By Dennis Lowry

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS ON THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE are not working in any law-abiding citizen’s best interests when it comes to gun regulation. My previous article (“Open letter to the Legislature: Don’t pass draconian gun laws,” Aug. 30) listed the most recent bills being considered for that day. The reality is that there are a number of bills that will be considered by the Senate and Assembly in September, each designed to take a small portion of our Second Amendment rights. It is well past time for us to contact our representatives and protest loudly: Enough, no more anti-gun laws!

Here is my take on the most egregious bills, which are to be considered by the Legislature by the end of this week.

• Senate Bill 755 (Lois Wolk, D-Davis) expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm to include those who have been convicted of operating cars and boats while impaired, commonly referred to as DUI. I find it puzzling that Sen. Wolk is more interested in denying a person’s Second Amendment rights than revoking their driving privileges. For the most part, DUIs are misdemeanor offense, not felonies, except in one of two situations: if the DUI is a driver’s third causing injury (mandatory sentence: two to four years), or if a driver’s record shows a prior conviction for a felony DUI.

But California unfortunately convicts an average of 180,000 DUIs per year, not counting repeat offenders. This is a significant number, and yes, conviction should require the forfeiture of driving privileges for a period of time — but not a permanent loss of the right to own a firearm as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Sen. Wolk is my representative but unfortunately she and those of her ilk seem hell-bent on taking away our Second Amendment rights using any and all opportunities. All California citizens, but especially those of us here in her district, should contact her and demand that she withdraw this ill-conceived anti-gun bill.

• Senate Bill 374 (Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento) classifies all semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine or weapons without a magazine holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition as “assault weapons,” and bans the sale and transfer of virtually all semi-automatic rifles after Jan. 1, 2014. Continued legal possession of the newly classified “assault weapons” would require registration and payment of a fee — that is, a tax.

This bill is an absolute travesty and a gross overreach.

Existing law pertaining to assault weapons is already burdensome and too complex for the average citizen. In 2007, then-Attorney General Jerry Brown published a 55-page pamphlet, “California Firearms Laws,” to help citizens understand the state’s gun laws. But the Legislature authorized an across-the-board change of all penal codes in 2010, making the pamphlet outdated and essentially guaranteeing that the average citizen will be clueless when it comes to understanding California’s firearms laws.

The newly numbered penal code has clear language on what constitutes an “assault weapon,” though it exceeds the true definition of an assault weapon, or a weapon that can be fired fully automatic (one trigger pull, multiple rounds fired) and semi-automatic (one trigger pull, one round fired). Existing law is very specific (all-caps emphasis mine):

Penal Code 30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510 (names each weapon), “assault weapon” also means ANY of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and ANY ONE of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and ANY ONE of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semi-automatic shotgun that has BOTH of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semi-automatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

In effect, SB 374 would replace Penal Codes 30510 and 35015, lumping all weapons with a magazine and any weapon without a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds with any configured stock — including all rimfire weapons (mostly .22-caliber plinking rifles and pistols). None of the weapons added by this bill even remotely resembles an “assault weapon” in either function or form. Penal Codes 30510 and 30515 are onerous as presently written and are “tolerated” by law-abiding California citizens; SB 374 is unreasonable and should be rejected with prejudice by all citizens and legislators.

The rest of the lineup of anti-gun bills:

• Assembly Bill 48 (Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley) bans the sale of parts and repair kits that expand magazines beyond 10 rounds.

First, magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds are already illegal. Second, I went to three reputable gun shops and there was no such parts or repair kits available or even known of.

This bill also requires that any person who purchases 6,000 rounds of ammunition within a five-day period be reported to law enforcement. I don’t personally have a problem with the second portion of this bill, but the first portion should be deleted.

• Assembly Bill 169 (Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento) bans the sale and transfer of all lawfully acquired firearms that were never, or are no longer, on the California roster of approved handguns. The “trick” here is that it is up to the gun manufacturer to continue to update the state’s list of lawful firearms because the state deletes the information after five years. I believe the goal of legislators is to hope a manufacturer forgets to relist lawful firearms, thereby rendering your lawfully acquired firearm illegal. This bill does nothing to protect law-abiding citizens and should be rejected.

• Assembly Bill 231 (Phil Ting, D-San Francisco) expands the law relating to the storage of firearms and “negligence” involving access of the firearm by a child. This bill does nothing to reduce California’s violent crime problem and only turns law-abiding gun owners into criminals whether or not anything harmful actually happens, and regardless of whether there was misconduct on the part of the gun owner. Ultimately, AB 231 is a misguided proposal that imposes unprecedented liability on those who choose to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. By the way, if you have an intruder in your home, what do you think your chances are of unlocking your firearm safe and successfully defending yourself before you are injured, restrained or killed?

• Assembly Bill 711 (Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood) makes California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting. Sadly, our lawmakers refuse to consider alternatives to lead, thereby eliminating ammunition for hunting. This bill is totally misguided and needs to be defeated.

• Senate Bill 53 (Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles) bans the online and mail order purchase of all ammunition and requires registration and thumb-printing for all ammunition sales. SB 53 further requires that all ammunition purchasers pay a fee (tax) to obtain an annual ammunition purchase permit. Much like the arbitrary denial of concealed-carry permits, it is probable that ammunition purchase permits will be denied to most law-abiding citizens. Legislators finally understand that law-abiding citizens do not support gun registration, ergo the effort to register all ammunition purchases. Guns are useless without ammunition, which is implicitly protected by the Second Amendment. What part of “shall not infringe” do our representatives not understand? This bill should be rejected.

• Senate Bill 299 (Mark DeSaulnier, D-Walnut Creek) makes it a crime if a victim of a firearms theft does not report the theft within 48 hours. Most law-abiding citizens call the police to report thefts. But there are instances when the citizen doesn’t even realize a weapon was stolen. This law makes the citizen the criminal instead of the thief.

• Senate Bill 396 (Loni Hancock, D-Oakland) bans the possession of all magazines that carry more than 10 rounds, including the millions of “grandfathered” standard-capacity magazines currently legally possessed by Californians. Grandfathering of legally purchased property has been the law of the land for decades. There is no record of large-capacity magazines, therefore there is no way to enforce this law. If a crime were committed with a weapon having a magazine holding more than 10 rounds, I would support charging that person with the additional crime of having a large-capacity magazine, even if it were grandfathered. This bill needs to be withdrawn and rewritten to better focus on the problem it is trying to solve. As written, most if not all law-abiding citizens with a large-capacity magazine purchased legally years ago can be charged with a crime.

• Senate Bill 475 (Mark Leno, D-San Francisco) effectively bans gun shows at the Cow Palace by requiring approval of the board of supervisors of San Mateo and San Francisco counties prior to any gun shows. This is a ploy to eliminate gun shows when data shows that all firearms purchased at these shows undergo a background check before being issued to the buyer.

• Senate Bill 567 (Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara) redefines shotguns to include any firearm that may be fired through a rifled bore or a smooth bore, regardless of whether it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. It also bans the sale of shotguns encompassed by the revised definitions that have a revolving cylinder, and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns. This is targeting multi-function weapons that can shoot both ball and shotgun cartridges, i.e. 45 ACP and 410 shotguns, but does not explain why. Penal Code 30515 (8) already defines a revolving cylinder shotgun as an “assault weapon” that is well regulated. This law is redundant and should be voted down.

• Senate Bill 683 (Marty Block, D-San Diego) expands California’s handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and prohibits anyone from purchasing or transfering any firearm without a firearm safety certificate. This is yet another anti-gun initiative to register guns without actually “registering” guns. There is a $25 fee for each certificate and no guarantee the state will continue to allow individuals to be certified. No certificate equals no gun. Which way do you think the anti-gun crowd is moving? Our representatives should vote against this bill.

The bottom line is that our legislators are out of control when it comes to gun laws, or should I say anti-gun laws. Please take time to call your representative and the authors of these ill-conceived bills to let them know that you are opposed. A vote on each of these bills may take place very soon. Our legislators are scheduled to adjourn this Friday.

How fitting — Friday the 13th!

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.

Sharing is caring!