By Dennis Lowry

I AM WRITING AT THIS LATE DATE to ask our Democratic state legislators to vote against pending gun legislation in California — specifically, Senate Bills 47, 374, 53 and 396.

Being a member of a political party that presently enjoys a supermajority requires each of you to exercise very careful judgment on each action taken. Should you overreach — or should I say continue to overreach — you will incite the population to rebel against not only your party but your personal leadership. It is my fervent hope that you can set aside this blind ambition to create the most stringent set of gun rules in America. It is also my hope that your zeal is out of ignorance, because all of the data available suggests that your present course of action is not in the best interests of California or America.

The gun bills before the Legislature serve to target only law-abiding citizens of California. I say that because criminals do not follow the law — they do not purchase their guns or ammunition from stores or gun shows; they modify them as they wish (silencers, full automatic, short barrels, etc.); they steal them or get them from other criminals. Criminals are most thankful that you pass laws like this because it makes their lives safer.

Senate Bill 47 and SB 374 illustrate a lack of knowledge about assault rifles. The essence of a true assault rifle is the ability to fire on full automatic and semi-automatic via a selector switch. Civilian rifles using a magazine do not have the ability to fire fully automatic unless they are highly modified by a professional gunsmith. Current laws make owning fully automatic weapons, aka machine guns — including semi-automatic weapons modified to fire fully automatic — a felony. These laws are more than adequate to protect California citizens.

The purpose of both bills is to require registration of — and eventually to mandate confiscation of — all rifles equipped with a magazine. Rifles can only be loaded by single shot, one round at a time; clip fed, where a clip holds the rounds that are then inserted through the breech, such as all M1s used in World War II; or with a magazine that holds the rounds and is inserted into the weapon from the bottom. Eliminating the ability to remove a magazine renders the weapon useless as it cannot be reloaded. Designating all rifles that have a magazine as “assault rifles,” and thereby requiring gun registration and taxes, is yet another end-run effort to require all guns to be registered, eventually leading to gun confiscation or destruction. Failure to comply with this bill would make law-abiding citizens subject to felony charges.

SB 53 is a workaround to the failure to pass mandatory gun registration nationally. If you can’t pass a law requiring gun registration, why not pass a law to register all ammunition purchases? The scope of this bill impacts all firearms — rifles, shotguns and pistols. This bill produces the same effect that will eventually lead to the same outcome: gun registration or confiscation. Failure to comply with this bill would make law-abiding citizens subject to felony charges.

SB 396 is a retread of the law that bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The purpose of this bill is to require the confiscation or destruction of millions of grandfathered magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. There are no records of magazines, ergo there is no way to know if they exist or if they are destroyed or turned in. Failure to comply with this bill would make law-abiding citizens subject to felony charges.

I seriously question the intent behind the proposed bills, but overall I fear their passage only will lead to the confiscation of law-abiding citizens’ weapons. If you can pass these bills, what is next — banning handguns, shotguns, bolt-action rifles?

There are many studies supporting fewer gun laws but a recent study, presented in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (Volume 30, Issue 2), is most revealing. It found in part that:

• Nations with private gun ownership have less crime. In the period from 1991 to 2011, gun ownership in America rose steadily; murders by guns fell 39 percent; and firearms-related crimes dropped 69 percent.

• The nine European countries with the fewest guns have a combined murder rate three times higher than the nine European countries with the most guns in private hands.

• With rare exceptions, since 1950, mass shootings have virtually always occurred in states with restrictive gun ownership laws. Moreover, despite very strict laws against private gun ownership, three of the worst recorded school shootings have happened in Europe.

• America leads the world in private gun ownership, yet we are 28th in gun murders per 100,000 people.

• From 1991 to 2011, America’s overall violent crime rate and murder rate both fell by half, a remarkable feat by any measure.

• On average, 200,000 American women protect themselves from sexual attacks each year using guns.

• By a ratio of 80 to 1, Americans use guns for crime prevention rather than to commit murders.

• During the period studied (1991 to 2011), deaths by accidental discharges of firearms fell 58 percent.

• The UK’s violent crime rate is four times higher than ours, and their rape rate is 125 percent higher. The UK also has 133 percent more assaults than we do.

• Australia has experienced a 19-percent increase in murders and an increase of 69 percent in armed robberies after plunging into extreme gun-banning.

• Chicago’s homicide rate jumped 17 percent last year despite passing increasingly more restrictive gun control laws. By many measures it’s the most deadly city in the world.

• Over 23 years, following its implementation of a law requiring each household to have a gun, Kennesaw, Ga., saw its overall crime rate drop by 50 percent and its burglary rate fall by 89 percent.

I respect those legislators who have reasons for not owning firearms; however, I insist that you respect my reasons for owning them in the number and configuration I choose. My primary reason for owning a firearm is to protect myself and my family as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Your proposed laws violate that guarantee and will result in either costing California millions in legal fees defending what you propose to pass, or having the law-abiding population of California simply ignore your laws knowing there is no way you will be able to enforce them. Either way, we all lose. Please vote these bills down.

Dennis Lowry, a retired telecommunications executive, is former chairman of the Benicia Finance, Budget and Audit Committee. He has been a Benicia resident since 1986.