The Antelope Valley Times

Your community. Your issues. Your news.

L.A. County supporting proposed federal ban on assault rifles

by •

LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 Tuesday to support a proposed federal ban on assault rifles.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger abstained from the vote, saying she was concerned about states’ rights and worried that the threat of a ban could boost gun sales.

Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas recommended the board’s support, recalling the victims of a long list of mass shootings, including the massacre of 58 people at the Route 91 Harvest Country Music Festival in Las Vegas in October and the Sutherland Springs church shooting of 26 people in Texas earlier this month.

“This bill recognizes military style assault rifles have no business in the hands of civilians,” Ridley-Thomas said of the legislation introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. [View the legislation here.]

An assault weapons ban authored by the California senator was passed by Congress in 1994, but ended 10 years later when Congress failed to reauthorize it. Feinstein tried to reinstate it in 2013, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, but the measure was voted down.

Mass shootings “dropped some 40 percent” under the prior ban, Ridley-Thomas told his colleagues. “You can’t argue with the data; we need to govern by the data.”

It was not immediately clear what study Ridley-Thomas was citing in his motion [view the motion here], but data has been used by both sides of the gun control debate to make their case for and against a ban on military-style weapons that allow shooters to fire multiple rounds with only one pull of a trigger.

Opponents of such a ban often point to statistics showing that the vast majority of those killed by guns in the U.S. are killed by handguns, not military-style weapons. There were more than 11,000 gun-related homicides in the U.S. in 2014, according to the latest statistics on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.

However, 65 percent of American voters support a nationwide ban, a record high, according to a November Quinnipiac University poll.

“The majority of Americans want us to pass common sense legislation” to prevent gun violence, Supervisor Janice Hahn said.

The proposed assault ban would also prohibit the use of devices that effectively convert more traditional firearms into assault weapons, like the “bump stocks” used by the Las Vegas gunman.

Barger said the vote was “a tough one for me, because I believe in states’ rights,” noting that California already has a ban on such weapons. “This country does not do enough to enforce what’s on the books right now.”

–

–

Filed Under: Politics

28 comments for "L.A. County supporting proposed federal ban on assault rifles"

  1. Several observations:
    1) Military “assult rifles” are fully automatic capable i.e. M16

    2) Civilian “assult rifle” look alikes e.g AR-15 are semi automatic rifles. One pull, one bullet.

    3) Is a semi automatic Browning 30-06 “hunting rifle” less of a threat than an agressive looking AR-15 “assult rifle”? How about the Merlin 10-22, which was used in many Boy Scout camps to teach marksmamship and gun safety? It was ans is a semi automatic?

    The thing is that banning “assult rifles” does nothing to change the actual dynamics. A bullet is a bullet. It makes no difference what barrel on what type of gun it came out of. Whether a work if art like the Browning or an aggressive AR-15.

    To end this, you have to get them all. Sonce there are already so many out there, what you really need to do is to eliminate the ammunition

    Im my humble opinion, the amti gun lobby knows this am that is ultimately are after.

    First villify the ugly “assult rifles”, then go after the jigh cspacity magazines, then the ammunition itself.

    As one post for the control asked, where do you draw the line? What “aggressive look”? What calliber? How many rounds?

    Where would you draw the line?

    Respectfully
    KH

  2. Substitute the phrase “gun control” with “voting rights” and see if you’re still supportive of limiting rights.

    Do you want to pay a fee for the right to vote?
    Do you want to pay for and pass a test to vote?
    Do you want to pass a background check to vote?
    Do you want to be fingerprinted to vote?
    Would you consider any of this an infringement on your right?

  3. Newsflash democrats… Guns don’t kill people. Itchy pointy fingers do. Lol if your finger causes you to sin, cut it off. If your left ass cheek causes you to sin……….

    • You’re right, guns by themselves don’t kill people. It’s much easier for a person with a gun to kill people.

      A hammer doesn’t build a house, but using a hammer to build a house, makes its much easier.

      Don’t understand my point? Don’t worry because I don’t understand yours either.

      • Of coarse people like you wouldn’t understand. Just stick with your hammer and good luck with your house.

  5. It’s pathetic how an international terrorist etc targets a vulnerable crowd, and then the legislators begin to target the vulnerable civilians… The civilians with normal lives, jobs, home addresses, and a respect for the 2nd ammendment. Are they too chicken$|-|!T to target the black market, or is it beyond their budget? It seem like L.A. county is ran by gangster candidates, poverty pimps, and Hollywood whores.

  6. The black market will always thrive, when it comes to giving people what they want. There are also people that can purchase parts to make assault rifles, (Tehama shooter). There are people that can make their own bullets.There are back door deals done by gun stores. There are assault rifles that just happen to go missing on military bases. Mass shootings are on the rise and there doesn’t seem a solution for this evil.

  7. I grow tired of people who don’t know what they are talking about trying to legislate away our civil rights.

    Assault rife is an invented term that is used to villinize rifles. From the article: “The proposed assault ban would also prohibit the use of devices that effectively convert more traditional firearms into assault weapons, like the “bump stocks” used by the Las Vegas gunman.”

    The guns used by the Vas Vegas murderer are already considered ‘assault rifles’, even without a bump stock, in the State of California. How much more of an assault rife will you make them?

    Or, take this gem: “data has been used by both sides of the gun control debate to make their case for and against a ban on military-style weapons that allow shooters to fire multiple rounds with only one pull of a trigger.”

    Those guns are already illegal. How much more illegal are you going to make them?

    These poeple don’t even know our current laws, yet they are willing to strip us of our rights to protect ourselves, others and our property, and to peacably enjoy shooting sports and hobbies.

    I agree, we need to do something about gun control. We need to loosen and lessen it.

    • Sure “some” people can use a semi-automatic rifle to peaceably enjoy shooting sports and hobbies but some abuse that power by killing many innocent people when they go nuts or have a bad day. Where do we draw the line on what we allow our citizens to enjoy as a hobby or protect themselves with? Should everyone be allowed to walk down the street with an M-16 with a 50 round clip and built in rocket launcher? Or heat-seeking missiles mounted to our cars and a box of hand grenades on my floorboard? Land mines buried in my yard? Oh and I would also like to drive to work in a fully-armed tank. Now if you say no to any of those things then you are violating my civil rights. Where do we draw the line? Oh and I also want my own LEAPS plane…. no I take that back, those are pretty useless.

      • What is up with this forum? I tried posting this last night and nothing, it just didn’t appear at all – now I come back in the morning and it posted twice? uugghh

        • aManOfTruth

          I know what you mean. I tried posting “Happy Thanksgiving”…………………….. last year and it still hasn’t shown up.

          Maybe next year.

      • I want my own fleet ballistic missile submarine. It’s an arm, I should be allowed to keep and bear it. And since it would be my personal property I would have the right to sell it if I no longer wanted it. I’m sure I could get a good deal from North Korea.

        • If Rex and his wife get to carry concealed weapons, then the rest of us should be able to as well. I can assure you I will never try to board an airplane with a gun like she did, and no one will have to lie about it like he did.

          • Excellent point. No one in their right mind believes she didn’t realize their was a gun in that purse.

            But when your hubby owns people, you get off with a slap on the fist and don’t even have to finish your community service.

          • Why does Rex and his wife get to carry concealed weapons? She should have hers revoked for trying to board a plane with a gun.

    • Sure “some” people can use a semi-automatic rifle to peaceably enjoy shooting sports and hobbies but some abuse that power by killing many innocent people when they go nuts or have a bad day. Where do we draw the line on what we allow our citizens to enjoy as a hobby or protect themselves with? Should everyone be allowed to walk down the street with an M-16 with a 50 round clip and built in rocket launcher? Or heat-seeking missiles mounted to our cars and a box of hand grenades on my floorboard? Land mines buried in my yard? Oh and I would also like to drive to work in a fully-armed tank. Now if you say no to any of those things then you are violating my civil rights. Where do we draw the line? Oh and I also want my own LEAPS plane…. no I take that back, those are pretty useless.

    • Violence is a fact of nature. As much as we try to promote peace, it will always exist in some individuals. That being said, Texas demonstrated two strong points that should be considered before even entertaining the idea of stripping more civil rights from our citizens.

      First, good people with the means to protect and defend themselves and others save lives. Why would you strip away something that saves lives?

      Second, the current laws are not being enacted. Get your house in order and follow the laws you’ve aready passed before you try to inflict new ones on the people.

    • If the shooter in the Texas church shooting didn’t have a gun, there wouldn’t have been a shooting. The shooter was done and leaving the scene when the neighbor shot him. If I’m not mistaken, the neighbor did manage to shoot the church shooter twice, but he died from a self inflicted gun shot.

      • Do tell, Jeff. What is it about? Do you need to be armed like a soldier in Falluja just to “feel safe” walking through a parking lot? Has the paranoia gotten so bad that you need to send in an entry team before you’ll walk into your own house?

        Courage comes from within, Jeff, not from rubbing a cold steel phallus replacement.