.

Should Benicia Council and School Board Support Gun Control Legislation?

The Benicia City Council and school board may send letters supporting stricter gun control laws.

Correction: The letter signed by Mayors Elizabeth Patteron and Osby Davis has already been subitted to the congressman, and was not up for debate Tuesday night. The council was voting on a resolution, not the letter. Patch regrets the error.

--

A federal debate over ways to reduce gun violence will come home to Benicia this week, if only briefly.

The Benicia City Council and Benicia Unified School District Board of Education will both consider sending letters to Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) supporting stricter gun control laws.

"While we respect a person’s right to own a gun, there must be better control over the type of guns we allow, who is allowed to possess them and the criteria by which those guns are acquired," reads a draft of the letter scheduled to be considered by the city council. "To say that a person has a right to own assault weapons (including children) is ignoring what such weapons are made to do (get off a lot of rounds in a short period of times to maximize destruction)."

The letter from the Benicia city council, set to be discussed Tuesday night, would be signed by Mayor Elizabeth Patterson and Vallejo Mayor Osby Davis. It's addressed to Thompson, who is chair of the Congressional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, created in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Benicia and Vallejo will hold gun buyback events this month, according to the letter.

"We certainly agree that there are too many guns on the streets," the letter says.

The school board's letter is similar, but adds that "strengthening gun laws alone is not enough," and encourages "efforts such as strengthening background checks, improving mental health services, and keeping military type guns and assault magazines out of our communities, addressing the culture of violence perpetuated through violent media, among others."

The city council will discuss the item during its 7 p.m. meeting Tuesday at the City Council Chambers, 250 East L St. The school board will discuss its proposed letter at 7 p.m. Thursday at its board room, 350 East K St.

--

Should the city council and school board support stricter gun control legislation? Where do you stand on the issue? Tell us in the comments section below.

--

Do you subscribe to the Benicia Patch newsletter? It brings our latest stories, blogs, announcements and the day's calendar events to your inbox early each morning.

Do you have opinions, experiences and views to share? Consider becoming a Benicia Patch blogger!

Michelle Kye February 05, 2013 at 08:09 PM
Yes!
"The Black Panther of Poetry" February 05, 2013 at 09:09 PM
An unequivocal, resounding YES YES YES!!!
Babaloo February 05, 2013 at 09:29 PM
Mind your own business . Worry about things in Benicia. This has got to be some sort of "joke", you can't even manage your own interests stay out of real issues.
Barry February 05, 2013 at 10:52 PM
No. The State of California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. The states laws have had no impact on gun violence in this state, or any other state for that matter. Fact is, the stricter the laws, the higher the crime rates. The city of Benicia should not inject itself in a civil rights matter. Many of the cities residents, and most of the city council do not have a working knowledge of firearms, of what is legal, or how to use them for that matter. The bans only real effect is to keep legal guns out of the hands of lawful citizens. The US assault weapons ban of 1994 had no effect on gun violence while it was in effect. Most people are not aware, that true assault weapons are already banned, and have been for years. The city should not involve itself in civil rights issues.
Tuuli February 05, 2013 at 11:25 PM
NO! While we all mourn the killing of anyone, let alone children, banning gus, or certain poorly defined classes of guns, may feel good, but it won't be effective in decreasing gun violence. The City Council and School Board don't have the requisite broad knowledge of the issues (let alone firearms) to issue a statement representing all of Benicia's citizens, many of whom have both children and guns. Assault weapons account for a positively miniscule percentage of gun homicides. As horrible as Sandy Hook was, there are more children killed in other cities (usually by handguns) they just weren't killed all at once, and they are children of minorities, so no one seems to care. So a big panic now seems a bit contrived. Banning guns now is like further decreasing a speed limit in an area known for speeders. A more effective approach would be addressing mental health issues (and the ubiquitous anti-depressants that are being administered to our young people), parenting issues, the pervasive glorification of violence in the media, background checks, and gun safety classes. Banning guns is a lazy politician's reaction to pressure from an uninformed public....and the City should stay out of it.
Jason February 06, 2013 at 02:03 AM
Uh... who said children have a right to own assault weapons, or any other weapon for that matter? Children have no rights. They are wards of their financial supporters.
leon johnson February 06, 2013 at 02:26 AM
The problem is ,the Super left refuses to acknowledge or even debate the real issue . That is, the single moms kid perpetrates a huge percentage of gun crimes , infact ,when factored in race becomes a non issue . I need a Gun to protect myself from her sons . Buyback money would be better spent on a math tutor, a trip to a national park, or maybe how to wear your pants lessons for the single moms kid . If the left goes too far, I join the NRA. People... When you reply don't make it eazy for me too whip you with facts and numbers again!
Dennis Lowry February 06, 2013 at 06:23 AM
Absolutely NO. I presented the following to the City Council tonight. The tragedy of Sandy Hook was indeed horrific and our thoughts and prayers go out to those families. The cowardly shooter was a mentally unstable young man who did not purchase a gun through a dealer or a gun show. Instead, he murdered his mother and seized her legally obtained semi-automatic weapons none of which were military grade assault rifles. No amount of “Gun Control” is going to prevent this heinously evil act. The root cause is a significant moral decline in our society, not guns. This resolution proposes to support efforts designed to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. In this instance “…..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” as stated in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is no longer recognized as a God given right but a right that can be granted, modified or denied by man. That focus is in direct conflict with each Councilmember’s oath of office to “….support and defend the Constitution of the United States…..” Any effort to pass this type of resolution should be a wake-up call to all citizens regarding any elected official(s) choosing to go beyond his/her elected position to take away our unalienable rights. The Council made changes, removed in to make the sentence read compatible vs. in compatible with the 2nd Amendment and passed it with a 4 ayes to 1 no (Hughes) vote
Marnix A. van Ammers February 06, 2013 at 05:48 PM
I see nothing wrong with "strengthening background checks, improving mental health services, and keeping military type guns and assault magazines out of our communities." The 2nd amendment was never meant to allow what we have now. You don't need an assault weapon in order to protect yourself or for hunting. I'm fine with allowing assault weapons in controlled conditions at a firing range, but not any old place. There is no need for large ammunition clips. For regular sporting guns and self protection guns, which I think should be allowed, owners should be required to complete and pass a gun safety class and they should be required to carry liability insurance. Even though some of these steps would have a miniscule effect on gun homicides, they would still have an effect.
Karen LaRiviere February 06, 2013 at 06:31 PM
“…..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” as stated in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is no longer recognized as a God given right but a right that can be granted, modified or denied by man. I always chuckle when I hear folks refer to "God-given rights." Last I checked, the drafters of the Constitution were all mortal men, Thomas Jefferson was even an atheist. In all of the discussions regarding gun safety legislation, we hear the right railing about "they're infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights" and "they are going to take away your rights to defend yourself" and "they are coming to take away your guns." (I like that one the best.) - Even Justice Scalia said in the Heller decision that there are limits to the 2nd Amendment. There should be no need for any civilian to have "cop killer/armor piercing" bullets, there is really no need for any civilian to have a weapon/clip capable of holding 30-50-100 rounds of ammunition. Really? Is this really what the gun lobby and NRA want to fight over? There is no discussion about taking away handguns, rifles, shotguns or any other weapon used to defend your family or to go hunting with but honestly, if you need a gun with 100 rounds to defend your family, you should probably spend a bit more time at the gun range and learn to aim better.
Cody Kitaura (Editor) February 06, 2013 at 08:03 PM
Thanks for the comment, Dennis. I quoted you in my follow-up story: http://patch.com/A-1GGP
Tim February 23, 2013 at 05:17 AM
Support Proposed California Laws,No!!, Background Checks, Yes: we already have them. Assault weapons, no: real assault weapons are already illegal. Harassing gimickry by the legislature, No: that is all this is. Finding out what is causing our culture of violence, yes: but that takes work and time and it will not get them re-elected. If you don't like guns: don't buy one. If you object to others having them: mind your own business. Why make criminals out of law-abiding gun owners. If you want to have an impact on violence write your TV stations and Hollywood and demand that they stop setting these violent examples. Educate your children about respect for others. This includes others rights (including gun ownership)!! Most importantly:stay married and raise your oun children!!
Karl Voigt April 06, 2013 at 06:40 PM
History clearly shows that the People and the framers of the Constitution insisted on the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd Amendment, because they wanted maximum protection from a possible future tyrannical government. All of this gobbly gook about "sporting guns" and "self protection guns" is in fact a side issue.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »