Q: Doesn’t law enforcement have an obligation to check on gun purchases if they’re called out to someone’s home because there’s a report he’s unstable?

— W.M., Manhattan Beach

A: This issue has starkly come to light based on reports that when sheriff’s deputies visited Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista shooter, in response to concerns his mother had about his well-being, they did not check California’s centralized database on gun purchases. Further reports state he had bought three 9-mm semiautomatic handguns. After the visit, he was not deemed to be an immediate threat to himself or others.

Research indicates law enforcement in such instance was not required to check the Dealer’s Record of Sale database, and that various agencies have their own policies, often leaving it to the discretion of the officers. Hindsight is 20-20 and can, in retrospect, make an extremely tragic situation feel even worse. After the horrifying rampage, the Sheriff’s Department confiscated several guns from Mr. Rodger’s car, as well as 41 10-round magazines (with five empty magazines).

My understanding is that the weapon sale database includes the names of gun dealers who sold to Mr. Rodger. If law enforcement had called the dealers, the extent of his purchases might have affected their evaluation of his potential threat. Thus, efforts are underway to legislate and/or require changes in the protocols for law enforcement in dealing with those who may post a threat of harm. And, once more the issue of how to address gun control and mental illness is before us.

It seems to me that the various factions on all sides of gun purchase, ownership and use must find a way to work together far better than they have thus far. We need solutions, not acrimony, and enhanced efforts at constructive solutions, not finger pointing.

Q: Our son goes to a school that isn’t as secure, shall we say, as many of the parents would prefer. Can he take pepper spray with him, simply to err on the side of caution?

— G.S., Los Angeles

A: My first reaction is naturally to hope more can be done so that the parents genuinely know the school is secure and safe. As to whether your son can bring pepper spray, I do not know what the school policy allows.California Penal Code Section 12403.7 provides: “Any person may purchase, possess, or use tear gas and tear gas weapons for the projection or release … if the tear gas and tear gas weapons are used solely for self-defense purposes,” subject to a laundry list of requirements. But among those requirements, the section states that minors cannot purchase, possess or use tear gas or tear gas weapons.

At the same time, California Penal Code Section 22815(a) reads in part: “… a minor who has attained the age of 16 years may purchase and possess tear gas or a tear gas weapon … if the minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian, or has the written consent of a parent or guardian, or who presents a statement of consent signed by the minor’s parent or guardian.” Note that any civil liability that may result from the minor’s use of tear gas, or a tear gas weapon (other than for self-defense) is imposed jointly on the minor and on the person, guardian or parent who signed the consent statement.

Bottom line, I find the law confusing. It would be best to get a firm understanding of legally what your son can have on his person at school, including, as noted, to assess what the school allows, let alone what could be done so the need for the pepper spray may be obviated.

Ron Sokol is a Manhattan Beach attorney with more than 30 years of experience. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email questions and comments to him at RonSEsq@aol.com or write to him at Ask The Lawyer, Daily Breeze, 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 170, Torrance, CA 90503. This column is a summary of the law and not a substitute for legal consultation on any particular case.