Altadena's Supervisor Only Vote Against Assault Weapons Ban

Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents Altadena, was the sole dissenting vote Tuesday as the rest of the County Board of Supervisors supported an assault weapons ban. What do you think of his decision?

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to support the reinstatement of a federal ban on assault weapons.

A 1994 ban on certain automatic firearms expired 10 years later and attempts to renew it have failed. But some legislators, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, have pledged to pass a new ban in light the shooting massacre in Newtown, CT, last month.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky recommended that the board throw its weight behind Feinstein's bill, which she has promised to bring to the Senate on Jan. 22, the first day new legislation will be heard.

Since the bill is not yet available for review, the board agreed to support it only to the extent that it reinstates the previous ban.

The board joined several city leaders calling for re-authorization of the gun control legislation, including Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, Councilman Eric Garcetti and City Controller Wendy Greuel. City Councilman Paul Koretz has said he will introduce a City Council resolution in support.

The board also voted to send letters to the mayors of all 88 cities in Los Angeles County, asking them to have their councils consider supporting Feinstein's bill.

Supervisor Michael Antonovich was the sole dissenting vote.

The measure was part of a broader public safety review recommended by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas and also approved by the board Tuesday.

"We don't need to look across the country for examples of the devastating consequences of gun violence," Ridley-Thomas said of the many times he's met to comfort the families of those killed in local shootings.

The board voted unanimously to establish a task force of law enforcement, public health and mental health officials and charge that group with developing a comprehensive plan for curbing gun violence locally. The group will be asked to consider enhanced enforcement of gun control laws, as well as efforts to erase the stigma associated with seeking help for mental health problems.

The county will also survey public school districts to ensure compliance with mandated safety plans and conduct a safety assessment of county facilities and protocols in the event of an armed attack.

"It is not just a question about laws, but it is a question about our own set of values," Ridley-Thomas said. "We must recommit ourselves to the principle of non-violence."

What do you think of an assault weapons ban? What do you think of Altadena's Board of Supervisors representative, Michael Antonovich, voting against the ban?

Steve Lamb January 11, 2013 at 03:09 PM
Of course I believe Supervisor Antonovich voted no because he respects both the Constitution and takes his oath of office to uphold it seriously.
dc dalton January 14, 2013 at 06:54 PM
You do realize converting a semi-auto weapon to full auto is a felony right? Major no-no in the gun world!
James Mullally January 15, 2013 at 04:59 PM
The gun issue is just another red herring for those who want to control every breath we take. I agree with Mr. Lamb above. Antonovich respects the Constitution and takes an oath to uphold it. As long as the citizens allow representatives who don't "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic: that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office I am about to enter: So help me God." If you don't know what it says, how can you defend it people. If your representatives don't understand the Constitution, get some who do.
Mark Baird February 15, 2013 at 02:26 AM
Do any of you realize that law enforcement is under no legal or moral obligation to defend individuals against crime, against violence, against threat or anything else for that matter. Look up Calif. Govt Code sec. 821, 845, 846. Look up Miller v D.C. Look up Balisteri v Pacifica Police Dept or Deshanny v Winnebago Co. " The Constitution was meant to protect us against the good intentions of well meaning despots, they mean well but they mean to govern. They mean to be good masters but they mean to be your master". (Danial Webester). I am involved in law enforcement and you people would be horrified to learn what goes on outside your home when you think you are safe in your beds. I thank God for the second amendment. It is an inalienable right and just as valid if not more so than 235 years ago.
Russell Person February 15, 2013 at 02:46 AM
I'm hoping to see pink slips for people who exert so little logical care and are acting on our behalf!


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 »