California lieutenant governor unveils gun control ballot measure

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

US | Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:47pm EDT

California lieutenant governor unveils gun control ballot measure

SAN FRANCISCO | BY RORY CARROLL AND SHARON BERNSTEIN

California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a ballot initiative aimed at strengthening the state's gun control laws by banning possession of large-capacity magazines and requiring background checks for ammunition purchases.

Newsom hopes to put the initiative before voters in the November 2016 election.

Speaking in downtown San Francisco at the site of a shooting that killed eight people in 1993, Newsom said elements of the measure, some of which were unable to pass via the legislative process, would be strongly supported by California voters.

"I'll say this to the NRA, ... you can intimidate politicians, we've seen that. Hell, you've been effective. But you can't intimidate the public," said Newsom, referring to the National Rifle Association, the influential gun rights lobby. "That's why we're bringing this directly to the public."

The initiative would also require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns to law enforcement and improve data sharing between the state and the federal government's criminal background check databases.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/16/us-california-guncontrol-ballotmeasure-idUSKCN0S930D20151016

[tularetom]

1. That ain't going anywhere thank god

Background checks for ammunition purchases?

[JonathanRackham]

3. They tried it up in NY

Spent millions and never got a working database.

[GGJohn]

9. Welcome to DU,

and thanks for the clarification via PM.

[Straw Man]

13. The irony.

They tried it up in NY

Spent millions and never got a working database.

The SAFE Act was passed under a "message of necessity," meaning the customary waiting period to allow legislators to familiarize themselves with the bill was waived. No one voting on it had had time to read the bill. Yet several key provisions of the bill didn't take effect for a year ("assault weapon" registration, removal of grandfathering for 10+ capacity magazines), and a keystone piece of the Act -- the ammo background check -- has been suspended indefinitely.

I guess it was pretty urgent, huh?

[GGJohn]

2. I forsee ammo sales in NV, OR, AZ increasing as CA residents travel to these border states

Last edited Fri Oct 16, 2015, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)

to purchase ammo, which will be cheaper, matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these border state firearm stores offer CA residents a discount to shop and buy ammo at their place of business.
A smart business person would set up shop in Primm, NV and make a bundle of money from CA residents, same in OR and AZ.

[tularetom]

5. I foresee a lot of trips for me to Cabelas on I80 in Boomtown Nevada

if this dumbass thing goes through. Although I'm not worried.

I also see me doing a lot more reloading (unless some hack wants to do a background check on purchases of lead, primers, and powder).

[GGJohn]

6. I also forsee CA demanding that the border states

refuse to sell CA residents ammo, I also forsee the border states giving CA legislatures the finger.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. I also foresee a lot of pointing and laughing

[Travis_0004]

14. Plus, when was the last time somebody was asked for an ID for ammo?

If somebody looks like they may be under 18 or 21, they should be asked to show an ID. But if its obvious they are an adult, I can't imagine any adult being ID for an ammo purchase.

Of course, plan B. Buy ammo online. Have it shipped to some address you know in Nevada.

Retoute the shipment to California.

That took me about 3 minutes to figure out. I can't imagine this actually being useful in stopping crime.

[GGJohn]

15. Or to an address in AZ.

(hint hint, eye wink)
Nothing illegal at all to do that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. In Oregon politics...

In Oregon politics, NOT telling California to fuck off is a serious liability come election Day.

[pablo_marmol]

20. + 1,000 NT

[Straw Man]

10. I foreee gun traffickers ...

... adding ammo to their stock. They're probably quite happy about this.

[Travis_0004]

4. I thought high cap mags were already banned

They are grandfathed in, but since they have to be pre 94 they are hard to get in California already.

perhaps they are assuming people dont know this so theh can get more support by banning them again.

[virginia mountainman]

7. No, they are doing away with the "grandfather" clause..

So NOW, they are demanding them ALL to be turned in...

Confiscation of magazines.... What's next? Yep, but "NO ONE" wants to take your guns...

[Kang Colby]

8. Basically.

They are already banned. The controllers just want to confiscate private property without payment. No one is coming to take your guns....just the magazines that feed them.

Are large-capacity magazines legal?
Generally, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine (able to accept more than 10 rounds) in California. However, continued possession of large-capacity magazines that you owned in California prior to January 1, 2000, is legal provided you are not otherwise prohibited. A person prohibited from possessing firearms is also prohibited from owning or possessing any magazines or ammunition.

(Pen. Code, §§16150, subd. (b), 30305, 32310.)

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9

[Eleanors38]

12. Hmm. Auto brokers are overwhelmed, trying to move HD pickups repo'd due to oil bust...

...now have a market on the NV, AZ, OR borders.

[pablo_marmol]

19. This is nothing more than a publicity stunt

to raise Newsome's profile for the next governor's race.

Pathetic stuff.

[pablo_marmol]

21. E-mail I received from the Liberal Gun Club:

Good morning LGC members -

We just published this blog post regarding the proposed ballot initiatives from the Gavin Newsom campaign, and since you all are California members who may have missed the post on the board or Facebook, I wanted to make sure you saw this.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:



NEWSOM EXPLOITS FUNDRAISING LOOPHOLE, ATTACKS LEGAL GUN OWNERS TO BOOST PERSONAL PROFILE

“It’s clear that the proposals put forward by gubernatorial hopeful Gavin Newsom are less about guns and more about Gavin,” says Eric Meyers, President of the Liberal Gun Club’s California chapter.

With his Oct. 16, 2015 announcement, Gavin Newsom is following a cynical strategy used by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger prior to his gubernatorial run: using a ballot measure as a divisive political issue to exploit a fundraising loophole and evade California's contribution limits. Fundraising for a ballot proposal is unlimited, while campaign contributions are limited to prevent corruption and ethical violations. Californians will soon see Gavin’s face everywhere, but they should be wary of a politician opening his pockets to special interests. This is about Gavin, not guns.

Gavin’s case against California’s diverse legal gun owners is built on falsehoods. The fundamental truth is that there is no epidemic of gun violence. That may be hard to believe, considering that the National Rifle Association, gun control advocates, and Gavin all use fear to push their agendas. We believe that Californians should have the facts:

· Violent crime and murders have been dropping for decades. It doesn’t matter how restrictive gun laws are, as states with more and with less restrictive gun control laws have all seen large declines in crime and murder. In fact, in the most recent year reported, Texas had a slightly lower murder rate than California, while having much less restrictive gun laws. [FBI Uniform Crime Reports]

· Gun homicide rates have decreased by 49% since 1993 and murder rates have steadily declined since 1993. [Pew Research Center and DeathPenalty.org/FBI UCR]

· Gun control laws disproportionately impact minority communities due to selective enforcement, with the best example being Michael Bloomberg stop-and-frisk policy in New York City [NYCLU, AZ Central]



Gavin’s initiative is a vehicle for his personal ambitions that is a lemon when examined closely:

1. Magazine confiscation will be expensive, dangerous, and ineffective. Out of California 38 million citizens, roughly 8 million are gun owners. They comprise 20% of California’s overall population, and many own legal, grandfathered magazines rarely used in crimes. In fact, they are valued collector's items. The taxpayer money required to go door-to-door to gather up all of these magazines is staggering and, as Gavin knows, completely unrealistic. This proposal will turn good neighbors into felons, putting innocent Californians at risk of jail. It will provide a pretext for invasive policing and dramatically increase the likelihood of deadly police encounters.



2. Background checks for all ammunition sales already failed in New York and will fail here. New York attempted a similar policy, then backed off because it proved too costly and impossible to implement [NYTIMES]. Just like using restrictions to make legal abortion as difficult as possible, this proposal will make it as difficult as possible for law abiding gun owners and recreational shooters to buy ammunition. As criminals can easily procure ammunition on the black market or in Nevada, Arizona, or Oregon, this measure will cost taxpayers millions of dollars to implement and not make us one bit safer.



3. Disarming felons and prohibited persons raises issues best handled by the legislature, not a ballot measure. There is good reason why our legislature is still debating this issue. California already has a task force tracking down felons and other prohibited persons to ensure they do not have any firearms. Confiscating firearms is a complex issue best handled by the Department of Justice and the California Legislature.



4. Required reporting for lost or stolen guns will have zero impact. Governor Brown vetoed a similar proposal two years ago, writing, “Last year I vetoed a nearly identical bill, SB 1366, noting I was not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not. I remain skeptical that this bill would change those behaviors.” [CA.gov]



5. NICS database sharing risks violating privacy, especially healthcare data, and stops short of effectively fixing California's background check system. The state could save millions by shelving the state run background check program and using the federal program instead, as we are already paying for a Federal system.

Gavin’s proposal will eat up California’s dwindling resources better used to reduce our debt, fix our crumbling infrastructure, and improve the lives of all Californians. He is using the pretext of gun control to exploit a fundraising loophole in California law, putting Californians at risk, evading the good judgement of the legislature, and funneling special interest money to his coffers as a pretext to raise his personal profile. This is about Gavin, not guns.