Today at 2:20 p.m., seven people were killed in a shooting near Highway 92 in Half Moon Bay, close to Half Moon Bay city limits. The suspect, Zhao Chunli, was taken into custody shortly after the shooting occurred; a semi-automatic handgun was recovered and determined to be the weapon used in the shooting. An eighth person is being treated at Stanford Medical Center for their critical injuries.
With seven victims thus far, the incident can be classified as a mass shooting. According to CNN, there have been 38 such incidents in the first 23 days of 2023. Yesterday, 11 people were killed in Monterey Park, California. Nine others were wounded. The suspect, Huu Can Tran, was apprehended upon entering a second location with an intent to continue shooting.
Both events are similarly disturbing attacks on the Asian American Pacific Islander community, and the motives of each attacker are unknown at this time. The fact that they both occurred within hours of one another highlights the severity of gun violence in America, and calls into question the effectiveness of state restrictions by themselves.
California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in America. There are restrictions on assault weapons and their associated magazines, required universal background checks, waiting periods, minimum age laws, and protections in place for victims of domestic violence. Despite this, the legislation comes with complications; “California compliant” AR-15 copycats are being made to meet demand, and federal judges have blocked laws that aim to hold gun dealers responsible for selling illegal assault weapons accountable. Overall, California’s gun restrictions appear to have been at least somewhat successful in comparison to other states. According to the Washington Post, California also has the seventh lowest firearm mortality rate in the country, with 8.5 deaths per 100,000 people in 2021.
However, some of these restrictions may be up for reconsideration. In June of 2022, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In essence, this ruling interpreted the “right to bear arms” as the right to bear arms outside of the home, declaring that restrictions on the ability to carry a gun in public are unconstitutional. California was one of eight states, including New York prior to the Bruen ruling, that required an individual to express a true "good cause" to carry a firearm before issuing a concealed carry permit. The Bruen ruling struck down the "good cause" clause specifically. Newsom condemned the court’s decision–while the Bruen ruling didn’t invalidate the restrictions in place, it made them vulnerable to a challenge in court. The implementation of the ruling is ultimately left up to the local and county offices that issue concealed carry permits, and many officials are unsure how to proceed in light of increased demand. This, to me, is an example of both the ramifications of the Supreme Court's decisions, and a friction that follows federalism in practice. The Supreme Court has no power by itself to implement a decision; in a state like California, where laws restricting access to firearms could likely pass and the governor is in support of those laws, bills are written to work around the rulings made at the federal level. This differs from the interpretation of the Bruen ruling in a state like Missouri or Texas.
In the wake of the past days’ tragedies, Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed a desire for gun reform at the national level. President Biden, who signed a bipartisan gun reform bill into law in June of last year, issued a statement last night in support of the victims of the Monterey Park shooting.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/23/us/shooting-half-moon-bay-california
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/01/22/california-gun-laws-monterey-park-shooting/
https://calmatters.org/justice/criminal-justice/2022/06/california-gun-laws-supreme-court/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843
https://www.everytown.org/press/california-is-advancing-an-important-bill-to-combat-the-supreme-courts-dangerous-ruling-in-nysrpa-v-bruen-heres-what-to-know/#:~:text=Bruen.,carry%20a%20firearm%20in%20public.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/22/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-shooting-in-monterey-park-california/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
6 comments:
The consistency of American Mass Shootings perplexes me on how lawmakers haven't put more regulations in place for the purchasing of firearms. A majority of people who commit mass shootings have obtained their firearms legally, meaning the screening process needs more restrictions so dangerous people do not get their hands on destructive weapons like guns. I find the interpretation of the "right to bear arms" interesting as it can be used as a loophole to pass more gun restrictions. It seems to be that the U.S. is moving in the right direction regarding the sentiment of reoccurring amounts of gun violence and legislation being passed, but it's happening too slowly. Looking past the politics of the political parties, gun violence has been increasing over the past couple of years and more needs to be done to prevent tragedies like Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay from continuing to happen across America.
It seems like these mass shootings are becoming so normalized in our society. According to CNN there have been 39 mass shootings so far in 2023 and it's extremely saddening that gun violence only gets mainstream attention when death tolls are high. The United States is a clear outlier when it comes to gun control. CNN states, "Australia. Less than two weeks after Australia’s worst mass shooting, the federal government implemented a new program, banning rapid-fire rifles and shotguns, and unifying gun owner licensing and registrations across the country. In the next 10 years gun deaths in Australia fell by more than 50%." It is clear gun control works, when are we going to enact change?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/politics/mass-shootings-in-2023-what-matters/index.html
I agree with Christien--but I think it's also important to point out that while many states are moving in the right direction with firearm regulation, the Supreme Court has been expanding gun rights slowly for decades. Public sentiment has definitely changed given the coverage of mass shootings and its prevalence, but there is a dissonance there between state law and federal expansion of gun rights.
I agree with Truman. We now hear about carrying mass shooting happening all around the country and its truly something that needs to be contained. I have a friend who lives in Half Moon Bay extremely close to where the shooting occurred, as well as one who lives in Monterey who also lives within 5 minutes of where the shooting happened. From both I've heard how unsafe they feel leaving their own houses now that this has happened nevertheless going to school. Change is constantly being talked about but it hasn't been as effective as hoped. I like that the Supreme Court has been trying to expand gun rights but in my opinion when it comes down to the main problem happening right now, a persons life over their right to bare arms shouldn't be in question. I get that people want a gun as a way to protect themselves, but that isn't what is happening in our society right now. The second amendment is meant for people to defend themselves from danger but when are we going to draw the line from those owning arms being the danger to the many people without arms. Having a gun as a means of protection is doing more harm than protecting.
Background checks should certainly be implemented in order to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands and threatening the lives of others. This seems like a reasonable step that wouldn't infringe on the right to bear arms, as most people from across the political spectrum would agree that people with a history of violence or other dangerous issues shouldn't be able to walk into a store and buy an assault weapon. However, background checks aren't a foolproof method, as some people with a clean background and no other red flags could still purchase a weapon and resort to violence, as we've seen recently. Congress already imposes restrictions on certain weapons without violating the Second Amendment (you can't buy an RPG or a fully-automatic machine gun), so it would be reasonable for them to limit military-type high-capacity assault weapons, which are much more powerful than anything someone would need to defend their home. While such restrictions wouldn't end all gun violence, hopefully it would help to reduce the number of mass shootings we have seen recently.
Gun violence continues to be a major crisis across the country with the rise of mass shootings. According to CNN, there have already been 60 mass shootings in 2023. We are only two months into the year, and many mass shootings have already occurred. Many people who have committed mass shootings have acquired their weapons legally, so there needs to be a better process to make sure that dangerous people don't get their hands on weapons, like guns. For example, background checks should be implemented before being able to buy a gun or other dangerous weapon.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts/index.html
Post a Comment