California

Three criminals, one armed good guy.  Good guy wins.  It's a good thing that the handgun ban was struck down recently, or the police might have felt obligated to track down the good guy and arrest him for defending himself.

I hope this collection of quotes from a recent article will encourage you to protect yourself, instead:

Statistics compiled by San Francisco police for the committee show that in 74 of the 94 homicides recorded through Monday afternoon in 2005, no arrest has been made and the cases remain open and under investigation.  Part of the explanation, police said, for the low rate of arrests and prosecutions is the reluctance of witnesses to provide testimony given their exposure to retribution.About 20 percent of the 94 homicides recorded through Monday afternoon for 2005 took place at public housing properties. That last number prompted supervisors to ask why a program begun last year that tasks 16 officers with patrolling four housing developments in the southeast part of the city hasn't been expanded to other locations. Mirkarimi said he wants to see a regular flow of reliable statistics on how San Francisco's Police Department is performing. Suggesting police officials are reluctant to submit to closer oversight, he characterized getting good information out of the department as a "cat-and-mouse game."

Sure sounds safe over there in San Francisco, where they recently voted to ban handguns.

Judge Kozinski, one of the reliable anchors keeping the 9th Circuit tied down to reality (and that's no easy task), has once again struck a blow for sanity.   He ruled that a prior California conviction for assault rifle possession is not a crime of violence for purposes of sentence enhancements.

While the scope of the ruling is small, since most people aspire to go through their lives without ever seeing the business end of a criminal court, that the question was even asked provides just a hint of the legal mire that awaits when objects can become crimes without any malicious intent from their owner.  

I got it from David Hardy, who got it from Volokh.

The Gun Owners of America are urging us to support Kaloogian's campaign for Congress, by way of a district in California.  He's got good qualifications:

As a California Assemblyman from 1994-2000, Mr. Kaloogian fought tenaciously against the most radical anti-gun agenda in the country.  Working with Gun Owners of America, Kaloogian lead the fight against SB 23, the expansion of the ban on "so-called" Assault Weapons, and SB 15, the Safe Handgun laws that were really meant to ban small affordable handguns.

The seat is currently open, and will be filled by special election within the next few months.  Since it's a special election with no incumbent, there will likely be relatively small turnout, which means that Kaloogian has a chance at winning if he can mobilize enough people who care about the gun issue.

In any case, GOA says he's worth supporting, and that's good enough for me.

Looks like San Francisco's handgun ban passed on Tuesday's ballot.  About 42% opposed the ban (according to NRA News).  This is not as bad as it sounds; California has a firearms preemption law, and the ban will most likely be struck down as violating it.  The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA have filed lawsuits; Of Arms and the Law has more. 

UPDATE: The War on Guns says that attorney Gary Gorski is seeking plaintiffs, if you happen to live in San Francisco.

Proposition H would ban almost all private possession of handguns by San Francisco residents within city limits. Exceptions would be made for people who require guns for professional purposes, such as police officers, security guards and members of the military.

This proposition also would prohibit the sale, manufacture, distribution or transfer of all firearms and ammunition within

The City.

The use of guns in crimes is far too prevalent and gun violence is far too common in San Francisco. But Prop. H would not be an effective or appropriate means of preventing violent crime. These difficulties should be addressed by better enforcement of existing laws and better regulation of firearms ? not a blanket ban, particularly one that affects such a small geographical area and is likely to be challenged in court as a violation of state law.

In addition, it is possible that once residents gave up their handguns, San Francisco would be seen as an easy hunting ground for criminals who have no intention of giving up their own pistols.

Voters should turn down this proposition.

Question: Are there any San Francisco newspapers willing to come out in favor of the proposed handgun ban?

If you live in San Francisco, you better be ready to vote.

Alphapatriot spotted the story about the San Francisco Police Officers Association coming out against the proposed handgun ban, despite several highly-placed supervisors favoring it.  Remember -- politicians pick police chiefs and give them orders.  People who actually work the streets understand that firearms are equalizers.  They make enable ordinary people to resist a criminal attack on equal or better terms.  Take that away, and you tilt the scales towards the criminal.

Contra Costa supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to ask the state to prohibit gun shows at the county fairgrounds in Antioch. The county will send a letter to the 23rd District Agricultural Association, which controls the grounds, asking that they stop allowing the two annual gun shows. A similar letter will go to the California Fair Board.

You may remember this California county from their ban on sales of .50 rifles, or previously from the records that Bellesiles imagined. Now they're pushing the whole state to ban gun shows at "their" fairgrounds. I use the scare quotes because apparantly, Contra Costa County doesn't actually own "their" fairgrounds. Anyone who claims gun control is dead needs to wake up and small the moonbats.

As readers may recall, Ashcroft v Raich was argued before the Supreme Court recently. The transcript of the oral arguments is now available.

The case is an interesting one. It's a California medical marijuana case, argued by Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy on commerce clause grounds. The idea is simple: if the federal government, under the commerce clause, can regulate (ie, forbid) the in-state growth and consumption of marijuana that never crosses a state line, then it's powers are essentially limitless. The abuse of that clause is what has given us our modern government.

The current court has taken steps to rein in governmental authority under the commerce clause, and for that reason this is a significant case. Speculation is that the justices are sympathetic to this line of argument. Let's hope so; it's our last, best hope for a peaceful return to a Constitutional form of government.

San Joaquin County may soon prohibit the sale of toy guns from ice cream trucks, and it's following on the heals of the city of Stockton, which is considering a similar change to its municipal code.

Ice cream vendors are "taking advantage of the kids," said Beverly Foster, a trustee of the county's Board of Education.

No, they're not taking advantage of the kids.  They are engaging in free enterprise, selling a product to people who want to buy it.  Does it really surprise anyone that kids want to have toy guns?

Never mind.  I think I've figured out why gun bigots are so intend on eliminating toy guns from America.   It boils down to something very simple: kids can't vote.  These people have had their hats handed to them on the national level for many election cycles now; they are starting to understand that gun control doesn't sell to voters who own guns.  But kids don't have a voice in the political process, and it's a lot easier to impose asinine regulations on someone else than it is to convince people who would be affected by those regulations to live by them.

And they figure, if they can eliminate toy guns -- using whatever flimsy excuses the parents will believe -- then they can eliminate the gun culture that is their real enemy.  If no one wants a toy gun, because it gets you in trouble at school, than no one will want a real gun, because it gets you in trouble with the police.

Folks, I suggest we not try to find out if they're right.  Teach your kids to shoot.  Teach your grandkids to shoot.  Teach your neighbor's kids to shoot -- and teach their parents, too, if necessary.  And when you do it, tell them why you are doing it.

San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.

The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

It looks like San Francisco is planning to follow in the footsteps of Washington DC, such a crime-free paradise of gun control as the left has been able to create. Luckily, their efforts are probably illegal:

The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal, however, by Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group. Sam Paredes, the group's executive director, said the state has for years had a "pre-emption law" on the books that bars local governments from usurping the state's authority to regulate firearms.

Thank god I don't live there. And thanks to Freedomsight for spotting the article.

UPDATE: Publicola has more. This appears to be a proposal by the local politicians to put their gun control measure on the ballot. I'm not sure why they would choose to do that, rather than simply passing the measure outright, unless they are afraid of the electoral consequences and seek to blame "the people" at election time.

I'm not sure what effect the Governator might have on this effort. He's certainly a political figure who might be able to bring some pressure to bear on the issue during the run-up to the public ballot. Not that such opposition could be counted on; the girly-man governor has failed us before, despite waving around all those fashion accessories. But he's also shown some political courage on the issue.

This touches on an issue that I've mentioned before, along with other gunbloggers. The gun control effort knows that, in order to succeed, they have to get on the offensive and stay there. If they set the agenda, they win, because they can keep coming back until they find a way to sell their policies that people will believe, however briefly. We have to put them on the defensive, and that means repealing bad laws and passing desirable ones.

UPDATE: Volokh has more.

?We know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city.? ? Bill Barnes, aide to Supervisor Chris Daly (1)

With this erroneous claim to bolster them, San Francisco supervisors kicked off a campaign to get voters to approve a city-wide handgun ban to take effect in 2006. What they are ignoring, besides statistical data, is history.

The above is the introduction to an excellent discussion of mortality rates, their correlation to gun control, and what that means for the City of San Francisco's proposed handgun ban.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday let stand a lower-court ruling that allows a suit to proceed against the makers of guns used in a California shooting spree.

This is the usual absurd legal theory. There are a number of reasons why the Supreme Court wouldn't want to take the case right now, but the obvious one would be Rehnquist's health issues.

It's also important to note that it's not the end of the case. The only thing that is happening here is allowing the suit to proceed; the manufacturer has not actually been found liable. The 9th Circus appeals court seems to have ruled on the basis of state law -- and California state law may well be crazy enough to have some sort of explicitly-created liability for gun manufacturers or dealers, or simply to require the manufacturer to effectively prove its innocence at trial, before an unfriendly judge.

So, the gun industry lost a battle, but the war is yet to be fought.

The sorry state of gun rights in California is well known, but other rights are starting to slip, too. The problem is simple: once you admit that the State can take your guns, you have no means to stop the State taking everything else. And it will proceed to do so as fast as it can think of excuses.

There is apparently no limit to the insanity in California. For the umpteenth time in the long and sordid tale of AB-50, the California Assembly voted on the bill and the bill lost by a 35-36 margin. That was voting by the rules.

But the rules seem to matter very little in Sacramento. Shortly after voting to send the fifty caliber ban to a well-deserved grave, California Democrats called for a "re-vote" and we watched as a handful of Democrats pressed the vote button at their own desk, then calmly walked to the empty desk of another member of the Assembly and voted a second time. This, we learn, is what California Legislators call "Ghost Voting." Nobody there is shocked because "they do it all the time." Ah, I see...

The Smallest Minority reports on a claim by the Fifty Caliber Institute that the .50 ban in California failed on the first attempt, and only passed with the help of the supernatural.

This sort of bullshit is exactly why we have a Second Amendment. The Fifty-Caliber Institute is trying to lobby the Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to veto the bill because of the ghost-voting. I doubt it will be an easy sell, but he is a Republican who ran on a promise to shut down political bullshit like this, and the bill apparantly includes spending provisions that won't exactly have a positive effect on California's already near-bankrupt coffers. I'd say that adds up to a chance, especially since the ghost-voting will provide cover if he wants it.

So stop by the Fifty Caliber Institute and contact Arnie. You might want to check out their fundraiser raffle while you're there. Here's some suggested text for your email:

Governor,

Recently, the California legislature passed "AB50", a bill that certain elements have been trying to pass for a long time. Up until now, they have failed with a consistent 35-36 vote, including one immediately before this bill passed on a re-vote. The most recent vote, however, succeeded only due to the practice of "ghost voting". If you are not aware of this practice, it involves legislators present voting "for" legislators not present -- literally voting twice. Simply put, some of the legislators who were not present had their votes stolen from them and recorded without their consent.

It is in your power to put a stop to this practice simply by vetoing this bill. This is exactly the kind of political abuse that you ran for office to stop, and this is your chance. Stand up to the games the legislators are trying to play, and insist on an honest vote.

I oppose AB50 because I am a gun owner and I believe in the Second Amendment rights of all US citizens, including citizens of California. As an immigrant, you have undoubtedly taken classes or education concerning the Constitution of the United States. Most likely this education avoided the subject of the Second Amendment. You may have been told that the Second Amendment is outdated, or refers to the National Guard. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, a right that has served us well throughout our history. AB50, by banning a large class of firearms almost never used in crime, is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

But I do not ask you to veto AB50 because it violates the Second Amendment. That argument has little power in your chosen state of residence, where corrupt politicians have forgotten the duties of honest government. I ask you to veto it because it was passed only through blatant fraud. More, I call upon you as an American and an honest man: it is your duty to veto this fraudulent bill. I invite you to contact the Fifty-Caliber Institute[1] and verify their account of the fraud, and I hope that you will do so, and take appropriate action.

If you stand up to this political corruption, you can show the legislators that you will not stand for bullshit. If you sign the bill into law because you are afraid of political consequences, however, you will prove only one thing: that you are the real "girly-man" in California.

1: http://www.fiftycal.org/

If you send an email or a letter, please leave a comment too.

On the heels of the supernaturally-assisted passage of AB-50 (banning .50 caliber rifles), California has enacted a measure requiring ammunition vendors to collect information and fingerprints from those buying ammunition. I got the tip from this thread on The High Road.

As if those two weren't enough, there are also reports that SB1140 passed; that's a Brady Campaign measure creating a misdemeanor offense for "keeping a handgun where a person knows or reasonably should have known a child is likely to gain access to it", as well as what they call a "wobbler" (some kind of sometimes-misdemeanor, sometimes-felony thing I think) for "storage of a firearm in proximity to ammunition".

The information demanded by the state on each ammunition purchase includes:

• Date of transaction
• Name, address, and date of birth of the purchaser
• Driver's license or other ID number, including state of issuance
• Brand, type, and amount of ammunition
• The signature of the customer
• The name of the salesperson
• The right thumbprint of the purchaser

Yes, that's right. In order to buy ammunition in California, you are required to provide a fingerprint! And there are provisions for inspection of these records at any time (during normal business hours), by any employee of the District Attorney or the Department of Justice, which means no warrant is necessary.

And guess what? There are exceptions for two classes of people: police officers and concealed-carry permit holders. Before you start celebrating about the latter, California is NOT a shall-issue state, which means that those holding concealed-carry permits are the political cronies of the legislature and nothing more -- such luminaries as Dianne Feinstein are exempted from the law, but no ordinary peon in California can get a concealed-carry permit.

I wonder if these bills passed by a "ghost vote" too? I wonder if Arnold will sign them? Since I asked him to veto AB50, I'm going to write a follow-up email asking for an investigation of these bills on ghost-voting grounds. Please send your own letter to his email address: governor@governor.ca.gov. As always, please drop a comment on this post if you send an email.

Governor,

Recently I wrote to you regarding the practice of "ghost voting" in the California legislature. This practice was used to pass AB-50, a measure banning the sale of .50 caliber rifles in California, which had languished for a long time in a very close vote. However, the legislature eventually passed the bill 45-32 when your legislators abandoned honor and decency to cast false votes for legislators not actually present! I wrote to you asking you to veto a bill passed through clear fraud and abuse of the legislative system.

I am writing to you now because two addition bills on the topic of firearms have also passed your legislature. These bills are SB1152 and SB1140. They are bills which are offensive to the Second Amendment and to any free people. SB1152 requires a fingerprint to purchase ammunition. How would you feel about being required to provide a fingerprint before making a speech protected by the First Amendment? SB1140 makes it a criminal offense to store a handgun in a manner useful for self-defense. Do you own a handgun, Governor? How is it stored? You may already be a felon.

But because of the way AB-50 was passed, I urge you to investigate the passage of SB1152 and SB1140. I urge you to find out whether these measures, too, were passed by "ghost voting". If they were, regardless of your feelings about the Second Amendment, I urge you to veto all three bills (AB50, SB1152, SB1140) due to their abuse of the people's trust. If your legislators can't be trusted to respect the sanctity of the opposition's votes with a nanny to watch them, it is your responsibility as governor to administer the spanking.

I recognize that if the Democrats in your legislator are "girly-men" as you have accused them of being, they may find the spanking more enjoyable than might be wished. But if you prefer to let them spank you with this legislation, who then is the "girly man"?

Amid the rancor in Contra Costa County over big guns - the county's controversial new ban on .50-caliber rifles was legally attacked again this week by gun groups - a nagging question lingers: Who wants these things, anyway? I mean, what is the point of having a .50-caliber sniper rifle that can take out a Humvee and penetrate inch-thick steel? I've been accused more than once of just not getting all this "gun fun." I confess: I still don't.

As you may recall, Contra Costa County in California has taken it upon itself to ban the sale of .50 calibre rifles, since the law does not appear to ban ownership, and anyone wishing such a rifle could simply drive to another county. (Unlike state borders, you can usually cross county borders to purchase a firearm; I assume this holds for California). They join Los Angeles in passing this measure.

The writer of this editorial is operating under the impression that the only people who would want a .50 calibre rifle are terrorists. She is also under the impression that these rifles could be used to shoot at heavy industry (and actually do significant damage). She is, apparantly, undeterred by the fact that none of these things have happened. Terrorists don't seem to be using .50 calibre rifles to attack tanks or industry, probably because it wouldn't work.

And really -- banning an entire calibre seems a bit much in response to a completely non-existant and overblown problem, doesn't it? What's next -- banning the .45, a popular handgun calibre? It's not quite .50, but it's close.

Let me reiterate the main points here:

• The .50 is not a uniquely powerful, accurate, or long-range calibre; it's just the largest in common use.
• The .50 is not a weapon specially suited for terrorists; it's just a rifle.
• The .50 is not an explosive bullet.
• The .50 is not an armor-piercing bullet at normal ranges.
• The .50 is not a uniquely powerful calibre.
• There have been no criminal incidents within the United States with these rifles.

UPDATE: No Quarters reports that a cop robbed an armoured car with one, but details aren't readily available. Fine by me -- cops usually get exceptions to regulation, so a cop committing a crime with a weapon doesn't add points to that weapon's "evil rating". That reminded me that some of the initial reports of the bulldozer guy claimed he had a .50 rifle, but I haven't seen any reports I trust to that effect; reporters are notoriously inaccurate about gun details when they're in a hurry.

Anti-gun legislation, AB50 which would ban the sale and possession of .50 caliber rifles, passed out of the California Legislature by one vote and is now headed to the Governor?s desk. Please be sure to contact the Governor?s office and respectfully ask him to VETO AB 50. Please remind him that this anti-gun legislation is a huge unfunded mandate on the state, is not supported by law enforcement, will drive law-abiding American businesses into bankruptcy, and will do nothing to fight crime.

I've blogged about the supernaturally-assisted AB-50 and two other California gun control bills suspiciously timed to coincide with the Republican Convention.

"If you outlaw guns, people will still have them illegally," he said. "In Europe, they're outlawed everywhere. They have very strict gun control in Italy. Yet the pope was shot. They have very strict gun control in Germany. Yet you see pimps shooting one another. Politicians have been shot in Sweden and Holland, where guns are outlawed.

"I don't know how you handle this. I'm no expert."

He went further on Aug. 27, telling a Los Angeles radio audience that he supports the federal Brady Bill's background checks on gun buyers, trigger locks, the assault rifle ban and restrictions on gun show purchases.

This article, from before the recall, describes Schwarzenegger's position on gun control. Unfortunately it doesn't describe it very well. There is a mention of a proposed .50 ban, but Arnold isn't quoted or described as taking a position on that bill.

The governor of California exercised both his pen and his veto on Monday, resulting in a mixed return for the issues I've been watching. Here's the bad news:

Schwarzenegger signed two gun control measure. One, SB 1858, prohibits public display of fake guns that look real. He also signed AB 2431, which will require police to return firearms seized if owners pass a background check showing they can legally own a gun.

SB 1858 is silly -- it's another measure banning toy guns to help the police avoid shooting kids playing cowboys and indians. While I don't really have much problem with regulating toy guns, is it too much to ask for the police to evaluate the situation before shooting a kid? Who is the real threat to our children in this scenario?

AB 2431 seems like common sense, especially since the police seem to have a habit of holding on to any guns that enter their grasp whether they have a legal right to confiscate or not.

There was also some good news:

The governor vetoed two gun measures by Sen. Jack Scott, D-Altadena: SB 1152 would have required stores that sell bullets to keep information about buyers; SB 1140 would have made it a crime to store a handgun where a child can easily find it.

Both SB-1152 and SB-1140 were pretty bad bills. I lobbied Arnold to veto both of them, so I'm pleased that he did, but I also lobbied him to veto AB-50 (passed by the infamous "ghost vote") and he has already signed that. I think he's trying to play both sides of the issue, and frankly, that's doomed to failure. But we only got one of three really horrible bills, which is better than three of three.

BEWARE, HUNTERS and target shooters. Assemblyman Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Los Angeles) is back with another bill to infringe upon the rights of legal gun owners.

You may recall that last year he had AB 992, which proposed a 10-cent tax per bullet on the sale of ammunition in California. This was soundly defeated. His new bill (AB 2858) would exempt people with a valid hunting license, but the fees would still apply to law-abiding target shooters who do not hunt.

The new bill would impose a 10 percent fee on all ammunition and a 5 percent fee on all handguns sold in California, in order to establish a "Firearm Victims Reimbursement Fund."

If anyone has ideas on how those living in California can oppose this bill, post them in the comments!

The California Senate has passed a bill that would require ammunition buyers to provide a thumb print when the purchase is made. But a pro-Second Amendment group is condemning what it calls "an insidious invasion of privacy."

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said that keeping records on ammunition sales has proven ineffective in fighting crime. "Requiring a thumb print moves this idea into the realm of the ludicrous," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron.

"It's a waste of time and taxpayers' money, but more importantly, this constitutes a serious privacy issue. If this measure dealt with something other than a gun control issue, the ACLU would be screaming about it," Waldron added.

Yet another silly proposal to come out of the left-most state. Requiring a thumbprint to buy ammunition will solve nothing; ammunition is readily available by mail order or simply driving out of state. Neither are barriers to a determined criminal who has already broken the law to obtain his firearm and possess his firearm. Furthermore, criminals -- unlike law-abiding gun owners -- need relatively little ammunition. To a criminal, a gun is a tool most useful in it's display, not its use. Actually using it attracts all sorts of unwelcome attention. The need for ammunition is therefore low. A law-abiding gun hobbiest, however, likely shoots his gun several times a month, going through much more ammunition.

One of the most common arguments for the restrictions on military-pattern weapons is that they "aren't necessary for self-defense". That's a narrow distinction to draw, because even if they aren't necessary, they can be damn useful. The latest demonstration of their usefulness comes by way of the police forces in California, some of whom have been ordered to carry fully-automatic assault rifles on every call.

Apparantly military-pattern weapons, and even the fully-automatic versions usually reserved for the military, are necessary for self-defense in California -- if you happen to be a police officer. If you are not a police officer, then you are not permitted to own one... no matter how necessary for self-defense they are.

The city of San Francisco has placed on the November ballot a proposal to ban handguns in the city limits. If we defeat the proposed ban, it will send shockwaves throughout the anti-gun ranks (the concept of San Francisco doing anything remotely pro-gun is inconceivable . . . to the gun ban crowd).

From now until November, the left-of-center Bay Area media will be asking a lot of questions  This is our opportunity to educate them, and there are indications that they are ready to listen.

It's a worthy cause.  It may be a doomed cause, but it's a worthy cause.  Any money donated will go towards printing up copies of his excellent gun control fact book to be shipped to the top media people in San Francisco.  I don't imagine that it will take that many copies to make an impact, if they are actually read by the recipients.

... that we dodged a bullet by avoiding the California law that would mandate individual serial numbers on every bullet sold, thereby increasing the cost of ammunition for everyone by an order of magnitude at least.