Mayors Urge National Action Against Gun Violence

Lafayette Mayor Mike Anderson said he will place the letter on the next City Council agenda for consideration.

A letter signed by 750 mayors in the nation — including dozens from California — is making the civic rounds, calling on Congress and the White House to take action to end gun violence in the country.

Lafayette Mayor Mike Anderson said he would have the letter placed on next City Council agenda for consideration. The next scheduled City Council meeting is on Monday, Jan. 14.

The letter was written by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns and was sent to President Obama this week in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting last week.

While the mayors are concentrating on gun control ideas, National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre on Friday called for schools to implement security based on "properly trained, armed 'good guys'."

In the mayors' letter, the group advocates that the White House and Congress to require all gun owners to pass a criminal background check, remove high-capacity weapons from the streets and make gun trafficking a federal crime.

It also urges the president to appoint an Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms director and prosecute people who try to purchase firearms when they know they aren't eligible to do so.

You can read the entire letter here.

Walnut Creek Mayor Cindy Silva said she wants to discuss the letter with her fellow council members as well as the police department before signing it.

This story originated on Walnut Creek Patch.

Chris Nicholson December 24, 2012 at 06:17 AM
@Orindan: Here's the argument: 1. The Second Amendment exists and applies to individuals (this was clarified and amplified AFTER the 1994 ban was enacted, so things are different this time around) 2. The guns in question (apart from 1994-2004) have always been legal 3. The burden is on the government to justify restrictions on Constitutional rights-- this is not a simple balancing test that would apply to other situations. 4. There is no credible evidence (despite EXTENSIVE study seeking a link) that the prior ban made any difference and, therefore, no reasonably expected benefit from its resurrection. 5. Having failed their burden, the ban should not (and potentially CANNOT) be renewed. Note that you question wrongly flips the burden. Newspapers don't need to prove the need or net benefit from publishing information. No one needs a "convincing argument" for why they deserve a jury trial. You get the idea. Even the strongly felt emotional reflexes of you and you ilk should never be sufficient to restrict a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. You need more, but you don't have it.
KMC December 24, 2012 at 10:35 PM
I don't see it that way. Kids are getting killed and there's a straight forward way to reduce the number of victims by making high-powered, high-capacity guns unavailable to people like the boy in Connecticut. It seems very clear to me that we should pass a law to make guns like that essentially illegal. There's for sure more we can do and guns aren't the only problem, but this is something we can and should do now.
John Heylin December 27, 2012 at 06:59 PM
Already done. Thanks for your positive contribution to the discussion.
lovelafayette December 31, 2012 at 06:45 AM
It is too difficult to get help for those in psychic distress. "Call the 800 number on the back of your insurance card" and deal with uneducated "screners" is not good enough, if you don't have insurnace you are really out of luck. The first thing I would do is to use Obama Care to make mental health evaluations and services FREE FOR EVERYONE. Just show up at the psychiatric ER door, or be delivered by friends, family, police or any other caring person. No means test or proof of craziness test. Anyone who is willing to be admitted to a psych ward needs our instant help! This is a public health emergency. Many (but not all) of these serial killers and mass murderers involve persons who were identified by families/teachers/coworkers (going postal) as needing help. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
lovelafayette December 31, 2012 at 06:55 AM
The nation seems to want gun fanatics like Chris to keep their guns.New law needed: Gun owners must purchase a burglar-proof safe with the gun. "It was stolen" would no longer be an excuse to dodge responsibility. The logical consequence of owning a gun may be a loved one dying by that gun, but also must mean criminal prosecution if their (stolen) gun is used in a crime, prosecution as accessories to murder/assault/armed robbery/kidnapping. The NRA mom that supplied the guns/whose guns were stolen is dead (no loss there), but the courts should have a vehicle to use ALL her assets to replace some of what was stolen from this community. Building a new school, therapy for the survivors, funerals, retraining for teachers too traumatized to continue teaching...are not costs the community expected to incur. Gun owners need to face serious and expensive logical consequences for being irresponsible. Recently a police officers child died playing with his dad's gun, and another had his guns stolen in a home robbery. All their gun training made NO difference. If police cannot keep their service weapons and toddlers safe, is there really such a thing as responsbile gun ownership? Will the policeman be prosecuted when his stolen gun is used to kill humans?


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 »