[Smerconish:] California Governor Jerry Brown signed a law this week that would allow concerned family members to petition a judge to take away guns from a relative that they fear may commit a violent crime. It's the first law of its kind in the country and it's meant to prevent mass killings. But will it? I'm joined now by the man who introduced the legislation, California State Assemblyman Dos Williams, also John Lott, who's the author of "More Guns, Less Crime", and the founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center. OK, Dos would this law if it had been on the books have prevented those horrific killings in Isla Vista?
[Dos Williams, California State Assemblyman, Santa Barbara:] We're not prescient people. We can't look into the past and know for sure. But there would have been two junctures in this case where this could have been prevented. And there are far more mass killings, spousal murders and suicides that this law could prevent.
[Smerconish:] You know that a criticism of the law and I'm sure John will mention this, I'll mention it before he gets to it, is that potentially you are seizing someone's weapon, they would say in violation perhaps of the Second Amendment, before they had the opportunity to have a hearing. That's the way the GVRO works, right?
[Williams:] That's right. It's just like a domestic violence or spousal or a stalking domestic order. And unless you think that domestic violence orders are unconstitutional, this should be constitutional. And, you know, let's face it. The worst thing that would happen if somebody got this wrong is someone would lose their weapon for 23 days. While I view that as negative if they are innocent, the worst thing that happens if we do nothing is we lose lives forever. And so, the due process in this law allows someone who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order to go to a judge and get a hearing and get their weapons back, if they are not a danger to themselves or others.
[Smerconish:] John Lott, what of that argument that says this is framework in a domestic violence capacity?
[John Lott, Author Of "more Guns, Less Crime":] Well, I don't know, I think this is quite different in a number of ways. You already have the power for police to go and take somebody in for 72-hour psychiatric evaluation. What this does is it cuts the psychiatrist out of the loop. You basically if a police officer has a reasonable belief, he can go and with the judge take away this person's right to be able to go and defend himself for some period of time. If somebody's a danger to themselves or others, surely you can go and put them in some type of situation where they are locked up and taken out of that possibility of doing harm to others. But I don't see how this would have stopped the Isla Vista case there. You know, if you really think somebody is a danger, that person killed three people with knives. You should go and lock them up rather than just take away a gun. Here he planned for 2 12 years in advance.
[Smerconish:] John Lott, I have often heard from the NRA advocates and Second Amendment purists say look, guns don't kill people, you know the tag line, people do. It's the mental health, it's not the weapon. And it seems to me the California initiative at least is seeking to do something about the mental health aspect of this. No?
[Lott:] You already had be able to do with mental health. If a police officer, the sheriff's deputies went to the person's home, if they believe that he was a threat to himself or others and they didn't believe that, but if they had believed it, they could have taken him in for 72-hour psychological evaluation. They didn't do that. What this does is, this takes the psychiatrist out of the process. Why what's the gain from taking psychiatrists out of the process, evaluating whether or not somebody is a threat.
[Smerconish:] Dos Williams, respond to that argument by John Lott.
[Williams:] This does not take psychiatrists or psychologists out of the process. In fact, what it does is it means that we're not just going to rely on law enforcement to recognize the first warning signs. Often family members, especially spouses or other people living with the person who is either homicidal or suicidal and mentally unbalanced are the first ones to recognize that there may be an issue.
[Lott:] There could be that in any way.
[Williams:] And this allows them this allows them, they cannot do that, they can only go to law enforcement. This allows them to go to a court, and ask the court for a gun violence restraining order.
[Smerconish:] Gentlemen, thank you.
[Williams:] And if that court if that the judge find that they are a danger to themselves and there is clear and convincing evidence.
[Lott:] Family members before went to the police. The police didn't find the Isla Vista case. Here, you're going to allow the second cousin's wife to be able to go and bring these types of charges against somebody completely unrelated people.
[Smerconish:] Gentlemen, I wish we had more time. I wish we had more time. Dos Williams, John Lott, thank you both for being here. I have to take a quick time out. And coming up, extremely disturbing allegations of abuse by students on a high school football team. Now, the season is canceled and anguished parents are asking, how could it happen? Also, smoke and mirrors, why one congressman says a proposed ban on the sale of tobacco on military bases is an assault on freedom?