On Thursday the legislature passed a slew of bills that would reduce gun violence. The State Senate voted 24-10 today to approve a measure by Senator Lois Wolk, D-Davis, urging Congress and President Barack Obama to enact a comprehensive gun violence prevention policy that includes prohibiting the sale of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and strengthening criminal background check requirements.
“SJR 1 doesn’t change California law. 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 background checks, and a 10-day waiting or ‘cooling- off’ period for the purchase and transfer of firearms,” said Senator Wolk, Senate Joint Resolution 1’s lead author.
SJR 1, which Senator Wolk is carrying along with 20 other Senate coauthors, urges the President and Congress to place assault weapons and high-capacity assault magazines under the scope of the National Firearms Act.
The measure also supports federal legislation to require universal background checks for all firearm transfers, using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which can instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives.
Additionally, SJR 1 requests the President and Congress to take steps to ensure all states report applicable records to the federal background check system. It is estimated that 40 percent of firearm transfers are completed without a federal background check, including the transfer of semiautomatic firearms from one private party to another private party.
“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 Senator Wolk, who is carrying the measure at the request of Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-5), a veteran, avid hunter & sportsman, as well as the Chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“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. “Without a comprehensive federal approach to curbing gun violence, our laws will fall short of providing the security our citizens expect.”
In the meantime, the Senate also passed SB 140. The legislation was introduced by Senator Mark Leno and Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg in January, and would take illegally possessed firearms off the streets and out of the hands of potentially dangerous people who are barred from possessing them.
SB 140 allows the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to use existing resources to enhance the identification and confiscation of handguns and assault weapons that are 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.
“I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this common sense bill to take guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people,” said Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco who co-authored SB 140. “Despite unreasonable opposition by the NRA and other gun advocates, the Senate overwhelmingly approved SB 140 today and I am hopeful that in the weeks ahead the Legislature will take similar action on the rest of our package to reduce gun violence.”
“When it comes to preventing gun violence in California, we are at a distinct advantage because we are the only state in the nation that utilizes a unique system to identify persons who are barred from possessing firearms,” said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco.
“However, we have only been able to confiscate a small number of these illegally possessed weapons due to lack of resources,” the Senator added. “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.”
“While the debate over gun regulations is contentious, most everyone agrees that guns must be taken out of the hands of those who we know are potentially dangerous to the community. Department of Justice officials tell us that with additional resources to pay for additional agents, they could clear the backlog more quickly,” said Senator Steinberg, D-Sacramento. “Providing that funding as quickly as possible by allowing DOJ to use reserves in ‘dealer record of sales’ fees is a wise and worthy investment to provide better protection of our neighborhoods.”
The Bureau of Firearms has identified 19,784 Californians who illegally possess an estimated 40,000 handguns and assault weapons. Every day, this list of prohibited persons owning firearms grows by 15 to 20.
SB 140 would allow the DOJ to use reserve funds from the Dealer Record of Sale account to enforce the department’s existing Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program. The amount of funding provided to the DOJ will be determined on evidence-based need.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
3D Printing is coming along nicely. A few years from now a single person working from his bedroom will be able to manufacture parts to produce any gun. They can actually do this today… with a pretty good device available for about $2000. Certainly creating a high capacity magazine will be no problem.
I agree with tougher licensing laws and restrictions for transporting weapons, etc. We also need to focus effort on the mental health challenge. Lastly, we need zero-tolerance gun crime laws and punishment.
However, banning weapons as a solution to stop gun violence is a stupid pursuit. It is a feel-good move that has no rational basis for really solving any problems. In fact it creates more problems. Lastly, it creates a media and politician-driven false sense that the problem is being solved. The public deserves to know the truth and the facts. Banning guns and magazines does nothing to reduce gun violence statistics. And it serves to reduce the ability for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from this violence.
It’s unfortunate that the liberal media (including David) continues to use the term “gun violence.” Why don’t we hear “knife violence?” Or “baseball bat violence?” Or “Drone violence?” The appropriate term for crimes committed with a gun is the CRIMINAL MISUSE OF FIREARMS, but you will never hear that used, because it doesn’t help forward the anti-gun agenda of the left.
Violence is violence, whether it comes from a blunt stick or a boom stick. We already have laws, both at the Federal and State level, that prevent people from criminally possessing and misusing firearms. According to the above article, DOJ has identified 19,784 Californians who own firearms but who are prohibted from doing so, and 15-20 more are added to the list each day. Why hasn’t law enforcement knocked on their doors (or knocked their doors down) to confiscate these illegally owned firrearms? Why haven’t these people been arrested? Why haven’t these people been charged with a crime, tried and convicted? Why are these people not incarcerated? BECASUE WE DON’T ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
I couldn’t agree more with Frankly – we need a zero-tolerance attitude towards our existing gun crime laws and punishment. Until that happens, as long as we continue to allow the criminal possession of firearms to continue unabated, and refuse to recognize the criminal misuse of firearms for what it is, we will not solve anything.
Nice grandstanding, Democratic representatives. More laws, no solutions.
What both sides would seem to be missing from my point of view is that this is not just about the objects ( the guns themselves too often emphasized by the left ) or criminality ( too often emphasized the the right ). Both sides are equally guilty of using the number of guns as an arguing point with the left wanting less available, and the right arguing that only more will make us safer. Guns themselves are an inert object. It is only when they are in inappropriate hands that they are dangerous. However, one cannot argue that the availability of guns to the wrong person at the wrong time is an issue.
The ten year old killed by his playmate accidentally is just as dead as the 16 year old accidentally shot by her father for whom she was planning a surprise, as is the 22 year old who shoots himself during an episode of depression, as is the gang member on the wrong end of the gun.
It does not help to merely point out the deficiencies of the approach of what we see as the opposition.
I think it is a truism that having fewer guns available would lead to fewer gun related deaths and injuries.
It is also true that keeping said guns always locked away and keeping the ammunition separate would lead to fewer gun related deaths and injuries.
It is also true that having and enforcing restrictions on who can own, buy and transfer guns would lead to fewer gun related deaths and injuries.
It is also true that better mental health care and crisis management would lead to fewer gun related deaths and injuries.
I also question those whose mantra is we should simply enforce the laws we have….are you also an individual who fights at every opportunity to keep taxes that could potentially be spent on enforcement low ?
Are you someone who does not want the government to be able to conduct or utilize research to determine what policies actually provide the best prevention of gun related death and injury ?
So instead of shouting down the deficiencies of the opposition, how about getting behind some of the efforts we do support, and more importantly, proposing solutions that do not focus one way or the other on the sheer number of guns, but rather on their availability to the wrong person at the wrong time.
[i]I think it is a truism that having fewer guns available would lead to fewer gun related deaths and injuries.[/i]
There is no evidence of this working See Chicago for a proof that it does not work. Also is not a rational solution in a county there are many more guns in circulation than there are people in the country.
[i] It is also true that keeping said guns always locked away and keeping the ammunition separate would lead to fewer gun related deaths and injuries.[/i]
Agree, so proceed with that solution instead of bans.
[i]It is also true that having and enforcing restrictions on who can own, buy and transfer guns would lead to fewer gun related deaths and injuries.[/i]
True, as long as law-abiding citizens of sound mind that need a gun for safety and protection, or want a gun for other legal reasons, are not banned from doing so. Otherwise I agree with this and say proceed with this solution.
[i]It is also true that better mental health care and crisis management would lead to fewer gun related deaths and injuries.[/i]
Agree here too.
With so much we agree on, why do Democrats keep coming up with legislation to ban guns… a stupid, feel-good, non-solution?
Anyone that does not support zero-tolerance gun crime laws and punishment is showing their colors as not really caring so much about reducing gun crime as much as just having their anti-gun worldview prevail.
It is amazing to me when I hear a person pause or reject zero-tolerance gun crime and also reject Stop-And-Frisk (which has proven to save lives), but at the same time demand zero-tolerance for hate speech. I guess in their mind we should be cracking down on hurtful speech the moment the perp utters the words, but we should give criminals that use guns a second, third and ??? chance. And then these same people get pissed off when some of us question their objectivity.
” Anyone that does not support zero-tolerance gun crime laws and punishment is showing their colors as not really caring so much about reducing gun crime as much as just having their anti-gun world view prevail.”
This is simply not true. As I stated above, I see this as a larger issue than simply crime and punishment, but rather how do we reduce gun related injuries and deaths regardless of whether or not they happen to be occurring in a criminal, accidental, or suicidal context ? To focus on only one aspect allows one the comfortable but ultimately ineffective satisfaction of being able to vilify the other side without considering the benefit of collaboration.
One small example to illustrate the power of availability. A close family member of mine, in the depths of depression told me that he wanted to kill himself. In asking the relevant questions that every doctor has been taught to ask to assess risk, I asked if he had a plan and got the following chilling response. “If I could have thought of a quick and painless way to do it, I would already be gone.” Gun related suicides are around 85% effective, other methods much, much less so. If I had kept a gun in my home, I wonder if he would be alive today.
Medwoman – you are correct that there is another issue here, and that is accidental gun related injuries and deaths, as well as the use of firearms in suicides. However, these issues are separate and distict from “gun violence” (as the left likes to call it), or more correctly the CRIMINAL MISUSE OF FIREARMS, which is the subject of this article and the focus of the anti-Second Amendment folks.
We must enforce the laws we have. Period. Everyone should get behind that effort, and I have to question the motivations of anyone who is not. Keeping firearms out of the hands of the criminal element and the mentally ill is the best way to limit the “availability to the wrong person at the wrong time” as you suggest, Medwoman, and prosecuting those people who criminally misuse firearms, as already provided under both Federal and State law, will go a long way towards this solution.
Yes, I think all of us–including those who support gun bans or severe restrictions on ownership–should be thankful for the law-abiding citizens (of sound mind) who do carry guns. The crooks don’t know which one of us has a gun handy, and which one of us does not. This helps to discourage crime.
Not only would gun bans in the USA not work; I would contend that even very severe restrictions would result in increases in overall violence and crime, due to social and socioeconomic factors in the USA, which are much different than in Europe (Let’s just say the USA is a much more opportunistic and winner-take-all type of society). Like Morpheus says, we just have to keep on working on better ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill/unstable.