Senate Bill 199 was introduced by state Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, now the Senate president pro tem. It was passed last year and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown. It targeted BB and pellet guns, mandating bright colors meant to distinguish them from “real” guns. First implemented in January, the so-called Imitation Firearms Safety Act has been working its way slowly across the state.

But it has aroused particular disbelief among police on the one hand and hobbyists on the other.

According to a statement from de Leon’s office, the well meaning legislation sought to:

“Help law enforcement distinguish toy guns from the real thing when they are confronted with youngsters brandishing play firearms. Currently toy guns such as airsoft and BB guns are not included in California’s legal definition of imitation weapons. SB199 requires these look-a-likes to have their entire exterior surface painted a bright color, or to feature florescent strips in salient parts of the gun to make them easily distinguishable.”

Support for SB199 gathered in response to the kind of police altercation that makes headlines — armed but mistaken confrontations with minors. Recently, two LAPD officers fired on a South L.A. teenager holding a replica thought to be a handgun. Although the teen was not wounded, a nearby 15-year-old was.

While pellet gun hobbyists have balked at the legislation — popular Airsoft guns base their appeal on their realistic look and feel — gun manufacturers and police unions have registered even stronger opposition. As the Los Angeles Times reported, they have long claimed “the law will do little to prevent mistaken shootings and could actually make things more confusing for officers who must make split-second decisions whether to fire or not.”

In the summer of 2013, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, an LAPD union, warned the city of Los Angeles against similar regulations under municipal consideration. League President Tyler Izen pulled no punches:

“This is a horrible idea that may cause officers to hesitate when confronted with a colored rifle when we already know that fully operable handguns and rifles have been painted bright colors.”

In a dramatic demonstration of Izen’s objections, a quick search for pink firearms at the website GunsAmerica.com yielded over 250 results, including both handguns and rifles that incorporate the kind of vibrant, telltale coloration required by SB199.

Microstamping guns

The second bill is AB1471. It was signed into law in 2007 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. It sought to reduce crime through “microstamping,” a process that would theoretically enable law enforcement to trace every cartridge left at the scene of a crime back to the gun from which it came.

AB1471 did not take effect until 2013. It since has became the subject of intense litigation in the courts. And now, a key decision from a district court judge has pushed the case further up the judicial food chain. Recently handed an adverse ruling in the form of a summary judgment against them, the anti-microstamping plaintiffs have appealed the judge’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Expectations have hardened that the case could continue to rise, on appeal, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The terms of AB1471 required firearms manufacturers “to engrave the serial number in the gun’s chamber so that it becomes stamped on each bullet as it is fired,” as the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Although law enforcement groups did support the law, Attorney General Kamala Harris did not authorize its implementation until she was convinced two years ago the necessary technology was available.

Gun manufacturers, however, vehemently disagreed the necessary process was feasible. As a result, Fox News reported, new models of firearms have begun to disappear from California stores:

“Since the law took effect in 2013, no manufacturer has made a new firearm that complies with the requirement. Two major manufacturers, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co., announced last year they would stop selling new firearms in the California market, and blamed the microstamping law. The technology has been demonstrated, but gunmakers say requirements that each new model, or even modification, must be re-tested for compliance makes the entire scheme unworkable.”

The controversy led to accusations that microstamping would effectively phase out ownership of new guns in California.

With the drought still drying up the state, the California Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown Wednesday poured out a $7.5 billion water bond that includes $2.7 billion for water storage. If voters give their approval this November, this will be the first bond in 50 years to include water storage.

The storage is significant because, from 1971 to 2014, California voters passed 21 water bonds totaling $35.9 billion without any water storage. Paraphrasing poet Samuel T. Coleridge, California had “bonds, bonds, water bonds, but not a drop of water to drink.”

The new bond passed in the Assembly by a vote of 77 to 2 and in the state Senate by 37 to 0.  Legislators in the Assembly broke into applause after the vote.

Said Republican Leader Bob Huff of Brea, “It was real critical to get a bond that actually helped fund two reservoirs.  We’ve had a lot of bonds in the last 15 years that haven’t had any storage, so we finally have a water bond that has water in it.”

Added Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego:

“In this bond we make the biggest investment in water storage in decades. We make a major investment in ensuring clean, sustainable groundwater, and we make a major investment in our rivers, streams, and watersheds that will help with our water needs, and provide important environmental benefits as well.  With this bond we harness innovative technology, we anticipate the challenges that future droughts may pose, and we create jobs.”

First look

The new water bond is Assembly Bill 1471. Here’s a first look at its contents:

• The $7.12 billion bond will replace the $11.1 billion Proposition 43 bond approved for the ballot in 2010 but, but delayed by the Legislature that year and in 2012 because there was little chance voters would approve it during tough economic times.
• $425 million in existing water bond funding will be folded into the new bond. That will run the total of the bond, if it’s approved, to $7.5 billion.
• $2.7 billion will be allocated for “surface water and groundwater” storage projects.
• It creates a nine-member California Water Council to be appointed by the governor to oversee the selection of sites for new dams and reservoirs.
• Annual principal and interest payments on the bond “would equate to about $490 million” from the general fund. That could become a major factor during the next recession as the new bond payments would have to come from cuts in other programs, or tax increases.
• The new bond does not contain the $250 million in funding in Section 79757 of the 2010 Water bond to remove five dams along the Klamath River that flows from Oregon into California.

Restore the Delta opposed water for the Delta

Opposition includes Restore the Delta, which objected to the bond because it was not “tunnel neutral.” The group opposes Brown’s plan to build two tunnels under the Delta to keep separate ocean water from inland (unsalty) water.

Restore the Delta also didn’t like that the bond would provide $200 million for the Wildlife Conservation Board to buy water from willing sellers for the benefit of migratory birds and wildlife refuges.  But Restore the Delta believes the same water to be bought for wildlife eventually could be pumped through the proposed Twin Tunnels.

Said Restore the Delta Executive Director Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, “It contains false protections for the Delta, and we call upon legislators, especially those representing the Delta, to vote against it. We are not fooled, and this bond will become a referendum for the tunnels. That is not going to advance the water solutions we need.”

All that remains to be seen is if the voters can gulp down a $7.5 billion water bond with water storage in it for the first time in almost 50 years.