Would California’s gun laws have stopped Boulder, Atlanta shooters?

This month’s mass shootings in Colorado and Georgia have thrown fuel on the nation’s gun debate and inspired calls for new federal laws on background checks, waiting periods and bans on military-style weapons — all of which have been in California for some time.

Would they have prevented the bloodshed? Here is a look at California’s gun laws and how they could have intersected with the men charged with the recent shootings.

The shootings

In Georgia, police have charged a 21-year-old man with fatally shooting eight people on March 16 at three Atlanta area massage parlors. They said he legally bought the 9mm pistol believed to have been used in the slayings from a store earlier that day. Police said he told them he was frustrated with sex addiction and temptation.

In Colorado, police charged another 21-year-old man with fatally shooting 10 people, including a police officer, on March 22 at a Boulder supermarket. He had a military-style pistol purchased six days earlier — the same day as the Atlanta shooting — and a handgun. It was not clear where he bought them, but there are no indications so far that he would have been prohibited by law from purchasing firearms. Police were unsure of a motive but said his family indicated he may have been suffering a mental illness.

Federal law

Since the shootings, Democratic officials in Washington have called for stronger federal background checks on gun purchases, a new ban on military-style semiautomatic “assault” weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines and longer waiting periods on gun purchases. A previous federal ban on military style weapons expired in 2004.

California law

California already requires universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers, and has banned military-style weapons for decades. The state also limits ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and requires a 10-day wait before a buyer can take possession of a firearm.

California, which the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives its highest rating among states for its gun restrictions, has other laws that could potentially have prevented the mass shootings. Among them is a red-flag law that allows concerned family members, coworkers and law enforcement to obtain a court order to temporarily remove guns from people who appear to be an imminent threat of harming themselves or others.

Georgia law

The Giffords center gives the Peach State its lowest rating for gun restrictions, and says Georgia doesn’t have universal background checks, a waiting period for gun purchases, red-flag laws or restrictions on militarystyle weapons or large-capacity magazines.

Colorado law

Giffords gives the Centennial State an average rating on gun laws, saying Colorado has universal background checks, a red-flag law and bans large-capacity magazines but doesn’t ban military-style weapons statewide or have a waiting period on purchases. Denver has a local ban on military-style weapons. Boulder had a similar ban, but it was voided by a court because it was adopted in 2018, after a 2003 state law prohibited local authorities from restricting people from buying or owning weapons allowed by state law. The gunman however lived in a nearby town.

Would California law have helped?

It does not appear that either gunman evaded a background check. While the Boulder shooter had a military-style gun, he also was armed with a handgun. Nor is it clear that California’s 10-round capacity limit on gun magazines would have prevented any of the shooting deaths.

California’s 10-day waiting period for picking up a purchased gun might have had an impact, said Amanda Wilcox, legislative and policy chair for California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The alleged Georgia gunman killed eight people within hours of purchasing a pistol, and the accused Boulder shooter within a week of buying one.

Wilcox said the waiting period allows not only time for a thorough background check but also “a coolingoff time” in which the buyer, whether enraged at others or suicidal, can reconsider.

California’s red-flag law, also known as a gun violence restraining order or extreme risk protection order, could potentially have made a difference in this month’s shootings, Wilcox said, as both alleged gunmen showed signs of mental distress. California authorities say the law has helped them head off a number of potential shootings.

But the Boulder shooter’s family did not invoke Colorado’s version of the law, and it’s unclear whether those close to the Georgia gunman considered him enough of a threat to have reported him to authorities. Wilcox said education and awareness of the laws is critical to their success.

“People have to know about it,” Wilcox said. “It sounds like that could have applied. It wasn’t used in this case. Probably the family didn’t know.”

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said the recent shootings demonstrate that more national gun laws aren’t going to make a difference in such crimes. Background checks, militarystyle weapon and magazine bans, waiting periods and red flag laws either didn’t prevent the recent shootings or would have had unknown impact on them. California, he said, still has its occasional mass shooting.

“All of the laws they are talking about would only affect law-abiding citizens,” Paredes said. “They would not affect someone who is intending to commit a crime.”

But Wilcox said the benefit of such laws shouldn’t be dismissed just because they don’t prevent every crime. Gun violence rates have declined in California.

“That’s the challenge we have,” Wilcox said. “It’s hard to prove what’s prevented.”