CRPA BLASTS GOVERNOR DAVIS OVER NEW HANDGUN LAWS

Josey1

CRPA BLASTS GOVERNOR DAVIS OVER NEW HANDGUN LAWS The California Rifle and Pistol Association has released a letter it sent to Governor Gray Davis criticizing his lack of leadership and questioning his character and integrity for recently signing two new state laws that increase red tape for handgun buyers. Copies of the two-page letter are available through the CRPA. Political strategists theorize that by signing the bills Davis is attempting to shore up his liberal voter base in response to increased public dissatisfaction with his administration. But in 1999, the Governor promised to oppose new gun control legislation until the gun control bills he signed that year had been satisfactorily implemented and evaluated. In making that commitment the Governor acknowledged that new legislation was ill-advised at least until law enforcement representatives were in broad agreement that the 1999 laws were working effectively and that additional legislation was truly needed. Despite his pledge, this month Davis signed Senate Bill 52, and its companion legislation Assembly Bill 35, although none of the above conditions have been met. The new bills do nothing to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but do create additional obstacles and costs for gun buyers. The bills also specifically discriminate against immigrants, military veterans, and licensed hunters. "The Governor signed these licensing bills despite law enforcement opposition and despite tremendous continuing problems with the 1999 bills," said Chuck Michel, CRPA spokesperson. "For example, the 1999 'assault weapon' and 'unsafe handgun' bills that the Governor signed were so poorly written and implemented that not even those charged with enforcing the laws can understand them." The San Francisco District Attorney's Office has gone on record expressing confusion about the 1999 'assault weapon' law, and the District Attorney's Offices for Fresno and Mendocino County, along with a national law enforcement association, are so confused by the law that they filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Justice and Attorney General Lockyer to force its clarification! This year Davis had to sign legislation giving law enforcement officers, experts who themselves could not understand SB 23's requirements, a special extended opportunity to register their personally owned 'assault weapons.' Further, under 1999's 'unsafe handgun' bill, ironically, many of the handguns that the law's sponsors intended to be banned are still being sold because they have passed the SB 15 mandated tests. Conversely, many very high quality handguns are now prohibited from being sold and are deemed "unsafe" because they are not current production models and remain untested. And under SB 15 law enforcement agencies, even though exempt from criminal sanctions for buying, selling, or possessing 'unsafe' handguns, nonetheless face increased civil liability for the firearms carried on and off duty by their officers. Many are reluctantly rewriting departmental policies on which firearms their officers are authorized to carry, because many police guns have not been tested and are presumptively 'unsafe' under SB 15's criteria. "These illustrations of careless law making have resulted and will continue to result in the prosecution of good citizens who inadvertently violate these poorly written laws." Michel said. "And it has started a process of litigation that ultimately will cost California's taxpayers a great deal of money in these tight fiscal times." CRPA's 70,000 members include law enforcement officers, prosecutors, professionals, firearm experts, the general public, and loving parents. CRPA's thousands of safety instructors have been teaching safe and responsible firearms ownership to those who choose to own a gun for sport or self-defense for over 100 years, resulting in the lowest gun accident rate ever! Transcript of Letter Sent to Governor Gray DavisOctober 24, 2001 The Honorable Gray Davis Governor, State of California State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 RE: Senate Bill 52 (Scott) and Assembly Bill 35 (Shelley) Handgun "Safety Certificate" Dear Governor Davis: The California Rifle and Pistol Association is dismayed that you did not honor your commitment to oppose new gun control legislation until the gun control bills that you signed last session had been satisfactorily implemented and evaluated. In making that commitment, you acknowledged that law enforcement agencies were best qualified to evaluate the effectiveness of these laws. And you recognized that new legislation was ill-advised at least until law enforcement representatives were in agreement that the existing laws were working effectively and that additional legislation was truly needed. Despite your pledge, this month you signed Senate Bill 52, and its companion legislation Assembly Bill 35, although none of the above conditions have been met. In fact, law enforcement was deeply divided over the appropriateness of the bills. The Association For Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the State Sheriffs Association, and other law enforcement groups strongly opposed both measures. And the bills signed by you last session are still creating tremendous difficulties for both law abiding gun owners and law enforcement agencies. For example, Senate Bill 23, the 1999 "assault weapon" legislation, was so poorly written and implemented that not even those charged with enforcing it can understand it. The San Francisco District Attorney's Office has gone on record expressing concern, and the District Attorney's Offices for Fresno and Mendocino County, along with a national law enforcement association, are so confused by the law that they filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Justice and Attorney General Lockyer to force its clarification! This year's Senate Bill 626 vividly illustrates the confusion caused by last session's SB 23. SB 626 gives law enforcement officers who could not understand SB 23's requirements another opportunity to register their personally owned "assault weapons." Despite the legislative acknowledgment of this confusion among law enforcement officers (who generally know more about firearms than civilians do) the general public was not afforded the same expanded opportunity to comply with the law. Senate Bill 15, the "unsafe handgun" bill that you signed last year, was also poorly conceived and drafted. Ironically, many of the handguns that the law's sponsors intended to be banned are still being sold because they have passed the SB 15 mandated tests. Conversely, many very high quality handguns are now prohibited from being sold and are deemed "unsafe" because they are not current production models and remain untested. Only manufacturers are authorized to submit guns for testing, but they will not incur the cost to put no longer produced models through the testing process because they want people to buy the brand new models. Furthermore, under SB 15 law enforcement agencies throughout the state, even though exempt from criminal sanctions for buying, selling, or possessing "unsafe" handguns, nonetheless face increased civil liability for the firearms carried on and off duty by their officers. Many are reluctantly rewriting departmental policies on which firearms their officers are authorized to carry, because many police guns have not been tested and are presumptively "unsafe" under SB 15's criteria. This year's SB52 and AB35 are no less illogical and ill conceived than last session's bills. As was demonstrated by the materials we previously submitted to your office, the legislation accomplishes nothing--except to harass law abiding gun owners by making the exercise of an individual's right to choose to own a firearm unnecessarily more difficult and costly. The firearms accident rate is currently at its lowest level ever! Criminals and others who unlawfully obtain firearms will, of course, not be affected by SB52/AB35. The new law's requirement that all firearms buyers pay a new five dollar "fee", some of which will be used to enforce provisions of the Penal Code having absolutely nothing to do with the purchase or other transfer of a firearm, is particularly offensive. The courts may hold that this is in fact a hidden tax, and that SB52/AB35 was unlawfully enacted. Your office was continually provided with facts, documentation, and other information regarding all the above legislation as it moved through the legislative process. In each of these cases, all you had to do was to ask the sponsoring legislators to draft well researched, well thought out, and well written legislation. You didn't. Badly written legislation that results in accidental violators is worse than no legislation at all! As Governor, you have the responsibility to insure that legislation signed by you is truly needed and is understandable by those it affects, as well as by those who must enforce it. All of the above legislation should have been vetoed for the reasons described herein and elsewhere, regardless of how you feel about their broader intended purpose or the social policies behind them. Your lack of leadership on these issues has resulted and will continue to result in the prosecution of good citizens who inadvertently violate these poorly written laws, And it has started a process of litigation that ultimately will cost California's taxpayers a great deal of money in these tight fiscal times. Further, your failure to honor your commitment to not sign further firearms legislation until the effectiveness of previous legislation was evaluated, and until law enforcement representatives all agreed it was necessary, reflects poorly on your character and integrity. Awaiting your personal response, Signed James H. Erdman, Jr. Executive Director JOIN CRPA TODAY