AnonymousSource: Office of Sen. Jackson
Based on research by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP), which found an increased risk of future violence among firearm owners with certain alcohol-related convictions, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) introduced legislation today to restrict gun ownership among Californians who have been convicted of such alcohol offenses.
California law prohibits people convicted of certain crimes from possessing firearms either permanently or for a 10-year period. Senate Bill 55 adds certain crimes involving alcohol to the list of violations that result in a 10-year restriction on ownership and possession of firearms. These crimes include multiple driving under the influence (DUI) convictions or vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.
Authored by Dr. Garen J. Wintemute and others in 2017, the UC Davis study found that prior alcohol-related convictions were associated with a four to fivefold increase in risk of incident arrest for a violent or firearm-related crime. The relative risk increase is greater than that seen for age or sex.
“The research demonstrates that people with certain alcohol-related convictions are at increased risk of committing a violent or firearm-related crime,” said Senator Jackson. “With over 3,000 Californians killed by firearms each year, we should do everything we can to ensure those at risk of harming themselves or others do not have access to these deadly weapons.”
A second VPRP study of alcohol and risk for future crime among firearm owners, nearing completion, is funded in part by the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center, which was established by the California Legislature in 2016.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3,184 Californians lost their lives to firearms in 2016. In the U.S. overall, the number was over 38,000.
Jackson represents the 19th Senate District, which includes all of Santa Barbara County and western Ventura County.
Alcohol violation = irresponsible and stupid = no more firearms. Good deal!
Thanks Hannah…….really appreciate your vigilance in protecting me from my rights……….NOT !!!
Think the Trump Unsupreme Court will let these state laws stand? I doubt it- they only like state laws involving republican gerrymandering.
AK, What rights? Not your right to own guns if you aren’t an alcoholic committing crimes. Are you?
Read Jeff Hardings piece in December’s Sentinel for a great take on Hannah-Beth Jackson and her legislative pursuits. It may make your head spin. She sure has proven herself to be quite the prolific legislator. It seems she hasn’t met a ban she didn’t back or push… pretty much defines the ‘Nanny State’ that the Right is always whining about.
issuu.com/santabarbarasentinel/docs/sntnl12_7_full/1?e=6198003/65634921
Pitmix: You are so spot on! Unfortunately, Justice Ginsberg is probably not going to be able to serve much longer due to her cancerous condition. So that means another Trump appointee will be forced upon us.
Hannah Beth just postures once again, with ridiculous “Bills” that clog our system. Has this legislator EVER done anything to save California taxpayers money? Has she ever done anything of significance or value to affect taxpayers in a positive manner….?
I wonder how many of the 3,184 Californians who lost their lives to firearms in 2016 were due to alcohol related offenses. There is no mention of that and no doubt, the gang related killing with firearms is significantly higher than alcohol related. I’m not trying to minimise the alcohol related killings, any killing is too much
However, how about a bill banning gangs that aren’t registered with the state? Now, there’s a thought. A gang to be registered with the state? That’s about as likely as banning guns from gangs. They ought to try it to see how much support there is.
We don’t need more laws, we need more lunatic asylums.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
No mention of a well-regulated militia?
Militia has no bearing on the right, which is clearly artictulated above.
Bullpuckey. It’s the whole reason for the right, unless you don’t understand English sentence structure, or are a gun nut frightened by the “well-regulated”.
Suggest you read Heller – clearly outlined there.
“The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).”
Heller was a hugely controversial decision that involved a very tortured interpretation of the wording of the second amendment, twisted by Scalia to justify his activism, which he supposedly abhorred. As civilization progresses, sanity will prevail, and it will be overturned.
If you do read the Heller case, you’ll also see how much of the tortured reasoning hinged on the fact that DC is not a state.
Tourtured reasoning only because you disagree with it. That DC is not a state has no bearing on people and their rights. Nor must State in the amendment mean California or New York – the federal government has a Secretary of State. But this is moot. The prefatory clause is only a purpose or explanation and has, as I stated previously, no bearing on the right. Read the text, read the references, and it beccomes clear the intended meaning of the right. There is nothing that can honestly be overturned. Unfortunatly though, with the way we voluntary give up our rights everyday, we the people will continue to loose the gifts the framers gave us.
clearly a pre-determined outcome using our tax dollars. why are we paying for 2nd study if the first was so compelling? Someone ought to check to see if any of her relatives or donors/supporters are benefiting from these studies
I guess that, gone are the days of us going to the national forest with a couple cases of beer and some malt-liquor and firing off a few hundred rounds from the AR’s.
What about the mass gun violence link to young men and the use of psycho-trophic and anti-depressant drug use? Much more compelling link. Have at it, Hannah-Beth.
Ironically, the deaths most often occur from those breaking the law, not the law abiding. Taking guns away from the law abiding does not solve the problem.
The war on guns is about as smart as the war on drugs. Waste of time and money. People who want drugs are going to get them one way or another. I wonder if that also applies to guns? Hmm….
Define “well-regulated militia” for me. It is not my alcoholic neighbor with an assault rifle, who can either use it unwisely or allow it to be stolen to be used by a criminal.
It’s currently called the National Guard. But gun nuts think it’s the drinking buddies with rifles definition.
keep beating that old drum…it doesn’t work. why? our forefathers did NOT pen this with military style weapons in mind. You want a musket rifle? 1 round capacity, 3 rounds per minute at 50 meter accuracy, then by all means, go for it. This was NOT written so ppl like yourself and the NRA can pervert it and twist it into a means to carry military weapons.
They kind of did though. Muskets were the bee’s knees at the time.
It would have far more impact if people convicted of alcohol offenses had their drivers licenses revoked and are banned from driving for life. But hey, that’s not the purpose of her agenda, is it.
The answer is NO Coastwatch
Yet another unnecessary law and waste of taxpayer’s money from a far-left politician trying to make themselves look good to their leftist constituents. California already has more gun control laws than almost every other state, yet none of them have ever prevented someone who wants to use a firearm for a violent crime from getting one and doing so. Another ridiculous law such as this is not what we need to stop gun violence.
This is a prime example of how those with a firearms fetish are willing to throw aside common sense and argue that people who have demonstrated a lack of responsibility for the well-being of their fellow citizens should be allowed to freely own weapons capable of killing on a scale well beyond any need for self-defense. At least most of us are smart enough to take away their driving privileges, which I guess sunsets hasn’t noticed.
Yes. Instead of nibbling around the edges of this firearms insanity, we need to join the civilized world and restrict firearms possession much more rigorously. We’ve already placed ourselves in a deep hole by our past policies, but it’s time to bite the bullet, so to speak, and get serious about ending the insanity.
Thank you Hannah-Beth for having the courage to push back against the gun lunatics.
Mistakenly , A-15 , you have associated HBJ with courage
How would you accomplish this ?
Just look to the civilized world – Australia, Great Britain, Japan. It won’t be easy in a country awash with firearms, but with persistence and dedication it could happen. It won’t be overnight, unfortunately.