My wife brought this case to my attention. Discussion of it has been going around her workplace, and libraries and library internet boards across the country.
A disturbance at a Northern California library in October may have led to this week’s shooting death of a 41-year-old library supervisor as she sat in her car outside the building Tuesday evening, police say.
Amber Clark was shot several times in the face and head outside the North Natomas Public Library, FOX 40 Sacramento reported.
That is horrible.
Librarians are generally a liberal bunch, so as you can imagine, a lot of the outrage has been centered around gun control.
These same people always seem to overlook that this shooting took place in California.
We see this all the time. A shooting will occur in California, Chicago, New York City, some place with all or nearly all the gun control rules that the Left claims that they want. Then they immediately jump over the fact that their publicly desired gun control failed, and push for more gun control.
But the California angle is not the only important fact in this tragedy.
The Sacramento Police Department reports a man has been arrested on suspicion of shooting and killing a librarian in North Natomas Tuesday night.
Around 5:30 a.m. Wednesday, less than 12 hours after the shooting, Ronald Seay, 56, was arrested in the area of Elverta following a brief police chase, according to the police department. He is in custody on suspicion of murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle.
Seay is suspected of shooting 41-year-old Amber Clark several times in the parking lot of the North Natomas Public Library, where she worked as branch supervisor. The police department reports Clark was targeted by Seay.
On Oct. 13, Sacramento Police Sgt. Vance Chandler reports Seay caused a disturbance at the library. Clark was working at the time and interacted with Seay during the incident. Officers responded and issued a no-trespass order to Seay.
Chandler reports Seay lived within miles of the shooting and had moved there months ago from out of state.
Ms. Clark was shot on December 11. Ronald Seay was banned from the Library with a no trespass order almost two months earlier on October 13.
That means that Seay waited two months to return to the Library to shoot Ms. Clark.
This man had two months to prepare, what looks to be a revenge killing.
Is there any reasonable person who honestly believes that some new gun control law would have prevented this?
Possibly. Remember that question 11.h. on Form 4473 covers restraining orders related to intimate partner violence.
11.h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you form harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?
So a no trespass order against a public library isn’t a disqualifying offense on a 4473.
California law is a little different. On the California DOJ list of Firearms Prohibiting Categories, it lists:
Any person who is subject to a temporary restraining order or an injunction issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 527.6 or 527.8, a protective order as defined in Family Code section 6218, a protective order issued pursuant to Penal Code sections 136.2 or 646.91, or a protective order issued pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03
Section 527.6 covers a wide range of restraining orders beyond the intimate partner violence covered by Federal law.
IANAL so I am not sure if a no trespass order for a library makes a person prohibited by California law.
Nevertheless, this man waited two months to attack the librarian that he associated with getting him banned.
Given this patience in plotting this act, I sincerely do not believe that another gun control law would have prevented this man from committing this type of act.
I have not seen any news indicating that the trespass order had expired, so I don’t know if he waited until he could go back to the library to kill Ms. Clark, or if it just took him this long to stew over it to the point of murder.
What I do know is that this shows how a protective order is just a piece of paper and is only as effective as the person who that order is written against thinks it is.