Spurred by recent mass shootings, the legislation, introduced by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, and co-authored by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, would allow residents to “voluntarily add their name to the California Do Not Sell List for firearms.”

“A lot of the political opposition to efforts California has taken to address gun violence is around government telling people what they can and cannot do,” Bonta told the SacBee. “This is different. This is an individual saying, ‘I want to do this. I’m choosing to do this.’ We think it will save lives.”

Of the roughly 38,000 gun deaths in the U.S. in 2016, about two-thirds were suicides. In California alone, there were nearly 1,600 suicides with guns in 2016.

While a controversial topic, the issue of guns and suicide are inextricably linked. Research suggests that suicide attempts are an impulsive act, and firearms offer a disproportionately lethal means.

The bill is not without its opponents, such as the National Rifle Association, with some expressing concern that the law could be abused.

To join the list, a person would provide the names and contact information for five people. These contacts would be informed if the person attempted to buy a firearm. Additionally, while those on the list may not be able to legally purchase a firearm, they would not be liable for “any criminal or civil penalty for purchasing, receiving or possessing a firearm.” Those who knowingly sell firearms to Californians on the list, however, would be subject to penalties.

The law would require the state to regularly add people on the list to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

People on the list would need to wait a year before removing themselves; however, to remove themselves earlier, they could provide testimony from a medical professional that they are not a risk to themselves or others. The state would “expunge records related to the person’s inclusion in, and removal, from, the Do Not Sell List.”

Unwilling to be locked out of the gun cabinet by Sacramento Democrats, California residents have pushed gun purchases up to record numbers, leaving latecomers to the trend in the lurch. But as the state Legislature added fresh restrictions, developments in the courts painted a murkier picture that could impact interpretations of federal law around the United States. 

Over the course of the year, lawmakers spearheaded a suite of measures designed to further tighten the screws on the California gun market, which has long been subject to progressive constraints. “The new gun control legislation, six bills signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in July, was a boon to 2016 gun sales already on an upward trend,” as the Press Democrat noted. Voters followed on the action by toughening things further at the ballot box: 

“Nearly one million firearms were purchased in California as of Dec. 9, the most recent state data available, compared to just over 700,000 guns sold in all of 2015. Sales have likely soared beyond one million guns since then. Semiautomatic rifle sales have more than doubled. The California Department of Justice reported 364,643 semiautomatic rifles had been sold by Dec. 9. Only 153,931 rifles were sold last year.”

More “assault weapons”

Shoppers have raced to acquire firearms that won’t be available for legal purchase after the raft of new legislation takes effect. “Rifles with bullet buttons for the quick swap of ammunition magazines and other soon-to-be banned features have also skyrocketed,” the San Jose Mercury News reported. “Statewide sales are up 40 percent by early December. The new gun controls reclassified semi-automatic rifles that have certain features as assault weapons. The features added to the prohibited list include a protruding or forward pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a flash suppressor.”

Although rifles with bullet buttons will be banned from sale as a result of their reclassification as so-called assault weapons, it will remain legal to own and possess them. 

A separate front

As has been the case with issues such as immigration and minimum wages, California municipalities have in some instances gotten out ahead of the state on gun control. In San Francisco, a federal appeals court recently agreed that an 11-judge panel would “review a challenge to an Alameda County ordinance that restricts the locations of gun stores in March,” according to CBS San Francisco. “The challenge was filed in 2012 by three businessmen who wanted to open a gun and firearms training store in an unincorporated part of San Leandro that was found by county zoning administrators to be within 500 feet of a residential area.”  

More than just Alameda County law could be at stake, officials quickly argued. “Lawyers for Alameda County said 17 other cities and counties in California regulate the locations of commercial gun dealers, including San Francisco — which has a 1,000-foot buffer zone — as well as Oakland and Contra Costa County,” the San Francisco Chronicle observed. “State Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office said a ruling allowing a constitutional challenge to the local restrictions could also imperil state laws regulating commercial gun dealers’ licensing, inspection, monitoring, storage methods and delivery of firearms.” The Alameda regulation was made law in 1998, but the crux of the controversy will implicate a key part of the most recent landmark gun ruling to come down from the nation’s highest court. As the Chronicle noted, the Alameda case “is one of many pending in federal courts over the meaning of the 2008 Supreme Court decision that declared a constitutional right to possess firearms at home for self-defense.”

Here’s a sampling of some of the significant new laws from last session:

Register your ammo purchases: Californian gun owners will need to deal with a variety of new gun-control limitations after the governor signed a broad package of bills – and voters approved Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s gun-control initiative on Nov. 8. The most potentially far reaching effects will come from the state’s approval of Proposition 63, which has various restrictions and a roll-out of implementation dates over a few years.

Beginning July 1, 2017, the state will implement a ban on high-capacity magazines and will require owners to report any lost or stolen weapons. The much-publicized requirement that ammo buyers pass background checks won’t go into effect until Jan. 1, 2018.

Higher minimum wages and more unpaid leave: “The statewide minimum wage goes from $10 to $10.50 an hour for businesses with 26 or more employees — a rate that will rise to $15 by 2022,” as the Mercury-News explained. That wage hike comes from Senate Bill 3. “Assembly Bill 2393 gives up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave to all K-12 and community college employees, including classified workers and community college faculty,” the newspaper reported.

Restrictions on police use of asset forfeiture: Senate Bill 443 was one of the last bills from last session that the governor signed, but it is widely viewed as one of the most significant changes in state law. Before the new law went into effect, police agencies had the ability to take the cash, cars and even homes from people even if they weren’t convicted of any crime. The authorities needed simply to claim the property was used in the commission of a drug crime. California had fairly tough restrictions in place, but local and state police agencies would partner with federal authorities under the “equitable sharing” program and then they would operate under looser federal law.

As the Drug Policy Alliance explains, “Starting on January 1, 2017, California law will require a conviction prior to forfeiture in any state case where the items seized are cash under $40,000 or other property such as homes and vehicles regardless of value.” If local or state agencies work with the feds, they could only share in the proceeds if an underlying conviction were obtained. The final compromise still allows law enforcement to keep proceeds of more than $40,000 in cash only – a provision which caused major law enforcement groups to drop their opposition.

Higher fees from the DMV … and more: Two new laws boost the fees for DMV registrations by $10 and for an environmental license plate by the same amount. Another DMV-related law requires drivers to restrain children 2 years or under in a rear-facing car seat unless they weigh 40 pounds or more. Drivers will need to pay attention to a new law dealing with hand-held devices. “Driving a motor vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or a wireless electronic communications device will be prohibited, unless the device is mounted on a vehicle’s windshield or is mounted/affixed to a vehicle’s dashboard or center console in a manner that does not hinder the driver’s view of the road,” according to the agency.

Gaining the ‘right to try’: California became the 32nd state to pass so-called “right to try” legislation, which allows terminally ill people to try experimental drugs that have yet to pass the federal Food and Drug Administration’s full battery of tests. Supporters argued that many people die while waiting for drugs to clear that long and cumbersome process. After Senate amendments, Assembly Bill 1668 includes the caveat that “a health benefit plan, except to the extent the plan provided coverage, is not liable for any outstanding debt related to the treatment or lack of insurance for the treatment.”

Beer and wine at barbershops: Assembly Bill 1322 passed overwhelmingly in both houses of the Legislature. This bill allows beauty salons and barber shops to serve their clients limited quantities of beer or wine at no extra charge without obtaining a license or permit from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control,” according to the Assembly analysis. The new law still allows local governments to impose restrictions on this practice.

Rescuing Fido from a hot car: Assembly Bill 797 reduces liability for citizens who break a car window to save an animal that is closed in a hot car – provided they first try calling the authorities and the authorities haven’t responded quickly enough.

Legalizing lane-splitting: Anyone who drives on California’s vast network of freeways has noticed motorcyclists’ habit of “lane-splitting,” as they drive between the cars that occupy the lanes. The law had required motorcyclists to ride “as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane,” even though the practice has been widely accepted. Motorcyclists have long argued that this is safer than remaining in one lane and risk being hit from behind. Assembly Bill 51 “would authorize the Department of the California Highway Patrol to develop educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would ensure the safety of the motorcyclist, drivers, and passengers, as specified,” according to the state Legislative Counsel.

Ignore those juvenile convictions: Assembly Bill 1843 “Prohibits employers from asking an applicant for employment to disclose information concerning or related to an arrest, detention, processing, diversion, supervision, adjudication, or court disposition that occurred while the person was subject to the process and jurisdiction of juvenile court law, or seek or utilize any such information as a factor in determining any condition of employment,” according to the Assembly analysis. This was a contentious issue that passed on largely partisan lines (Democrats supported; Republicans opposed) given business-community concerns about their ability to screen job applicants.

You must be 21 to smoke or vape: Earlier in the year, the governor signed a package of smoking bills that, most significantly, raises the smoking age to 21. It also raised the age for vaping to 21. That last provision was particularly controversial because some argue e-cigarettes are a safer way for smokers to break their dangerous habit. Those laws went into effect in June.

Offering showers for the homeless: Assembly Bill 1995 would require community colleges that have shower facilities to allow enrolled homeless students to use those showers.

More bathroom choices for the transgendered: California passed a law, Assembly Bill 1772, that requires all businesses and public agencies with single-toilet bathrooms to make them available to people of all genders – a bill viewed more as a symbolic measure offered in the thick of the national debate over bathrooms for transgendered people.

The new Legislature will be back in full swing after the new year.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Sales tax on tampons is here for another year

Good morning. Happy Hump Day — happy, unless you were hoping to be able to purchase slightly cheaper tampons and diapers in the near future, in which case it’s not a happy day. 

In fact, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a package of bills on Tuesday that would have eliminated sales tax on tampons and diapers, among other things.

In total, Brown killed seven niche tax cuts totaling around $300 million in revenue, arguing the tax cuts should be done as part of the annual budget discussions, not individually without taking into account the broader implications.  

“As I said last year, tax breaks are the same as new spending — they both cost the general fund money,” Brown wrote in his veto message. “As such, they must be considered during budget deliberations so that all spending proposals are weighed against each other at the same time.”

“This is even more important when the state’s budget remains precariously balanced,” Brown added. Brown has repeatedly cautioned against new spending programs, believing that an economic downturn is near, which many say the state is not well-prepared for.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• “Nearly two-thirds of California voters support a gun-control initiative on the November ballot, about the same percentage of people who say they don’t have a firearm in their home, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll conducted by SurveyMonkey,” reports the Los Angeles Times.
• “State officials received the green light Tuesday for a $2-billion bond project designed to provide new housing for homeless Californians suffering from mental illness,” reports the Los Angeles Times.
• “In the latest twist in a contentious House race, the ex-wife of a Democratic congressional candidate has come forward to endorse the man whom she once accused of stalking, harassment and posing ‘grave danger’ to her and her family.” Politico has more. 
• The proponents’ claims that passing Prop. 55 “prevents $4 billion in new cuts to our schools,” was rated mostly false by Politifact California/Capital Public Radio.

Legislature:

• Gone ’til December.

Gov. Brown:

• Signing a spending plan for $900 million in cap-and-trade revenue at 11:30 a.m. in Fresno. The Sacramento Bee has more.  

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @madds_smithy

Gun rights groups have turned up the heat on Sacramento’s newest firearms restrictions, mounting an effort to repeal seven fresh laws through the ballot this election year. 

“The group ‘Veto Gunmageddon’ needs to collect 360,000 signatures for each measure by the end of the month to get them before voters in November, KCBS San Francisco reported. An uphill battle awaits. “Lawmakers passed a dozen gun control bills in June, seven of which Brown signed into law, including legislation requiring background checks for ammunition purchases and a ban on possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds,” as the San Jose Mercury News observed. Those provisions, the paper added, were identical to proposals Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom touted independently in his early-bird bid to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018.

Political powder keg

Although Democratic lawmakers irked by the redundancy have won out, analysts have speculated that Newsom could wind up benefiting most from politicking the Gunmageddon ordeal. “He will be able to say gun restrictions are under attack and that it’s more important than ever to pass my ballot measure,” Loyola Law School’s Jessica Levinson told the Mercury News.

What’s more, Newsom and his allies have already stockpiled a huge amount of cash relative to opponents of the Proposition 63 ballot measure. Prop. 63 “would ban possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines, require background checks for Californians buying bullets, create a process for getting felons to relinquish firearms and mandate reporting of lost or stolen guns,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “Newsom’s Safety for All Committee reported it has raised $3.8 million so far, compared with $467,000 raised by two committees opposing” Prop. 63.

Supreme struggles

The scramble to settle the fate of the state’s gun laws in the court of popular opinion has played out against the backdrop of a very different kind of legal battle — one where the public’s voice could count for nearly nothing. Gun activists succeeded in pursuing a controversial case to the door of the U.S. Supreme Court. Although judges recently shot down their suit against the state of California, which requires a license for concealed carry outside one’s home, the groups vowed to seek a final decision from the nation’s highest court. “The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the law in June, ruling 7-4 that there is no constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public,” the San Francisco Chronicle recalled. “Opponents sought a rehearing before the entire appeals court, but the court said […] that the request had failed to win a majority among its 28 active judges. No vote total was announced.”

“The century-old state law requires handgun owners to obtain a permit from a local law enforcement agency before they can legally pack their weapons in public. The permits are virtually unavailable to anyone except police and security guards in most metropolitan areas, but are issued in most rural and inland areas to any adult who asserts a need for self-defense and does not have a disqualifying criminal record.”

A rush to bear arms

Californians have been loading up on firearms this year. At their current pace, Golden Staters will cross the million gun threshold by January. “The soaring gun sale totals — which show 554,203 firearms sales through late July — come in the wake of mass shootings in Orlando and Dallas, followed by calls for gun control legislation,” Southern California Public Radio noted, citing new data obtained from the Dealer Record of Sales, a gun tracking system run by the state’s Department of Justice. “The system shows gun sales on track to surpass 2015 nearly everywhere in the state,” the station added, although “the percentage of households in the U.S. with guns in them has been falling for decades.”

The Legislature passed 11 bills in all, six of which were signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown and the rest vetoed. But one is fraught with peril as it circumvents the Elections Code by amending a November ballot initiative regulating ammo sales. 

The difference between how the bill, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, and the ballot measure, sponsored by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, regulate ammo sales is not substantial. But Democrats have had a hard time providing legal justification for going around Section 9034 (c) in the Elections Code, which says the Legislature does not have the authority to “alter the initiative measure… .”

Republicans tried

Assembly Republicans tried raising the issue just before final passage, but were brushed aside.

“Don’t we have a statutory or Constitutional problem in amending something that hasn’t even become law yet and is proposed to go to the voters for a vote,” asked Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Plumas Lake.

Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, who was presiding at the time, said the Legislature had the authority under “the initiative process and statute.” The San Mateo Democrat, however, was unable to identify a particular law or statue, offering instead that legislative counsel said it was OK.

Assemblyman Don Wagner tried next.

“I think you’re wrong,” the Irvine Republican told Mullin, citing the Elections Code. Wagner appealed the ruling, saying the Legislature was “trampling the will of the people,” who signed a ballot measure without de León’s amendment, adding that the Legislature was “acting illegally and in violation of the Elections Code.” Assembly Democrats pushed forward and Wagner was overruled.

Attempts to get justification 

According to documents provided by de León’s office, legislative counsel did not review the legality of the measure. Instead, legislative counsel issued an opinion on how the amendment would affect the ballot measure.

No legal justification for the law has been provided to CalWatchdog, although de León’s office pointed to an instance from 1990 when the Legislature amended Prop. 129. The measure failed by a wide margin, however, and CalWatchdog has been unable to find a legal ruling setting precedent.

Language in the measure

Next, de León’s office pointed to a provision in Newsom’s ballot language stating: “The provisions of this measure may be amended by a vote of 55 percent of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor so long as such amendments are consistent with and further the intent of this Act.” But it’s unclear if the legislative intent of that passage is referring to before or after the measure becomes law, although that’s likely irrelevant. Until the ballot measure is approved by the voters (if it is approved by voters) it has no force of law.

And if the legislative intent was to allow the legislature to amend the measure’s language prior to a vote of the people, it’s unlikely that Newsom or any other ballot initiative proponent has the power to temporarily rewrite the Elections Code.

Proponents have a period to amend pending initiatives, but that period ended a while ago.

Lack of accountability

The attorney’s general office has not responded to requests for comment. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill into law last week, but his office deferred to de León.

A spokesperson for the ballot initiative said proponents were focused on getting the measure passed and did not say if they would challenge the law.

Newsom/de León fued

In recent weeks, the Newsom/de Leon feud has spilled out into public, with a Newsom spokesman calling the move “sickeningly cynical.”

“Is (de León) someone who truly respects the will of the voters and wants to reduce gun violence or is he merely a self-serving cynic completely consumed with petty personal grudges,” spokesman Dan Newman told The Sacramento Bee. 

De León has had it out for Newsom for a while over the gun issue. When Newsom announced plans to introduce the measure last year, de León — who’d made background checks for ammo purchases a pet priority — slashed the size of Newsom’s staff.

Good morning! 

If there was ever an opportunity for a third-party run, now would be it.

Unfavorable opinions among voters of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — the presumptive presidential candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively — create a do-or-die moment for Libertarians and the Green Party.

But the question is how high can they climb?

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• Since 2010, almost 1,000 police-issued firearms have been stolen, lost or who knows, according to The San Jose Mercury News. 
• “Democratic legislative leaders are suggesting the ‘Rainy Day Fund’ could help alleviate what Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration projects will be a $4 billion budget deficit in 2019 – even if there is no recession,” writes Capital Public Radio.
• Will Tom Steyer’s mega spending on behalf of Democratic priorities help him in a gubernatorial
  

  Tom Steyer

  run? The Los Angeles Times has more. (One of Steyer’s big issues is getting money out of politics — he spent $74 million in the 2014 cycle to spread his message.)
• And speaking of gubernatorial runs: Gavin Newsom, the lieutenant governor and candidate for governor in 2016, is fighting with Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León over who will get credit for stricter gun control laws as both have introduced competing plans. The Sacramento Bee has more.     

Assembly: 

• In at 1 p.m. Several hearings. 

Senate:

• In at noon. Full slate of hearings.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @LarrySabato @HannahNurrieum

A wave of violence, legislation and litigation fueled the latest acrimonious phase of the debate about guns in California. While the issue had risen near the top of the political agenda following shootings that intensified the immigration debate, an apparently close call with mass bloodshed at the Los Angeles gay pride parade has sharpened the dispute around firearms even further. 

“The early morning arrest in Santa Monica of James Wesley Howell, 20, of Jeffersonville, came just a few hours after at least 50 people were shot and killed in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, though police said they had found no evidence of a connection between the events,” the Associated Press reported. “The L.A. Pride event continued as usual, albeit with increased security. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced the arrest at the start of the parade and struck a defiant tone.”

Rules and rulings

In Sacramento, that tone collided with heated opposition to a new slate of measures designed to pick away at Californians’ market access to guns and ammunition. In a harsh session, “divided California state lawmakers advanced a dozen gun-control bills, including proposals to outlaw the sale of semiautomatic rifles with easily detachable magazines,” the Los Angeles Times noted. First introduced in the wake of the December terror attack in San Bernardino, the mass shooting of scores of people in Orlando “was invoked over and over Tuesday by Democrats as state legislative committees heard testimony before voting to send bills to the floor for votes,” the paper added. 

The atmosphere surrounding that legislation was charged even more highly by a Federal Appeals Court ruling this month keeping sharp restrictions in place around so-called concealed carry in California. “The 7-4 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reverses a 2014 ruling from its three-judge panel, which had struck down restrictions imposed by two California counties based on state law,” USA Today reported.

“California’s law, like those in eight other states and the District of Columbia, generally requires citizens to show ‘good cause’ before being granted a concealed-carry license. In other states, licenses are issued to most citizens without felony convictions who are not considered dangerous or mentally unstable.”

Congressional Democrats have faced a much higher hurdle to passing gun regulations than their fellow party members in Sacramento. “House Democrats with limited ability to influence the congressional agenda tried for the dozenth time Tuesday to force a gun-control vote,” as the Times reported separately. “Lawmakers used a procedural move in an attempt to get their colleagues to vote to prevent people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list from being able to purchase a gun. Given Republican control of Congress and a years-long logjam on anything related to guns, the push was symbolic.”

“But it was the second emotional and tense moment for Democrats who have repeatedly pushed for the provision and other changes to gun laws in the months since Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, and other California members first stalled House floor action in the days after the San Bernardino shooting in an effort to raise the same issue.”

From morality to money

The root of the controversy over gun control has increasingly shifted onto not just moral but more deeply philosophical grounds, with proponents of tighter strictures thinking of firearms more abstractly, akin to contagious diseases, hazardous building conditions, and other generalized risks. “Gun violence is one of the top public health problems in the nation,” Boston University epidemiologist Michael Siegel argued to Wired. “If you’re in an urban area and African American, it’s probably the number one public health problem you’re going to face.”

Siegel and other such analysts cheered Sacramento’s recent passage of a $5 million allocation toward a new California Firearm Violence Research Center. The funding, according to Wired, will “train a new crop of researchers, and get one of the best gun violence data sets out there.” UC Davis violence-prevention researcher Garen Wintemute linked up with sate Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, to parse California’s copious amount of data around violence and guns, examining “the ways it has changed over time as policies shifted.”

• Transparency duel
• Budget by midnight
• Welfare rule to be repealed
• Gun control advances
• Crisis looming for energy grid expansion?

Lawmakers will consider two transparency bills today in an effort to head off a ballot measure that would go to greater lengths.

The Constitutional Legislative Transparency Act, backed by Republican donor Charles T. Munger, Jr., is a constitutional amendment requiring the Legislature make available online the final version of a bill at least 72 hours prior to a vote on either the Assembly or Senate floor. The Legislature-introduced versions, however, would make this apply to only votes in the second house.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news: 

• Midnight is the deadline for the legislature to pass a budget, which should avoid any major drawn-out battles, writes The Sacramento Bee. Highlights of the budget deal include: “a hefty deposit into the state’s rainy day fund, $1.3 billion for new state office work (potentially including Capitol renovations) and the repeal of a rule denying welfare payments for new kids that lawmakers have attacked for years as cruel and counterproductive.”
• And about that welfare rule, “Gov. Jerry Brown has agreed to repeal the so-called maximum family grant policy that prohibits people from receiving increased welfare income if they have more children while receiving public assistance,” writes The San Jose Mercury News/AP. “The change would cost the state about $220 million a year.”
• The legislature advanced a dozen gun-control measures on Tuesday, reports the Los Angeles Times.
• Gov. Brown’s plans to expand California’s energy grid is being panned by critics who say “it isn’t so much about spreading the clean energy gospel but returning the state to the era of manipulated energy markets that led to the 2000-2001 energy crisis,” reports the Los Angeles Times.   

Assembly:

• In at 3 p.m. Several hearings.

Senate: 

• In at 3 p.m. Full slate of hearings, including Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @StopCEQAAbuse @xoneli

Lawmakers look to increase gun restrictions, but will that work?

Good morning and happy Tuesday!

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Orlando, California lawmakers are renewing a push for expanded gun control, with a wide range of measures to be considered today.

According to the Los Angeles Times, some of the bills “would close loopholes that allow the sale of semiautomatic rifles with detachable ammunition magazines,” while others would “outlaw the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 bullets and require background checks for people who buy ammunition.”

But California already has tough gun laws, at least compared to Florida, including a ban on most guns like the one used on Orlando. Could expanded restrictions deter similar tragedies in California, asks The San Jose Mercury News. 

“Firearms policy experts say the limits on guns and ammunition may have reduced the number of casualties in Orlando,” writes The Mercury News. “But California’s background checks would not have stopped (the Orlando shooter) from purchasing firearms capable of doing plenty of damage.”

In other news: 

• A $10-per-year increase to the vehicle registration fee was part of a budget deal negotiated by lawmakers in the last few days, reports Capital Public Radio. 
• Increasing legal, financial and political troubles threaten to derail the state’s cap and trade program, possibly taking Democrats’ climate agenda down in the process writes the Los Angeles Times.
• California lawmakers look to broaden the definition of rape, reports The Sacramento Bee. 
• Are gut and amend tactics OK for ballot measures, asks CalWatchdog. 

Assembly:

• Full slate of hearings. 

Senate:

• Full slate of hearings.  

Gov. Brown:

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @SenBillEmmerson @dotDomain