9 Useless and Unconstitutional Anti-Gun Laws California Will Pass in 2013
Crazy in California? You bet. New York State recently
passed tough,
new gun laws, though they already had some of the strictest gun laws in
the nation. Not to be outdone, California — which also has strict gun
laws — is proposing even tougher
new gun laws than New York passed. Undoubtedly, this will please some gun control advocates, and raise the ire of gun-rights advocates.
If these laws are passed, and subsequently challenged in court, many
would not likely be upheld as constitutional. Even more disheartening is
that none of the proposed laws seek to address any underlying causes of
gun violence. California’s new gun laws, if passed, will include:
1. Ban all Semi-Automatic Rifles That Accept Detachable Magazines:
California's current assault weapons ban restricts so-called "assault
rifles," based on cosmetic features. The new laws would ban all
semi-automatic rifles regardless of features.
2. Ban Possession of High-Capacity Magazines:
California law bans the transfer, but not possession, of magazines
that can hold over ten bullets. It is currently legal to buy the
constituent parts and assemble magazines themselves. The new law would
make this illegal.
3. Require Yearly Safety Certificate:
This provision would require all handgun owners obtain a safety
certificate every year, rather than the every-five-years requirement for
purchases of new handguns. Some states require a safety course if
handgun owners apply for a license to carry the handgun concealed (CCW).
California's law would require all handgun owners, regardless of CCW,
meaning it would apply even if they only possess their handgun in their
residence for home defense.
4. Universal Registration of All Guns:
The law would create "ownership records consistently
across-the-board, ensuring all firearms are recorded" so that the
background check system can prevent criminals from getting guns. Gun
registration has been used later for the purpose of
confiscation, even in the United States.
5. Require Background Checks on All Ammunition Purchases:
This provision would require anyone wishing to buy ammunition to
first get a permit by passing a "full and complete" background check, as
Los Angeles and Sacramento already do.
6. Regulating Gun Loans:
This would prevent unregulated gun loans, with some exceptions (like
hunting), in order to keep weapons from those who haven't passed
background checks.
7. Prevent Prohibited Individuals From Living in Homes With Guns:
California's Armed Persons Prohibition (APP) database lists people
who can't legally own weapons, such as felons and those adjudicated
mentally ill under state law. This addition would prevent people on the
list from living in a house (even family member's homes) that has a gun.
8. Crack Down on People Who Can't Own Guns Legally but do Anyway:
Currently, 19,700 people who are on the APP list own guns. Police
estimate that these people own roughly 39,000 firearms. This new law would authorize additional funding to enforce the law in this area.
9. Ban Shotgun-Rifle Combinations:
It would ban this class of class of
weapon, which are usually
single-shot rifles, which are not at all like semi-automatic rifles or so-called "assault rifles."
Update: Since original publication, several Californian residents responded that the bill doesn't actually ban Rifle-Shotgun combinations. The original news stories reported that this was the case. The final bill may not have reflected this. Even if there is no inane shotgun provision, there is still plenty to find fault with in California's new anti-gun laws (the other 8 points).
California's new laws, if passed, would likely face legal challenge
by groups such as Responsible Citizens of California. If challenged in
court, many of these provisions would likely not remain upheld based on
the Court's previous
rulings that
weapons "in common use at the time" (p.55) are constitutionally
protected arms. The ammunition provision is particularly interesting;
the Court has ruled the regulations that render firearm useless for
self-defense are not constitutional. This ruling was aimed at trigger
locks, not ammunition specifically, but the principal may apply since a
gun without ammunition is useless for self-defense, the Second
Amendment's "core lawful purpose of self-defense" (p.58). The court
adds: "A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a
destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to
render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly
unconstitutional" (p.57). The Court also ruled that the Second Amendment
has "no interest-balancing" provision. This means that the state would
not be justified in restricting purchase of ammunition (necessary to use
a gun for self-defense) by reason of balancing the state's interest in
public safety.
In addition to the potential legal challenge, what is disappointing
about California's decision to pursue even stricter gun laws than they
currently have is that none of these proposals address any of the
underlying causes of violence. Gang violence is among the major
underlying causes —
accounting for
"an average of 48% of violent crime in most jurisdictions, up to 90% in
some jurisdictions." It's a safe bet some of the high rate
jurisdictions are in California. Drug abuse is also a
major predictor of violence. These two factors are related via the drug trade, which is heavily stepped in California through the
border.
Instead of addressing the root causes, California is opting for 'more
of the same' laws they already have, while further eroding honest
citizen's rights and ability for personal self-defense.
By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt
is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the
Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control,
Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight
Follow Me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication February 13, 2013).
