Wins and losses in latest CA gun control battles

Wins and losses in latest CA gun control battles

gun-declaration_s640x427Gun control laws in the state of California have entered into a period of flux.

Despite a reputation for exceptionally strict gun measures, the regulatory landscape has become a mixed bag. Advocates of tighter restrictions and advocates of looser ones have won some key battles and lost others — with the outcome of still other clashes undetermined.

A new Second Amendment struggle

Late last month, for instance, a judge ruled against California’s mandatory 10-day waiting period for gun sales, which extended to prior and licensed owners. U.S. District Judge Anthony W. Ishii, a Bill Clinton appointee, held in Silvester v. Harris that the waiting period, codified in sections 26815(a) and 27540(a) of the California Penal Code, unconstitutionally burdened the gun rights of those owners. “He noted that all firearms purchasers, including second- and third-time buyers, must pass a state background check of their criminal and mental-health records, but said it was unreasonable to make gun owners wait the full 10 days to acquire another weapon,” reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

This holding was narrow. The plaintiffs did not argue that California’s rigorous background check system was unconstitutional. Rather, they simply contended that the 10-day waiting period was “arbitrary and/or substantially overbroad,” as Eugene Volokh summarized the case.

Nevertheless, the ruling’s potential impact on California’s myriad other gun control regulations will very likely send Silvester v. Harris to higher courts on appeal. And against the backdrop of the other closely-fought gun measures at stake in California, its significance has been heightened.

A flurry of activity in Sacramento

Controversy has intensified, for instance, around AB1014, a bill designed to secure “gun restraining orders” against individuals deemed dangerous by a judge acting on a petition by a gun possessor’s family member or by law enforcement. The bill was authored in the wake of the Isla Vista shooting by Assembly members Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, and Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara. Support for the legislation was strong, with many in Sacramento favoring both the policy and the optics of a visible reaction to the shooting.

AB1014 passed easily. But critics have begun to pressure Gov. Jerry Brown, who has previously blocked some increased gun controls, for another veto. Assemblyman Tom Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, warned that the bill would confer sweeping power on “virtual strangers,” rather than just the family members of disturbed persons.

But in a bigger indication of the alarm surrounding the restraining order scheme, the Liberal Gun Owners Association recently voiced its opposition to Gov. Brown. In a letter to the governor, association president Eric Wooten insisted that AB1014 would discourage gun owners from seeking mental health care, while significantly burdening a justice system already struggling to handle domestic violence cases. “I firmly believe if you consider the larger ramifications of AB1014 you will veto this dangerous bill,” he wrote.

At the same time, however, 69 California mayors — including the mayors of Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco — wrote Brown expressing their strong support for the bill. “The standards for issuing a GVRO in AB1014 are appropriately rigorous to ensure that gun rights are not violated,” the mayors wrote, arguing that courts will carefully consider whether the person has a dangerous background. “The bill requires courts to consider whether the person has been violent or made threats of violence, whether they have violated other protective orders, and whether they have had criminal convictions. And the bill advises courts to consider past unlawful use of guns, prior arrests, and other evidence of an increased risk of violence.”

Kevin de Leon takes center stage

Another piece of gun control legislation on Gov. Brown’s desk promises even more sweeping restrictions. SB808, which would crack down on 3D-printed firearms, is authored by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, the Senate’s incoming President Pro Tem. reports that SB808 “would require a state Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms background check and authorization before assembling a firearm in the home of a state resident,” as well as requiring in-home gunmakers to prove the activity would not violate city or county ordinances. Additionally, the bill would require unlicensed in-home gunmakers to mark their firearms with serial numbers kept on file by the Department of Justice.

SB808 has accumulated special importance for de Leon, whose push for multiple gun control measures encountered stiff opposition this year. In a sign of just how fluid the regulatory situation has become in Sacramento, Brown rebuffed de Leon’s recent attempt to require permitting and background checks for any buyer of bullets, and the Assembly sank the legislation he crafted in the hopes of imposing new regulations on the sale of ammunition.


Write a comment
  1. californianative
    californianative 10 September, 2014, 10:31

    I really don’t have a problem with background checks to try and keep firearms out of the hands of mentally disturbed people or known criminals. If you are truly a hardened criminal and you try and buy a gun through legal means you really are stupid. If we make it criminal to own guns then only criminals will own them. As a native Californian who loves his home state I find this whole discussion interesting. I live in North Carolina now where you just figure every house you go to has a high likelihood of the owner having a firearm. And as the owner, on the farm I don’t even need a hunting license to shoot deer in season. After all, it’s my property. Imagine that, a place where property owners have rights to shoot without the government sticking their big fat nose in your business.

    Reply this comment
  2. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 10 September, 2014, 12:57

    Let them do as they please. There are over 300 million guns outstanding in the US civilian population. As many guns as there are people. The barn door was opened and the horses escaped years ago. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. I suspect that even law-abiding citizens would balk at an order to turn their guns over to the government. Most intelligent people understand that sooner or later the financial system will collapse under it’s own weight and chaos will ensue. Those without protection will be like declawed cats. Look, the nation is being sustained only by virtue of borrowed fiat currency. All it will take is one domino to fall (pick one: Japan, China, EU, etc…) and there will be a chain reaction that will make the hair on the back of your necks stand straight up. With 50 million Americans on food stamps and over half the population collecting some sort of welfare – do you have any inkling of what chaos we’ll sustain in our land of entitlement? lol. I clearly remember the 1992 South LA riots. Heck, I clearly remember the 1965 Watts riot. People called 911 and were either disconnected or got busy signals. lol. If all you liberals choose to remain gun-free and elect to put your trust in the cops when SHTF – more power to ya! But don’t ask us to protect you when it happens. We’ll be busy protecting ourselves. You’ll be on your own! lol. 😀

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

'No on 17' funding questioned

JUNE 4, 2010 By LAURA SUCHESKI Both proponents and opponents of controversial Proposition 17 are spending the eleventh hour before

Will new sexual harassment rules turn corner on abuse scandal?

SACRAMENTO – Will a newly announced set of Senate rules for handling sexual harassment claims help change a Capitol culture

Utah coal controversy hits CA Bay Area

Hard up for a sizable market, Utah’s coal producers have inked a big new deal to use Oakland’s deep-water port