AB 711, by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, would make California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.  According to Sam Paredes with Gun Owners of California, extensive research has shown that traditional lead ammunition does not pose a health hazard for hunters. And a recent study found that, despite 99 percent hunter compliance, a ban on using lead ammunition in certain areas of the state under AB 821 of 2008 failed to reduce lead poisoning in condors.

AB 180, by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, would repeal state firearms preemption in Oakland by allowing the city to enact ordinances more restrictive than state laws on the registering and licensing of firearms. AB 180 would allow the city of Oakland to create anti-gun policies much more strict than the rest of the state. Criminals still could get guns in other California cities, or in Nevada.

AB 231, by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would expand the law pertaining to the storage of firearms.  This bill would make it a crime if a child gets access to an unlocked firearm. According to Gun Owners of California, AB 231 is a misguided proposal that imposes unprecedented liability on legal gun owners.

Senate anti-gun bills

SB 475, by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would allow San Francisco officials to ban gun shows in the Cow Palace at the Fairgrounds, one of the last remaining legal gun venues in the city.

SB 374, by Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, would ban the sale of all semiautomatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine, even with bullet buttons attached. And it redefines these firearms as “assault weapons.”  This legislation would ban most common hunting rifles, including the Marlin Camp Carbines (.45acp and 9mm), Remington M81 “Woodmaster,”  Winchester M1905, BAR MK II, BAR Short Trac, Ruger Mini 14, Ruger Ranch Rifle, M1 Carbine.  SB 374 would also require registration of currently owned detachable magazine rifles.

SB 396, by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, is one of the most repressive gun control bills. The bill would retroactively confiscate guns lawfully purchased and owned. SB 396 would ban the possession of all standard capacity magazines over 10 rounds, which generally means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

However, a 2001 study from the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found “no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations” as a result of the federal ban on standard capacity magazines.

SB 567, by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, would redefine the meaning of a shotgun. SB 567  would remove from the Penal Code the requirement that a shotgun be fired from the shoulder, change the definition to include rifled bores, and make any weapon for which shotshell-type ammunition exists a “shotgun.”

SB 567 would also ban the sale of shotguns that have a revolving cylinder and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns.

SB 683, by Sen. Marty Block, D-Los Angeles, expands California’s handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and would prohibit anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate.

SB 755, by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would expand the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee recently sent four anti-gun bills to the suspense file, but those can be heard at any time.

Bullets make guns deadly

One of the bills on the suspense file is Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner’s AB 48, which would ban the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than 10 cartridges, and require mandatory reporting of law-abiding citizens who purchase more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition within a five-day period.

AB 48 requires the reporting of ammunition sales, requires the licensing of ammunition dealers, and establishes other controls on ammunition sales similar to current controls on firearms sales.

And AB 48 makes it illegal for gun owners to purchase parts that allow them to convert their guns into assault-style weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds of bullets without reloading.

Skinner, D-Berkeley, says it’s easier to buy bullets than to buy alcohol, cigarettes or certain cold medicines. “Sales of some cold medicines are reported to the Department of Justice but not ammunition sales,” Skinner said at a hearing in April. “We expect to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, but there is no such requirement for bullets.”

But Skinner is putting the target on lawful gun owners, who purchase ammunition and gun kits legally from gun stores. Criminals don’t shop for legal gun merchandise at gun stores.

Mounting evidence

If history is right, more gun control laws always means more crime and government control. American cities with the strictest gun ownership laws, such as Chicago, also have the highest crime and murder rates.

Interestingly, according to safety expert Steve Curtis, “criminals are generally in favor of more stringent gun controls because it makes their criminal activities safer.”

“Rather than following the progressive model of gun control, where law-abiding citizens are disarmed and only criminals possess firearms that worked so well in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Australia and Britain, Americans should be looking at the immense success of “universal” gun ownership in places like Switzerland or Kennesaw, GA,” Curtis said. In Kennesaw, all citizens are required to own at least one firearm and keep ammunition, resulting in the lowest crime rate of any city its size in America. ”

Crime statistics show the downward trend is positive, as word of the “armed city” spreads.

By prohibiting the use of all lead ammunition for hunting in California, coupled with the federal government’s attempt to ban non-lead ammo, hunters could be left out in the woods with an empty weapon.

According to Sam Paredes with Gun Owners of California, if the state and federal bans are actually passed, the only alternative ammunition available would be pure gold bullets. That might be advantageous for the assassin Francisco Scaremonger, in the “Man with the Golden Gun,” but it’s bad for Californians.

Hunting is being attacked as part of a campaign to ban the use of traditional ammunition, which is comprised of lead core components.

Anti-gun activists become anti-ammo activists

In addition to the many anti-gun bills proposed by California Democrats, they’ve discovered the way around these unpopular bills is by banning lead ammunition. Assembly Bill 711,  by freshman Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Southgate, would effectively ban hunting under the guise of “protecting the environment.”

AB 711 is just one of many bills in the Legislature this year which seek to weaken the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Why can’t hunters just use non-lead ammo?  The problem is that the federal government is on the brink of banning non-lead ammo, according to Assemblyman Brian Jones. In California this would mean there would be no ammunition available for hunting.

The bill has been held in suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee, ostensibly because of the negative financial impact it would have on the Fish and Game Commission.

According to the Department of Fish and Wildlife:

* “The annual spending by America’s 14 million hunters amounts to $61 billion. 

* “Hunting supported 704,600 million jobs, or nearly 1 percent of America’s entire civilian labor force, in all sectors of the American economy.

* “Hunting created household income (salaries and wages) totaling $416.1 billion, which is roughly equivalent to 25 percent of America’s entire military payroll.

* “Hunting added $1.4 billion to state tax revenues, or nearly 1 percent of all annual state tax revenues combined.

* “Hunting contributed $1.7 billion in federal income taxes, which equates to almost half of the entire federal budget for commerce.”

Many expect the committee will pass AB 711, under pressure from the anti-gun lobby, environmentalists, the Audubon Society and the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. If so, the economic impact to California would be significant.

The department, formerly named the Department of Fish and Game when it was more friendly to hunters, has tried for several years to ban lead ammunition in California, claiming the California Condor has been dying off because of lead bullets. Unable to mandate the ban, the agency turned to the Legislature. But charges of phony science plague the attempted ban.

Faulty science

“Without such a ban, extinction of the California condor is inevitable, according to a 2012 study by the National Academy of Sciences,” Yale Environment 360 claims.

“Many of the scientific papers used by anti-lead ammunition proponents to support lead ammunition bans have consistently been critiqued for questionable scientific practices,” according to Huntfortruth.org. “These researchers have used flawed scientific methodology and have selectively cherry picked data to support their preconceived conclusions, while routinely ignoring alternative sources of lead in the environment.”

According to Sam Paredes of Gun Owners of California, this isn’t the first attempt to falsely claim California Condors are being poisoned by hunters. Paredes said in 2007 the proponents of one of the nation’s first lead ammunition bans, AB 821, claimed that California condors were being poisoned by consuming hunters’ lead ammunition. They promised that, if hunters stopped using lead ammunition in the condor range, the lead poisoning would cease.

But Paredes said blood-lead levels in California condors have not declined because condors are exposed to alternative sources of bioavailable lead, including documented evidence of lead paint chip and lead-contaminated microtrash ingestion.  The AB 821 lead ammunition ban (the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act) has done nothing to prevent the alternative sources of lead in the condor zone.

North Dakota study refutes enviros

In May 2008, the North Dakota Department of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a study measuring the risk, if any, of eating wild game harvested with lead bullets.

The study was designed to determine whether people who eat wild game have higher blood lead levels than people who don’t.

The study found no elevated levels of lead in the families of hunters, who regularly eat wild game.

“The geometric mean of the CDC study of 1.17 micrograms per deciliter was lower than the geometric mean of lead in the overall U.S. population (1.60 micrograms per deciliter),” the NRA reported. “More than 86 percent of the people in the CDC test reported eating more than one type of wild game.”

Yet the North Dakota Department of Health reported their findings a little differently, clearly under pressure from special interest groups:

“Based on the results of the CDC blood lead level study and a Minnesota bullet study, the North Dakota Department of Health has developed the following recommendations to minimize the risk of harm to people who are most vulnerable to the effects of lead:

* “Pregnant women and children younger than 6 should not eat any venison harvested with lead bullets.

* “Older children and other adults should take steps to minimize their potential exposure to lead, and use their judgment about consuming game that was taken using lead-based ammunition.

* “The most certain way of avoiding lead bullet fragments in wild game is to hunt with non-lead bullets.

* “Hunters and processors should follow the processing recommendations developed by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture.”

Their new “recommendations” were hardly evidence of serious lead poisoning problems.

Hunters have eaten venison taken with lead bullets for hundreds of years. Yet according to the NRA and Huntfortruth.org, there is not one documented case of lead poisoning from eating deer meat. Doctors are required to report all cases of lead poisoning to the Centers for Disease Control, yet according CDC Public Health adviser Kimball Credle, no cases have ever been traced to wild game meat.

Federal law

“Federal law allows the U.S. Attorney General through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to make a finding or determination that an alternative ammunition projectile or projectile core is intended to be used for a ‘sporting purpose,’ Jones explained.

“To date the ATF has received approximately 19 petitions filed by ammunition manufacturers seeking a ‘sporting purpose’ exemption for alternative ammunition for the hunting market nationwide, and at this point in time the ATF has failed to rule on any of the petitions. Some of these petitions are reported to have been pending since August of 2011.”

By Katy Grimes

The recent mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., is the motivation behind the overwhelming number of gun-control measures moving rapidly through the state Legislature.

One of these bills, AB 760, would charge 5 cents on every round of ammunition sold in California. At a hearing Monday in the Assembly Revenue and Tax Committee, the bill’s author, Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, said the bill would raise an estimated $50 million ostensibly to restore a mental health program for children.

AB 760 is one of eight bills introduced this year that increase regulation on just the ammunition.

Dickinson said that the 5 cent tax on each round of ammunition “is just that simple.” Then he shifted to talking about the benefits of the tax revenue. “It’s dedicated to restoring funding for the pre-existing early mental health program EMHI,” Dickinson said. “It aims at our very young children, in grades one to three, and helps them with diagnosis and then subsequent treatment.”

Dickinson explained that Gov. Jerry Brown cut funding for the Early Mental Health Initiative from last year’s state budget.

At a press conference prior to the hearing, Dickinson said he is not worried that the more than 20 gun control bills in the Legislature would hurt the chances of his legislation being passed, KQED reported.

Dickinson said he’s hoping the hefty ammo tax would diminish ammunition purchases. He added that the FBI says murders with guns amount to 68 percent of all murders in California. “There were 600,000 guns sold in California last year,” Dickinson said. “These are the costs we all must bear as a result of gun violence. Taxing ammo can provide a steady source of revenue.”

Opposing AB 760 are Gun Owners of California, the National Rifle Association and its state affiliate, the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

“Bulletproofing Communities” or tying their hands?

The Assembly Public Safety Committee has also approved the “Bulletproofing Communities” bill, Assembly Bill 48, by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which aims for tighter controls of all ammunition sales in the state:

* It requires the sale or transfer of all bullets done only by licensed dealers.

* All buyers must present identification.

* Sales records will be transmitted to the California Department of Justice, which will notify law enforcement of anyone purchasing more than 3,000 rounds within five days.

* AB 48 would also ban conversion kits, which allow guns to fire more bullets without reloading.

No nexus between mental health and ammo tax

Dickinson noted, “There is no correlation between mental health and gun violence.” Yet his bill would fund the mental health program. Under state law, tax bills require a nexus between the tax and the program funded by the revenue.

AB 760 brought a challenge from Sam Paredes of Gun Owners of California, who said there is a Constitutional problem with Dickison’s bill. Paredes pointed to 1983 court case, the Minnesota Star Tribune vs. the Minnesota Commissioner. The U.S. Supreme Court found that state tax systems cannot treat the press differently than any other business without significant and substantial justification. The state of Minnesota demonstrated no such justification to impose a special tax on a select few newspaper publishers. Therefore, this tax was in violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press.

By analogy, the court decision then would ban a special tax violating the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.” In other words, a sales tax increase on all sporting goods, for example, might be allowed; but one only on bullets would not be.

A representative from the NRA held up an empty box of small caliber bullets and said the box retails for $1.50. Dickinson’s 5 cent ammo tax would add $2.50 to the purchase. “The tax costs more than the product,” he said.

Craig DeLuz with the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees pointed out a section in Dickinson’s bill which clearly states retailers cannot offer to pay the tax for purchasers, the way furniture stores often do as a promotion.

Because Dickinson’s bill is a tax increase, it will require support from two-thirds of the Legislature. The bill was sent to the suspense file.