SACRAMENTO — Senate Bill 23, which would qualify magazine-accepting
firearms as assault weapons, was signed into California law yesterday by
Governor Gray Davis, furthering the effort to write into the state penal
code a law that will clarify the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act of
1989.
The Roberti-Roos law, which attempted to ban assault weapons by name,
caused much confusion among gun owners and eventually led to the
state’s current “buy-back” program of SKS “Sporter” rifles.
To avoid further confusion of the Roberti-Roos law, which is awaiting
final decision by the California Supreme Court of the law’s
constitutionality, state Sen. Don Perata, D-Alameda, sponsored SB 23 in
an attempt to come up with a description of illegal assault weapons
rather than naming them.
The description in the bill depicts a “semiautomatic, centerfire
rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one
of the following: a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
action of the weapon, a thumbhole stock, a grenade launcher or flare
launcher, a flash suppressor (or) a forward pistol grip.”
Sam Paredes, deputy director of Gun Owners of California, said this
description will create more confusion than solutions for gun regulators
because on many of the weapons, the only thing that would need to be
done to make the weapon legal would be to remove the illegal piece. For
example, owners of the Colt “Sporter” would have to only shorten the
pistol grip — the offending piece on the weapon — and the gun becomes
legal. On many guns, the illegal pieces unscrew thereby making it easy
for the gun owner to abide by the law.
Steve Helsley, spokesperson for the National Rifle Association of
America, supported what Paredes said about the gun parts.
“All the parts in this bill are parts you put on with a wrench or a
screwdriver. For most of them, it would take about a minute to switch
your gun to make it legal,” Helsley said.
Helsley said this law is akin to a law that would ban Corvettes that
have CD players even though CD players have no affect on the car’s
performance. The gun parts listed in the bill have no affect on the
gun’s performance either.
“The biggest thing this legislation is going to do is cause an
inordinate amount of confusion amongst law-abiding citizens and law
enforcement,” Paredes said. “This is a bold-faced attempt at trying to
ban a certain class of firearms, but that’s as simple as playing tennis
with a ball made of Jell-O. And that’s exactly what they’ve done.
They’ve made a huge mess.”
In defense of the bill, however, Davis said, “As long as these guns
are accessible, the lives of our children and our law enforcement
officers are threatened. Having been trained in the use of assault
weapons during the Vietnam War, I know these weapons of war have their
place on the battlefield, but they have no place on our streets.”
“This law closes the loophole and enacts the toughest assault weapons
ban in the nation,” Davis added.
Mr. Helsley disagrees.
Referring to the bill, Helsley said, “What it really is, is the
silliest (law) because it’s not a gun ban at all. If we thought it was
a gun ban, we’d be screaming. It’s a complete political sham.”
An outspoken opponent of SB 23 is WorldNetDaily columnist Geoff
Metcalf. In his column yesterday,
Metcalf pointed fingers at what he believes to be silence on the part of
the gun industry and gun advocates.
“In the wake of conspicuous silence from those who should be leading,
I have been forced into the unenviable position of feeling compelled to
do something,” Metcalf stated.
This compulsion has led Metcalf to write a referral to Secretary of
State Bill Jones, which he plans on submitting today. The referral
will, in effect, put SB 23 up for public discussion for 90 days. During
that time, Metcalf needs to collect more than 419,000 voter
signatures for referendum.
If the referendum qualifies, the state’s voters will be able to have
a voice and ultimately decide in the fate of any and all “assault”
weapons as described in SB 23.
Paredes assured WorldNetDaily the gun groups in California have been
working adamantly to defeat this measure in the Legislature. At the
same time, however, he expressed concern about the effectiveness of a
referendum since referendums can be expensive to obtain and can’t
guarantee sure results. Paredes also expressed concern about committing
millions of dollars to a campaign that would be difficult to win and
would deplete gun organizations such as Gun Owners of California of any
ability to participate in future elections.
“The other thing is that if this referendum is successful in
overturning SB 23, the next day, the legislature can sponsor another ‘SB
23’ and pass it through the system and have the governor sign it into
law, and, again, we would be in the same situation,” Paredes explained.
“One of the worst things that can happen to us is that we qualify
this referendum, and we lose when the public votes,” Paredes added.
Speaking again about SB 23, Helsley said, “If you believe that these
guns are a menace, if you think we can define them, if you think we
ought to ban them somehow, and if you supported people who said they’d
do it and this (bill) is the product, then you’ve been betrayed.”
Perhaps the new California law won’t amount to the nation’s toughest
assault weapons ban, but with SB 23, California has witnessed two sides
of a heated, public debate taking unexpected stances. Those in favor of
more gun control are saying SB 23 is a gun ban while gun advocates are
saying it is not.
“It’s usually the opposite way,” said Helsley. “The proponents (of
gun control) usually say it’s not a gun ban while we say it is. This
time, we’re saying it isn’t a gun ban, and they’re saying it is.”
Concurrent with the signing of SB 23, Davis signed Assembly Bill 202
sponsored by Assemblymember Wally Knox, D-Los Angeles. The bill will
limit the number of handguns an individual may purchase to one per
month.
