CA lawmakers advance gun-control bills

March 13, 2013

By Katy Grimes

Anti-gun zealots cagle, Dec. 24, 2012

SACRAMENTO — Anti-gun lawmakers in the California state Senate and Assembly have been busy advancing legislation to further control guns.

On March 7, the state Senate passed SJR 1, a resolution by state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis. It urges the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama to enact a comprehensive gun violence prevention policy, including prohibiting the sale of military-style assault weapons and “high-capacity magazines.” It also encouraged strengthening criminal background checks.

The resolution essentially was another California finger-wagging measure aimed at shaming the rest of the country into following the Golden State’s lead. Wolk and colleagues are feeling emboldened by President Barack Obama’s recent executive orders purportedly aimed at reducing gun violence. Obama even called the issue a “public health crisis.”

“The president is determined to resurrect a previously failed Clinton tactic to build public support for stringent gun control gun regulations premised upon trumped-up ‘guns as a public disease’ rationale based upon federally-funded medical pseudo-research,” Forbes’ Larry Bell recently wrote.

Obama declared:

“While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it.”

Said Bell, “Perhaps the president has forgotten that the CDC has previously been funded, then later defunded, regarding medical research for gun violence.  His directive, if funded again by Congress, would end a virtual 17-year ban which stipulates, quite appropriately, that none of CDC’s federal financing can be used to advocate or promote gun control…exactly what CDC was originally doing.”

Meanwhile, back in California…

SJR 1 doesn’t change California law,” said Wolk. “Rather, it aims to bring federal law in line with California law, which already prohibits the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, requires universal background checks, and a 10-day waiting or ‘cooling- off’ period for the purchase and transfer of firearms.”

SJR 1 “urges” the President and Congress to take the necessary steps to ensure all states report to the federal background check system. But the resolution is just a resolution, and doesn’t specify how to enforce this requirement. It “urges.”

“Since few states regulate assault weapons and high-capacity assault magazines, and because California’s borders are porous, Californians continue to be victimized by weapons purchased elsewhere and brought illegally into our state,” said Wolk, using the same tired “porous border” argument as her colleagues who oppose gun ownership.

Wolk said she is authoring the resolution at the behest of Napa area Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, a Vietnam War veteran and sport hunter, who was appointed by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco to head the Democratic Caucus’s Gun Violence Prevention Task Force in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Thompson likes to tout his firearms bona fides: hunter, gun owner and a tour in Vietnam with an assault rifle,” wrote my colleague Dave Roberts. “But the National Rifle Association doesn’t consider Thompson a gun rights supporter, scoring him just 17 percent on gun rights votes in 2012. There’s also not a lot of gun rights support on the rest of the task force — eight of its 12 members received scores of zero by the NRA.”

“This measure supports the efforts of the President, Congressman Thompson, and others who are working to take comprehensive federal action to prevent gun violence while protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” Wolk said on the Senate floor during debate Thursday. “Without a comprehensive federal approach to curbing gun violence, our laws will fall short of providing the security our citizens expect.”

The San Francisco treatment

The state Senate also recently passed SB 140, by Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, which would allow the Department of Justice to take illegal firearms away from convicted felons, the mentally unstable and parolees. But existing laws already ban guns for such people.

SB 140 would appropriate $24 million from the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account to the Department of Justice to address the backlog in the Armed Prohibited Persons System.

SB 140 allows the California Department of Justice to use “existing resources” to enhance the identification and confiscation of handguns and assault weapons in the hands of convicted felons, persons who are determined to be mentally unstable, and others who have criminal backgrounds that prevent them from legally possessing guns. That’s how the Democratic-controlled Senate wants this bill described.

However, the Firearms Policy Coalition describes SB 140 a little differently:

“Takes millions of unconstitutionally-collected Dealer Record of Sales funds to compensate for the failure of more than 500 local law enforcement agencies not enforcing existing gun laws. Uses Dealer Record of Sales funds to pay for CA DOJ expansion, including raids and confiscation of weapons from those whom the State deems to be prohibited based on unreliable data from an untrustworthy list.”

“Our reinvestment in this statewide identification program will help eliminate a troubling backlog and growing mountain of illegal weapons, which threatens public safety in our communities and prevents us from enforcing existing firearms laws,” Leno said.

But the Firearms Policy Coalition said, “This bill would require DOJ to create reports politicians would use to advance their anti-gun agenda and does not set limits on how DOJ may use the re-appropriated funds.”

The California Department of Justice has identified 19,784 Californians who illegally own firearms. The new bills would do nothing to help reduce that number. Instead, law-abiding Californians would be prosecuted for defending themselves.


Write a comment
  1. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 12 March, 2013, 16:57

    What we really need to ban are Assault Politicians. I’m sick and tired of having my civil rights and intelligence assaulted by these Orwellian buffoons. They should all be wearing orange jumpsuits, picking up trash on the side of the road.

    Reply this comment
  2. us citizen
    us citizen 12 March, 2013, 18:29

    BO and his ilk are a “public disease”. Doesnt anyone have a vaccine for them yet?

    Reply this comment
  3. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 12 March, 2013, 19:07

    REAL US citizens respect Presidents, even if they disagree with their policies. REAL US citizens also respect the democratic process. Guess you were out back sucking on a PBR when that part of patriotism was being taught.

    Reply this comment
  4. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 13 March, 2013, 06:25

    Steve – How much respect did you afford President George Bush when he was President — or any other Republican President for that matter? The comments you’ve made on this website indicate otherwise.

    Yes, citizens can disagree with presidential policies and still respect the office. The current President is making even that difficult.


    Reply this comment
  5. fish
    fish 13 March, 2013, 11:15

    REAL US citizens respect Presidents, even if they disagree with their policies. REAL US citizens also respect the democratic process. Guess you were out back sucking on a PBR when that part of patriotism was being taught.

    Oh spare me! The lefty respect of the presidency was a wonder to behold when directed towards Mr. Obamas predecessor. Guess you were out back sucking on a democratic politician when that part of patriotism was being taught.

    Reply this comment
  6. Sean Morham
    Sean Morham 13 March, 2013, 11:20

    Wolk’s comments are a joke. I have never in life felt so threatened by violent crime as I am now. I have a difficult time believing that I am safer by tightening existing gun laws which the law abiding follow. She instead should be fighting for laws that execute those convicted of certain crimes using firearms, i.e stealing guns, burgularly with a firearm, etc..Make the execution as a lengthy and painful as possible. Yes, it is a deterrent to crime when someone;s body is ripped pieces for the offense. I dont care if it is barbaric, if you want to reduce gun crime, do it. That Mark Leno expresses an opinion on firearms unfortunately is an embrassment to the state of California. He is a living caricuture of the spindly limb, limp wristed California politician. He could be a character in a Kurt Vonnegut novel.

    Reply this comment
  7. stolson
    stolson 13 March, 2013, 13:57

    Drug runners and cartels will sell the guns on the black market. The average citizen with a handgun will be the fall guy in these laws now. Criminals will feel bolder to commit home invasions if they think no one has a gun to protect themselves. Sportsmen will also suffer as the metrosexuals who seem to influence govt disapprove of hunting.
    Politicians will pat themselves on the backs(unless recalls begin and they feel some heat)-as adhering to the UN’s agenda of disarming the common folk.
    Registration could mean confiscation.

    Reply this comment
  8. Hondo
    Hondo 13 March, 2013, 18:47

    30 years ago, I traveled quite a bit in Mexico. This was long before that country went into violent melt down. Most guns are illegal in Mexico. You could have a rifle for shooting deer, but even that was hard to get. Only the very wealthy could afford the process of getting a gun.
    But in the last 10 years, Mexico has turned into the old wild west times a hundred. Guns are still mostly illegal but the cartels have lots of them. Truck loads of them. 40,000 thousand killed in that country with guns in the last 6 years or so. Only the paid off police and the cartels have guns. The rest of the country is simply target practice for the cartels and the police. 40,000 killed and a hand full of arrests and convictions.
    So go ahead and ban guns. And start ducking the bullets.

    Reply this comment
  9. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm)
    The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) 14 March, 2013, 07:01

    lol Honda—your simplistic world view. You know why claymores, bazookas and machine guns kill zero Americans? They are unlawful to sell or own little buddy.

    Reply this comment
  10. Renee
    Renee 14 March, 2013, 10:37

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
    1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
    1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From
    1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

    _”Ø”( Zer Φ ) Huϟϟein
    HAS Bitten OFF Way More
    Than He Can Chew With-
    His Regime and this gun
    Control Rubbiϟh
    *We The People* We Want Him
    ALL MUST Now Strap on
    Our Spur’s and Dig In.
    America’s Freedom Loving People
    Are in for the Ride Of Our Lives!!
    By Defending OUR Life and Property
    From Criminal Attack.

    If I’m Arrested So What?
    Better Tried by Twelve
    Than Carried by Six!

    Our family has 2 Fire Extinguishers
    That we purchased 6 years ago just in case…
    Thankfully they haven’t been needed
    But, we have the peace of mind just knowing
    They Are Here.
    No Different Owning a Gun,
    We may Never have to use it, and most
    Likely We won’t.
    However, I don’t want to Feel Helpless
    Because I was UNPREPARED!

    If YOU Don’t Have A Gun,
    Get One Now. <>To FIRE

    San Diego

    Reply this comment
  11. Renee
    Renee 14 March, 2013, 10:40

    If YOU Don’t Have A Gun,
    Get One Now. <>To FIRE

    Reply this comment
  12. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 14 March, 2013, 10:56

    C’mon Katy, get real. Yes I disagreed with many of President Bush’s policies. But I always respected him as our President, especially in the days following 9/11. I would never say “Dubya and his ilk are a ‘public disease.'”

    I disagreed with President Reagan, but I respected him…especially his willingness to reach across party lines to try to solve our nation’s problems.

    There is a difference between disagreement and disrespect. Unpatriotic morons like “US citizen” and fish clearly cross the line.

    It shouldn’t be “difficult” for you to respect the current President. As former Senator Richard Lugar said: “You can disagree with President Obama without hating him.” Sadly, those words led to Lugar being thrown out of office by the Rabid Right.

    Reply this comment
  13. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 14 March, 2013, 17:08

    Excellent points Ted, as usual. The gun nuts love to whine that assault weapons are used in fewer homicides than hammers or common hand tools, but they never seem able to compare the completely logical extension of an assault weapons ban to working prohibitions on other dangerous items like those you list above.

    If we had as few assault weapons in circulation as there are licensed Title 3 NFA weapons, and they were as tightly regulated, their criminal use would be nearly unknown. That’s exactly why the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968 were passed in the first place, and the gun nut invocation of talking points that include “criminals don’t use machine guns, etc.” are only possible because of those restrictive laws.

    Scalia is getting fatter and redder in the face each time he shows up here in SoCal for his summer vacation. I hope he eats a lot of red meat and fat again this year and is quickly promoted to the Celestial Supreme Court for all of our sake. Then we might be able to do something about handguns.

    Reply this comment
  14. Bryan
    Bryan 14 March, 2013, 17:25

    Self defense is a human right that applies to EVERYONE, not just the lawmakers. If they want to disarm citizens they should also disarm the guards that protect them. That’s fair, right?

    Reply this comment
  15. Joaquin Hahs
    Joaquin Hahs 13 August, 2013, 15:51

    brady bill testimony – If you think gun control is the answer you fuzzy math is…. fuzzy.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Andy Griffith defends our freedoms

July 5, 2012 By John Seiler The fascist USA Patriot Act (really, TRAITORS’ Act) was imposed on us in 2001,

States' rights revival in CA?

MAY 14, 2010 By JOHN SEILER Political waters are boiling all across America, including California. One of the areas this

Stalking Law Hurts Small Claims Courts

MARCH 22, 2011 By STAN BRIN California’s Small Claims Courts are in trouble. Every year, fewer people take their cases