The ballots have barely been counted from the 2026 midterm elections, and national gun control organizations are celebrating political victories while eagerly awaiting the next wave of firearm restrictions. But amid victory laps and celebratory press releases, there are far more consequential questions that deserve attention. Instead of asking what new gun control laws are on the docket, Americans should be asking what those newly elected officials plan to do about violent criminals who are repeatedly breaking, with virtual impunity, laws already on the books.
Unfortunately, serious questions about public safety are often overshadowed by the familiar political emphasis on banning or restricting firearms. And nowhere is that distinction more deserving of scrutiny than in states like California, where some of the nation’s most extensive restrictions coexist with criminal justice policies that generate obvious concerns about violent offenders and public safety.
Just days before the election, on October 30th, a horrific shooting inside a Fairfield, California Halloween store provided a devastating reminder of what happens when an individual previously convicted in connection with gun violence commits another attack. A 31-year-old pregnant mother of four was killed and six other wounded by a person familiar to the criminal justice system. According to authorities, the 17-year-old suspected shooter had previously been convicted in connection with a separate shooting near a local high school just last year. After serving only a few months in juvenile detention, he was released on probation.
Following this outcome, Fairfield Police Chief Dan Marshall questioned California’s lenient treatment of violent young offenders. In a news conference, he did not hold back:
“California has gotten extremely soft on accountability with youth, and I think after seeing the homicide at graduation at Fairfield High School, and now this ... it’s just showing that legislative changes are showing a lack of accountability for our youth,” Marshall said. “We have to see something change.”
Notably, Chief Marshall called for a legislative change to strengthen accountability and not more restrictions on law-abiding citizens. That is a distinction that should not be lost on lawmakers who claim public safety is a priority.
Lawmakers in California have spent decades expanding virtually every firearm prohibition, banning or limiting access to commonly owned firearms, and imposing increasingly burdensome requirements on just about everything firearm-related in the state. Yet, when it comes to holding violent offenders accountable, the Golden State has demonstrated a troubling willingness to extend second (or third or fourth, etc., etc.) chances, even to individuals with a history of firearm-related violence.
This case, like other recent and similar ones, raises questions that no amount of political celebration should obscure: What good are more gun laws if the criminal justice system fails to adequately address dangerous individuals who have already demonstrated their willingness to commit violence? Why are violent offenders repeatedly given second, third, and sometimes more chances while law-abiding Americans face increasingly restrictive gun laws?
We know how crime works. It’s well established that certain offenders remain disproportionately responsible for violent crime, as NRA-ILA recently reported. Decades of criminological research has consistently demonstrated that violent crime is disproportionality concentrated in specific geographic locations just as a relatively small number of chronic offenders account for an outsized share of serious violent crime.
The question is not whether we understand the problem, but whether the newly elected political majorities are willing to confront it. Will they pursue meaningful solutions that address the actual drivers of crime, or will they retreat to the politically convenient playbook of gun control?
As this tragic example shows, the answer could mean the difference between life and death for untold numbers of innocent people.
More Like This From Around The NRA
