Previous Post
Next Post

“Twenty-year-old Christopher Martinez was fatally shot around 9:30 a.m. a year ago, on May 23, 2014,” reports, in an article entitled Gun Safety Progress Seen a Year After Santa Barbara Rampage. “He was one of six people killed by a gunman during a rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara that also injured at least a dozen others.” Predictably enough, the lead leads readers to believe that all the victims of the Santa Barbara attack were shot to death or injured by gunfire. Nope . . .

Spree Killer Elliott Rodger stabbed to death three of the six fatalities (the first three victims, in fact). Of those Rodger wounded, he shot seven and used his car as a weapon on six. In other words, this is not the gun control justification Newsweek and Christopher Martinez’s father are looking for.

Strike that. Those who favor curtailing or eliminating Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms aren’t particular about the circumstances surrounding the events with which they wave the bloody shirt. A proclivity brought into stark relief by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America member Leslie Ervin’s profoundly misleading testimony about her son in front of a Texas committee contemplating licensed open carry.

The thing of it is, gun control does not prevent firearms-related injuries and death. A fact that we can see in Chicago, where “strict” gun control laws have done nothing whatsoever to reduce gun-related violence. To wit: Six Dead, At Least 25 Injured in Memorial Day Weekend Shootings. A story posted by on Sunday. As for Mr. Martinez’ home state . . .

California ranks No. 1 in the annual scorecard published by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In 2014, legislators in the Golden State strengthened and enacted gun laws, including the historic Gun Violence Restraining Order Law. The measure, which Martinez strongly supported, allows authorities or immediate family members to provide evidence to a judge to temporarily suspend individuals’ access to guns if they are viewed as posing a significant danger to public safety.

Even when gun control advocates understand the disconnect between their agenda and observable results (or lack thereof), they continue their anti-gun jihad. When pushed on the law’s justification relative to his own experience, Martinez admitted “he’s not certain whether the restraining order law would have prevented his son’s death, but at a minimum he says it could have been a useful tool available to the family.”

That’s progress? Under a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO), the police may confiscate an owner’s firearms on a relative’s recommendation without the owner’s prior knowledge. The GVRO makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence enshrined in the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Equally, there is no proof that the law was needed or, now that it’s in place, effective.

Background check bills have been introduced in 18 other states so far this year, and domestic-violence measures have been introduced in 24, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

“We’re all responsible because we let them get away with it…nobody wants to think it’s going to happen to them,” Martinez says. “It’s just beyond belief, and yet when I look at this situation, it happens every day in this country.”

Although it’s a central tenet of the progressive platform, inflicting collective responsibility on people who are not responsible for lawlessness isn’t progress either. Clearly, Martinez and his gun control allies can’t get their head around the idea of personal responsibility. Or, for that matter, the inviolability of individual rights.

To the point of self-delusion. On the one-year anniversary of his son’s death, Martinez said “public gun crimes don’t happen in other countries.” Of course they do. And how. But Martinez sees what he wants to see, ignores what he wants to ignore, and attempts to inflict his world view on the world around him. Marginalizing that kind of willful myopia to the point of irrelevancy…now that would be progress.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The horror of his son actions are magnified by his father inability to cope and promulgating a failure of logic. This mans desire to save another while denying citizens lawful self protection is criminal.

    • Read the article and conclude the father is self absorbed and lost his mind. Going on about his son with no mention of the six HIS son killed.
      Nothing about their lives, hope it their dreams. Gods forgive me if we ever meet.

      • If one of his first three victims had been armed, they would have likely stopped this mad man.

      • Huh? His son did not kill anyone–his son was in a deli and was shot through the plate glass window by the killer, Mr. Roger. Martinez was a victim, and nothing more. Roger killed himself when confronted by police.

    • It’s worse than that. His ego is too big to admit his mistake, so he just keeps pushing down the road the wrong way even though he knows it’s wrong. Doesn’t want to look bad.

      Watch him closer. Watch his body language and facial expressions as the words fall out of his lie hole. He knows he’s lying. He knows he’s wrong. It makes him feel good to imagine more will suffer as he hates people who knows are not at fault. He knows it’s false and he says it anyway.

      It’s one thing to be a sucker and fall for the anti-gun BS. Much worse to know that it’s BS, that others will suffer, but that your ego is more important than other peoples’ lives…

  2. Will we see misconduct in Family Law cases for abuse of the GVRO in divorce cases?

    Will we see prosecutorial misconduct in criminal cases involving gun seizures by SWATTING by GVRO.

    Only time will tell, but the trend in CA is not good:

  3. Martinez is a criminal-defense attorney, no? Wonder how many robbers, rapists, and assorted thugs he has helped turn loose on society on the basis of 4th and/or5th Amendment issues? And if challenged on that , he would be the first to tell you that such is the cost of living in a free society. Odd he can’t see the same thing as it applies to the 2nd.

    • +10000!

      He put sleezeballs back on the street with no regard for anyone — including his own son. Martinez is a lying SoS.

    • That’s a good point that should be pushed . Self-guilt? I wonder how many repeat defenders he got off?

      • Hell yes it should be pushed. Remember all the hot water the guy got into who said “your son’s life doesn’t trump my constitutional rights”? That’s exactly the argument a defense attorney would use after springing some rapist-murderer on a technical 5th Amendment issue: “I’m sorry, Mr. Grieving Father, but your daughter’s life doesn’t trump my multiple-felon client’s 5th Amendment rights”. And to the extent that he would be right, the same applies to the 2nd. And that should be thrown up to them at every opportunity.

  4. There was an equally stupid article on Salon, but it quoted women in there who say that when they ride their bikes near campus, men push them off their bikes, and one of the gals is too scared to walk through campus to class even in daytime. They made that area sound like an absolute hellhole, and just the kind of place where concealed carry by the women is really needed.

    • There’s an old saying: you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it strap up. The same silly little girls who are so afraid to ride their bikes in the neighborhood would probably faint dead away at the very thought of touching a gun, much less using one.

      • “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.”

        Just like hoses, anti-gun people are dumb animals…

    • ” . . .but it quoted women in there who say that when they ride their bikes near campus, men push them off their bikes, and one of the gals is too scared to walk through campus to class even in daytime. . . ”

      And no doubt laughed about it. At my old campus that absolutely would not happen. Our largely working-class students would not stand for that kind of crap. If someone had tried that, their’d have been some serious butt-whoppin’ . . . by the other students, if not by the woman on the bike. And you’re right, open carry on campus would put a stop to that behavior rather quickly.

  5. “He was one of six people killed by a gunman during a rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara that also injured at least a dozen others.”

    WHO not THAT those reporters need to learn some grammar

    • In that sentence, “that” refers to the rampage, and I believe the usage is correct.

      • The problem is that the dipstick implied that 6 people were shot and killed on said rampage.

    • They’re using the word “that” on purpose as if to say the gun killed those people and not the person.

    • No, you do. The sentence is “the rampage…that…” It would not be “the rampage who.” Thanks for playing, and try again later..

  6. Laws do not replace bad parenting and I should not be stripped of my rights because of it.

  7. I saw the beginning of this story when he was talking about wanting to do something about the violence that took his son’s life. I briefly wondered whether he might actually try to do something about violence. Only briefly,

  8. “Progress” has a very clear meaning for the leftists. And, it is the antithesis of individual liberty/ responsibility.

    • Progressives- the political ideology that attracts the the emotionally immature, the perennial victim, the adult that never really moved out of mommy and daddies basement. And those control obsessive personalities that are happy to tell others how to live.

  9. Robert, if I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a dozen times. the California GVRO does NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL 1/1/2016. Further, it is a civil action, so it does not invoke rights under the fifth amendment, and it does not violate the due process protections of the 14th amendment as a matter of law–as any competent court will so hold if the law is ever challenged on this basis. Such an action may be brought only by a close family relative as defined by statute, not strangers, so SWATTING is a low to nonexistent risk. Nor will be abused in divorce actions, as jilted lovers/spouses have a far more potent available remedy of a domestic violence restraining order which if made permanent deprives a person of his or her gun rights entirely–for life. Please please please stop spreading FUD.

    • So… This super f-ed up law hasn’t gone into effect yet, which makes everything ok right now, and besides it’s not so bad because there’s another thing that will completely ruin your life forever and is even worse than a GVRO?

      The existence of the GVRO and other restraining orders enacted without due process are terrifying. Stop telling everyone the water isn’t so hot as they’re trying to boil us.

      • There law complies with due process guarantees, and the fear and loathing is overstated, even as stupid and useless as the law is. Which you would know if you’ve ever read the actual law. Which I have–more than once. Just think about this for a minute. The police can come and knock down your door at any time of day or night, seize all of your guns, and anything else they want, and throw your butt in jail, as long as they have a warrant. A warrant is issued based on an affidavit establishing probable cause to believe that you have committed a criminal offense. So then you sit in jail until you make bail, and if you can’t make bail, until the criminal case is resolved. Are your due process rights violated? Umm, that would be a big fat NO. So let’s compare that to a GVRO. The police do not just come knocking at your door. Rather, someone files an affidavit under penalty of perjury that you are a threat to yourself or others, and a judge issues a civil order allowing the police to seize your firearms pending a hearing. You are not arrested, you do not sit in jail, you do not have to make bail, and the only property taken is firearms. You cannot be convicted of a crime, you cannot go to jail. And you are entitled to a hearing within 2-3 weeks at which you may be represented by an attorney, and at which you may present evidence in your defense. A judge cannot issue a “permanent” (up to one year) order unless there is “clear and convincing evidence” (which is less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt but more than “more likely than not”) that you are a danger to yourself or others. This is called due process, and it complies with all Constitutional dictates under both State and Federal law. And by the way, the standard of proof is MUCH higher than that which is necessary for a 5150 detention, which causes the loss of gun rights for TEN YEARS. Even if you are not a danger to yourself or others–the detention is enough.

        I rather suspect that the law will see minimal use.

        • Mark, I believe that property other than firearms can be taken or at least searched with a GVRO — hard drives, files and microfilms.

        • Jay-El. That has been said, but it a misreading of the statute. The statute was an amendment to an existing Penal Code section talking about searches incident to arrest, and those sections are not incorporated into the GVRO sections that were added. Here’s alink to the statute. I will warn you that it is hard to follow.

          I give up on you Griz, you don’t read what I’ve written. Don’t put words in my mouth. All I’ve said is that the law complies with Constitutional mandates, no matter what RF thinks. You don’t have to like it, it is what it is, and I’d bet money on my evaluation. Its wisdom and efficacy are different issues, but using the Heller decision as a template, I would think that a majority (if not all) of the Supreme Court thinks it is OK to temporarily (or permanently) relieve persons of their firearms because of mental defect or disease that renders them a danger to themselves or others. Whine all you want, toss all the ad hominems you want, but until you change the law in this regard, the GVRO is here to stay and we in California are stuck with it, and it is legal.

      • Jeff, no where did he say he was okay with the law, he’s just clearing up the obvious misconceptions. The problem I have is the ambiguity of “probable cause”.

  10. Deaths occur daily, with a tiny fraction if any from firearms. Yet rather than focus on the more prevalent reasons of deaths, they choose to focus on one of the only items which is a Constitutional Right of The People. Martinez is clearly operating of raw emotion and little else, sad but true. His “Not One More” campaign is misleading and sets only to promote fear, typical rhetoric of the anti-gun community.

    Martinez shows zero respect for the millions of other good Americans who abide by the law. He condescends and displays great arrogance to say one death is equal to the infringement of Rights and liberty of millions of other American citizens. Martinez needs a mental health doctor for himself.

  11. it’s a central tenet of the progressive platform, inflicting collective responsibility on people who are not responsible for lawlessness. Gun control allies can’t get their head around the idea of personal responsibility. Or, for that matter, the inviolability of individual rights.
    A fundamental tenet of the Soviet State which eventually collapsed and of Venezuela, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy which is collapsing. This is why socialism will ultimately fail as in Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged. A lot of Socialist States would have collapsed if not propped up by more industrious neighbors.

    • Well, said. Because they are so profoundly coercive, communist, state socialist, fascist, and progressive government models cannot trust their citizens to own weapons. They know their tyrannies are not legitimate and know perfectly well just how well a well armed populace might well respond to the kind of force (80k SWAT rads last year—think about it) they require to dominate their populations. That, of course, is why progressives hate the 2nd amendment.

    • That’s a remarkable assertion I’m ashamed to say I never put together. Leftists disdain personal freedom and only favor collective rights and collective control, so of course they’re incapable of laying blame on an individual. Everything is about the collective. Excellent point.

  12. If we’re going to complain about the intellectual dishonesty of the other side, then people on our side need to quit using Chicago as an example of a gun control paradise with out of control crime. With the passage of concealed carry in Illinois came preemption of local laws regulating handguns. This killed Chicago’s gun control laws with the exception of the assault weapons ban. Also, on a per capita basis, Chicago’s homicide rate puts it pretty far down the list of the most violent cities in America.

    • Sorry Jeff no dishonesty about Chicago. I live nearby and a whole bunch of internet gunsellers STILL think I can’t buy almost anything in Cook co. And the number of “gun free zones” is enormous in Chicago. Violence IS out of control on the southside and westside. I look for lots of violence especially during the long hot summer…

  13. I certainly realize that the news is sensationalistic, and often times totally fabricated. Here is a video that was put together when viewed might make you think a little more about what we are told and what people want us to believe. Of coarse the dramatic speech by the father of a victim of crime is the keystone. Does it all fit together?

  14. Juliesa, I read that same Salon article yesterday with a sense of disbelief. “One year after a gunman opened fire…” and countless other references made me wonder whether the writer, editors and fact-checkers actually believe that the killer never used a hammer, a knife or his car as weapons.

    This is in the very community in which another deeply disturbed young man, also the son of a movie director, used his car as a weapon of mass murder on a crowded street some years earlier. And yet there is not a single word in the article about that incident because it doesn’t fit the narrative or the agenda.

    The Salon article also goes out of its way to jack to seven the number of people who lay dead after the shooting was over (i.e., the assailant’s suicide was included in the “gun violence” tally).

    Among other atrocities of journalism, the Salon article also quotes an individual who claims, “If students and faculty don’t feel safe, it isn’t safe.” That belief reveals a staggering illogic on the part of the antis: It’s all about feelings, not about reality. So when three people were murdered by a young man using a hammer and knife, the antis’ feelings about guns make it perfectly acceptable to rewrite history to blame guns for those deaths.

  15. “He was one of six people killed by a gunman during a rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara that also injured at least a dozen others.”

    And if not for the anti-gun assholes who assured it, it wouldn’t have happened.

  16. The Leftist Fascist usurpation of the word progress is a great Orwellian move, because anyone attacking the stance comes off like they’re attacking progress. It’s the sort of tactic that can only spring from the minds of those who know they’re perpetrating evil and need to cover it up.

Comments are closed.