California Dems Learn Gun Control Easy in Theory, Difficult in Reality

Photo courtesy of krazydad/jbum, Flickr.

Photo courtesy of krazydad/jbum, Flickr.

Since the passage of “Gunpocalypse” (June 30, 2016), and Proposition 63 (November 8, 2016), California Democrats have learned that gun control is easy to pass but difficult to implement.

The problem for Democrats is that they have already passed so many gun laws that they have now begun trading the real for the theoretical, struggling to find a way to stop the crimes and terrorist attacks that none of their existing gun controls have stopped. In fact, Democrats are fighting for gun control with such fervor that one of their current undertakings is reworking a previous law in order to bar law-abiding teachers from carrying guns for self-defense.

It was in this spirit of gun control upon gun control that the Democrats passed Gunpocaplyse and Prop. 63.

The Firearms Policy Coalition measures consisted of:

SB 880: Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
SB 894: Re-victimizes victims by criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms.
SB 1235: Now competes with Gavin Newsom’s Safety for All Act/Ammo Ban [by enacting ammunition background checks].
SB 1446: Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity ammunition feeding devices.
AB 857: Forced “Ghost Gun” registration.
AB 1135: Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
AB 1511: Bans the loaning of firearms.
AB 1673: Redefines “firearms” to include items that are not firearms.
AB 1674: Bans buying more than one firearm within a 30-day period.
AB 1695: Makes some non-violent misdemeanors punishable by prohibitions on owning firearms.
AB 2607: Dramatically expands who can request a Gun Violence Restraining order.

Prop. 63 consisted of a “high capacity” magazine ban and a background check requirement for all ammunition sales. All of these laws were passed after universal background checks, gun registration requirements, gun confiscation laws, a ten-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry, and numerous other state and local gun controls – -including gun-free zones — proved impotent to stop the December 2, 2015 San Bernardino attackers. But now that all the gun controls have been passed, The Trace reports that implementing them is another story altogether.

According to The Trace, California’s Office of Administrative Law found fault with the way the wording of the “assault weapons” ban had been presented to the public for comment. And on June 29, “a federal judge in San Diego issued a preliminary injunction halting the statewide ban on the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds from taking effect.”

Because of these and other problems, deadlines for citizens to register their “assault weapons” have been pushed back six months, and there are those who believe deadlines may be pushed back further.

The problem is simple: what works on paper does not always work in the real world. And because Democrats continue to theorize that gun control works, against the weight of the evidence, there is a growing chance their hypothesis will collapse under the weight of reality.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

California’s High-Capacity Magazine Confiscation Halted by Judge

PETALUMA, CA - APRIL 02: Boxes of 9mm and .223 rifle ammuntion sit on the counter at Sportsmans Arms on April 2, 2013 in Petaluma, California. In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school massacare, California State lawmakers are introducing several bills that propose taxing and regulating sales of ammunition. Another bill is aimed to require a background check and annual permit fee to purchase any ammunition. (Photo Illustration by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

As of July 1, all that stands between the state of California and the criminalization of thousands of previously law-abiding state citizens is the opinion of a single federal judge. In a 66-page order, Judge Roger Benitez temporarily blocked a new California law that required citizens to surrender possession of any gun magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Remember how gun-controllers mock conservatives who claim that progressives really want to confiscate lawfully owned weapons? Well, someone forgot to tell California progressives to hide their radical cards. Last year the state amended its criminal law. It already banned the sale and transfer of large-capacity magazines. The new law applied to those magazines that were grandfathered in, legally possessed under previous law. As of July 1, 2017, any person who keeps a lawfully purchased and lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine risks a fine and up to one year in a county jail. Or, to quote the judge, “On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime.”

The law, however, does play favorites. It exempts “active and retired law enforcement officers” (but not members of the military), “employees of armored car businesses” and — incredibly — “movie and television actors when magazines are used as a prop.” Not even social justice can stop the Hollywood gravy train.

The little people, however, have but three choices: take the magazine out of the state (I’ll gladly accept donations to my Tennessee stash), sell it to a licensed firearm dealer, or surrender it to law enforcement for destruction. To absolutely no one’s surprise, gun owners appear to be resisting the law. A Sacramento Bee report summarizes their mood: “Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.”

The Bee quoted UCLA professor Adam Winkler who noted that gun owners tend to “ignore” magazine bans. “We see no compliance from gun owners,” he said. “As best as we can tell, no gun owners are giving up their high capacity magazines or selling them out of state.”

In fact, blue-state gun owners are becoming known for their passive resistance. When Connecticut required registration of so-called assault weapons, as few as 15 percent of assault-weapon owners complied.

Thanks to Judge Benitez, California’s gun owners have a brief reprieve. His opinion should be required reading for anyone who seeks to understand the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. Judge Benitez, quite simply, “gets it,” and his opinion is a tour de force that not only critiques Ninth Circuit jurisprudence (even as he applies it), it also eviscerates claims that California’s ban will have any meaningful impact on public safety.

The law’s advocates claim that large-capacity magazines don’t have “legitimate self-defense value.” Judge Benitez responds with actual evidence of their use in self-defense. The law’s advocates claim that studies of mass shootings show that large-capacity magazines render mass shootings particularly dangerous. Judge Benitez takes apart those studies, showing that the impact of large-capacity magazines is exaggerated and that the evidence is woefully deficient that banning them would have any meaningful impact on public safety:

To sum up, of the 92 mass killings occurring across the 50 states between 2013 and 2009, only ten occurred in California. Of those ten, the criminalization and dispossession requirements of section 32310 of the new law would have had no effect on eight of the shootings, and only marginal good effects had it been in effect at the time of the remaining two shootings. On this evidence, section 32310 is not a reasonable fit. It hardly fits at all. It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the constitutional rights of other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Moreover, the Court directly addresses a vital purpose of the Second Amendment — that it stands as a firewall against tyranny. If a state removes effective, commonly used weaponry from public use, that firewall starts to crumble. This summary paragraph is near-perfect:

Violent gun use is a constitutionally-protected means for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals. The phrase “gun violence” may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power. Implicit in the concept of public safety is the right of law-abiding people to use firearms and the magazines that make them work to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and their state against all armed enemies, foreign and domestic. To borrow a phrase, it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of public safety and reducing gun violence, statutes were permitted to subvert the public’s Second Amendment rights — which may repel criminal gun violence and which ultimately ensure the safety of the Republic.

The case will move quickly to the Ninth Circuit, where gun owners’ prospects are more grim. Ninth Circuit case law is hopelessly convoluted. Indeed, it seems deliberately engineered to provide maximum flexibility to progressive state and local governments while still providing a veneer of judicial review. One hopes that the Supreme Court will break its recent habit of refusing to review gun cases and step in once again on the side of the Bill of Rights.

As I’ve written before, California is seceding from the Constitution. It is systematically attacking individual liberty in favor of secular progressive collectivism. First Amendment rights are already under comprehensive assault, and now it seeks to cross the Second Amendment Rubicon — moving from gun “control” to outright confiscation of previously lawfully owned magazines.

Gun owners are right to resist this law. The court was right to block it. As Judge Benitez noted, if he didn’t enjoin the statute, then “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property. That is a choice they should not have to make. Not on this record.” To that I would simply add, not under this Constitution. California’s law cannot stand.

READ MORE:

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

This article was originally published by National Review Online

Why California gun owners may be breaking the law on July 1

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.

The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?

Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

In conservative, pro-gun Redding this week, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko joked that gun owners were lining the block to hand their magazines in to the sheriff’s office (In reality, no one has turned one in). He said his deputies won’t be aggressively hunting for large-capacity magazines starting next month. …

Click here to read the full article

California Senate Approves One-Gun-a-Month Purchase Limit for Residents

GunThe California Senate approved extending the one-gun-a-month handgun purchase limit to long guns on Tuesday, thereby limiting Californians to buying only one type of gun each 30-day period.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), who said, “There is no need or reason why a person would need to purchase more than one gun a month.”

According to the Los Angeles Times, Portantino indicated that limits on rifle and shotgun purchases will, in turn, limit straw purchasing. He is worried that some individual are passing background checks, then selling guns “on the underground market to criminals.”

Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-Chico) pointed to the failure of California gun control and asked why passing another law would make a difference. He said, “It’s more of the same that will not decrease violent crime.”

California has universal background checks, firearm registration requirements, gun confiscation laws, a ten-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapon” ban, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry, and a myriad of other gun controls. Yet they also had the May 23, 2014, Santa Barbara firearm-based attack; the December 2, 2015, San Bernardino terror attack; the June 2016 UCLA murder/suicide; and the October 8, 2016, Palm Spring police officer ambush. So Nielsen’s point is that none of the gun laws have hindered criminals, and there is no reason to believe a new law will do so, either.

Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Murrieta) said Portantino’s gun purchase limit “is yet another example of the government’s trying to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

This piece was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

California Republican Wants Warning Labels on Guns

evan p. cordes / Flickr / C

evan p. cordes / Flickr / C

California State Assemblywoman Catherine Baker, R-Dublin, is pushing legislation to require that warning labels accompany all firearms sold in the state.

Baker’s bill, AB1525, would also raise the passing grade “for the issuance of a firearm safety certificate” from 75 percent to 85 percent.

The text of Baker’s bill says that firearms packaging and “any descriptive materials” that accompany firearms sold in California shall contain the following warning:

The presence of a firearm in the home can significantly increase the risk of suicide, homicide, and unintentional shootings for household members. Firearms must be handled responsibly and securely stored to prevent access by children and other unauthorized users. California has strict laws pertaining to firearms and you can be fined or imprisoned for failure to comply with them. Visit the web site of the California Attorney General…for information on firearms laws applicable to you and how you can comply.
The warning also states:
Children are attracted to and can operate firearms that can cause severe injuries or death. Prevent child access by always keeping guns locked away and unloaded when not in use. If you keep a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it, you may be fined or sent to prison.

The Firearms Policy Coalition reports that the warning label push is the result of Baker and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence working together for more gun control in California.

Baker is the only Republican representing the San Francisco Bay Area, and serves in a highly contested East Bay seat.

The “warning label” push was anticipated well in advance by gun rights advocates. On May 8, 2013 — less than a month after Senator Joe Manchin’s, D-WV, post-Sandy Hook gun control bill went down in flames — Breitbart News asked, “Is Gun Ownership the New Smoking?” The point of the question was to examine whether desperate gun control groups were about to go after guns using the same tactics that anti-tobacco forces had employed to go after cigarettes.

During a Sep. 10, 2015 appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Moms Demand Action’s Shannon Watts confirmed that her gun control group planned on defeating the NRA by going around Congress to put “policies in place” at various businesses “just like they did with tighter [laws for] smoking.”

Assemblywoman Baker and the Brady Campaign are now calling for warning labels similar to those printed on the outside of cigarette packs and cartons.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

This article originally appeared on Breitbart.com/California

Top 10 Stupidest New Laws in California for 2017

california-flagI’m not in the habit of complaining at the outset of a column, but I’ve taken on a nearly impossible task — figuring out which, of the hundreds of new California laws about to go into effect, are the stupidest.

Don’t laugh. I’m serious.

It’s really, really hard to keep the list at 10 with hundreds of hare-brained schemes that became real laws.

After all, for far too long, the California Legislature has been a “conservative-free zone” — even though there were a handful of “Republicans” occupying seats and taking up space.

I’m going to list the new laws in order of their egregiousness to me, but I’m open to additions or wholesale re-ordering if you care to comment.

Given that Californians are facing 898 new laws going into effect on January 1st, 2017, there’s plenty to hate.

  1. Prop. 63: “2nd Amendment Nullification” Act.  Although various portions go into effect in various years — yes, they staggered implementation of this “critically needed reform,” some out to 2019 — this is the most sweeping assault on our long-cherished, God-given natural right as Americans to protect our lives and our freedom.  It requires you to pass a background check and pay for a permit to buy ammunition for the gun you may have just passed a background check to buy.  Yeah, that’ll stop criminals — who buy their guns and ammo in parking lots from other criminals. WooHoo! Next, it makes high-capacity magazine (any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds) illegal to possess — even if you bought it prior to the current ban and ownership was previously considered grandfathered.  This law should make it clear that the goal of the left is not “safety” — it’s control.
  2. SB880: “Bullet Button Ban.” For years, California Democrats have sought to ban a made-up classification of semi-auto rifles with “evil features” that they re-named “assault weapons” for propaganda purposes. Every year, California Democrats attempt to increase control over this “hated group” of guns — until they finally outright ban all semi-automatics.  This law will not do a single thing to further public safety, as the San Bernardino terrorist attack illustrated — determined mass murderers will simply ignore and work around all gun control laws — as if they are just words on paper. One last bit of irony: in a previous legislative session, this same bill was sponsored by none other than disgraced State Senator Leland Yee. If that name sounds familiar, you’re right. Leland Yee wanted to “protect” Californians from “assault weapons” on our streets — that is, until he was arrested for trafficking fully automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades in exchange for campaign contributions. He’s currently serving a five-year prison sentence.
  3. SB3: Minimum Wage Hike to $15/hour by 2020. As a result of a strong socialist push by unions and complicit governments — such as the union-controlled California legislature — businesses are looking to eliminate as many jobs as possible, investing in automation instead. When you combine this with unchecked illegal immigration — where you have an unlimited labor pool willing to work for sub-par wages under the table — the future for entry-level jobs and small business owners in California is bleak.
  4. AB1785 The “Hands Free” Law. This is another example of government gone wild. AB1785 prescribes driver behavior so severely that in and of itself, I believe it will cause more accidents — and more deaths. Not only must the phone be dash mounted — meaning you’ll have a permanent distraction right in front of you — but you may not text, take photos or video, or enter GPS destinations while driving. Fat chance of stopping those activities with a mere $20 fine. The bill does stipulate that “the only time a driver is allowed to touch the device is when he or she is activating or deactivating a “feature or function.” However, that process should only involve a “single swipe or tap of the driver’s finger,” according to the bill,” mynewsla.com reports. How about “hands off” my phone instead of an unenforceable “hands free” law?
  5. AB 1732: Single-User Restrooms. If you’ve ever had to go so badly that you used the opposite sex restroom at a gas station or Starbucks, then perhaps you think this law is needed. But do we really need another law regulating bathrooms? Some businesses have already put signs on their single-use restrooms designating use by either sex. And sometimes people just take it upon themselves. I can’t help but think this law is unnecessary and diminishes us as a society a little.
  6. SB 1383: Controlling Cow Flatulence. Not making this up. In spite of the fact that 53 California dairy farmers went bankrupt, moved out of state, or just closed down this year, the Marxist-Progressives are back at it again. Capture cow farts or suffer heavy fines.  CARB (CA Air Resources Board) suggests inserting a tube into the cow’s digestive system and venting into a backpack. Even liberals admit that laws like this, where government tries to control the uncontrollable, can have undesirable economic consequences. Lost jobs, lost industries, lost revenue. Stupid law.
  7. AB 857: Ghost Gun Ban.  Even if you manufacture your own gun — starting with an 80 percent receiver — that requires you to have special skills and tools to complete the machining, you must now register it and obtain a serial number from the California Department of Justice. The purpose of this law is simply to record your name and your firearm on a list for eventual confiscation. Once again, control — not public safety — is the goal.
  8. SB1322: Legalizing Child Prostitution. This law bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution. Now that is nuts. I understand the idea of trying to not punish the victim, but certainly granting judges discretion is better than legalizing and therefor “green-lighting” behavior that is so harmful to the individual child.
  9. Prop. 57:  Early Release for so-called Non-Violent Criminals. This was Governor Jerry Brown’s baby — the crown jewel of his prison reform initiatives. Among those offenses he considers “non-violent”: rape of an unconscious person; human trafficking involving sex acts with minors; and assault with a deadly weapon. Blogger Felicia Wilson summed it up well (original emphasis): “Call me crazy, but shouldn’t a crime that includes the word rape or assault be considered, I don’t know … violent?”
  10. AB 2466: Felons Voting. Low-Level felons serving sentences outside of state prison get to keep their right to vote. Hmm. Wonder which party this could possibly help? Just like the “illegal alien vote,” Democrats will have the felon vote locked down. This is simply about protecting their power and making it permanent.

When California Democrats promised to take to the streets to defend the rights of convicted felons, illegal aliens and welfare recipients, they weren’t kidding. If only they were as serious about cracking down on immigration cheats and violent criminals as they are about penalizing law-abiding citizens and gun owners, California would have more jobs, less crime — and might be a place people want to come to instead of fleeing.

Tim Donnelly is a Former California State Assemblyman. FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/tim.donnelly.12/ Twitter: @PatriotNotPol 

This piece was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

New Bill Calls for Cops to Track Weapons

As reported by the Orange County Register:

A state bill introduced Monday would require California law enforcement agencies to keep track of their guns and establish a reporting procedure for when police lose them.

State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, said he introduced the legislation in response to investigations published this year by the Orange County Register and Bay Area News Group revealing that many law enforcement agencies make little or no effort to inventory their weapons and that officers frequently lose their firearms – some of which end up on the street.

“The guns…fall into the hands of criminals,” Hill said. “The public will be protected much better when we account for law enforcement guns.”

The stories on lost police guns noted that there are no state or federal laws requiring police agencies to account for their weapons and few agencies voluntarily do so.

The Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms System attempts to act as a national registry for law enforcement weapons, but agencies are not required to report when a registered gun is lost or stolen. Also, officers don’t have to register their privately-owned guns even if they frequently carry them in the line of duty. …

Click here to read the full article

Opponents fight California gun measure

As reported by the Orange County Register:

California voters’ approval of even tougher gun restrictions leaves opponents trying to contain the damage within the most populous state and across the country, an effort buoyed by Donald Trump’s election.

Proposition 63 bans possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, requires permits to buy ammunition and forces owners to give up their weapons as soon as they can no longer legally possess them. It also increases penalties for stealing a gun and for not reporting the loss or theft of a firearm.

The initiative passed with 63 percent support Tuesday, making it more likely that similar measures will be considered elsewhere, analysts said.

“It’s not like some tiny little state is doing this. If it’s feasible in California, it’s possible in most states,” Harvard University professor David Hemenway said.

Opponents will keep fighting restrictions with lawsuits and a public relations campaign, and by challenging politicians who favor gun control, said Sean Brady, an attorney and spokesman for the Coalition for Civil Liberties, which opposed the measure. …

Click here to read the full article

The Real Story Behind Senate President’s Endorsement of Prop. 63

kevin de leon 2When Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon endorsed Proposition 63 last week, he didn’t mention the endorsement was conditional.

This summer, the Los Angeles Democrat ushered through the Legislature a measure that substantially amends in advance the ballot measure’s ammo regulation provisions — a move a Prop. 63 spokesman at the time called “sickeningly cynical.”

For about a year now, de Leon has been in a political feud with Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Prop. 63’s primary proponent. The two fought over who had better ideas for gun and ammo control and what lawmaking avenue was more appropriate: the Legislature or the Ballot Box. And at least for now, de Leon won.

None of this was mentioned in the endorsement.

“Earlier this year, our Legislature passed the most sweeping and important package of gun safety laws in the nation, increasing nationwide momentum and grass-roots outcries for common-sense safeguards against gun violence,” de Leon wrote in a statement. “I endorse Proposition 63 because we must send a powerful and united message to the national Gun Lobby that California will not capitulate to political bullying or compromise the public safety.”

Critics cry foul

Republicans in the Assembly tried to fight de Leon’s bill as it moved through the Legislature, arguing on procedural grounds, and were easily overruled. In an interview this week, Assemblyman James Gallagher, an attorney by trade, called de Leon’s actions “ridiculous,” adding the Los Angeles Democrat is “trying to change what might be the will of the voters.”

“The voters are being asked to vote on something right now that, if passed, [the Legislature is] going to change the language,” said Gallagher, a Nicolaus Republican.

Gallagher opposes both Prop. 63 and the de Leon bill, but said the procedure matters: “Is that the kind of precedent that we want to set?”

Legal analysis

But, in fact, it may be legal.

“I don’t think I have seen this before, but it looks legit to me,” said Frederic Woocher, an elections law specialist at the Los Angeles law firm Strumwasser and Woocher, who has no connection with either the ballot measure or the legislation.

Prop. 63 does allow for legislative amendments, as long as they “further the purposes” of the measure and pass by at least 55 percent. According to Woocher, since the Legislature has the power to amend the measure, and since the legislation won’t go into effect until after Prop. 63 would pass, this is akin to passing the legislation next year — like postdating a check.

“Under this admittedly unusual circumstance, I believe it would constitute a valid amendment to Prop. 63 under the initiative’s provisions allowing for amendments (again, this assumes that it ‘furthers the purposes’ of the initiative),” Woocher said.

But is it transparent?

Where Gallagher and Woocher disagree most though, is whether the Legislature’s move is transparent. Gallagher said that the voter-fatigue inducing, 17-measure ballot and accompanying voter guide already make the process cumbersome on voters — adding pending legislative amendments makes matters worse.

“It’s bad enough that you have this huge voter pamphlet; let alone to have to go ‘Oh, well, also the Legislature may have passed a bill that’s going to change this language,’” Gallagher said.

But Woocher argued that because the Legislature took action prior to the November election, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office was able to consider the amendments in its analysis, interested voters will have the opportunity to become fully versed.

“The amendments may not be reflected in the title and summary per se … but I think it is not unreasonable to expect interested voters to review the entire Voters’ Pamphlet, which includes the Leg Analyst’s more in-depth and explanatory analysis of the expected impacts of the measure’s passage,” Woocher said.

A spokesman for Kevin de Leon did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

This piece was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Palm Springs City Council: Guns in Homes Must Be Disabled

GunOn Wednesday night Palm Springs city council voted for a new gun control measure requiring firearms in the home to be disabled with a locking mechanism or otherwise locked in a container.

The new gun control also includes a requirement that residents report a stolen gun within 48 hours and that concealed carry permit holders place guns “in a locked container” if leaving them in their cars.

According to The Desert Sun, 23 Palm Springs residents spoke at the city council meeting, with 15 opposing the new gun controls and eight supporting them. The council then voted 3-2 to pass the measures.

Moms Demand Action’s Dori Smith was one of the eight people who spoke in favor of the gun control. She pointed to the accidental death of a toddler in Louisiana as justification for Palm Springs to adopt the measures on disabling firearms in the home. She said, “We’re simply asking for safety first and saving lives.” Smith did not mention that far more children 10 and under are accidentally killed each year by fire and water than are accidentally killed with a firearm.

In fact, 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures showed that over seven times more children 10 and under were killed in fire-related deaths than accidental gun deaths. And the number of children 10 and under killed in accidental drownings was over 16 times higher than the number killed in accidental gun deaths. Besides being silent on these facts, Smith also failed to explain how requiring a law-abiding citizen to lock up his guns will save that citizen’s life if an intruder storms his residence.

Councilman J.R. Roberts voted to require law-abiding citizens to disable their guns as a way of preventing “youths” from grabbing a gun “in a moment of hopelessness.” Roberts did not explain why homes without “youths” in them should also be required to disable their guns.

Gun owner Andrew Hirsch was among the 15 who spoke against the gun control. He said “the prior city council was known for corruption” and suggested the current city council is soiling its own reputation by “using its powers to restrict the freedoms of law-abiding people.”

The passage of the gun control was preliminary. The city council will bring the measures up for a second and final vote during their next meeting.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

This piece was originally published by Breitbart California