It didn't take long after the horrific mass shooting in Sacramento for pundits, celebrities and keyboard warriors alike to call for more gun control. Yet the shooting happened in a state with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the union.
How would any law restricting legal gun ownership have affected this tragedy? There isn't one... However, there are policies that could have prevented at least one of the suspects from participating in the slaughter:
"Smiley Allen Martin, the second man arrested in the wake of Sunday's mass shooting in Sacramento that killed six, has a criminal record stretching to 2013 and last year was the subject of a plea by Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert's office that he not win early release from prison, where he was serving a 10-year sentence for domestic violence and assault with great bodily injury.
Despite a two-page letter to the Board of Parole Hearings urging that Martin remain in custody, he won his release and was in Sacramento on Saturday night recording himself on a Facebook Live video brandishing a handgun hours before the shooting."Sam Stanton, The Sacramento Bee via Corrections1
Martin has been arrested by Sacramento Police as a suspect in the shooting. He is being charged with possessing an illegal firearm and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. As a felon, Martin is already barred from owning any firearm. Thus, no new law would have prevented Martin from committing the crime.
However, cracking down on violent felons and preventing their early release would have prevented Martin from participating in the shooting.
Martin has a long history of extremely violent crimes, including robberies and viciously beating his girlfriend nearly to death after pimping her out as a prostitute.
The Sacramento DA's office vehemently opposed his parole, stating that "If he is released early, he will continue to break the law."
Let us know what you think of this in the comments below.