entire populace is not an option. At least this bill is making an effort to make it a bit harder to get ammo-not impossible, and no one is trying to take guns away from anyone. Nor is the US government interested in tracking what you do by what you buy (towards what end?).

As for the expected 'border bleed' for going to NV to buy ammo to skirt the CA state law, this issue has been addressed by states that do not allow the transportation of alcohol across state lines (like PA). Sure its done, but they do catch some, and at least this is a start.

I find it a bit of a stretch to assume a complete causal relationship between CCW laws and crime rates. Again, this is a start-perhaps an imperfect one, but a start nonetheless.

Suggestions for reducing crime? Enforce our existing laws. In every single instance where a gun was used in a crime in California in the last 15 years, there is not a single law that could have prevented it. Nor could we construct such a law. It's just not possible. What we need to do is reform our prison system to quit churning out better criminals. No more gym time, no more scholarly pursuits (GED, ok. Law degree, not ok), no more cable television. No socializing. 23.5 hours a day in a cell, 30 minutes for exercise - cardio only, no weight training. You're in prison for a reason.

We need to make it a death penalty offense to be a gang member. And then shorten the trip from the court room to the morgue for those given the death penalty (20+ years between is not a deterrent). Change our 10-20-life law to 10-20-death.

But those are solutions. They don't make you feel all warm and fuzzy. All of those solutions force people to actually be accountable for their actions.

"Nor is the US government interested in tracking what you do by what you buy (towards what end?). "

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/hotwatch-track-credit-card-purchase-no-court-order-needed-t37606.html

Really?

"I find it a bit of a stretch to assume a complete causal relationship between CCW laws and crime rates."

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/images/graphicsmatte/americanpopulationfirearmscrimes.png

Look hard at that graphic. More guns = less crime. The statistics are there to prove it over and over.

Doug, yuck. You had an argument going there, why so why conclude with potty talk? Sorry, folks ... another one bites the Terms of Use dust. Don't worry, though, he had nothing to add to the points our more civil commenters have made:
"I've got news for you Californians: Your legislature can't protect you against criminals who want to hurt you. Your police department response time is inadequate. You have one of the largest illegal immigrant populations (maybe the largest) in the country (not all illegals are bad people, but many are, or become, very desperate people). Your state keeps taking more and more of your God given ability to defend yourself. This is a fundamental concept that our founding fathers recognized and reserved for us, and you keep allowing giving it away piece by piece to your state capital.

You probably don't need machine guns and grenades. But some ammunition? They want to make you liable for crimes committed by criminals using ammunition you purchased legally."

See? He still makes his point, without the excremental references.

Greg Silveira
Hey Joe, your wasting your time using facts to attempt to make your point. The U.S. Dept. of Justice posts the crime stats every year and for the past 30 some years the rate of violent crime has gone down...even as the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens has gone up. But this fact has had no effect on the rhetoric of anti-gunners. Every state that has passed concealed carry laws reported an immediate reduction in violent crime. This fact is also conveniently overlooked by anti-gunners. We waste our time trying to justify gun ownership to an anti-gunner. The only thing you can do is exercise your right to vote and join the N.R.A.

Joe, I went to the link:
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/images/graphicsmatte/americanpopulationfirearmscrimes.png and the main part of the page is black. BUMMER!

Once again folks, this isn't a costume party and there's no need to pretend you are a superhero. (Do the folks at work call you "Lady Liberty"?!) Please, use your real name on Napa Patch or find another place to posture.

Hi, Joe, and thank you for that thought -- I am sure that in some cases you're exactly right. But not in all: Some of the "names" and comments I've had to delete were simply rude and insulting for the sake of it -- complete with profane made-up email addresses.

Regardless of motivation, though, the site has very clear terms of use indicating that folks who wish to post comments on Napa Patch need to do it honestly under their own names.

If they don't wish to comment straightforwardly, like the rest of us, they are welcome to keep their thoughts to themselves -- nobody is forcing them to post.

To all the rest of our reader/commenters: Thank you for keeping it real.

As was pointed out in this article; one gun store owner commented that some customers wanting to buy ammo will leave, unwilling to give this information” . Yes. And I’m one of them, as are many other Californians. But this new law will also create opportunities for a new cottage industry. I envision my Dillon reloading press working overtime, & my aircraft making regular flights to Nevada for reloading supplies. Just as I was wondering how I’d maintain my very comfortable life style at retirement my well paying job affords me, new moneymaking opportunities arise.
THANK YOU PEOPLES REPUBLIK OF CALIFORNIA!

Having lived in Commiefornia for eight years of my adult life (76-84), I believe I am qualified to comment on your politics, which have continued to degrade at about the same rate they did while I lived there. Fortunately, my family was able to escape to Arizona as political refugees in 84, and it was the best thing that ever happened to us.

It is interesting that the three, allow me, "liberals", who have responded to this, Louisa, John and Sandy, are the only ones that posted photos of themselves. Are they "smarter" (more computer literate) than the resto of us, or do the rest of us have better things to do than figure out how to post an avatar here? No matter, it at leas makes them easy to identify as one scrolls up and down the responses. (And, yes, I realize Louisa is the Editor of this publication.)

All I want is for someone to tell me how more restrictive gun laws are going to prevent crime? Show me anywhere where more gun laws have taken weapons out of the hands of criminals? To date, nobody has been able to show me proof that restrictive gun reduce crime. All guns laws do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens. I'm glad I live in WA state. All I had to do for my conceal permit is fill out an application and get fingerprinted. This is yet another reason not to move to CA. Sounds to me like the legislature designed this law to deter law abiding citizens from purchasing ammo. Criminals (especially gang members) usually do not purchase ammo from a store. They buy it on the streets.

First, the three "liberals" appear to be less than 40 years old, as judged from their photos. This is not surprising. Over that time preiod, the CA education system has degraded to the point where I wouldn't expect the students to know much about American history. Considering their "smartness" (they posted photos of themselves), it's curious that they haven't availed themselves of the vast resources available on the net to educate themselves about the parts of American history that the CA schools were neglegent in teaching them. The Declaration Of Independence, Constitution, Bill Of Rights, Federalist Papers, Common Sense and many of the other writings of the Founders are freely available, as are commentaries to help a person understand them. The "Photogenic Three" should avail themselves of these resources.

They should also study the Gun Control Act of 1968 (likely before they were born) to find out what the federal laws are regarding firearms posesion. It might interest them to know that a convicted felon cannot lay so much as a finger on a firearm without violating federal law and incurring a 10 year prison sentence. (Cont.)

Before bloviating here, you should spend some time reading the information on the NRA web site. No, you don't have to be a member to read. It's all free. Go educate yourselves. You'll find a different take on the issues regarding this and many other gun laws. Far different from what you hear/read in your local media. You SERIOUSLY need a different perspective.

Go to your library and borrow a copy of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". What others have stated here is true. States having the most lax gun laws have the least crime. Arizona is one. We allow concealed carry with or without a permit and open carry of loaded firearms. Our crime rate is FAR below that of Commiefornia. Same with Alaska and Vermont. 40 states allow concealed carry and all of them have had significant drops in crime after passage of Right-To-Carry CCW. You all have your heads in the sand of CA liberal meadia outlets. They all take their cues from the gun control crowd. Spend some time with the NRA web site and get a ballanced view. To do otherwise is to prove that you're not smarter than the rest of us, despite your avatars.

Regards,

Stew

P.S.

Your anti-gun laws have doubled or trippled since I left in 84 and your crime rate has continued to increase. Does this give you any clue as to the future effectiveness of the ammo registration law? If you can't see that it will do N-O-T-H-I-N-G to reduce your crime, you're dumb as a box of rocks. Tell your legislators to get off the backs of the honest citizens and start severely punishing those who commit crimes. NO PLEA BARGAINING OF GUN RELATED OFFENSES WHEN A FELONY HAS BEEN COMMITTED WHILE USING ONE. Slam the door, throw away the key.

One more thing...

It occurs to me that CA is the only state requiring registration of handgun ammo. They're one of the few states requiring that HONEST folks jump through all kinds of hoops to purchase firearms. I can go into a gun shop, decide what I want, show my CCW permit, fill out the federal form, buy ammo, load the gun, stick it in my pocket and walk out. No problem. CA residents have to wait, what is it now, 10 or 15 days to pick up what they've already paid for, must lock it in the trunk and lock the ammo in the glove compartment to drive home. My question is, what's wrong with you folks in CA? How can you be so incompetent (as determined by your legislature) as to not be able to tote a loaded firearm around with you, nor are you competent enough to take home your purchase the day you buy it, as you would a car or chain saw? Why are you folks so incompetent? Just curious.

Regards,

Stew

E.G., you flatter me unduly in several ways: My photo is up because I am the editor of Napa Patch, and am moderating this conversation; my age is far beyond 40. (The other two people with photos are Napa Patch contributors; I am the only employee.)
But where did you get the idea I'm a "liberal"? And what good are these labels doing any of us?
This all started because Napa Patch published a simple review of some new laws going into effect in 2011.
The NRA even re-posted it without comment and I've received e-mail compliments from gun supporters praising author Amy's even-handed approach to reporting the facts.
For the record, I agree.
So, E.G.: Why are you so upset?

Louisa,

Sorry if you misinterpreted my repsonse(s)(word-limited). Amy's report is reasonably accurate, within the confines of what I've come to expect from the media.

I'm not upset. I WAS upset 26 years ago when I was essentially thrown out of Commiefornia for exercising my 2nd Amendment rights while living in a Monrovia apartment and while a member of the US Navy Reserve (U.S.Armed Forces). It seems tha all you folks know about firearms is what you see in the movies. I am a retired US Navy Chief Gunner's Mate, an NRA certified firearms instructor, a former Arizona Game and Fish Hunter Education Instructor and have been shooting since 1966 and handloading and casting my own bullets since 1972. I'm not a gun "nut", but rather a firearms afficianado, competitor, collector and student of the media, gun control laws and the beliefs of the Founders of this great nation.

Cont.

I ask about your "incompetetence" because I want to get under your skin and make you aware of what your legislators think of you. They truly believe you are incompetent with firearms and want to put as many barriers in your way as possible to ensure that you "incompetent" folks don't get your hands on the "EVIL GUNS", with which you may hurt yourselves (remember, you're incompetent).

For God's sake, folks, muster your resources, throw out the idiots in Sacremento, and get your God-given Rights back! I HATE to see such a fabulously naturally endowed state drown in liberal, left-wing legislation. You're allowing it to happen. I used to enjoy my trips to the desert north of Barstow to hunt jack rabbits. I won't cross the state line now, if I can help it.

Your statement, "The Constitution and our other founding documents were not handed down from on high, but written by men. One, Roger Sherman, is supposed to be a direct ancestor in my family and we are definitely human." is the one that caused me to label you "liberal". Your statement clearly shows that you haven't studied the writings of the founders. There are "Rights" and "priveleges". "Rights" come from God. They cannot be eliminated. We have a Right to live (hence the anti-abortion movement). We have the Right to speak out against our government. We have the Right to exercise our reilgion. We have the Right to keep and bear arms, aside from the militia (see the Heller decision).
Cont.

John Ruch writes: ".....As for the expected 'border bleed' for going to NV to buy ammo to skirt the CA state law, this issue has been addressed by states that do not allow the transportation of alcohol across state lines (like PA). Sure its done, but they do catch some.

I find it a bit of a stretch to assume a complete causal relationship between CCW laws and crime rates. ........"
1: Re: “Border Bleed”: Yes they do catch “some”; a tiny percentage. And those intending to fly in ammo & reloading supplies by private aircraft, the percentage will be ZERO. Now Im not going on record saying I’ll do this. But I DO own an aircraft & reloading press. See previous post.

2: Re: “…..a stretch to assume a complete causal relationship between CCW laws & crime rates”…..
John; when you attempt to cite causal relationships you need to be specific in your verbiage. You need to specify “Violent Crime rates”. Otherwise you’ll have to include ALL crime, including white collar, which is irrelevant to this issue. So sticking to the issue; you’d have to be in a coma for the past 20 years to be unaware that in all 40 states, (without exception), that now have SHALL ISSUE CCW laws, “Violent” Crime has DECREASED. But don’t take my word for it. Google DOJ & FBI national crime stats.
The overwhelming evidence shoots your 2nd point down in flames.

You have the "privelege" to drive. Your license may be revoked at any time for violations of the driving laws. Your Right to speak out against your government, your Right to exercise your religion, your Right to life cannot be revoked. The Heller decision is the example showing that your Right to keep and bear arms cannot be revoked, either. This is the difference between Rights and priveleges.

If you want to retain ANY of your Rights, you had better start pushing back at your legislature. As it stands now, you have few of what the rest of the nation considers normal ways of living their lives. Do you get a vacation? If you do, spend your time and $$ driving through the Midwest, staying in different small towns. Visit their local diner for breakfast several mornings. Tell them about proposed legislation, but don't tell them it's for CA, tell them it's for their own state. Record their reactions. You'll find that CA and the east coast states are FAR out of touch with mainstream America. No, they're not nuts. Your legislature is. As I said earlier, get your head out of teh CA sand, and see what's going on in the resto of the world. I can't save your state for you, only you can. If you valus your Rights, you had better get off your duff and onto your soapbox (here) and rally the troops. There isn't much time left.

Regards,

Stew

"Arnold Anymouse," your unwillingness to use your own name shoots your credibility down in flames. Outta here! Suspended.

And E.G., you are aware that you, too, are part of "the media"? Here you are, after all. So maybe you should set your sights a little higher for all of us, because we are all in this together.

All these gun laws do is assure criminals that when they commit a crime they will be the only one with a gun. Most other states allow practically anyone to legally conceal carry a handgun, and their crime rates reflect that. They reflect that criminals don't like to get shot, so they commit less crimes.

Its no accident that areas with the country's strictest gun laws also have extremely above average crime rates, even compared to similar population density.

If, by this rather short bloviation, you consider me a "member" of the media, that's your perspective. I'd consider myself a "respondent", not a "correspondent". I wouldn't consider myself a "member" of the media unless I had a regular column in a perodical, electronic or print.

I was of the opinion that by taking a different tack on this thread that I had set my sights a little higher. I have urged the folks (John and Sandy, and you, too, Louisa) who obviously aren't well versed in the writings of the Founders nor in the gun laws that already exist to go out and educate themselves. In doing so, I separate myself from those who merely say, "it won't work", and urge the ones who hold out hope that it will work to go learn for themselves that in the rest of the U.S., fewer gun laws result in fewer crimes. To those who are long-term CA residents, and who have heard nothing on the subject other than what they're spoon-fed by their local media outlets, this may seem highly illogical. Upon deeper study (Lott, NRA web site, etc.), they WILL find that what they've been lead to believe over the years is simply not true. GUN CONTROL DOES NOT EQUAL CRIME CONTROL! IT EQUALS HONEST CITIZEN CONTROL.

If you prefer to be controlled by your legislature, rather than controlling it, I have nothing more for you.

Regards,

Stew

What else do you expect of me?

Sorry, E.G.: If you use the media, you're part of the media. Welcome!

Bicker bicker bicker. While we express our first amendment rights regardless of position... the
criminal is out there plotting , arming , stealing , maiming , killing , and laughing at our silly
ways of remaining defenseless prospective victims in waiting. Just another day on the job to
get what's coming to them. This is as much a business to them as our neighbors that open shops
to sell us our daily bread , shoes , trinkets , insurance , autos , gasoline , and ammunition. They
are as determined to succeed in their profession as we may be in ours. It's the values that got
twisted since our common innocence as little children became indoctrinated into the adult behaviors we elect to accept into the perspectives and the cultures we live out in our daily lives.
We are either good guys or bad guys depending on these choices and continue with them as long as the incentives continue to motivate repetition of the daily results of success or failure. It's human nature that must be modified to reduce criminal perspectives from replicating in the
areas where they are nurtured by example on a minute by minute basis. Guns are only a tool
that each side of the bickering populace get distracted by. ( cont . )

Then the peoples that are the perpetrators of crime can be more easily glanced over in favor of the tools that both sides need to use to maintain the war of crime vs self defense. But until the perspectives of the criminal mindset are somehow behind us in the way our relative cultures nurture our little child innocence then the tool will be the focus instead of rational methods of sharing the missing values that are the pains in the necks of society. There are viable solutions that some are working on in pockets of activity all over the world. Lets invest in their advancing
results until the problem is behind us as a species no matter how many centuries it takes nor
how many bullets are spent on both sides in the interim. All the businesses and jobs that are a direct byproduct of criminal elements in our society will slowly loose market share and will
need substitutions to replace their incomes to the households that depend on them. We are
talking so many $ billions that some powers are reluctant to invest in workable solutions so
buyer beware. ( cont. )

But those that would disarm us until utopia exists will never see the goal most folks want which is simple harmonic behaviors guided by wisdom , mutual respect for life , and personal property ..... preferably in that order. It's not that complicated really. But real leadership
can not be overlooked. The bigger picture must have some relative leaders that don't loose sight of it while ups and downs confuse the emotions into miss reading the vital signs of the
evolving route to the civilized lives that truly motivate the positives of human nature.
We must build on the lessons of history. We've come a long way from our primitive ancestors
or have we ? The inventions of the modern world can be deceiving. Each day we must continue to leave no child behind to wallow in the twisted values of crime. With each generation there's
measurable progress we've built on the shoulders of our parents. Be positive and the success
can continue until we win. "Winners never quit and quitters never win". What part will YOU
play in this noble goal?

I like the philosophical direction this is taking. Much better than just being yelled at by people in other states for letting them know about a law that got passed in 2009.

The central point of A.B. 962 is that it prohibits online purchases of handgun ammunition by California residents, effective February 1, 2011. Somehow this seems to have been missed in the reporting and previous comments.

i think were all missing the big point
surrender liberties for security's?

remember the police by definition are not there to prevent crime they are there to asses after the crime occurs what crime was violated and to submit the person to the court for processing - they are merely a clean up crew as it were we are inherently responsible for protecting ourselves like every other creature in nature -anything more is a illusion

The text of the legislation enacted does not include a prohibition on internet ammunition sales.

According to the Senate Committee on Public Safety, which analyzed AB962 before its final adoption:

"The author’s office has informed the Committee staff that the author’s intent was to allow Internet sales of ammunition to be conducted only through a licensed dealer. That is, if a consumer wanted to buy certain types of ammunition available only on the Internet, this transaction could take place by having the ammunition shipped to a licensed ammunition dealer who could then sell the ammunition to the consumer. However, the current language of the bill contains no requirement that the “deliverer” only deliver ammunition to a licensed dealer, only that the “deliverer,” presumably a common carrier like Federal Express or UPS, check the purchaser or transferee’s identification.”

S. Comm. Pub. Safety, B. Analysis on Assem. B. 962 as Amended June 22, 2009,
2009-2010 Reg. Sess., at F (Cal. 2009)

OK, criminals are outlaws - correct? An outlaw lives outside the law, does not respect laws and laughs at those of us that abide by the law. So, no matter how many laws you write, the only ones bound by those laws are the law abiding citizens. Maybe it's time we put people into office that can actually think.

"Non-face-to-face transfers, such as internet transactions and mail order deliveries are prohibited." This statement posted by Mr Doll is not from the text of the AB962 as chaptered into law. It is one interpretation of the law, and this interpretation is among the topics of current litigation.

Thanks, Amy, for clearing up that misleading comment. I know that you researched this law thoroughly.

Mr. Doll, where was _your_ acknowledgment of the source on which you base your assumption? We are simply reporting on the law as it is written. That's all this article is about.

Please take some responsibility for your attempt to mislead people by claiming the article is inaccurate. It's not.

Mr. Doll, did I miss where you apologized to our reporter for posting "your statement is incorrect" when, in fact, she was correct and you were wrong?

Ms. Hufstader: Did _I_ miss where your reporter (and you) apologized to _me_ for implying that I made up the information about mail order deliveries and internet transactions? Why do you persist in killing the messenger?

Messenger of ... what, exactly? You conflate something you read on a Web site with the language of the law, accuse our reporter -- an experienced municipal attorney -- of inaccuracy, and offer no new information. That's really not a message, just a mess. But I do apologize if you don't like my concern for sticking to the facts.

Doll and Valukevich are both correct and incorrect. This is very simple. Mail ordeer sales directly to individuals are prohibited. Mail order sales to individuals that are laundered through a "licensed dealar" are legal. That's all there is to it.

What I'd like to see is for all the ammunition manufacturers band together and tell the state of CA that there will be NO MORE SALES of ANY ammunition to ANYONE in CA, including law enforcement until they dump this stupid law.

Regards,

Stew

Still waiting for someone to tell me how this law helps reduce crime. The people it will hurt most are small businesses that sell ammunition. Why do the Legislators in CA seem bent on destroying the state economically? As I said before, people will find a way to purchase ammo LEGALLY though other means and nothing changes for criminals. Criminals don't play by the law in the first place so what makes anyone think another law will help? Seems to me this has nothing to do with crime and more to do with making life difficult for LEGAL and RESPONSIBLE gun owners.

Hey Stew, very Solomonic! Thank you -- I mean that. Still, Amy's article was correct about the _language in the law_. This is important, because if an article contains an inaccuracy then we need to publish a formal correction. She also noted that there are lawsuits pending, but I did not ask her to get into the details because this article is intended to be a straight reporting job on several new laws in California, not an analytical piece. We're just a general-interest website aimed at the residents of our small city here in California. When all the lawsuits are finished we will report on any changes in the law. Until then, the law is going into effect in 2011 and we're just letting our local readers know the basic facts.

Show of hands: How many people on this comment thread have actually _read_ the article?

The people who think that every time something happens, the right thing to do is attack the populace of law abiding citizens. It is like Political Correctness. This is a marxist tactic. If you keep the law abiding citizens from their Constitutional right to bear arms, the bad guys will have a free-for-all. All you liberal elitist bozos, check the stats for states that allow conceal carry to people who get trained in fire arm use and those states where the libs have grossly misinterpreted the cause and effect of fire arms right to own.

I've read it - several times. Basically, all that's there is a skimming of the top of what's in the law, a number of comments from gun store operators and patrons, and a mention that there are law suits pending against the law. Your readers would have been better served if the author had gone into more detail regarding the contents of the law and relied less on hearsay and speculation from the people interviewed. 74 words regarding the law, 203 words of opinion from interviewees. Just my opinion, but I think your readership would have been better served had the numbers been reversed.

Most of the post-article comments are from people who have read other sources (as I suggested earlier) and who have an outlook on this law that's not tainted by the pervasive anti-gun attitude of the politicians, law enforcement and most media outlets in CA. Those of us who don't live there see things far differently than do you who live in CA. Were our legislatures tto propose even half of the ridiculous anti-gun laws under which you suffer, the proponents would be ridden out of town on rails. Look at it from our perspective: Why are the rest of us able to peacefully coexist without those laws, yet residents of CA can't live in peace with each other, even WITH the laws? There's no sense to it. You're allowing your legislature to treat honest folk the same way they rightfully should treat criminals. It's time for you to take your state back. Maybe your new redistricting law will help.

Stew

Absolutely not. An armed population is a polite population. Contrary to Mythology the old west was a relatively peaceful time as that knowing someone was armed made you polite and respectful. Also crimes against women were nearly non-existent. The fashionable hand warmers women carried in front of them during those times, served to hide a pistol. Any attempted crime against a woman was dealt with by deadly force. She did not need a man to protect her. Therefore the saying... an armed society is a polite society.

B. Cherry (of Napa)
Amy thanks for the info. Well written article.
I wasn't aware of the new alcohol AB's, but I like the idea of alcohol sampling beyond just beer and wine.
The ammunition AB is a waste of money, time and legislation. Do-nothing laws like these make me regret moving back to California. Laws like these just create more headaches for good people.
I wish law makers and law enforcers would target criminal activity and leave the gun owners alone.

Reading over these comments, some of which are exceptionally enlightening as they are concepts I have never heard of... i.e. the meaning of Rights vs Privileges, and I thank you all for that. But then as always some are here to cause polemic and have no strong view of their own, just a chip on their shoulder. And that is a waste of my time.... i.e. Louisa.
Personally i find this law absurd as are many of the regulations governing firearms in California. I am tempted to leave the state and deprive it of my tax dollars for a variety of reasons, and absurdity is the current theme that runs through the whole package. There was a small item Californians voted for a very short time ago that put them in the broke universe, and that was voting for deregulation of energy and electricity. Weeks later Enron jumped in and bankrupted California fraudulently.... and no one discusses that. Strange....

To everyone on the comment thread:
Happy New Year, and thank you for taking the time to join this discussion and share your perspectives on Napa Patch. Here's to more exchanges of ideas in 2011 -- I wish you all the best. Sincerely, Louisa H., editor.

Happy New Year to you also. And thank you for providing this forum.

matt capron
Happy New Year to eeryone. I live in Arizona. We now have a new carry rule as of July 29th.
Anyone that can legally carry a gun may carry it concealed. There has been not been a lot of shoot outs in the streets or an increase in crime here.

The new law in California is just another way to try and keep guns out of the hands of the citizens. The ones that have guns illegally dont care about the laws of California or of the USA.
No matter what kinds of new gun laws or ammo laws that are made the criminals will always have guns.

There is a silver lining in this. The law and the ensuing discussion are very good things for California. They are another step in the movement that California has been drifting along for the last 50 years, a movement which has bought California to the point it is today in virtually all matters. The discussion here openly and clearly highlights the personal dedication of professional journalists in the subject(s) they report and provide editorials on, leaving absolutely no questions regarding their personal commitments, ideologies, and level of integrity. It would be good to see more laws like this passed for California. In fact California needs to make it illegal to own any handgun and any weapon intended for human to human combat or human to human conflict of any kind. California also desperately needs to completely legalize marijuana, which almost happened in 2010. California should also legalize other so-called narcotics so that they can be used for medical purposes. This should include Heroin, LSD, Amphetamines, and Ecstasy. Believe it or not, even glue and paint sniffing have potential medical benefits. Therefore California should legalize this under carefully controlled medical supervision. Laws like these will help California reach the destination it has been drifting toward for decades. The sooner laws like these are enacted in California the sooner California will reach that destination. I applaud this law and look forward to more like it in California.

Having lived in NYC for over 30 years and having a"Target" pistol permit (allows one to go to a range to practice as long as weapon is unloaded and in a locked box, along with a once -a -year inspection by the New York City Police Dept's. "pistol License Division", and the payment of another $150.00 or so "renewal" fee, I have never seen a reduction of one's ability to purchase a weapon on the street be it a .25 cal. junker to a new in the box fully auto Uzi.

We are known for some of the harshest pistol and long gun, yes, long laws in the country and to my observation, it hasn't done one bit of good in keeping weapons and ammo out of the hands of the "Bad Guys".

NYC's one-year mandatory jail law for having an unregistered weapon is nothing short of a joke.
In short, all our so called laws amount to nothing if you're up to no good.

I eventually moved to an outside county of NY State, approx 30 miles from Manhattan,, and at the time had to relinquish my hand guns to a gun store with a vault until I applied and was granted a NY State pistol permit. Apparently NY State refused to acknowledge a NY City permit, because NY City will not acept the state one. NY City has it's own laws, and to heck with the state. This is legal.

Getting a full carry permit in NY State varies greatly between county's and their judges, with some being REALLY anti-gun and others acting like intelligent adults.

Do I think this new law will improve public safety? No. No laws that keep honest, law abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights will improve public safety. I'm having a hard time believing this law was designed to improve public safety. If the people who wrote this anti-gang neighborhood protection act will indeed protect the public, once again they will be wrong. I applaud people for trying to write laws to protect the public, however few laws concerning guns really do. All they succeed in doing is making it harder for people to keep and bear arms. Gun laws don't change anything for the criminals. This is just my humble opinion. I have owned guns since I was 12 years old when I got my first shotgun for Christmas. I obey the laws concerning gun ownership, I took a hunters safety course at the Napa rifle and pistol club when I was 10, and have always enjoyed hunting and shooting in general. I also feel very safe in my home, and will continue to obey the laws regardless of how I feel about them.

Looks like I out-typed my brain again in a few sentences. I hope folks get the idea of what I'm trying to say.

Chuck, it is great to have a local Napa gun-owner's perspective on this new law, and I think you expressed yourself very well. Thank you for speaking up. We welcome comments from all over, but it is Napans like you we're here for first.

Chuck, I hate to say this, but you're part of the problem. You say you'll "continue to obey the the laws regardless of how I feel about them." That's fine, and you should obey the laws. What I don't see in your response is anything that would lead me to believe you intend to do anything about this gross infringement of your Rights. If you don't like the law, or those who wrote it, get off your duff and do something about it! Join the NRA and the CA Rifle and Pistol Assn. Work with them to find the people in your area you can work with at the grass roots political level to have the law repealed and the dimwit politicians defeated at the next election.

For God's sake, man. They're your Rights. If you won't stand up for them you deserve to live in the chains of those who would deprive you of them. TAKE BACK YOUR STATE! And stop telling us how nice it is to live with half your freedom.

Regards,

Stew

Although I'm not from Napa my uncle owned a furniture store there for decades. We target practiced up on his property and he was involved in hunting and fishing.
Anyway, a couple of things - NRA meets at the Richmond Rod & Gun the third thursday of the month - they are active at the grass roots level and could use help getting the word out.
Getting the family involved in shooting works well, my wife and I took a 40 hour defensive handgun course over in Pahrump, NV and she is now very comfortable with all types of weapons. I also found that all the women in my household are better shots than I am.
I'm not sure if the politicians write laws to appease the 1% that make all the noise or if there is a darker side to what they are doing.

This is interesting:
Poway Patch also ran a new-laws article, which mentioned many that we did not in ours -- and none of the ones we did! That story, too, attracted more than 100 responses and it even got picked up by the Drudge Report. I've just posted it on Napa Patch as well, but here is where you can find the original:
http://poway.patch.com/articles/new-california-laws-to-take-effect-jan-1
Just imagine how many comments it would have gotten if it had included Ab 962!

Just to clarify here;

I grew up in a household with a parent that was staunchly anti gun, and one that had been a shooter for their entire life. I know both positions exceedingly well.

I also grew up in one of the rougher neighborhoods in Fresno. I've seen what the criminals think of gun laws. They don't even pay them passing attention. I know for a fact that for $50 each I can buy live hand grenades in Richmond (my family is originally from the Bay Area, I've spent a lot of time there, and I have an Aunt that lives in Napa). I do not believe that there is any state in which you can legally buy hand grenades (I'm not 100% on this, I seem to recall something about special licensing in a couple of the southern states), definitely not California.

I've lived in states with what California would consider lax gun laws, and firearms crime there was almost non existent. The reason that California seems to think that we need gun laws is that the entire state seems against holding criminals accountable for their actions. Which is why we have so much crime, and so much of it violent.

The definition of insanity is doing something the same-way every-time, and somehow expecting a different result. I guess that would make the legislators in Sacramento, certifiable.
i'm happy I live in a "free state".

Commiefornia still taking away americans constitutional rights one by one. It is against the law to record weapons so now these idiots are gonna take away more capital because people will just go to other states to buy ammo. When are you people gonna wake up. You have no money, so now another bill is passed so you have to hire more gov't employees to keep records. You need to get rid of all these 1960 hippies in your'e legislatures and get some real citizens voted in so they can repeal all these stupid laws. I just read over 1000 new laws passed for 2010!!!! What is wrong with you people. This is the reason I don't even ride my motorcycle to california anymore. I'm less than an hours ride in las vegas and haven't been to california in 2 years. I can't conceal carry in commie world. Although I have concealed carry licenses for 32 states. I quit smoking in march and support smokers rights and commie world is the one who started that anti smoking crap. Do you have any idea how many people boycott your'e state because of the stupid laws. I use to spend 2-3 thousand dollars every year riding the coast and the beautiful state and national parks, no more. I know at least a 100 or so of my riding friends who no longer travel in your'e state. That's just me! How about all those other people who boycott your'e state. This is why your'e going down the tubes is because of laws and regulations. The same thing king obama is trying to do.. TAKE A DAY OFF LIBERALS!!!!

Another problem with AB962 is there is no definition for handgun ammunition. There are alot of companies that will not deliver any ammunition to California PERIOD! There are companies that will not sell legal firearm parts here.
What is very sad is California use to be a leader for this country and Now it is the laughing stock of this country. Businesses are leaving in droves and taking their jobs with them. People are leaving this state as fast as they can because they are tired of the repression. California is rapidly becoming a welfare state. Unemployment is something like 12% and is as high as 15% or more in some areas. Illegals immigration (criminals) is out of control and our head of Homeland Security is in Afghanistan telling them how to control their borders. There again the U.S.A. at one time was a world leader. Now we are the butt of the worlds jokes.

At one time I was a Napa resident. I still have friends and family there.

Several things to consider. AZ, Alaska and VT all allowed concealed carry of handguns with no permit. In other words, if you own a handgun or buy a handgun, you can carry it concealed. This is the extreme and yet is crime higher in these three states than the rest of the country, especially states that strictly try to regulate guns?

More extreme example, Mexico has amazing gun control. They are shooting each other by the hundreds in the streets with automatic weapons. Some blame the US for this, but they aren't getting their machine and grenade launchers from us, at least the drug lords aren't. Ironically, the Mexican soldiers are also armed to the teeth, but no one thinks this is a a problem, the only ones left out are the citizens, they end up as collateral damage in the drug wars. And they aren't allowed to be armed to defend themselves. I saw where they are destroying toy guns to prevent gun violence, that won't work.

You guys heard of Italy or Brazil? They make 10s of thousands of firearms each year in both countries. If you make all guns illegal tomorrow, the drug lords just ship the guns with the cocaine. Very simple.

A gun is a tool. Same as a hammer. But you say it is too dangerous. But then you get in your car and drive around. Hmmmm..... people have been high and lost control, one guy killed 7 people in his car in DC when he lost control. Yet no one talks about banning cars. 4 million guns in America, gun violence is statistically very low

The areas of the country with the least amount of gun control have the least amount of crime. The average person is trusted with something that could be used as a deadly weapon, a car, truck, RV, etc. In states where they have trusted their citizens to carry weapons, even when they didn't require a permit, the vast majority validated that trust.

Three final questions: Do you think drug control has been a success? (US government admits to catching about 10% of incoming drugs).

Do you think gun control is more or less effective than drug control has been? Why or why not?

You'll find the truth in your answers to those questions. Remember basic economics. If there is a demand, there will be a supply. People are extremely hard to control. Have you seen the crime shows where they show the weapons they make in Prison? The most controlled environment allowed in the USA and they are making elaborate weapons.

Will a gun control law stop a criminal from doing what he/she wants to do and has it done so in Mexico which has much stricter gun control than the USA?

There have been many cases where criminals were breaking the law and an armed law abiding citizen stepped in to stop the crime. There was a case a few years back where an armed robber went into a convenience store and pulled a gun on the cashier. 2 armed citizen stopped the robbery and caught the robber. There have been many cases like this. Gun control is being able to hit your target not taking someones gun away. It was mentioned before and is worth mentioning again that we need to enforce the laws already on the books. If criminals are already breaking the law they aren't going to stop because there is a new law.

The legislators calling AB962 "Anti- gang neighborhood protection" is ironic because this law does just the opposite of what it's intent is. It protects the gangs. Even though someone is a gang member or even a convicted felon for that matter they can still go into Walmart and show their license and get ammo. There is no instant backround check to stop it.

When you get the chance I would recommend looking over some of the 700+ laws that have taken affect Jan 1, 2011. There are some of the most ridiculous things to be seen. Again law enforcement can't keep up with the laws already and to add more just puts an added burden on them.

(cont)

This state is going downhill fast and law abiding taxpayer are leaving California like rats leaving a sinking ship. It's nobody's fault but our own. Somehow these demonrat politicians keep getting reelected. The unions are always getting blamed but it's not their fault. It's the sheeples fault. It's started in the schools and perpetuauted by the parents letting it happen. Teach your kids to try and see the big picture. There is a bigger picture here and you shouldn't like what you see.

I have to say it: I simply do not get why so many people are upset about our article.

If anything, the story was biased toward gun ownership: Our reporter visited two gun shops and interviewed a customer, a shop owner and even a shop owner's mother, all of whom had negative things to say about the "new" law (the bill was actually passed in 2009).

She did not interview anyone in law enforcement to provide an opposing view.

The rest of the article was a simple explanatory piece, intended to inform readers in our town of fewer than 80,000 people about the facts of several laws newly in effect.

So I'm honestly baffled by the stream of angry, even hostile comments we've been receiving; and I'm troubled by the sneering, condescending tone of so many that come from other states. What's up with that, folks? We don't call you names.

Many people have messages for the state of California, which does not live at this address. We actually don't have a single state legislator living in our entire county, and I don't think anyone in Sacramento is reading Napa Patch, sad as I am to admit it. Here's how to reach the Capitol: www.ca.gov.

Thanks for your time,

LH, editor

And also to Mr. Jones, thank you for your comment on the article. You too, Mr. Santos. I wasn't fishing, honest. This is just all new to me: Napa Patch went "on the air" six weeks ago today.

I think I will offer another challenge. I pledge to support the NRA with more than just my dues this year. I will pledge at least $ 50.00 towards their lawsuits that defend the second amendment. Any other pledges out there?

Oh, my, Louisa! Only six weeks on the job? No wonder you're surprised at the responses. To my knowledge, I'm the only one who has been directly critical, in detail, of the original article. And all I said was that it was light on coverage of the law, yet heavy on speculation by the interviewees. I've come to expect this from most media outlets. If it makes you feel any better, though I'm a big fan of The Fox News Channel on satellite/cable, most of their reporters are as deeply warped in their understanding of firearms-related issues, due to them all living in NY City or close by, as most CA residents are, you being isolated from the outside world by geography. Those of you eho live in CA's population centers can't get TV from outside the state because it's just too far for the signal to carry (I know radio waves - I'm also a Ham Radio licensee). The Fox folks' knowledge of firearms is embarasing, but predictable. I don't EXPECT you to understand the intracies of the law and specifically how it will affect law abiding folks, but I'd appreciate it if you'd make an effort to do so. I listed the resources many posts ago.

If you expect to survive this job, I recommend that you get some skin thickener. That's said tongue-in-cheek, but what it boils down to is either knowing the subject well, or finding yourself a circle of "assistants" who are well-versed in the things of which you don't have a good grasp. No shame in that. It's good sense.

Cont.

As to the "angry" posts, if you look at them, the anger is directed either at the new law itself, or at the "lay down and take it, by the way, I'll take some more if you have it" attitude the people of CA have toward your grossly oppressive laws. What the Hell happened to your American spirit of independence and thirst for unbridaled liberty? Easy living seems to have bleached it out of you. We're trying to help you shove some spine up your backs so you'll go get back your liberty. If that's not important to you, the rest of us will gladly sit back and watch you drown in your socialism. But, then, you DID elect Moonbeam Jerry again.

Regards,

Stew

BTW, don't let the posts that don't agree 100 percent with your publication get you down. It's part of the Editor job. Know your stuff, or look it up and learn. You'll get stronger with time.

Stew

Thanks for the encouragement, Stew. There's always more to learn.

In California you must wait 10 days to take possession of a legally purchased firearm, despite a national electronic background system that allows other states to perform the same check in about 30 minutes. You must show a California drivers license and a social security card (despite that being a "non tax purpose" and therefore illegal).

If you are buying a handgun, you must also have a license (you have to take a written test and a practical examination to prove you know minimal safe handling). The test is $25 and is good for 5 years (or until they pass a law changing the requirements for the license, and you have to get the "new" license, as happened to me the last time the state changed the requirements).

And yet the criminals still seem to get ahold of them, despite all these "reasonable" laws controlling them.

Hey Ralph, don't know if you noticed this but ... I did not write the article, and I also did not make any comments about the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution except to remark that they were documents written by men, one of whom is an ancestor of mine.
Just wanted to set the record straight, because it seems from your statements that you did not actually read the story and are only commenting on the comments.
Thanks!
LH, editor.

Hey Louisa no I didn't notice you weren't the writer I had read a similar version over in the Sonoma Patch so I was familiar with the jist of the Ammo Law and since you were responding as an Administrator talking about banning people and taking their posts down I just linked you to the article and assumed you were speaking on behalf of The Napa Patch as an authority.

So...where is the writer that they don't jump in the debate? Its got to be a record post volume for a Patch article? And since you're Editor, you must have had a finger in reviewing the copy and editing even if you recycled the article from another Patch (as I've noticed The Patch does) and it was tailored for Napa so again one of your staff must have written it enough to have passed through your hands, right? What's your point by your comments "its not your article" I thought Editors "adopted" all the articles within your jurisdiction if its published in your Section of responsibility or in your Paper?

That's nice you had a relative sign the Declaration of Independence, I had 13 brothers of mine (we're all Freemasons) draft and sign the Declaration, Benjamin Franklin (a Mason) was the Editor of the newspaper that printed the "shot heard round the world," George Washington (a Mason) selected the site of The US Capitol building and helped lay the design of Washington DC itself and it all has a Higher Purpose. Freemasons planned the Tea Party and even in Sonoma California the Bear Flag revolt.

Hi Ralph:
Our writer did step in earlier to clear up some misunderstandings about the language in the law, but neither of us is going to "jump in the debate" because that's not what we are here to do.
I asked her to write the article to let people in Napa know what was going on.
She took no editorial stance and if anything, the piece was biased in favor of gun owners -- all three people who were quoted in the story were against the new law.
I don't see any need for more comments from the writer now -- she did her job, and I now need her to be working on other articles.
As for me, I just step in now and then to correct obvious inaccuracies; to remind people to read the article, and not just the comments; and in very, very rare cases to remove users who violate our terms of use by using fake names and/or profanity.
Apart from that, I want to let people have their say.
I don't edit comments, and I don't hold them up for review before they're posted.
But if someone violates our very easy-to-read terms of use, that person and all that person's comments are out of here.
The goal is to have real discussions about the issue at hand, and not online shouting matches attacking other commenters.
I hope this answers some of your questions; thanks for letting the other commenters on the site know your thoughts on the issue of sales of handgun ammunition in California.
Very best, Louisa

What doe you think of the mass shooting in Arizona today?

They're looking for a second suspect -- how many of these "lunatic" people does Arizona have?

Another question for all the experts on this thread: If everyone should be allowed to have guns, and "criminals will always get them anyway," then what is your solution to preventing mass gun murders like the one in Arizona? Excuses and promises of punishment are words, not actions.

Ralph, I am sure you didn't mean to imply that I "scrubbed" posts to change the balance of opinion on this thread! If so, why would I have re-posted the parts of them that did not contain obscenity?

I'm just surprised at how quiet all our commenters have become since the shootings in Arizona. We had a lot of Arizona-boosting here last week - where did everybody go?

What I am hearing is: There is nothing wrong with a crazy person getting a gun for the purpose of assassinating and murdering people; instead, what is wrong with what happened in Arizona is is that not enough of the bystanders were also armed and trained to shoot back. Have I got that right?

Thank you for clearing that up. Does anyone else think that the presence of trained, armed citizens at the Arizona rally yesterday would have prevented this gunman from assassinating two people, indiscriminately slaying four others and wounding more than a dozen?

I can't understand why there weren't armed citizens there already -- it's Arizona, right?

Don, please don't change the subject. I've been hearing for more than a week about how Arizona is a safer state because of its gun laws, and I'm trying to find out more.

Thanks, Don, for explaining the Arizona law.

Hi Ralph, I am sure you are right about the majority of posters on this site sharing your opinion. That's why I am trying to find out what suggestions they have that would prevent mass gun attacks like the one in Arizona. It seems as if CCW did not do a thing to help the victims there, so I'm justifiably skeptical of that as a solution and looking forward to hearing about what might work better.

Meanwhile, here in Napa, as you may have noticed, we've reported recent crimes in which guns were used to rob a citizen and a business. No shots were fired, so nobody knows whether there was any ammo in the weapons.

This could be seen to bear out the many comments that laws like AB 962 don't quell crime -- or as an indication that without ammunition, shots aren't fired. What do you think?

Louisa, might I suggest a good book called "Revelation" in the Bible? Evil exists. No law of man will stop the Dark Forces on this earth. Until the Second Coming and creation of God's New Kingdom we are stuck in this one.

Hard telling why you're brief survey in Napa gun crimes turned up brandishing weapons but not firing? But I am sure its not that they had no Ammo from the recent ban. It takes a hard heart to kill its one thing to brandish, another to aim at a living creature and a deeper level to fire.

I'm sticking with what I know, criminals buy firearms and ammo from other criminals and rarely from Wal Mart or legitimate gun shops. Real gun shops would smell a rat scum thug a mile away. An elite class of people and experienced users typically venture into reputable stores like Sweeney's. A thug would stick out like a sore thumb.

Hi Ralph -- I will remember your words about "It takes a hard heart to kill ... " Thank you.

Have you heard the incredibly powerful reading from Revelation that Johnny Cash recorded near the end of his life? I can't remember which of the American Recordings album it is on, but it is truly worth a listen, if I may recommend it to you.

Another thing that law abiding citizens know and gun owners know is that carrying a loaded weapon brings with it great resposibility. That is something criminals know nothing about. The fact that criminals count on people following the laws in California gives them a great advantage in their job. Criminals know that they can go into a place of buisness such as a store or even a bank and know that noone will have a gun for protection because that is against the law. It has been brought up about what is the answer to this. It has also been brought up that criminals get plea bargains when they are caught and early releases when they are imprisoned. That needs to stop. Stiffer penalties for offenders and the full execution of those sentences would be a start. Not taking away a citizens ability to protect themselves is also good. The 3 strike law needs to be modified so that the 3rd strike let's you meet your maker and carry it out quickly. Criminals on death row shouldn't be there for 20 years.

Meet the woman who helped disarm the Arizona shooter:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-shooting-heroes-20110110,0,4654216.story

Louisa,I am suprised and dissappointed that more citzens were not armed at the Arizona rally. The web says there are 161,000 CCW permits in the state ...with 6 million residents... thats about 1.5 CCW permit holders per square mile.. I think they need more..It looks like this guy got his gun legally...but there seems to no connection to the far right.

Hi, we just had an interesting post from someone who didn't want to use his name -- I'm hoping he will reconsider and re-post it, but without an actual name it violates our Terms of Use.

Hi Walter -- It will be interesting to see what the investigation reveals about what led to the massacre.

"Dan-mm9," I'm sorry to delete your posts because I would like you to be able to share your thoughts--but not from behind a screen name. Please consider posting under your real name, as the rest of us do and as is required by our Terms of Use. Thanks.

Thanks, Dan, I appreciate that. I hope you don't feel vilified here. I'm just trying to find out more. Arizona is a long way from this little city.

I will say it again. In answer to your question regarding where the "good guys" were in Az when this horrible tradgedy took place, One of them had stopped to make a purchase at Walgreens in the same shopping center before going over to see what the croud was all about. He was "carrying" and when he heard the shots he took of running toward the problem. Said he had released the safety on his gun and was ready to draw when he got there and others had already taken the shooter down.. This is from the Fox news interview with him this morning.

He sounded a lot more level headed and stable than the i.......t Sherriff who was spouting off early in the investigation, and vilifying the conservatives without any valid connection to the incident.

Also will repeat my feelings about "Mourning Joe and Chuck echesse on MS(M)NBC this morning about 9 eastern time. They are stirring up the libs re the conservative talk show guys and the (need) for gun control. As has been stated before; Guns don't shoot people - people do.
I can give example where a loaded 45 saved me from a big problem and I am thankful to this day (40 some years later) that I had it where I could reach it and that I did not have to pull the trigger!! The guy that I was aiming at decided he should be reasonable and (Live) leave.

If our AZ hero had been 20 0r 30 ft closer when the shooting started he might have been able to put a stop to it sooner (than waiting while the shooter emptied an extended mag.)

Most guys that carry for defensive purposes recognize a heavy responsibility and load their weapons with ammo that will do the job but will minimize the potential of "over-penetration" and injuring an inocent bystander.

They also practice regularly so they can be safe and hit what they are aiming at (and not shoot at something they don't want to hit...)

Hi Dan -- Thanks for your comments. I don't watch or listen to the shows you mention -- sounds as if I am not missing much.

Cable news; Try a few minutes of each a few times a day for a few days at your convenience.

You will be able to descern the difference for yourself and since you seem to have a bias towards fair reporting I am guessing that I knwo where you will watch in the future.

Sonoma Patch hung a similar article you may want to continue the conversation over there more geared to Arizona:

link ---> http://sonoma.patch.com/articles/madness-in-arizona?ncid=following_comment

You know...riddle me this Louisa and Don, (over on the Sonoma Patch in a similar debate post as linked above)...whats the difference from the innocent killing going on from the Napa State Hospital patients being treated at the Queen of the Valley Hospital in Napa? These are Mentally Ill patients and somehow they manage to kill several hospital workers or patients in the past year (I'm not sure which one but both are unacceptable). I know my Sonoma Valley Hospital is now treating these patients. Should I worry over here in Sonoma that wreckless killing might happen in my Valley?

Hi Ralph -- Your facts are wildly wrong and don't support your forced conclusion. There have not been "several" killings at Napa State in the past year: There's been one.

Well, now that things have sorted out a bit, I'll respond. I watched this topic for several days and thought Louisa had closed it to further comment, but I guess not. In addition, the e-mail address I used to sign up for this site is one that doesn't get checked every day. I was quite surprised to check my e-mail today and find nearly 60 post e-mails from the Patch. Even if I had checked Saturday and seen the flury of postings concerning our tragic shooting, I would not have responded att that time. As with all such high-profile events, it takes several days for the facts to filter down through all the speculation and rhetoric.

First, Mrs. Giffords' event wasn't likely to attract a high number of CCW permit holders. She's a moderate Democrat, holding an event in a heavily Democrat district. Turns out there was one, but his presence turned out to be irrelevant, since he wasn't at the exact location of the shooting.

Cont.

Second, if you check the FBI statistics, you'll find Arizona has a lower crime rate than CA. Yes, we're safer, possibly BECAUSE of easy availability of firearms and carry permits. Our crime rate continues to drop in parallel to the drop in our illegal alien population, which is in turn due to the passage of the 1070 bill that requires local law enforcement to turn suspected illegals over to ICE.

Third, the guy has been identified as a nut case, and shouldn't have been allowed to purchase a firearm. To my knowledge, there is nothing in CA law that would have caught him and prevented him from purchasing, so saying CA has "better" gun laws than AZ is ridiculous. In addition, the reason mental health records aren't included in the data used for instant background checks for firearms purchases is that when such was proposed many years ago, the same people in Congress who will demand more gun laws due to this tragedy are the same ones who were adamant that mental health records NOT be included to protect the "privacy" of the whackos.

Cont.

I think there was another point I wanted tto make, but my wife just called me to supper, so I'll let it rest for this evening. I do have to add that my prayers go out to the people and families harmed by this sad event.

Regards,

Stew

Stew, I'd never close a discussion to further comment. That's just not the Patch way! We're still getting comments on articles we published back before Christmas -- I love it (and so does my boss).

Appalling! I can't think of a better word for it.

What was supposed to be a memorial service for the victims of Saturday's shooting in Tucson turned into a Democrat pep rally.

I'm:

> Appalled that the Arizona University President, who was MC for the event didn't remind the attendees that this was a memorial, not a pep rally.

> Terribly disappointed that the Governor, Jan Brewer, didn't do so.

> Appalled that President Obama didn't try to restore some decorum to the event.

I've lived in Arizona for over 26 years, and never before have I felt like denying that I live here. The only thing that keeps me from being totally ashamed of this State right now is that I realize the event was held at the University of Arizona, (not a conservative institution), in a Democrat city and that it was likely stuffed to the gills with head-full-of-mush students who were there to adore Obama. It certainly wasn't filled with serious mourners. The only thing I heard that was worthy of cheering was that Congresswoman Giffords opened her eyes this evening. Shortly afterward I had to turn off the TV. I couldn't stand to listen to it any longer.

I'm sick.

Regards,

Stew

Hi, Stew, I am so sorry to hear it. I did not watch -- no T.V., for one, and was out reporting at the time. But I am always sorry when memorials for victims are turned into rallies of any kind. It happened a lot after 9/11.

In addition to the above, our local radio this morning reported that a small Tucson news paper reported that the Congresswoman didn't open her eyes for the first time last evening, as stated by Obama, but that she did it Sunday! Another lie for political gain! You should have heard the cheering! Upchuck material!

Stew

I'm always wary of third-hand "reports of reports." Who's to say what is a lie, what is the truth and what was a mistake that got corrected in the next edition, only nobody noticed?

Correction! I should have written "a fact" instead of "the truth" in my previous comment. They're not always the same thing.

To put this to bed.THE LAW AB 962 has just been OVERTURNED!!!!! Thank you NRA, and CRPA for the fight for law abiding citizens!!! What a great day!!!

Now if the Ca lawmakers will pass a resolution that recognizes the Concealed Carry Permits of those states that issue them (to law abiding citizens after a thorough background investigation) I might be able to visit my friends in CA without worrying about being arrested for carrying my weapons locked in my vehicle.

I am certain that I can find a military range that will allow retired officers to shoot targets.

Hi, just an update that our reporter has been working on the follow-up story so many of you have requested. Thanks, LH, editor

1st for Stew...Sorry I did not mean to leave out the enlisted ranks (active or retired) when speaking of finding a military range that will let me shoot. Most are managed by CPO (or E6+ non coms). Probably easier for you to get on the range than me.

And I don't recall either Stew or me indicating that we should be allowed to break the laws of the land (even if we don't agree with them). I do think that we (the Vets of the land that have been helping keep America free to have this discussion should be given a break on the cost (fees imposed by the paper pushers in gov't) and some priority in getting the paperwork done. Current estimated time in many states to get a Concealed Carry Permit is 5 - 6 months from the date of application.
Then we have to put up with the fact that the CCW weapon of choice may not be legal to have locked securely in an auto in CA or NY or other locations (NJ) for a variety of nonsensical reasons; eg being loaded with effective self defense ammo such as Hollow Points, the ability to put a high capacity magazine (15 rounds) in to it (even though it may have a 10 round in it to comply with local law), the fact that it is or is not Double Action, etc etc etc....

L

Got a little verbose so I will ad the following:
We are not asking for permission to break the law!! We just want it easier to comply with the laws when we travel (or move) to another part of the country. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I enjoy shooting for sport and practice for self-defense. It is a sport that I can still participate in because I can still lift any of my firearms to take aim at an appropriate target.

Law abiding gun owners are generally polite and responsible persons that just want to be able to deal with unlawful gun holders in a manner which is appropriate for the circumstance to protect our rights, family and friends, and property.

Having the correct tools available can make a significant difference in the success of that endevor.
LOL

Thanks Stew, I had not thought about the hours of MP duty or in port deck watches that we have stood. I became an expert marksman with (of all the unlikely guns) a Colt 1911 ww II Navy issue 45 that had been my fathers, and I carried as a survival weapon in Vietnam. I spent a lot of time at the range because I wanted to be able to get max advantage from a limited supply of ammo if we got shot down in NVN.

Most of the men in the squadron had also learned to handle a variety of weapons when we were in port, and a few would also shoot skeet when we were at sea (and not in the combat zone).
I am fortunate that I have never had to use my side arm, but confident, willing and able to do so if the need arises. Why should I have to stop in arizona and leave my firearms in my daughters gun safe enroute to visit friends and family in CA. (or worse yet, leave them at home in MI if I want to go to Chicago to visit family and classmates there.)

Registration (although a nuisance) may prove useful at some time to prove that I am the lawful owner of a particular firearm. Going through the regimen of getting a CCW is also useful because it brings knowledge of the rules of engagement, safety requirements and practices, and basic info about the laws of other states and major cities. Our club uses a lawyer to teach that part of the course. Necessary because of the "nonsensical regs" of CA and NJ, etc. MI has a few, too.

I'd rather read about the dumb laws they pass in California than the Sunday comics. It is certainly more entertaing & funnier.

Guess that is why your state is broke, has high taxes & prople ar leaving in record numbers.

R. Harris

Don't forget the terrible weather. It's barely 40 degrees this morning.

Nothing really -- just sort of a meta-comment on stereotypes and superficiality.
Nope, did not see anything about an assassination attempt in Missouri. I have asked my researcher to look into it.

And what about the issue of mental health treatment? A dangerously sick person with a knife is just like a dangerously sick person with a gun, except that the one with the gun can hurt more people. Neither of them should have a weapon -- both of them need treatment. Yet what we get is exactly the reverse: No treatment, yes weapon. Shouldn't we be 1) paying more attention to national mental health needs and 2) trying to build a society in which violence is not so widely celebrated as a way of settling disputes?

Walter, #1 who said anything about the government and 2) Younger people in every generation are often more violent than their elders, whether or not they go to church. For instance: Timothy McVeigh, the young, American, Christian terrorist who committed the Oklahoma City massacre.

As I mentioned previously, one of the problems of "Mental Health Care" is the restriction of and fear of law suites for making mental health concerns (such as at Va Tech) know to local officals and or parents of the subject.

Problem (an aclu issue) is so bad that some universities will not send transcripts or discipline action to parents of minor students - the parents that get and pay the bill for the tuition...

Might have save some problems in VA, AZ, TX, CA etc if the schools had notified the registered parent of the student that there was a problem, and then followed up with the local law enforcement authority. Maybe the kid would have gotten help before he went postal.

As for the younger generation: I suspect that there are a number of factors which come into play re violence with them....
a. single parent or broken home families
b. lack of a moral value system (religion)
c. Lack of discipline which leads to lack of respect for others and ultimately lack of respect for authority. Parents that coddle junior instead of teaching the value of respect and work...

We reap what we sow...

Walter, I'm glad to hear you see fundamentalist religion does not define terrorist acts. It's about time somebody spoke up for the Muslim religion that has been so maligned in recent years.

Dan, please give us more details about the ACLU's inhibiting effect on our national mental health issues. I can't wait to find out more.

I think it is shameful that so few Muslims have spoken out against the terrorist that come from their religion.

Walter, how would you even know if they were?

I think it is shameful for anyone who brags about his religious values to be passing judgement on people he has never met based on what he thinks he knows about what they did not say.

Also, completely absurd. Walter, you are cracking me up!

How can you feel sorry for people of a rerligion that's whole purpose is to see everyone that is not a muslim dead?
How did muslims get brought into this anyway?

Just to give you, too, a chance to issue a blanket condemnation about people you've never met.
Now maybe we should go back to topics we actually know something about.
It looks as if religion is not one of them.

I will answer your question re the ACLU first; They have supplied the money and the lawyers to challenge the rights of the majority in so many cases that the (often Liberal) management of many public institutions (such as colleges and universities throughout the U S) are afraid of their own shadow for fear of being served with a big expensive law suite. If I wanted to sue the school for a failure to report causing harm to my family I would have to worry about them being the defense (with their millions of dollars and high count of lawers).

You have a researcher. Have her (or him) contact the colleges in CA and question the Admin on what they are allowed to report and to whom regarding mental health and disciplinary issues on campus. Then ask why. Surprisingly, The ACLU can go the othre way, too. I recently saw an article about them defending a gun rights ruling. Don't remember what it was but....

In regard to the religious issue; we should know if the members of the Muslim community were denouncing the actions of the few terrorists - the news (journalists - few that there may be these days) should report it and the balanced networks (if any) will jump on it, just like they have on the many controversies with the catholic religion.

Having said that I am happy to dump that thread and go back to the subject.

Thanks, Dan. Great idea, on the colleges. Actually the "researcher" is a volunteer -- I'm still the only employee here -- so as your suggestion is an excellent one, I'll put that in my follow-up file for a future story. We have a fine community college right in Napa where the officials are very accessible, so I can contact them any time my editing schedule eases up enough to let me dig into a story like this.

Louisa, try looking up Sharia law. Also with muslims their religion is there law. Also I don't have to have met someone to codemn them for their beliefs. I have never met that I know of any Black Panthers or KKK or Neonazis but I can take extreme exception to what they stand for just like muslims.

Don, has it ever occurred to you that "what they stand for" might be different to you than to them?
On a related note: Have you heard the widely-reported statistic that people who get their information from Fox News are actually more badly-informed than Americans who get their news from other sources? The study polled viewers on a number of factual matters, and Fox viewers tended to get the facts wrong more than anyone else. You could look it up.

More on the issue of mental health and violence:
http://napa.patch.com/articles/town-hall-forum-friday-on-violence-at-napa-state

When it comes to the muslim religion you obviously don't have a clue what you are trying to talk about.

No more clue than anyone else on this thread, that's for sure. Can we move on?

So nothing has changed at Napa State either. It's been like that for atleast 25 years that I know of and nothing is going to change. After someone gets killed a bunch of wind bag lieing politicians show up and make empty promises about BS palns on how things are going o change. YEAH RIGHT!

Seems like a couple of people got out of bed on the wrong side and are having a problem with continuing a civil discourse on the topics of this thread.

I have met real old hard line members of the KKK and it only took one or two to convince me that I had strong disagreement with their philosphy. I have met many Muslims and those that see the religion as a non-violent worship of Ala and an orderly way of life are good people and good citizens. The others not!!

The islamic religion has been rewriten in the modern version, and it does teach that the infidels (us) are the enemy and must be made subjects of Ala...
And I do not know an American woman that would willfully agree to live under their (shaRia) law. (please pardon my spelling).

Guns and madmen were enough of a topic. Now we enter into religion, too???

:)

Seriously, let's take a step back, how did we get together in the first place ... My reporter is STILL waiting for a couple of call-backs to make her follow-up story on the bill, ahem, bulletproof. But Amy does very solid work and I'm looking forward to posting the article when she's thoroughly done. I will also post a link here, of course! In the mean time, we just published this one, which might be of interest to some folks here:
http://napa.patch.com/articles/does-napa-need-a-police-review-commission

What are Napans saying about the new California law banning openly-carried handguns? Find out, and vote in our poll: http://t.co/9ZbSNya3