By Dave Kopel
With California having one-ninth of the u.s. population, destruction of the
right to arms in the Golden State has long been a prime goal of the gun
prohibition lobbies. This year, the gun-ban lobby went after California with
full force, intending to exploit the Newtown, Conn., murders for political gain.
But because Second Amendment activists rallied, the damage done to civil
rights in California--while still great--was greatly mitigated. Some of the worst
anti-gun bills were thwarted at the very end. What happened there will have
national consequences.
Magazine Ban Sale of magazines holding more
than 10 rounds is already banned in California. A similar national ban has been
at the top of the Bloomberg-Obama agenda this year. In order to pass such a ban,
anti-gun politicians have to promise not to take away magazines that people
already own. But that promise lasts only as long as politically expedient.
For example, in New York, which had also previously banned the sale of
magazines holding more than 10 rounds, a new 2013 Bloomberg-Cuomo law felonized
the possession of grandfathered magazines. Owners of such magazines now have
until Jan. 15, 2014, to destroy them, somehow convert them to conform to the new
capacity limits or get them out of the state.
In California, a bill to
confiscate all magazines holding more than 10 rounds sailed through the state
Senate, and looked unstoppable in the state Assembly. But shortly before the
California Assembly was set to vote on the ban, the Colorado recall elections
were held. Two Colorado senators who had pushed a Bloomberg-Obama magazine ban
(magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds) through the Colorado
legislature lost their seats--one of them in a landslide, despite representing a
district with a 24-point advantage in Democratic Party registration. (For more
on the recall, see "First Things First," p.14, and "Volunteers Show The Way
Ahead," p. 32.)
That apparently made some impression on the California
legislature, as the magazine confiscation bill never made it out of the
assembly--an example of how victories (or defeats) in one state can impact other
states.
Because California didn't act, the New York law that outlaws
grandfathered magazines now looks more like an unusual outlier rather than the
wave of the future. This should make political and legal challenges to the New
York law more viable.
The only anti-magazine bill that did become law in
California this year was Assembly Bill 48. It outlaws the sale of parts and
repair kits that can be used to build an 11-round or greater magazine, or to
convert a small magazine to hold more than 10 rounds. That's a setback for the
Second Amendment, but a considerably smaller one than the confiscation of
millions of magazines would have been.
Semi-Auto Ban Since the gun
prohibition lobbies unveiled the "assault weapon" hoax a quarter of a century
ago, the NRA has been warning that gun banners labeling various guns as "assault
weapons" was just the first step in a plan to outlaw all semi-automatic long
guns--just as Australia and the United Kingdom have done.
In California
this year, the gun-ban lobbies dropped their masks and abandoned their previous
insistence that "assault weapons" are just a small and unusual category of
firearms. Senate Bill 374 would have outlawed the future sale or transfer of all
semi-automatic rifles that use detachable magazines. Also banned would be all
semi-automatic rifles with tube or fixed magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Supposedly, owners of grandfathered rifles could keep them by registering them
and paying a special fee. But, of course, this would just set up the
grandfathered owners for confiscation in years hence.
Fortunately,
Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the semi-auto ban. His veto message explained
that S.B. 374 "covers low-capacity rifles that are commonly used for hunting,
firearms training, and marksmanship practice. ... I don't believe this bill's
blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance
public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights."
Earlier this year in New York, Connecticut, and Maryland, broad bans on
semi-auto long guns were enacted, but even these bans were not as extreme as
California's S.B. 374. The National Rifle Association has filed lawsuits against
the northeastern semi-automatic bans, and NRA's announcement of its plans to
file suit against a new California ban might well have played a role in Gov.
Brown's veto decision. The sweeping bans on semi-automatics should be found
unconstitutional by any court that faithfully applies the u.s. Supreme Court's
rules from District of Columbia v. Heller.
Lead Ammo Ban
The most damaging bill that Gov. Brown did sign was Assembly Bill 711, which
will phase out the use of lead in all hunting ammunition over the next several
years. California's complete statewide ban on lead in all hunting
ammunition is the first of its kind in the nation and is not based on persuasive
scientific evidence. Its most likely effect will be to price many hunters
out of the sport.
In California, the lead ammunition bill was supported
by claims that a statewide prohibition was necessary to protect the endangered
California condor. At public hearings, however, some of the "evidence" about the
condors was exposed as intentional fraud. Even so, the ban is now unfortunately
the law.
Nationally, radical environmental organizations like the
misnamed "Center for Biological Diversity" have been pushing federal regulators
to prohibit all lead ammunition--even for self-defense in the home. The new
California ban doesn't go that far, but it is an ominous first step. Expect to
see lead ammo bans introduced in state legislatures in the years to come, now
that California has established this harmful and extreme precedent.
More Negatives Gov. Brown also signed some other bad bills: Assembly Bill
231 creates a new crime for storing a loaded firearm in a way that "is likely"
to allow a child to gain access without parental permission. This could be a
bonanza for abusive anti-gun prosecutors. The crime is considered to be
committed regardless of whether any child actually touches the gun.
Brown
also signed Senate Bill 683, which expands the current "safety certificate"
requirement for all handgun buyers to cover all firearms, while outlawing some
firearm loans among friends unless the borrower has a safety certificate.
Firearm safety training is obviously a very good thing: The NRA has been the
nation's leading gun safety organization since 1871. However, the exercise of
the constitutional right to purchase, borrow or possess a firearm should not be
conditioned on passing a government test.
Other Vetoes While Gov.
Brown signed some bad bills, he vetoed a number of other anti-gun measures.
California law currently limits the sale of handguns to those guns that are
on a roster of approved handguns. Persons who owned handguns that were legally
acquired before the roster was created are already restricted in their ability
to sell non-roster handguns. Assembly Bill 169 would have limited off-roster
sales even further. Gov. Brown vetoed it because there was no evidence the
additional restrictions would have helped public safety.
Almost all
states have preemption laws to prohibit or limit local anti-gun ordinances.
California's preemption laws are weak, but do provide some protection against
anti-gun measures from city councils that despise the right to arms even more
than the state legislature. Gov. Brown vetoed Assembly Bill 180, which would
have authorized the Oakland local government to enact its own anti-gun
ordinances. As Brown's veto noted, "California has among the strictest gun laws
in the country." Allowing individual cities to create further ordinances would
"sow confusion and uncertainty."
For the second year in a row, the
governor vetoed a bill to criminally punish people who did not report a lost or
stolen firearm within seven days.
Also, gun shows in California have long
been subject to very stringent regulation, but this isn't enough for the people
who hate gun owners--these extremists find the very notion of a gun show
offensive and intolerable. Fortunately, Gov. Brown also vetoed a bill that would
have allowed a local government ban on gun shows at the Cow Palace, a venerable
arena bordering San Francisco.
Additionally, a few models of rifles have
revolving cylinders and can fire either rifle or shotgun rounds. The governor
vetoed a bill to outlaw these firearms, pointing out that the bill had "no
identified impact on public safety." Rather, the vetoed S.B. 567 was another
example of the gun prohibitionist strategy of attempting to outlaw any and every
gun--on the theory that every law that prohibits a limited class of guns has
"loopholes," requiring that still more guns be banned.
Senate Bill 755
would have imposed a 10-year ban on gun possession for certain misdemeanors,
such as operating a boat while impaired by alcohol. "Impaired" is a lesser
standard than "intoxicated." A person can be considered "impaired" after
consuming as few as two drinks. The governor's veto stated that he did not
believe that it was necessary to ban guns for crimes that are not felonies, not
violent and do not involve misuse of a gun.
Because of the hard work of
many California activists, there were many other bad bills introduced in the
California legislature that never even made it to the governor's desk.
The gun prohibition lobbies attacked ammunition on a broad front, but all of
their anti-ammunition bills were defeated, including a 5-cent tax on every round
of ammunition, a 10 percent gross receipts tax on ammunition retailers, a
requirement for permits to purchase ammunition, and a ban on mail-order or
Internet ammunition sales.
Also defeated were state taxpayer subsidies
for local programs asking citizens to surrender their firearms, along with a
measure that would ban all new handgun sales. The handgun bill would have
allowed the sale of new handguns only if they had owner recognition technology
(e.g., a palm-print reader in the grip). This technology is unreliable and can
fail to function in a self-defense emergency, which is why law enforcement
officers resolutely refuse to use it.
Wrapping It Up The
California Assembly and Senate are both more than 2-1 Democrat, and unlike in
many other states, the California legislature does not have a strong cadre of
pro-gun Democrats. Given the partisan numbers, and the gun prohibitionists'
plans for exploiting the Newtown murders, the gun banners have to view the 2013
California legislative session as a disappointment. On the pro-Constitution
side, the results certainly were a setback, but less ground was lost than might
have been expected.
A decade ago, the Brady Campaign exulted that
California had enacted almost everything that the group wanted. The group rated
California's gun control laws among the very best in the nation. Obviously,
California demonstrates that the anti-gun lobbies are insatiable in their desire
to oppress gun owners. When they get everything they ask for, they will then
demand much, much more.
The fight isn't over. In 2014, Michael Bloomberg
will no longer be mayor of New York City, so he will be able to devote his full
attention to dumping many millions of dollars into elections and into funding
"Astroturf" grassroots anti-gun groups. The results of the 2014 elections will
determine whether Bloomberg can create his new paradigm for politicians--that
voting anti-gun is the politically safe thing to do.
What Bloomberg can't
buy is the volunteer efforts of citizens who are motivated by patriotic love of
their nation and our Constitution. If enough of us work hard enough in 2014,
then it is possible that Bloomberg and his billions may be stopped.
