[Jim Robinson]

It definitely will. The moment criminals decide to follow the law.

[raybbr]

Does the law include police?

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

It WILL! ...Or we’ll add more laws on top, and THEN it will!

[goldstategop]

It fixes a problem that really isn’t a problem.

Behind it is the notion that others should be responsible for your personal behavior.

Its a law that turns people into children without doing anything to stop mass killings from happening.

But the law lets lets liberals and hoplophobes feel good about themselves.

[goldstategop]

And it does not include knife control! Liberals and hoplophobes have yet to explain why guns are inherently more dangerous than knives.

[ArmstedFragg]

Pretty much the norm in California politics: legislators with an agenda using an incident to pass a law that actually wouldn’t have changed the outcome of that incident.

It’s all about finding an excuse to achieve their agenda.

[Nuc 1.1]

No it won’t help but it will turn civilians into a snarky secret police trying to damage their neighbors and family. There is real evil amoung us.

[Albion Wilde]

ping

[Pox]

It is nothing more than incrementalism, and is pointless along with being unconstitutional. In a sane society, it would be struck down in short order, however, in this political climate, it will take a decade or more to decide if it is “constitutional”.

[Sooth2222]

What, exactly, is a “police psychiatrist”?

[Huskrrrr]

NO, but it will make libs feel better.

[Daffynition]

It's b/c they didn't have the killer sign a *contract* when he was 5 y/o.

[Secret Agent Man]

of course. all of the prior laws have stopped it.

/sarc

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Nope.

Next stupid question?

[GailA]

Lets see Ricard Speck killed with a knife. Tim McVeigh with fertilizer, 9/11 killed with planes, Pearl Harbor Planes, mini subs. hitler with gas chambers.

Answer is NO!

[marktwain]

“Santa Barbara Democrat Das Williams, he claimed that there was no cost to disarming individuals, only a possible benefit.”

This is the crux of the “progressive” argument about guns. They claim that there is no benefit to guns in the hands of non-government entities.

Definitely a lie, but they are expert at lying to themselves and others.

They *must* not admit that there is a benefit, because then they have to do a cost/benefit analysis, and facts simply do not support their case.

[eyeamok]

It is laws like this that make me want to start collecting money to put an initiative on the ballot:

Any Public Servant that can be demonstrated to have made deliberate false statements during the course of their professional duties or actions shall be deemed a threat to themselves and the public, and shall be prohibited from possessing,using, or having control of or access to ANY Firearm or ammunition.