PDA

View Full Version : Husband of Seal Beach shooting victim wants new gun law


DVSmith
06-05-2012, 4:51 PM
The husband of Seal Beach hair salon shooting victim Christy Wilson is trying to find a state legislator to introduce a bill in Sacramento that would temporarily take guns away from anyone involved in a heated divorce or child custody battle.

...

Wilson and his attorney have met with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, the District Attorney's office and senators to try and gain support.

"We found out there are a lot of instances where you can have your right to a gun taken away," Balmier said. A heated domestic battle should be one of them since it leads to so much violence, he said.

"We need someone to step up and say we're gonna put that on our list of bills and take it to Sacramento," Wilson said.


http://www.ocregister.com/news/christy-357476-wilson-pei.html

BucDan
06-05-2012, 4:54 PM
Heated divorce, child custody battle; don't you have to turn the guns in anyway when a restraining order is served?

Kodemonkey
06-05-2012, 4:56 PM
"Shooter Scott Dekraai had 10 firearms taken away from him two times before the shooting, once after a violent episode with his step-father and another time after he put a gun to his own head and threatened suicide, but both times they were returned to him in short order."

I think what they are going for is a permanent revocation of gun rights if a Restraining Order is filed. Just a guess.

DVSmith
06-05-2012, 5:03 PM
"Shooter Scott Dekraai had 10 firearms taken away from him two times before the shooting, once after a violent episode with his step-father and another time after he put a gun to his own head and threatened suicide, but both times they were returned to him in short order."

I think what they are going for is a permanent revocation of gun rights if a Restraining Order is filed. Just a guess.

This is the quote from the article:
bill in Sacramento that would temporarily take guns away from anyone involved in a heated divorce or child custody battle.

I don't know what they mean by "temporarily" as divorces and custody battles can go on for years.

Trapper
06-05-2012, 5:06 PM
Another reason I shouldn't get get married!

m03
06-05-2012, 5:43 PM
IIRC, wasn't there already a restraining order against Scott Dekraai prior to the shooting?

EDIT - Yes there was:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-13/justice/justice_california-shooting_1_custody-battle-bowles-ktla?_s=PM:JUSTICE

http://news.lalate.com/category/scott-dekraai/

KTLA, however, reports that Michelle got a temporary restraining order twenty-four hours before the attack.

http://news.lalate.com/2011/10/13/scott-dekraai-targeted-michelle-dekraai-in-salon-meritage-shooting/

Michelle either attempted to, or had received, a restraining order against Scott DeKraai in recent days after he allegedly threatened to attack her.

Hmmm.

NoJoke
06-05-2012, 5:46 PM
So very, very sad - like all shootings. :(

I was h oping for new emphasis on LTC's.

Wouldn't it have been nice if someone could have fought back against (insert any type of bad guy here). Even a PO'd spouse.

4DMASTR
06-05-2012, 5:46 PM
Cant bring myself to post on that page. I feel terrible for their loss but fail to see the logic in the proposed legislation :(

I guess imma be forever alone cause marriage seems like more problems than its worth.

RRangel
06-05-2012, 5:49 PM
Good luck with that.

Chosen_1
06-05-2012, 5:53 PM
Wait, guys, I just came up with the ultimate law...


Lets make killing people illegal.

PixelBender
06-05-2012, 6:01 PM
I think what they are going for is a permanent revocation of gun rights if a Restraining Order is filed. Just a guess.


Gotta love it when Jane What'sHerface decides "we need a new law" and knows jack **** about how the laws are made, and what laws already exist on the books.

I love it! I love to hear that people who dont have the competency to understand how the laws work, CAN MAKE THE GOD DAMN LAWS.

herpadurp----shoulder things that go up-------herpadurp

taperxz
06-05-2012, 6:21 PM
Great! Millions with kids get divorced every day without killing others and this douche bag wants to make everyone pay because HE couldn't control his emotions.

Something tells me, if he didn't have a gun he would have found one anyway.

ubet
06-05-2012, 6:37 PM
when paperclips are outlawed, only outlaws will have paperclips.

Kid Stanislaus
06-05-2012, 6:37 PM
Another reason I shouldn't get get married!


^^^^^THIS^^^^^!!

Kodemonkey
06-05-2012, 6:38 PM
"Michelle either attempted to, or had received, a restraining order against Scott DeKraai in recent days after he allegedly threatened to attack her."

Makes me wonder if the thought occurred to him to shoot her because he got the order to turn in his guns. I mean, maybe that was the final straw?

Quinc
06-05-2012, 6:40 PM
How is the woman going to protect herself if she can't have a gun?

benjaminh98
06-05-2012, 6:56 PM
I think what they are going for is a permanent revocation of gun rights if a Restraining Order is filed. Just a guess.

I thought that was true already..

bcj128
06-05-2012, 6:58 PM
People come up with these solutions with absolutely no idea or care as for the unintended consequences to people it affects. This is the equivalent of them saying because two or three rabid dogs are found in the state that any dog that Growls should be put down.

NoJoke
06-05-2012, 7:11 PM
I think CA loves drama - Hollywood is w/in our borders.
The situation is sad, but just like the rubber neckers who have to slow down on the OPPOSITE side of the freeway for some sort of crash, people here are drawn into the sort of drama that played out at Seal Beach.

Instead of a rational view of the events and what could have ACTUALLY helped/defused the situation (maybe LTC?) - the emotional outcry is all that is considered. That emotion is HUGE for television to rebroadcast the horror - its exponential.

Someone above posted they wanted to comment on Facebook but couldn't. To be rational in an event of sheer emotion seems trite and self serving.

There is no way to defuse those emotions except for time.

Hopefully someone - maybe someday Paul Wilson - might be able to consider that ultimately each individual is responsible for their own safety and they must have the tools to do so.

DarthSean
06-05-2012, 7:27 PM
Here's the link to the Facebook page.:D

https://www.facebook.com/SupportChristysLaw

SilverTauron
06-05-2012, 7:38 PM
Such impassioned campaigns for more laws are exactly why we shooters need to grow the sport as much as possible. This emotion based process is historically why the United Kingdom and Australia disarmed themselves-once the dust settled on the violent shootings in those respective nations ( Dunblane and Port Arthur) the relatives of the victims pushed for an outright ban. Since no one had the integrity to say in the face of misguided emotion that such laws will make things worse, the amnesties went up and the guns got seized and scrapped. One day when the next Seal Beach happens-because people being people, there WILL be another loose rampage involving a firearm-the victims' families of that future incident will insist on another restriction, perhaps even a total ban depending on how bloody the death toll is.

wheels
06-05-2012, 7:56 PM
What will we do with LEO's who are getting a divorce?

You can't deny that he's probably in pain, but passing laws based on emotion is a terrible idea.

ewarmour
06-05-2012, 8:13 PM
What will we do with LEO's who are getting a divorce?

You can't deny that he's probably in pain, but passing laws based on emotion is a terrible idea.

Yea and what about military?

Retarded.

POLICESTATE
06-05-2012, 8:22 PM
What will we do with LEO's who are getting a divorce?

You can't deny that he's probably in pain, but passing laws based on emotion is a terrible idea.

I can sympathize with him, but he has no right to project his reaction onto the rest of us.

NYsteveZ
06-05-2012, 8:29 PM
So...Someone going through a "heated" divorce will "temporarily" be barred from owning guns-Okay, does this mean both parties? Thats a wonderful idea. The victim in the heated divorce, per say an abused wife, wont be able to purchase a firearm to defend herself or children. I have NEVER heard of a case where someone who was going to commit a crime decided not to because a gun law would stop them. Criminals could care less. My sympathy with families and victims like that, but I hate when victims dream up new gun laws to make themselves feel better.
FWIW, I went through a divorce, and my ex and entire family was crazy. I am so lucky I didnt own any guns at that time as they wouldve made up stories. LEO responding to their drama requests even stated that whole family was off. Another lesson-NEVER marry a Russian girl. YOU will be that entire families source of income. Rant over :-)

chris
06-05-2012, 8:32 PM
Another reason I shouldn't get get married!

yep that is why i'm not ever getting married. besides this guy should be able to find a democrat more than willing to sponsor a law like that.

mrdd
06-05-2012, 9:35 PM
"Michelle either attempted to, or had received, a restraining order against Scott DeKraai in recent days after he allegedly threatened to attack her."

Makes me wonder if the thought occurred to him to shoot her because he got the order to turn in his guns. I mean, maybe that was the final straw?

I was thinking that exact thing. Not that it excuses what he did, though.

dave_cg
06-05-2012, 9:45 PM
yep that is why i'm not ever getting married.

Geez, a lot of lonely guys here. I suggest you should keep looking. My wife has said: "Are you sure you have enough ammo?" (and NOT sarcastically!) and also pretty much insisted that I get an AR.

You don't find a gold nugget without panning a lot of gravel, so keep looking. There are gunny gals out there.

(And before you ask: Yes, she does have a sister. No, the sister isn't much like mine -- I'd steer clear of that other one....)

Rossi357
06-05-2012, 9:56 PM
The Brady's will prolly conscript him for their cause.

Grayling14
06-06-2012, 3:41 AM
I think CA loves drama - Hollywood is w/in our borders.

Instead of a rational view of the events and what could have ACTUALLY helped/defused the situation (maybe LTC?) - the emotional outcry is all that is considered. That emotion is HUGE for television to rebroadcast the horror - its exponential.

Hopefully someone - maybe someday Paul Wilson - might be able to consider that ultimately each individual is responsible for their own safety and they must have the tools to do so.

Mr. Wilson is suffering greatly over his loss, and is probably repeating over and over in his mind all of the "What If" scenarios that might have prevented this tragedy; "IF we had had this law or that law...". Unfortunately, some people never come to realize two truths: 1) Gun control laws only serve to control those who already control themselves, 2) The government cannot protect everybody all of the time.

geeknow
06-06-2012, 4:51 AM
Sad story, all the way around. for many of the reasons posted above, I dont see them gaining much support for this. It's clearly an emotional outburst.

email
06-06-2012, 5:16 AM
California is a target rich environment.

speedrrracer
06-06-2012, 6:00 AM
How is the woman going to protect herself if she can't have a gun?

None of these sheeple want to protect themselves, they want the government to wipe their *****es 24/7

OleCuss
06-06-2012, 6:21 AM
Why not just make it illegal to murder people?

HBrebel
06-06-2012, 6:52 AM
If I am in a 'heated' argument with my wife, will she lose her guns as well? Just curious as she is a better shot than I.

Jason_2111
06-06-2012, 8:33 AM
Wait, guys, I just came up with the ultimate law...


Lets make killing people illegal.

As funny as that is, it's the heart of the matter with all of these knee-jerk desires for more and more restrictions.
What people don't realize is that you can't pass laws and have them make you magically safer. People, or rather, sheep, are just wanting to be protected. They are mistaken is all, mistaken that a few laws to make something bad go away, or take away all of the scary loud guns is going to somehow magically translate into safety.
This is a logic failure in the liberal mindset. "_I_ wouldn't do XYZ if it were illegal, so making it illegal means _NOBODY_ would ever do XYZ again". It seems logical, especially to them, but it has an obvious flaw to anyone with critical thinking skills.
They are also mistaken in the argument of "only police and military should have guns", because they think they are there to protect the individual. The police officer carries a gun to protect himself, not you.

Unfortunately, these people vote.

Anyways... it's preaching at the choir, but unless people start getting taught critical thinking in school, we'll just see more and more of this panic.

killathrilla
06-06-2012, 8:38 AM
These people won't be happy until nobody has a firearm in california!!

Dark Paladin
06-06-2012, 8:49 AM
These people won't be happy until nobody only criminals have a firearm in california!!

FTFY

SWalt
06-06-2012, 8:56 AM
Mr. Wilson is suffering greatly over his loss, and is probably repeating over and over in his mind all of the "What If" scenarios that might have prevented this tragedy; "IF we had had this law or that law...". Unfortunately, some people never come to realize two truths: 1) Gun control laws only serve to control those who already control themselves, 2) The government cannot protect everybody all of the time.

That is the way I see it too.

His right to grieve ends where my right begins. It maybe considered cold hearted but we will always have tragedy in life and when people think "there ought to be a law against that" it belies that basic truth.

DVSmith
06-06-2012, 9:46 AM
Why not just make it illegal to murder people?

I think you might be on to something there!

Flintlock Tom
06-06-2012, 9:54 AM
Weird:
One in a million guns was used to kill someone: Ban all guns! = Illogical
One in a million marriages ended in violence: I will never get married = Logical?

;)

sreiter
06-06-2012, 10:18 AM
He can't buy a gun now because of the restraining order even though it was dismissed and everything is settled, they are divorced and share custody.

FUD! If the restraining order was dismissed, you can buy a gun. I know someone under the exact same conditions, only the filer went back and rescinded/canceled the RO.

He has no problems buying guns now.

nocomply25
06-06-2012, 10:47 AM
I tell you what, if I am that pissed I can easily find a gun from some guy on the street and come kill your *** anyway. The law will not help anyone. If someone is that pissed and had guns taken away 10 times and still managed to find a way to kill people...

Dark Paladin
06-06-2012, 11:13 AM
Is it only guns because you can get more than one person at a time?

Based on previous conversations I've had in the past, that is an argument that antis have brought up. So yes, it is a valid point in their minds.

bitfreakazoid
06-06-2012, 11:37 AM
Yea and what about military?

Retarded.

Lautenberg Amendment. :facepalm:

cvc04
06-06-2012, 11:40 AM
Just carry.

PixelBender
06-06-2012, 12:19 PM
How is the woman going to protect herself if she can't have a gun?

How about when you file a restraining order against someone who is harassing you, YOU loose your guns too.

I spoke with my lawyer about filing a restraining order against my ex who was contacting me, my parents, my sister, my current GF and my work via email, letter and telephone. He said the problem with restraining orders is they are reciprocal. If I filed one against her it could make it worse for me because usually the judge allows the other party to file a restraining order as well. If you ask me thats BS, what's worse is when she/he files an order against you, you have to turn you guns in.

At least that's what I was told. I decided to not file it, and tell everyone to ignore her or block her number.

She eventually stopped and mved on to some other poor schmuck and started her vicious "oh hes the one" cycle all over again... She's a broken record stuck in some time warp. It's quite awkward.

Jason_2111
06-06-2012, 12:40 PM
Liberal mistaken logic: Ban all guns = Bad guys won't have guns, I am safe.

Reality: Ban all guns = Only bad guys will have them, or I risk losing my freedom just to protect myself.

stix213
06-06-2012, 12:46 PM
Sounds like the dude should have been 5150'ed after putting a gun to his own head and threatening to kill himself.

SFgiants105
06-06-2012, 1:16 PM
WTF!? I love how people become strong supporters of some social reform once they have had something happen to them, and they didn't give a crap before that (MADD, anyone?). Like rich people who get cancer and open up cancer research centers (I'm not putting that down; I think that's a good thing, but psychologically, it is the same sort of mental response). They couldn't have given a crap if it wasn't for their own misfortunes; you know it's genuine when they don't have any personal stake in the matter.

To fu(king make a law every time some crap happens to someone you know is retarded. People need to deal with their pain on their own, and not impose on others to help themselves get over their loss. Effing pu$$ies. :mad:

Btw, that guy should have had his guns taken away after he threatened to commit suicide.

DarthSean
06-06-2012, 10:38 PM
Welcome to the jungle, we got fun 'n' games
We got everything you want, honey we know the names
We are the people that you find, whatever you may need
If you got the money, honey we got your disease

I used to know a lady who had multiple prior 5250s and 5270.15s. In the years prior to when I met her, she used to carry a gun due to frequently having drug debts. Illegally obtained guns was one of many things she manage to never get busted for, but whenever she got discharged she could always obtain another one in less than 10 days if she could come up with the money. She quit buying and carrying guns after she got clean and sober, which was a few years before I met her.

I once knew a lady whose ex was finally arrested and did time after the 5th restraining order violation and death threats, and was caught with a gun in his car and headed her way less than a week after getting out.

I must know about a dozen ex-cons that used to carry guns.

These are people I met at church! The people society doesn't want to have guns tend to be the best at finding them and anything else they can afford. The ex-cons have jobs that pay taxes now and they stay away from trouble, but they freely choose to abide by gun laws now.

:rant:

el chivo
06-07-2012, 2:58 AM
I think there should be a new law enacted, it should be that all employees in hair salons have to be packing while on the job. Also that customers can bring theirs and, if they don't have one, be loaned one while on the premises.

When I see the guys at my local gun store/target range all wearing holstered weapons on the job, I get the feeling that any altercation is going to be over quick.

I know it sounds like I'm just being flip, but this type of law is going to do more to prevent further such tragedies than anything the libs will think of.

winnre
06-07-2012, 7:46 AM
How about for a new gun law we go to SHALL ISSUE, hmmm?

Yemff
06-07-2012, 12:18 PM
Wait, guys, I just came up with the ultimate law...


Lets make killing people illegal.

Genius!

Carnivore
06-07-2012, 9:01 PM
Wait, guys, I just came up with the ultimate law...


Lets make killing people illegal.Na the legislature will never go for it. It makes too much sense and they just can't do that.

HBrebel
06-08-2012, 2:50 PM
A sensible new gun law would be to require every shop to keep some type of gun and at least one person who is trained to use it. Sorta like the CPR thing

Saym14
06-08-2012, 6:59 PM
lets ban guns in HAIR SALONS....that will fix it. :(