Man who killed wife in restaurant was on probation (CA)

[slackmaster]

For...

<drum roll>

A misdemeanor omestic violence conviction. He had admitted and pleaded guilty to battering his wife. He spent three days in jail in 2002 an dcompleted a year-long anger management program, according to court records.

This event was discussed with a lot of speculation by me and others in yesterday's GITN thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=46071&mesg_id=46207&page= .

I'm starting a new thread because the revelation of his conviction puts a whole new light on the crime; I think it might be worthwhile to discuss where society's safety systems broke down and what might be done to improve our ability to prevent this kind of crime.

The information about Jose Gurrola's legal status appears on page B3 of today's San Diego Union-Tribune under the title I used as the subject line for this post. It does not seem to be on the paper's online edition. The author is Onell R. Soto, staff writer for the U-T. If the San Diego paper's well-known conservative bias bothers you, please click the Back button on your browser now. I assure you if I had a source that would pass the DU Gungeon litmus test I'd use it.

Let me be very clear about the implications of Gurrola's conviction: He was prohibited by both state and federal law from possessing any firearm. If you doubt what I'm saying just say the word and I will provide links to the applicable laws.

So, the question many want answered is "How did he get the gun?" There are just two possibilities:

A. He obtained the gun legally prior to his criminal conviction, or

B. He obtained the gun illegally.

There is no "gun show loophole" in California. All transfers of modern firearms have to be done either from or through a federal firearms licensee (FFL), with a state Department of Justice background check that certainly would have caught the misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. There is no way he got the gun legally in California after he was convicted of his past crime. And bringing a gun in from another state where private-party transfers are unregulated, e.g. Nevada, would have been illegal.

To fast-forward to the "we like guns" side's core argument: The problem is lack of effective enforcement. Although people who get convicted of certain crimes are barred from having guns, there is no effective mechanism in place to ensure that they actually dispose of any they owned prior to the conviction.

And let's fast-forward to a likely response from some "guns are bad" folks: If all guns were registered it would have beeen a simple matter to determine that he had one or more, and dispatch police to confiscate them.

Sorry folks, but we have had de facto registration of all handguns in California since 1968. All legal handgun sales have been done through dealers, with background checks, since then. The state Department of Justice is supposed to have the make, model, and serial number of every handgun sold here since 1968. Police officers have confirmed to me personally that when they pull someone over in traffic or go to a home, they have access to that information on their computer systems.

I happen to own a pre-1968 handgun that I inherited. I'm quite sure the state has no way of knowing I have that pistol, and my owning it is perfectly legal. But I'm 46 years old. Jose Gurrola was just 31. There is no way the state of California could not have known about any handguns he had obtained legally. BTW - People who move to Califoria from other states are required to register all handguns within 60 days.

The Union-Tribune article also notes "...Members of his wife's family on the Viejas Indian Reservation sayd yesterday he talked of gang ties in Los Angeles and had guns around the home....", referring to the shooter Gurrola.

I have to ask what the hell is up with a system that fails to take obvious steps to disarm a known dangerous person who is prohibited by law from having guns? I can't respect any calls for additional restrictions when the ones we have in place COULD work but are not being enforced.

[JohnLocke]

1. Hmm...

Good post. :)

[CO Liberal]

2. This Begs a Question

I can't respect any calls for additional restrictions when the ones we have in place COULD work but are not being enforced.

And that question is, "Why AREN'T the current restrictions being enforced?" Is it because of a lack of funding, lack of personnel, or lack of resolve?

Discuss...

[iverglas]

3. interesting

I do want to address the many issues raised, but that calls for organized thought and time, rather than just fast typing, and so I'll have to postpone it for a bit. Remind me if I forget.

.

[slackmaster]

4. I welcome your input in particular

Take your time.