AB 357 - CCW Reform Bill Failed in Committee

AB 357, the CCW reform bill Sponsors by Assemblyman Knight, came up for a hearing in the Public Safety Committee, and failed to pass. While reconsideration was ranted, it would seem that this bill is dead, unless something changes. Here is the current status of the bill:

 CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE :  A.B. No. 357
AUTHOR(S) :  Knight.
TOPIC :  Firearms: license to carry concealed firearm.
HOUSE LOCATION :  ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE  :  04/13/2009


TYPE OF BILL :
            Active
            Non-Urgency
            Non-Appropriations
            Majority Vote Required
            State-Mandated Local Program
            Fiscal
            Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE:  04/21/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION   :  In committee:  Set second hearing.
 Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.
COMM. LOCATION :  ASM PUBLIC SAFETY

TITLE :  An act to amend Section 12050 of the Penal Code,
relating to firearms.

It would seem that AB 357 is dead for this session.

Nordyke v. King - Ninth circuit Court Incorporates the 2nd Amendment Against the States

The decision, greatly anticipated by gun-rights groups, was handed down from the Ninth Circuit today. The operative sentence:

We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and
applies it against the states and local governments.

However, the ordinance was upheld, no doubt to the disappointment of the Nordykes, which means that S.B. 585, which would ban gun shows at the Cow Palace, will no doubt stand if it passes in the state legislature.

You can read the entire decision here. Hat tip to Of Arms and the Law.

Note: be sure to watch if any supplementary briefs are filed in McDonald v. Chicago, as this decision would seem to drive several nails into the coffin entombing the Chicago city handgun ban.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg - Disingenuous Activism

Not content with the very strict gun laws in New York City, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg wants to influence gun laws in other states as well. As related in this story, he is advocating that Virginia pass a law to close the so-called "gun-show" loophole. And he has allied himself with 10 family members of the Virginia Tech massacre, and the mother of a New York City police officer killed with a gun purchased illegally in Virginia.

The disingenuous part about this story is that the weapons in question were not purchased at gun shows. Seung-Hui Cho, as detailed in this chapter of the official report of the Virginia Tech massacre, purchased his guns at licensed dealers. The failure in his case was that no notification of Cho's mental status was made in the Fedaral NICS system, or in the Virginia state system. Officer Timoshenko was killed by a gun purchased illegally from a licensed dealer, and dealer who has since had his license revoked.

There is nothing wrong with being against private party firearm sales without background checks being made illegal. In California, we have already closed the "gun-show loophole", and people are still able to buy and sell guns at gun shows, and criminals are still able to get guns. But I think that activists should at least be clear on what they are advocating, and honest in their rhetorical tactics. Parading parents of victims from crimes not related the the issue is not honest in my opinion.

Gay Marriage - Coming to a State Near You

I live in California, a state that has recently passed an amendment to the state constitution banning marriage between same-sex couples. Proposition 8 was inspired by an earlier California Supreme Court ruling that a statute created by Proposition 22 outlawing same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

Last week Iowa took the first step down the same path when their Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage citing equal protection. The DesMoines Register reported:

Basic fairness and constitutional equal protection were the linchpins of Friday’s historic Iowa Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and puts Iowa squarely in the center of the nation’s debate over gay rights.

I have often thought that an equal protection argument would be the way that same-sex marriage would become recognized in every state, and I still think that will turn out to be the case. I think that Supreme Court precedent involving interracial marriage is illustrative of what might happen with same-sex marriage.

The key case was Loving v. Virginia, in which the Court found that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The court wrote in the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

How close this passage reads to a possible ruling on same-sex marriage!

As to how a case might come about, I think that would be simple. Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont all recognize same-sex marriage. The United States does not. Couples married in these four states that move to another state may have cause to sue to force a state to recognize the marriage. They could also sue the United States to recognize the marriage. I am frankly surprised that this has not happened yet.

The argument I think would be simple: male-female married couples do not lose their married status by moving to another state, but a same-sex married couple does, violating both the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. I think that this would be a strong case.

If a same-sex married couple prevails in the Supreme Court, then every "defense of marriage" statue on the books would be swept away. And I think it is only a matter of time.

Great - and sad - article.

I found this article about a very sad, but all too typical situation on a new blog: Big Hollywood.

I'm Against Guns And Violence Unfortunately Reality Has Intruded On My Delusional Paradise.

My first reaction was to think about how much I loathe southern California, and my second was to remind myself that these stalking situations happen anywhere. It also reminded me that there is a funny little exception to the prohibition to carrying a concealed weapon.

People that have a restraining order against an individual can carry concealed weapons in the state. No other approval is necessary. I think they have to carry a copy of the order to prove to any officer that stops them, but it is legal.

California gun law is curious mixture of strict prohibitions and occasional freedoms.

AB357 - Update: April 14 Hearing Canceled

Here is an update on Assembly Bill 357:

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE :  A.B. No. 357
AUTHOR(S) :  Knight.
TOPIC :  Firearms: license to carry concealed firearm.
HOUSE LOCATION :  ASM

TYPE OF BILL :
          Active
          Non-Urgency
          Non-Appropriations
          Majority Vote Required
          State-Mandated Local Program
          Fiscal
          Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE:  03/09/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION   :  Referred to Com. on  PUB. S.
COMM. LOCATION :  ASM PUBLIC SAFETY
COMM. ACTION DATE   :  04/14/2009
COMM. ACTION :  Set, first hearing.  Hearing cancelled at
the request of
author.
HEARING DATE :  04/14/2009

TITLE :  An act to amend Section 12050 of the Penal Code,
relating to firearms.

So, it looks to me like the hearing has been canceled at the request of the author, Assemblyman Knight. However, as an anonymous comment on my previous article AB 357 - California CCW Reform? suggested, we should contact the members of the Committee on Public Safety indicating our support of this bill. A new hearing may be scheduled for AB 357 at any time, so let's get our support on record now.

Remember, when you write to a representative, be sure to include your full, real name, address, and telephone number. Representatives will only pay attention to California residents, so if the address is not included, the letter or e-mail will not be counted.

Everything You've Heard About Gun Control is Wrong - From Both Sides!

There is one thing that I have learned researching gun-rights issues: one must be very careful believing "facts" reported by partisans of both sides. And, if there are two groups whose claims I am automatically skeptical of, they would be the National Rifle Association, and the Violence Policy Center.

An object lesson in the malleability of "facts" on this issue was played out in the main stream media aver the last few weeks. The Violence Policy Center published Iron River: Gun Violence and Illegal Firearms Trafficking on the U.S. - Mexico Border in which the following "fact" was stated:

U.S. and Mexican officials report that, based on ATF tracing data, the cartels obtain 90 percent or more of their firearms from the United States.

The mainstream media took this and ran like Hell with it, but it was later shown to be the worst type of lie: the half-truth. As reported in this story FoxNews revealed that the truth is that 90 percent of the arms that Mexico requested the U.S. to trace came from the U.S., but those weapons were only a fraction of the total seized from drug cartels. The percentage of total weapons originating from the U.S. is closer to 17 percent, not 90 percent.

The NRA is not above such shenanigans, either. Check out this fact sheet, More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2007 published by the NRA. In the three paragraphs they cite separate statistics on relaxed gun control laws, increased gun ownership, and reduced crime in the U.S. The implication that the reader is supposed to take away is that increased availability to guns has reduced crime and made the U.S. safer.

In fact violent crime has been going down in the U.S. for decades, in both areas with lax gun laws, and in areas with strict gun laws, as shown by FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2007.

Part of the problem is that both of these organizations are political pressure groups with agendas to advance. Another is the lack of definitive, conclusive research on the links between gun laws and gun violence. Most "facts" on both sides of the issue come from research studies, but many, if not all of these studies may be flawed. The Centers for Disease Control conducted a study of the studies published on the issue of gun control to determine the effectiveness of gun laws. Their results, summarized in First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, can be summed up in one sentence:

Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons.

The CDC goes on to explain why all types of gun bans, waiting periods, liberalized concealed carry laws, etc. all cannot be shown to have the effects on violence claimed by their proponents. The reason is that pretty much all previous studies are based on faulty methods, or on incomplete data.

Other studies have shown similar deficiencies in methods and data, undermining the positions of both sides of the issue. The National Academies concurred that research in this area is weak and needs much improvement. In their study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, they reach the following conclusion, deflating the claims of both gun-rights and gun control groups:

For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

Is there ANY solid ground to stand upon? I think so, but I must approach it from both a logical position, and a values position.

My logical argument starts by saying that there are more guns in the U.S. than ever, and yet violent crime is down, and in fact has been decreasing for decades. More guns does NOT cause more crime. In states that have shall-issue concealed carry laws, violent crime has likewise been decreasing, so that while we cannot prove, or credibly claim, that shall-issue laws reduce violent crime, it seems pretty certain they have not increased it either. I think these are the only valid statistical conclusions I can reach about guns and violence in U.S. society.

This leads into my values-based argument: in many individual cases, guns have been used to defend lives from violent criminals. In these cases, and for those individuals, the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes far outweighed any nebulous claims of gun control advocates of the harm gun pose to society at large. Because they were armed, the self-defenders survived to go home to their families.

Unless and until better research comes to light about the effectiveness of gun control laws, I am going to support the right to keep and bear arms, because on one terrible day, it might be mine, or my wife's life I will have to defend, and a gun is the most effective means of self-defense.