"Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws

I have added a new link to my "Get The Facts" section which leads to the article "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws". While an older article, published in 1994, it is worth re-reading to get an understanding of the scholarship performed and political issues that overcome in other states that have gone shall-issue as preparation for what we might face in California if certain court cases result in outcomes favorable for carry rights.

California, New York, and Illinois are the last great bastions of restrictive gun laws, but the trends are favorable.  About the only thing that can thwart liberalized gun laws in these states would be the apathy of the citizen, or a few more Supreme Court appointments by President Obama,

We should all work to prevent both.

Shall-Issue CCW in California

Do you ever wonder what would happen in California if this state adopted a shall-issue CCW permit system?  Then all you have to do is read this article about the 10-year anniversary of Michigan's shall-issue permit law, how "blood in the streets" was predicted, and how the dire predictions failed to materialize.

Just as they have failed to materialize in every other state that has gone shall issue.

Some people believe that guns in a public setting are too dangerous to tolerate, but CCW permit holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding and safe.  And guns have utility for self defense.  As a Californian, I would sure like to have the choice to be armed as I go about my daily business. 

But this state does not allow me to do that.

An Excellent Example of Enforcing the Laws Already on The Books

This story, reported by my local ABC station, KGO Channel 7, relates how the San Francisco Police Department is using the Armed Prohibited Persons list to attempt to disarm gun owners that conveicted of felonies or judged to be mentally ill.

No responsible gun owner believes that felons or the mentally ill should have the ability to purchase a firearm, and the Armed Prohibited Persons list is a good mechanism to get these guns out of the hands or potentially dangerous people.  So why is it that 37 police departments and 3 county sheriffs offices do not subscribe to APPS?

My guess would be lack of resources during this time of growing budget deficits.

Local Groups Drive Gun Rights Litigation - Not The NRA

The left wing press always gets this wrong: the NRA is the source of all evil pro-gun developments in the United States. The reality is that the NRA, while an extremely effective lobbying and legislative organization, its record for litigation is thin, at best. Most of the recent landmark litigation concerning gun rights (District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago) are the result of the efforts of grass-roots organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association. These organization, and those like them in other states, have been doing the heavy lifting over the last ten years ot so to further gun rights in the United States.

In the past on this blog I have attempted to follow the various cases that are in progress, but in the aftermath of Heller, so many cases were filed that it overwhelmed my capacity to monitor the progress and post it to Left Coast Conservative. Fortunately, this is no longer necessary. The Calguns Foundation has a wonderful web page that not only lists the current status of pending litigation, but also established case law and Supreme Court decisions, and even has a primer describing how the federal courts work. Everyone who has an interest in the current status of gun rights litigation should consult this page often because it is updated regularly.

Once again, the grass-roots organizations are carrying the heavy load to further gun rights by educating gun owners. While I do not want to belittle the efforts of the NRA, they is not the whole story. And when one realizes the extent of different groups that promote gun rights, I cannot help but be optimistic.

1911 Pistol is "Unsafe" for California

I have written before about the California Department of Justice Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, concluding that this system was not a creeping handgun ban based on the information I could get at the time, which was simply the total number of guns on the list.

My method ignored the types of new guns that were being approved, the types expiring and being removed, and the types newly approved and added.  Just last month many new guns were added, but most are classified as derringers, but only one semi-automatic pistol.  I have yet to find a list of new semi-automatic pistol models that have been introduced in the United States firearms market, but I suspect that it is more than the handful of pistols added to the Roster in recent years.

The most common culprit cited is the California requirement that all new pistols be equipment with a magazine disconnect mechanism, a device that prevents the pistol from discharging when the magazine is absent from the magazine well.  Most pistol manufacturers either refuse to market pistols with these devices, or their designs cannot accommodate a magazine disconnect.

Now we come to a new pistol offered for sale by Remington, the Model 1911 R1, Remington's entry into the ever more popular G.I. .45 pistol market.  This pistol is pretty much a copy of the Colt 1911A1 pistol used by the U.S. military for over 80 years, and it is one of the most popular pistol models in the United States.  But this pistol will never be available in California, because this pistol does not have a magazine disconnect feature, and is therefore "unsafe".

Note that my own Kimber Custom II also lacks a magazine disconnect, and is just as "unsafe" as the new Remington gun, but the Custom II was certified for sale before the magazine disconnect requirement, and so that model is "grandfathered in"  and will remain certified as long as Kimber maintains the listing by paying the yearly fee.

But note the arbitrariness of this law: very similar guns, one "new", one old, but both are very similar to each other, but one is declared "unsafe".  The net effect is that one model of gun is banned from the California market.

The roster is beginning to look more and more like a creeping handgun ban.  I just wish I had more industry data to support it.

Motion for Summary Judgement Filed in Palmer v. District of Columbia

A great explanation of the plaintiffs case is contained in the Memorandum in Support filed as part of the motion.

This case is very important for gun rights all over the country, but it is especially so for gun owners in California.  This case seeks to establish that "bear" in the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home as well as inside, forcing D.C. to allow some form of carry, either open or concealed, in nonsensitive areas of the city.

Why is this important to California?

The 2nd Amendment already applies to D.C because of the result of the Heller case. A favorable ruling in Palmer would establish a right to bear arms in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.  While it is true that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to California at this time, a favorable ruling in McDonald v. Chicago is expected to change that in just a few weeks.

California law places great limits on the ability of people to be armed in public.  Loaded open carry of firearms is illegal in public places of incorporated towns and cities.  Unloaded open carry, thanks to AB 1934, will soon be illegal as well.  Issuance of carry concealed weapon (CCW) permits is at the discretion of law enforcement, and DOJ statistics confirm that low issuance rate in urban counties.  All of which conform that the there is no effective right to "bear" arms in California.

Assuming a favorable ruling in McDonald, a favorable ruling in Palmer will give California residents instant standing in Federal court to sue California due to the unconstitutional restraints imposed by the California laws.  The state will be forced to allow some form of carry, even though that requirement will be extremely distasteful to the state government and to urban police departments, especially in Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Francisco counties.

The legal ducks are just about all lined up, with only Palmer expected to take a couple of years to get up through the Federal court system.  But if and when Palmer is decided favorably, then we will be treated to the spectacle of the ultra-liberal state of California "swallowing a frog".

McDonald v. Chicago - Oral Arguments Heard Today

Oral arguments were presented before the Supreme Court today in the case McDonald v. Chicago, a suit challenging Chicago's handgun registration ban.  Initial reports on the arguments at the Volokh Conspiracy and at Of Arms and The Law indicate that the Court will likely incorporate the 2nd Amendment via the 14th Amendment.

Where do we go from here?  Back to court of course!  This article explains that the third step in securing the right is to establish the standard of review that courts will use to determine the constitutionality of gun regulations, which will be accomplished in future court cases.  Keep an eye out on the California courts, because there are several cases that have been pending a decision in McDonald.  Once the decision is announced, several of California's gun laws may change quite quickly.

Why the Idea of Control Control is Nonsense

Gun control defined: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm. - Unknown

UOC Event at Presidio - First Open Carry Event in a California National Park?

As reported at OpenCarry.org, a group of open carry advocates openly carried their firearms, and picked up trash, at Baker Beach in San Francisco.

A total of 21 people attended the event, with 12 open carrying their firearms.  Eleven bags of trash were collected and hauled out by the attendees.  U.S. Park Service rangers checked on the unloaded status of the attended firearms, as allowed by state law, without incident.

Open Carry Blowback - Contra Costa Times

The Contra Costa Times weighs into the debate over open carry in California in this editorial published today.  It is predictably negative, strongly disapproving of the practice, but it does correctly describe the legality of the practice, and the fact that these events are political activism, not macho posturing.

Nevertheless, the editorial warns its readers that the open carry events are fraught with risks, and that guns openly carried might cause shootings to occur, especially in this passage:

We can envision a circumstance where a teen comes into a coffee shop and runs out with the tip jar and the good citizen carrying a weapon decides to load up and pursue the youth. That has bad ending written all over it.

I really do not believe that open carry advocates attending these events think of themselves as any type of a police officer, nor do I think that they are ignorant of the law governing the use of force.  This is the Times stirring up more FUD, fear, uncertainty, and doubt, in its anti-gun readers.

That said, open carriers beware!  Anti-gun advocates are being inspired by your events to begin pushing back.

Not untrained, and not unlicensed. Stop spreading FUD.

The Marin Independent Journal spreads more FUD about the new weapons policy in National Parks in this article.

Halfway through the article one reads the following quote:

Allowing untrained and unlicensed people carrying guns in national parks is an invitation to disaster," said John Waterman, president of the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge.

Even though prior to that idiotic statement the article correctly states how the new law would apply in California:

Now under the new rule visitors can legally carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge - but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms. California allows concealed weapons.

 So, people who can legally carry weapons into the parks will NOT be unlicensed, and they will NOT be untrained, because CCW licenses have a training requirement.  One would think that Mr. Waterman, president of a park rangers organization, would be more informed than he seems to be.

In actuality, the new policy changes almost nothing in California.  CCW issuance is very limited.  Take a look at the CCW permit issuance statistics released by the California Department of Justice.  In 2007 there were only 40296 permits in the entire state (population in 2008: 33.8 million), and since California does not recognize any other state's concealed carry permits, non-resident visitors to national parks in California are not able to carry their firearms legally in California national parks.

The sky is not falling, the new law affects almost nobody.

New York Times Notices California Open Carry Events

We finally hear from the liberal voice, the New York Times, about recent open carry events in northern California in this editorial.  While I do not make a habit of deconstructing articles bashing gun-rights advocates,  I think that this article was especially egregious.

It starts off with the very first sentence:

It looked like a casting call for a Sam Pekinpah shoot-’em-up: 100 or so gun enthusiasts showed up at the Buckhorn Grill in Walnut Creek, Calif., this month with revolvers strapped on their hips.

Why is it that anti-gun people invoke the cowboy image when describing open carriers, or gun owners in general, if it is not to imply childishness and immaturity, and thus to dismiss the entire position of the gun-rights advocate?  The cowboy image is further embellished by the use of the word "revolvers", when photographs of the event clearly show most people carried semi-automatic pistols.  Invoking Sam Peckinpah's name implies that there is also a potential for the violence he portrayed in his films to become real violence at these events.

The editorial explains that this activity is, unfortunately, legal, and mourns that fact:

Unfortunately, more than two dozen states also have allowed themselves to be bullied by the gun lobby into adopting similarly dangerous law.

"gun lobby", a code phrase for the National Rifle Association, is blamed for all the terribly lax gun laws in states outside of New York, as if no real person would ever vote in favor of such an insane practice.  The truth is less appealing to the Times, because open carry laws are often decades old, and have usually been approved by the majority of voters or state legislators without the influence of the N.R.A.  A great many people in this nation believe in armed self-defense.

But all is not lost, the Times opines, because two restaurant chains have banned the open carriers:

The good news from California is that more businesses are summoning the courage to say no thanks and no entry to the flaunters. 

Right.  These people are not carrying firearms, they are not responsible adults.  They are "flaunters".  Further, one restaurant chain, Starbucks, refuses to take the common sense approach and banish open carriers as well:

Should customers be free to sip Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Lattes at their laptop screens while brandishing a gleaming Ruger .357? So far, Starbucks executives say yes, claiming they are quite safety-minded within a policy that “supports the federal, state and local laws in the communities in which we do business.”

So, open carriers not only "flaunt" their firearms, they also "brandish" their firearms,  Never mind the fact that unholstering and actually brandishing a firearm is a crime in California, one that not one open carrier at any of the several events held recently has been accused of, once again a open carriers are portrayed as irresponsible cowboys.

But the editorial does not mention one important FACT about open carry events in California, omission of which accentuates the menace that the idea of 100 armed people in a family restaurant must inspire in New Yorker's minds: not one firearm carried at these events was loaded, because loaded firearms are illegal to carry in public places without a concealed carry permit.  Further, the organizers of the event coordinated with the Walnut Creek police department to have an officer present to verify that all firearm were indeed unloaded as required by law.

Either the New York Times was ignorant of these facts, which I can scarcely credit given the publicity these events have received, or it is selectively omitting inconvenient facts in order to heighten the alarm of "right minded" citizens.

I'll leave it for you to decide which.

Brady Campaign Scorecard Out - California 79, Utah 0

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is making a lot of news today after releasing updated state scorecards rating each states gun laws.  California makes the top spot with a score of 79, while Utah comes in dead last with a score of 0.

Reaction around the 'net has been swift and varied.  A blogger from Arizona lamenting that states low score of 2 quotes Paul Helmke:

"Since Arizona does not require Brady criminal background checks on all firearm sales, including those at gun shows, gun traffickers don't need to leave the state to funnel illegal guns to felons and gang members," says Paul Helmke, Brady Campaign president. "Arizona officials have done nothing in the past year to stop the flow of illegal guns within the state, including closing the loophole that allows dangerous people to walk into gun shows and buy guns without background checks."

 Aw, yes! The dreaded gun show loophole!  Well California has had that hole closed for a very long time indeed. But does anyone actually think that California criminals need to go out of state to get their guns, or that criminals cannot obtain a gun if they want one? Lovelle Mixon did not seem to have much trouble, and four Oakland PD officers were killed by him as a result.

After seeing the effects of our strict gun laws versus Utah's lax gun laws I am beginning to think that if California scrapped most of our gun laws our violent crime and homicide rates would not change much.  After all what do we have to show for our strict gun laws?  A lower homicide rate than Utah?

UPDATE 19 Feb. 2010: corrected typos and language in the original post. Also, take a look at David Hardy's post on the Brady Campaign Scorecards at Of Arms and the Law.  Follow the links to the stories he linked to.  They are worth reading.

Open Carry Event This Weekend

As planned, East Bay Open Carry held an event at a Starbucks coffee shop in Antioch on Saturday. KGO 7 TV covered the story and video may be viewed here.

There is the usual puling from Brady Campaign representatives quotes in the story:

The Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence does not buy it. They do not see why anyone except police should be bearing arms in public, even if they have the right to.

This really sends me off: if I have a right to carry firearms, then I don;t need to give a reason.  I think that the Brady Campaign is also trying to set the narrative for future challenges to California gun laws, such as this case currently in San Diego.

We should all stay tuned.  If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the plaintiffs in McDonald v. Chicago, then several pending lawsuits in California could result in some big changes in the law.

Open Carry in The News This Week

Open Carry of firearms was in the news this week in the Bay Area, and more events are planned.

This article describes the reaction to an man open carrying his handgun in an East Palo Alto supermarket, provoking a police response of four officers, who verified that the firearm was unload. The man was evidently inspired by recent open carry events he saw in TV:

The man, who lives in Redwood City, later apologized to police and said "he didn't really think it out," Norris added.

Another article ,  from the SF Examiner, serves as an introductory piece describing the open carry movement, recent events, and legal status of open carry.  They make a point: most Bay Area residents are pretty surprised to find that open carry of handguns is legal.  How can they not be surprised, when law enforcement agencies are caught off-guard:

The truth is that many law enforcers and prosecutors had not even heard of the phrase “open carry” until late 2009, when the growing movement gained footing on the Peninsula, said Steve Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney of San Mateo County. It’s been legal in California to openly carry unloaded firearms since 1999 as long as you are not within 1,000 feet of K-12 schools.

I will fault what is an otherwise informative article for this mistake: as far as I know it has always been legal to open carry in California, not just since 1999 as mentioned above.

Recent open carry activity in the Bay Area has attracted the notice of newspapers in other parts of the country, like West Virginia, and Bay Area gun control groups like the local chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which has prevailed upon local Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen restaurants to refuse to serve open carrying customers, as related in this KPIX television report.  It is unclear if this is a company wide policy, or the decision of the local store owner: neither company mentions an open carry prohibition on their web sites.

Open Carry advocates reacted by planning another open carry event for this weekend at a Starbucks Coffee shop in Antioch, reported to be open carry friendly.  Brady Campaign members promise to protest that event as well.

I guess the drama will only escalate from here.

UPDATE: I guess KGO was just slow out of the gate, but they finally did cover this story here. This one quotes a CPK spokesperson, implying that the open carry policy is official and company-wide.

UPDATE: SFGate also covers this story, and quotes the official policies of Peet's and CPK.  One comment from the above article expresses my own concern about open carry events gaining more publicity:

If you really want to draw attention to yourself AND prompt our over zealous legislators to make yet another new law - this one banning you from open carrying - my advice is to keep on wasting police time running backwards and forwards to the coffee shop with an empty gun strapped to your thigh. Please stop - our cops have got better things to do than stopping losers and checking thier weapons every 10 mins. Time to grow the fark up.

In this state where AB 962 was passed without any real opposition, I could well imagine several legislative responses from Sacramento:  banning open carry, or even scrapping the CCW permit system altogether.  The Democratic legislators in this state are pretty uniformly anti-gun and will use any excuse to narrow gun rights.

Remember, there is no right to bear arms in the California Constitution.

Update on The California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale

In this post I took a look at the California DOJ Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale and tried to determine if the DOJ Roster was a creeping handgun ban. While I did not conclude that the DOJ Roster was the same as an outright ban, I did identify several limitations to my analysis:

And nothing on this chart indicates the number of handguns offered for sale in the United States, but that have not been approved by the DOJ, or the number of guns introduced in any given year that are available for sale outside of California that have not yet been approved, or that have never been submitted for approval.

 The Sacramento Bee published this article on December 30, 2009.  It describes how the new firearm microstamping law has gone into effect, and how the law will  discourage gun makers from introducing new semi-automatic pistols into the California market.  Since microstamping will be a newly required "safety feature", it is required on all new pistols sold in the state, but since the technology is not free of patent encumbrances, the law is deferred.

Some statistics about new handgun approvals in the state are cited in the article that would have been useful in my previous post bout the DOJ Roster:

The Department of Justice's Bureau of Firearms is charged with approving weapons for sale in California each year. From 2002 to 2006, the bureau approved 72 new semi-automatic pistols on average each year.

In 2007, a law took full effect mandating that new center-fire semi-automatic pistols include both a mechanism that prevents firing when the magazine is removed, as well as an indicator showing when a live round is in the gun chamber. Rim-fire semi-automatics must have the magazine disconnect device.

In three years, the Bureau of Firearms has approved only nine new semi-automatic weapons, including only one in 2008.

 I know from talking to pistol shooters that magazine disconnect devices are very unpopular.  Most people consider them a dangerous "feature" that could get you killed if you ever use a handgun in self-defense.  But it is the numbers of new pistols approved that I wish could have included in my previous article that I am interested in most.  An I know that there were more than one model of semi-automatic pistols introduced in the U.S. in 2008.

I wish I could find out how many.

But with so few pistols being approved, then I think that the Roster is indeed going to resemble a handgun ban, but one that will take years to develop.

Fontano Charged with a Misdemeanor

I have previously written on this story. Sherman Fontano foolishly openly carried his unloaded .357 magnum revolver into a school property and was arrested by San Jose police.

As reported today in the San Jose Mercury News, Fontano has been charged with a misdemeanor charge of possessing a firearm in a school zone. He will appear in court again on February 22.

As I wrote in my previous post, Mr. Fontano acted in ignorance of California firearms laws, and got himself in trouble as a result. All gun owners in California must follow our sometimes nonsensical gun laws closely to stay out of trouble.

San Francisco - Death by Progressivism

This article succinctly describes the modern liberal progressive doctrine using San Francisco as an example. It also describes why my wife and I never, or hardly ever, go into the City. While I have done business in the City, I actually try to avoid it because it is far away (90 road miles, one way) from San Jose, and because the parking problems are even worse than described in the article.

Problems with homeless people and illegal immigrants are not tolerated in San Jose like they are in San Francisco, so you don't see these people on the streets, except in front of Home Depot stores.

Look out America, San Francisco is what progressives want to foist onto the rest of America.

Hat tip Right on The Left Coast.

UPDATE: 1/21/10. Added the title and corrected typos and some phrasing in the post.  I still thank that the original article was dynamite.

California Governor Race - Get Used to a Democrat

I was sitting in a bar doing the unthinkable: talking about politics. The guy sitting a few seats down opined that Tom Campbell would be the next Governor. I disagreed, stating my belief that the Democratic Party pretty much owns the state, and that any candidate that could win the Republican nomination would be completely unacceptable to the electorate as a whole.

My views are supported by a new Field Poll released last week.

As it now stands, Jerry Brown has a pretty comfortable lead over Gavin Newsom, but either of these could defeat any one of the Republicans now running for the nomination. A real indicator of how far the Republican Party has slid in the state can be seen that all three Republican candidates are so little known that at least 59% of registered voters have no opinion. Both Democratic candidates would beat any of the three Republican candidates in the general election.

From where we are today, it looks like California will have united Democratic government in Sacramento after the election.

Governor Brown, anyone?

Reasonable Gun Control

The phrase "reasonable gun control" is widely used by the anti-gun advocates in the media, but there is little agreement of what constitutes "reasonable" in the context of gun regulation. The two extreme positions, a total ban on guns, and complete freedom for anyone to own and carry anything, are usually rejected by most people. Some kind of regulation is needed, and in the wake of the Heller decision I think that compromise between gun control and gun rights advocates may be possible. What follows is my personal thoughts on what laws are needed for balance on this issue.

Note that the following discussion is founded on the premise that California state law is the starting point, and the proposed changes are changes to state law: some of the provisions would not make sense to people not familiar with California law. Other proposed changes are already in effect in California, and these are ones that I think should apply nationally.


Background Checks - Private Transfers as well.

Yep, close the so-called gun show loophole. The fundamental basis of my compromise position is that we, as a society, should do all we reasonable can to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. While I know that determined criminals will get them anyway, I believe that
we should not make it easier, and requiring background checks on all transfers is an easy way to start. We do background checks on private transfers in California, and the sky has not fallen.


Training - even more than that required by the HSC.

Before a person can buy a handgun in California they have to obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC). This is demonstration of knowledge of gun safety and firearms laws on a written, multiple-choice test. The test is ridiculously easy, and perhaps not as effective as it should be. I like the idea of training, and I think that even more training would be a good idea. Before buying my first handgun, I took the NRA Basic Pistol class. This was an eight hour session of classroom instruction on handguns, safety, and law, as well as a range session where instructors taught us how to shoot safely in an indoor target range. I found this to be a very helpful class for a new handgun owner, and it made my purchase a much more informed one as well. I would propose that attendance in a similar class would be required prior to purchasing ANY firearm.


One Handgun Per Month

I really do not understand the opposition to this proposal. Quality firearms, either new or used, are expensive, so I do not think that most people will buy more that one per month. Straw purchases are a problem, and this restriction is not too onerous if it can hep reduce them.


CCW Permits

The CCW permit system in California is a travesty. In this "may issue" state most jurisdictions where a person would need to carry a weapon, urban high-crime areas, won't issue, and in most areas where the authorities will issue, rural low-crime areas, there is much less need to carry a weapon. As a business owner in California, I understand the problem: exercising their discretion to issue a CCW permit makes the issuing authority liable for the acts of the CCW permit holder, so they refuse to issue. Many also refuse to issue because many Sheriffs and Police Chiefs don't want more armed people on the streets.

I think that there are only two fair options: we need to either make California shall-issue, or make California no-issue. These are the only fair options. Currently, a VIP or a "friend of the Sheriff" can get a CCW permit, but ordinary citizens cannot. The CCW permit circus in Orange County shows how a new Sheriff can arbitrarily change department policy, and begin to revoke or deny renewal of permits. I have come to believe that we should go all one way, or all the other.

Given the political makeup of the state in general, and the legislature in particular, I think that there is zero chance of a shall-issue system being put in place in any foreseeable future. Sure, AB 357 was recently proposed to make California "shall-issue", but this bill would have changed only a single word in the law: delete "may" and replace it with "shall". The "good cause" requirement was still there, which is antithetical to any real shall-issue system, and no objective criteria were defined by AB 357. AB 357 was a bad law, and it deserved to die in committee.


DOJ Handgun Roster

Some explanation of the Department of Justice Handgun Roster is in order for people reading this that are fortunate enough not to live in either California or the District of Columbia. Not evey handgun made is available for purchase in California. Manufacturers must submit their handgun to state-approved testing laboratories to ensure that the handguns meet California safety requirements. After acceptance, the manufacturer must pay a fee annually to maintain the listing of the handgun on the roster. If the manufacturer chooses not to maintain the listing, then the handgun can no longer be offered for sale by dealers. Unlisted handguns may still be transferred by private parties and brought into the state by their owners, however.

The DOJ roster is in effect a partial handgun ban. Guns that do not meet the safety requirements are banned for sale. If the costs of listing a handgun become prohibitive, the no handguns would be available for sale in California. The maintenance of the listing is what makes this a gun ban. There are many safety laws on the books, and many products are tested to various standards, but the safety laws simply say that the products sold must meet certain requirements, a Underwriter Laboratories standard, for example, to be sold. But once it is tested to be safe, it does not become unsafe simply because it has been taken off some list. The coercive nature of the DOJ roster is further illustrated by the fact that in 2010 all new handguns must have the "safety feature" of micro-stamping the handgun serial number of spent casings. Guns that do not do this are "unsafe" and may not be sold.

Repeal the whole stupid thing.


Assault Weapon Ban

The California Assault Weapon ban is the poster child for feel-good gun legislation. If the true intent of the 2nd Amendment is to be realized in the post-Heller United States, semi-automatic versions of military rifles would be the most protected firearms under the Constitution. Militia members reporting for duty with and AR-15 could be supplied with ammunition and magazines by the U.S. Army without any problems with the military logistics system.

This is also a law that has pretty much no impact on crime. Most crimes are not committed with rifles because they are not easily concealable. And the law itself is confusing and arbitrary. It bans rifles with certain cosmetic features, but does not ban rifles, equally as capable, that lack those features. A Bushmater Carbon 15 M4AR-15 is illegal, but the Springfield Armory SOCOM II rifle is not.

This law also bans large capacity magazines, defined as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Ineffective and confusing, this is a bad law.

Repeal it.


Ammunition Registration

There are no requirement to register ammunition purchases, yet, (See my posts on AB 962), proposals to do this have been raised before, implemented before, and repealed before. They used to exist at the Federal level, but were repealed when the BATFE testified before Congress that the requirements generated massive amounts of paper, that was of questionable value in fighting gun crime.

What such laws would do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get ammunition for lawful purposes, and make that ammunition more expensive, due to the record keeping requirements placed upon ammunition vendor. In short this type of law is another feel-good law that would have no real effect on violent crime.


Conclusions

Well, these are my selections. I some cases I agree with the gun control advocates, and in others I disagree. I like the idea of training, which is the most effective way to increase firearm safety, not loading handguns with questionable features like loaded chamber indicators or magazine disconnects. Training will ensure that any gun can be handled safely by anyone. I also think that more can be done to prevent the flow of guns into the illegal arms market. But in general I think actions of individuals should be punished, not law abiding citizens as a class, to firearm bans are a no-go with me.

Let the flames begin.