You were doing great until you went stone-cold stupid with that comment.
Well, let's see. The guy had a history of domestic violence, drug charges, and weapons charges. We don't know why he still had access to a gun, but here are some of the things that may have prevented that from happening. Which of these would have met with NRA approval?
1. The court could have taken his gun away from him, provided that they knew he owned one, which they would have, if gun registration had been required.
2. If he had bought it from a private party, the sale would have not happened, if background checks would have been required for all gun purchases.
Or, he could have stolen the gun, which I doubt very much, since this apparently was an act of passion, which usually is done with whatever weapon is at hand.
Generally, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a California licensed dealer under the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) process. California law imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a purchaser or transferee.
That noise you just heard was your argument blowing up in your face! Doesn't that sting just a little?
I don't think so, "Admiral". Even you could not keep a straight face while telling me that the NRA approves of the California law you quoted, and would have no objections of other states adopting it. Also, you seemed to have overlooked the other things that I mentioned that may have prevented this man from owning a gun, including gun registration.
He was already a prohibited person nimrod. Thus, it was already a FELONY for him to possess the firearm. NO firearm may be transferred withing the State of California without a registration, and a background check. Period. Thus the very laws that you claim would have prevented him from getting a gun ARE ALREADY LAW in CA!
Really effective aren't they.....dipshit.
...and, based on my prior experience with this Mod poster, I'm out of here......
Yeah, I'm real good at exposing you for the fool you are, the laws you claim would have prevented this attack are already law in CA. Thus, they don't work. No surprise there. so go, go ahead and run, chicken.