California To Regulate Toy Guns, Just As I Predicted
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 1 month ago
Concerning the shooting of a thirteen year old boy carrying a toy by Police in Sonoma County, I said:
… tell me if a single cop tells the truth or holds anyone accountable. Tell me if a judge or jury finds these men guilty of anything? No, the strongest response will be from totalitarian lawmakers who want to make it illegal to have or sell toy guns.
From NBC Bay Area:
The death of a Bay Area boy and the paralysis of a Los Angeles teen — both shot by law enforcement while carrying replica rifles — are the human faces behind state legislation being introduced on Friday that would crack down on the classification and color-coding of toy guns.
California State Senators Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) and Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) introduced their “Imitation Firearm Safety Act,” which they hope will prevent any heat-of-the-moment confusion over fake guns by reclassifying BB guns and force manufacturers to paint them a bright color.
“If officers would have seen a gun painted in pink, purple or orange, Andy might still be alive,” Evans said. “This was a huge tragedy for our entire community.”
[ … ]
Critics have long argued that regulating “look-alike” guns do little to protect the public and that bad guys will simply paint their guns in a rainbow of hues to fake cops out.
“That is just a red herring,” she said. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles all have similar toy gun color rules and there is no evidence to support that theory, she said.
I can see how the idea of painting a gun to fool the cops wouldn’t occur to a criminal. That idea is too obtuse.
It’s all proceeding just as I had foreseen. But here is a better idea. Cops stop people carrying toys and inquire as to their intentions and the nature of the item they’re carrying while they maintain at least a modicum of self control . Or better yet, make California an open carry state and the cops don’t have to stop any one at all unless it’s a valid “Terry Stop.”
|
|
On November 24, 2013 at 11:49 pm, Dan said:
Just reread the 4th Amendment……AGAIN.
NOWHERE in that amendment do I see the words
“Terry stop”, “investigate” or “reasonable suspicion”.
Thus the illegality of the “Terry Stop” is quite clear and
self evident.
Unless badgemonkey personally sees a crime being committed
or unless a citizen gives said badgemonkey clear and concise
information about a crime said citizen witnessed badgemonkey
has ZERO right, authority or need to stop, detain, harass, touch,
abuse or interact in ANY way with ANY citizen.
It’s fuc*ing high time we started holding the conduct of ALL people
paid by tax dollars to the clear, clean and concise language of the
constitution and especially the bill of rights.
On November 25, 2013 at 7:49 pm, Archer said:
Long-term affect: A few cops get shot by gang-bangers toting bright purple or neon orange guns, and the default response to any bright plastic is right back to “Shoot first, ask questions later.”
It’ll be just another case of freedoms eroded in the name of increasing safety, but with no increased safety. I’d shake my head and sigh, but I have no sighs left for this crap. I’m leaning toward Dan‘s point of view above, with the caveat that any – and I mean any – laws that impose restrictions or infringements to the fundamental rights of We The People have an automatic 6- or 12-month sunset clause, pending evidence of a clear, articulable, statistically significant, causational (is that a word?), and overwhelming benefit to public safety.
Prohibition on yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire? Yeah, I could buy that. Prohibition on wanted fugitives – especially for violent crimes – obtaining firearms? I can see that. Entry and/or search based on “reasonable, articulable suspicion” or “active pursuit”? Grudgingly OK, but you’ll have to prove it, and none of this “qualified immunity” crap if you don’t.
In fact, I’d even say that if such a law is passed and sunsetted because it provides no benefits, the lawmakers responsible should be tried in federal court, and any “peace officer” who enforced such a law should likewise be tried, with consequences dependent on the damages he/she caused while enforcing it.