[Insectguy]

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/13819909.htm

EX-POSTAL WORKER BOUGHT GUN 'LEGALLY'Gap in firearm laws allowed woman accessBy MICHAEL R. BLOODAssociated PressLOS ANGELES - When Jennifer San Marco sold her California condo and resettled in New Mexico, she left behind more than a reputation for racist slurs and irrational behavior.
When she crossed the border, she could buy a gun.
Authorities said San Marco used a 9 mm Smith & Wesson she bought in New Mexico to kill six postal workers, a former neighbor and herself in Santa Barbara County.
She had been prohibited from buying a firearm in California for five years after she was committed briefly for psychiatric reasons in 2001, officials said.
But that law didn't travel with her.
New Mexico, where she moved in late 2003 or early 2004, relies on federal screening for gun purchases. But that background check, state officials said, does not recognize the rules that would have blocked San Marco if she tried to buy a gun in California.
Her ability to buy the gun in New Mexico at a time when she was deemed a risk in California points to what some call a dangerous gap in handgun regulation -- a patchwork of rules that can differ from state to state, and from statehouses to Washington.
The case shows the need for "more rigorous national standards to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill," California Attorney General Gen. Bill Lockyer said in an interview.
"It demonstrates the limits on a state's ability to effectively enforce firearms laws, because they are avoidable by purchasing a gun in a less-regulated state," he said.
Sgt. Erik Raney of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department agreed there are too many loopholes in gun regulation. San Marco "bought the gun legally" in New Mexico, Raney said.
The federal government prohibits the mentally ill from purchasing guns, but its rules for determining when a person crosses that threshold are different than California regulations, officials said.
The FBI, which maintains the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, declined to say if San Marco was in the federal database, citing privacy reasons. Spokesman Stephen Fischer said there is no requirement that states provide mental health records to the FBI for matters such as screening gun buyers, however some do voluntarily.
Many states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement.
San Marco, 44, went on her deadly rampage Jan. 30 at the Santa Barbara Processing and Distribution Center, where she once worked.
She was armed with the 15-round pistol she bought in August at a pawn shop in Grants, N.M., near her home. She had picked up an unknown amount of ammunition from a pawn shop in Gallup, N.M.
In communities in both states where San Marco lived, she was known for bizarre behavior, including harassing municipal employees, making racist comments and stripping in public.
California officials would not say if San Marco attempted to buy firearms when she lived in California, citing privacy restrictions.
Unlike California, New Mexico doesn't have a state-level registration system.
"All of that is done federally," said Peter Olson, a spokesman for the New Mexico Department of Public Safety. New Mexico tracks guns used in crimes, but "we don't keep track of citizens and who owns what," he said.
Paul Castillo, an employee who sold the gun to San Marco for $325 at Ace Pawn and Antiques, said she provided a driver's license to show proof of residency and was not flagged by the federal background check required for handgun purchases there.
"She was like anybody else, nothing usual," Castillo said.
The federal background check "showed it was clear," he added.

[Cosmoline]

So unless a state's laws agree with **********, they constitute a "dangerous gap"? :D :D

Gotta love the arrogance of those people from the south.

[JohnBT]

"The federal government prohibits the mentally ill from purchasing guns"

Here we go again. NO IT DOESN'T. Thank you.

It only prohibits a person adjudicated mentally ill. IOW, an involuntary commitment or someone Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

The article does not state whether the woman was a voluntary commitment or an involuntary commitment.

Not enough info and too much coffee. I need a doughnut. :)

John

[gazpacho]

NM has pawn shops that sell ammo?

[Chipperman]

:rolleyes:

""It demonstrates the limits on a state's ability to effectively enforce firearms laws, because they are avoidable by purchasing a gun in a less-regulated state," he said."

Not if you still live in the first state. Interstate handgun purchases are forbidden by Federal law. She had become a resident of NM, so CA law did not ahd SHOULD not apply.

"Her ability to buy the gun in New Mexico at a time when she was deemed a risk in California points to what some call a dangerous gap in handgun regulation -- a patchwork of rules that can differ from state to state, and from statehouses to Washington."

hmmm, using that logic, nobody in the nation should be allowed to CCW, b/c Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Illinois do not allow it.

[fjolnirsson]

So what if she bought the gun legally? She used it Illegally!
If she's willing to murder people, why would she hesitate at buying on the black market?:banghead:

[Travis McGee]

The solution is so simple. Let California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey write the gun laws for all 50 states. Whichever law is the most restrictive will be used. There, wasn't that easy?

[SLCDave]

So, lets say she bought 20 5-gallon gas cans, filled them and her car up and left the caps off, drove the car through the front doors and threw a road flare into the back seat, would we question the need for limits on gas purchases or gas can purchases?

If she waited until the shift ended, and ran them all over as they walked out the door, would they question whether she bought the car legally?

Maybe she shouldn't have been allowed to travel back to California of her own free will and choice. Maybe we need roving bands of officers asking for her papers to make sure she has a legitimate reason to travel?

How much more transparent does the propaganda need to be? Leave the criminal and/or the criminal action out of this, let's focus on the weapon of choice.

[odysseus]

So what if she bought the gun legally? She used it Illegally!
If she's willing to murder people, why would she hesitate at buying on the black market?:banghead:

+1. Somehow they intend not to address the logical side of the issue.

[Jubei]

That still doesn't change the fact that if the employees of the postal facility, and everyone else for that matter had been allowed to carry a firearm, her "deadly killing spree" would have ended much, much sooner.

Nothing will stop or slow down a killing spree quite like return fire.

Jubei

[Kramer Krazy]

Hmmmm....isn't there a box on the 4473 that says something to the effect of asking you if you've ever been determined mentally "off"? I wish I had a copy of the form in front of me, but, depending on the wording, she may have possibly obtained the gun illegally, if she answered that question incorrectly......Anyone have a copy of the form handy?


Found it - Section f: "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or have you been committed to a mental institution?"

I believe she must have lied on the form......

[Biker]

I didn't catch the racial aspect of the crime. Can anyone shed some light?
Biker

[TallPine]

Sounds to me like what really we need is a law requiring fruitcake Californians to stay in California ... :p

(but then who would feed the bears in Alaska? :D )

[phorvick]

Section f: "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or have you been committed to a mental institution?"

I believe she must have lied on the form......Not necessarily. I doubt that she had been adjudicated as such, and if she voluntarily admitted herself, that is not a committment.

[MD_Willington]

She had the motive, could have just as easilly picked up a machete at walmart if she could not get a firearm...

MD

[Sistema1927]

She could have bought a firearm from out of a car trunk just about anywhere in California.

[Standing Wolf]

The case shows the need for "more rigorous national standards to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill," California Attorney General Gen. Bill Lockyer said in an interview.

The inmates have taken over the asylum and started issuing PhDs in psychology and MDs in psychiatry.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Scuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuzeeeeeeeeeee Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

She had been prohibited from buying a firearm in California for five years after she was committed briefly for psychiatric reasons in 2001, officials said.

I guess she could have purchased a firearm in 2006......................
even in **********

[Hawkmoon]

The article does not state if she was committed voluntarily or involuntarily. So she may or may not have lied on the 4473.

If she was involuntarily committed and the federal background check came back clean, then guess what? The State of California screwed up by not providing information to the NICS system that would have enabled the background check to accomplish what it purports to accomplish.

Shame on California.

[rickfifty]

This is from the mother of one of the victims:


Sheri Higgins of Santa Barbara praised her daughter's commitment to various causes, from social justice to animal rights. She said in light of last week's tragedy, "We need to stop the violence and the manufacture of guns."

[sm]

The case shows the need for "more rigorous national standards to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill," California Attorney General Gen. Bill Lockyer said in an interview.

Then how come mentally ill folks keep getting elected to political positions?
Not just a California problem either...

It is never the tool - instead the intent of user.

So politicians intentally abuse powers to spread Tyranny.

They take an oath and intentially break it. Don't sound too sane to me...

[HerrWolfe]

:barf:

[RavenVT100]

Solution: Declare interest in owning a firearm to be a "serious mental illness." Make laws that do away with doctor-patient confidentiality specifically to enforce firearm prohibition laws.

Viola, no one can buy a firearm. Pretty simple, huh? :neener:

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Why is anybody surprised about this? The media in **** decided a while back to stick the knife in and turn. Think about it. SanFran wanted to ban all guns!

I remember listening to Bill O'Reilly and hearing some former big wig in SanFran gov talk about how she fully supported the law. O'Reilly (not exactly Wayne LaPierre), asked how she could say that when she wouldn't be able to keep a weapon for self-defense. She responded by talking about having the protection of the San Fran SWAT team! These people are insane.

Normally I would just say, if you love freedom leave the place, and let them rot in their crime infested excuse for a quasi-socialist paradise, but instead they want to try to tell the rest of the country what to do.

Let's make sure these idiots don't ever get another bit of national level gun-control passed ever again. They can keep their myth of a gun-free California if they want, and have the bodies stack up if they want until someone wakes up and realizes what's going on.

Just one question for them? Why was it when I was in LA, I saw gang members with what looked like Uzis on the streets, and was robbed at gun point in this gun free utopia? But when I've visited, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada, I haven't had any of these problems? :banghead:

[Gordon Fink]

Solution: Declare interest in owning a firearm to be a “serious mental illness.” Make laws that do away with doctor-patient confidentiality specifically to enforce firearm prohibition laws.

Viola, [sic] no one can buy a firearm. Pretty simple, huh?

However unwittingly, this is what all the “anti-” folks are working toward. To achieve control over personal morality, the anti-gun crowd, the anti-abortionists, the anti-drug establishment, the anti-obscenity types, the anti-immigration movement, and others must first finish destroying privacy. Though these groups may oppose each other in some cases, they have this one goal in common, which is why they are all so dangerous.

~G. Fink

[Waitone]

I'm thinking at gun lockers lining Cali's border. Drop 'em off when you enter, pick 'em up when you leave. See, creative and effective.

Mr. Blood of the AP, neither you nor me nor anyone else can control human behavior short of a human game preserve. . . . .wait, Cali is a human game preserve. Disregard my comments.

[RavenVT100]

However unwittingly, this is what all the “anti-” folks are working toward. To achieve control over personal morality, the anti-gun crowd, the anti-abortionists, the anti-drug establishment, the anti-obscenity types, the anti-immigration movement, and others must first finish destroying privacy. Though these groups may oppose each other in some cases, they have this one goal in common, which is why they are all so dangerous.

~G. Fink
I agree with a good chunk of this. Although personally, I believe that they're going to get their asses handed to them eventually. Privacy is a big deal among the "intellectual left" that comprises ACLU and EFF types, and that type of thing won't sit well with them. Most of them are not even aware of the severe personal privacy erosions that have taken place in the name of firearm prohibition and when they find out, they tend to react very negatively to it.

[Gordon Fink]

That’s exactly the problem. Here are just a couple typical examples. The anti-gunner wants firearms registered, not realizing that by weakening privacy protections for gun owners she is also laying the groundwork for the reprohibition of abortion. The anti-drug gun owner wants the police to have more power to search for illegal drugs, not realizing that this would also give them more power to search for “illegal” firearms.

~G. Fink