Violent games: Read the Daily Bulletin article

But playing graphic video games such as "Grand Theft Auto" proved to be a bit too much even for the seasoned officer.

"I had to put it down," Diaz of Upland said. "It was meaningless violence. You're carjacking people, shooting them point blank. It just promotes criminal activity. And there are 7- and 8-year-olds playing it. That's not a good idea."

But not everyone is on the same page with Diaz. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints about graphic violence.

On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.

More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010.

Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, who killed their captor by baking her in an oven, or Cinderella whose evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves, Scalia said.

"Certainly the books we give children to read - or read to them when they are younger - contain no shortage of gore," Scalia added.

But Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the majority read something into the U.S. Constitution that is not there.

"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that `the freedom of speech,' as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote.

Rep. Joe Baca, D-San Bernardino, said while he was not surprised by the Supreme Court's decision, he was disappointed that "the multibillion dollar video game industry will continue to go unchecked in its ability to profit from selling heinous depictions of violence and sex to minors."

"I have worked to try to curtail violence in video games for over five years now," Baca said. "I believe the video game industry has a responsibility to parents, families, and to consumers - to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products. Unfortunately, the industry is still not doing enough to provide parents with accurate information regarding the content of many games."

Diaz said he'd prefer more control of who can purchase certain games.

"I have a 12-year-old son, and I wouldn't want him to be able to go into a store and grab just any game he wants when I'm not around," he said. "DVDs and music CDs have restrictions, so why shouldn't games?"

Most parents do not have time to learn about a video game before buying it for their children, Diaz said.

"They just get whatever their kids want," he said.

Baca agreed. As more scientific research continues to show a link between playing violent games and increased aggression in young people, he said, it is important that "families know the truth about these potentially dangerous products."

"I continue to sponsor and advocate for legislation in the House of Representatives that would mandate all video games with a rating of `Teen' or higher be sold with a cigarette-style warning label, citing the health risks of excessive exposure to violent media," Baca said.

"My bill does not prevent anyone from buying any video game, but it does ensure parents are made aware of the detrimental effects that violent games can have before making decisions on which games are appropriate for their children to play."

The Entertainment Merchants Association welcomed the ruling.

"We are gratified that our position that the law violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression has been vindicated and there now can be no argument whether video games are entitled to the same protection as books, movies, music and other expressive entertainment," said Bo Andersen, president of Encino-based EMA.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.