[url]www.uniontrib.com/news/uniontrib/fri/news/news_1n14guns.html[/url]

Stringent state gun-control measures advance
Davis expected to sign package of three bills


By James P. Sweeney
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

September 14, 2001


SACRAMENTO -- Lawmakers have approved a gun-control package that could prove to be as significant as any of the many gun laws the state has enacted over the past decade.

[b]One bipartisan measure would identify and help round up an estimated 200,000 illegal gun owners in the state.[/b]

Two other bills would for the first time establish a handgun licensing system that would require prospective buyers to pass a written test, pass a safe-handling demonstration and submit a thumbprint.

All three measures cleared both houses late Wednesday and yesterday and were awaiting routine final votes that would send them to Gov. Gray Davis, who is expected to sign them. By early evening, one of the licensing measures had gone to the governor.

The legislation is aimed at handguns, which represent most of the guns sold and involved in accidental and intentional shootings every year in California.

The state long has required gun buyers to pass a background check before taking possession of a new weapon. People who are felons, convicted of violent misdemeanors, subjects of restraining orders or mentally ill are barred from purchasing firearms.

But no system was ever set up to check on legal gun owners who later fell into a prohibited category.

[b]"We don't have hard numbers yet, but there are some experts who think there could be as many as 2 million people in California with guns that they are not legally supposed to have," Attorney General Bill Lockyer said.[/b]

Lockyer's firearms division has run computer database comparisons which have led officials to conclude that as many as 200,000 of those who legally bought firearms over the past decade have since been convicted of a felony or fallen into one of the other prohibited classes.

"The likelihood that those guns will be used in a crime is significant," Lockyer warned.

The Democratic attorney general sponsored Senate Bill 950, which would set up a new database to identify legal gun owners who have since moved into a prohibited group. The bill was carried by Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte and moved through both houses without opposition.

"The state does a pretty good job of prohibiting felons from buying guns in the future, but we never go back and say, 'If you're a felon, have you purchased a gun in the past?,' " Brulte said.

(continued)

The handgun licensing legislation, Senate Bill 52 by Sen. Jack Scott, D-Altadena, and Assembly Bill 35 by Assemblyman Kevin Shelley, D-San Francisco, was much more controversial and has been several years in the works.

To get the bill to the governor with any chance of a signature, backers had to give up significant pieces of their original proposal. A handgun registration scheme and shooting test were dropped.

The revised legislation, which could add California to a list of 12 other states with various forms of gun licensing, would require anyone who wants to purchase a handgun to pass a written and handling test. They also would have to show they know how to safely load and unload a weapon, as well as how to operate a safety and trigger lock.

In addition, handgun buyers would have to provide a thumbprint for a background check and proof of residency taken from a valid California driver license or identification card.

"This will make it much more difficult for criminals, for minors, for the mentally unstable to purchase a gun," Sen. Scott said. "The training and safety ought to cut down on accidental deaths."

A process that now costs $35 would increase to $45. The license, formally called a handgun certificate, would be good for five years. Background checks and thumbprints would be required for each purchase.

The identical licensing measures cleared both houses with largely Democratic support. Gun-rights groups and most Republicans opposed them.

Sam Paredes of Gun Owners of California predicted the licensing process would have little impact.

"This bill as it stands is nothing more than a face-saving remnant of what they started with," Paredes said. "It's little more than an irritation."


Michael Gardnerof Copley News Service contributed to this report.



Copyright 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

While our attention is diverted to "larger" things we have to make sure we are not stabbed in the back by "enemies within."

Check your six. Often.

Somebody check Brulte's head for a 666.

The timing of this is very disturbing.  It seems like a deliberate attempt to pass unpopular gun legislation when the protectors of freedom are distracted.

It's far from the first time the California legislature has used a tragedy to pass personal agendas.

I would not take this, especially at this time.  If you are not already, Kalifornians, get out and do something.  Some Americans make me ill (Davis).

Perfect. I'm sure Kali law enforcement agencies are stocking up on incindiery tear gas canisters.

It's no longer a slope gentlemen, it's a free fall.

Figures,  California would do something so like that.  Good I hope if or when it is needed to protect us on our soil they suffer for there stupidity.  Cal[puke] liberal bastards...

200,000 sounds like the estimate that was given for those who refused to register their "assault weapons".

What are you all going to do when they do the door to door confiscations?

There's more to these bills. AB35 also bans most home-based FFLs beginning in 2004, with certain exceptions, for instance, if you're handicapped, a gunsmith and dealer, or live in a rural area. The written test will contain a lot of questions in regard to CA firearms law, issues with having a handgun in your home, and other PC BS. Worse yet, if you fail to renew your certificate on time, they will send the cops after you and charge you with a misdemeanor -- a crime which no doubt will be added to the list of “prohibited misdemeanors” in a separate bill in the future, resulting in the total lose of your RKBA. Mark my words.

I won't be getting any godamn certificate! I don't need a frickin licence to exersise my rights! I have been writing letters to my piece o crap rep Dutra ...he's a anti piece of hypocrit shit.

I've known it for a long time coming, I'm screwed.    So is this a license just for future purchases?   Or do all current handgun owners have to get a "license" as well even if they don't buy another handgun for the rest of the time they are within California?



I'll likely have to make one more purchase here in coming months, gonna have to make it a good one.

It is a license for future purchases only and will not affect current owners, but I am sure that "loophole" will be closed soon.

mattja,

You're thinking of AB22, which is the bill to end home FFL dealers.

The other bad one to watch is AB510, which mandates magazine disconnect safeties and chamber loaded indicators on all self-loading pistols.