Capitol Weekly Shows Anti-Gun Bias in Reporting on Gun Legislation

Maybe someone should tell the staff at Capitol Weekly, “The Newspaper of California Government and Politics” to watch some old episodes of Dragnet and just tell “the facts, just the facts.” The paper reported on “A graveyard for key bills at the 11^th hour” and shows some serious anti-gun bias.

The political outlet got down right political in reporting on two key bills. First up AB 1934:

“It’s been awhile since the Capitol has seen a real knock-down, drag-out gun battle. But it got one this year in the form of AB 1934, a bill which would ban the open carrying of firearms. Open carry protestors have gotten folks in a tizzy some places recently by, for instance, walking into Starbucks and other retail establishments with guns in their holsters.  In the end, AB 1934 was a victim of GOP ‘run out the clock’ efforts. And Saldana is termed out. But, like anything to do with gun law, the story won’t end there. Beyond the usual lawsuits, this one is may result in law enforcement agencies being sued to provide more concealed weapons permits—on the grounds that urban sheriffs are notoriously (unconstitutionally?) stingy with these licenses. There also may be some sort of First Amendment challenge coming as well.”

Is it fair to note that the bill was a “victim?” That seems in poor taste as the issue was over gun rights. And are the editors being hopeful that there will be future challenges to the bill? We certainly read bias in this reporting.

Next up, the paper noted on AB 2062:

“Meanwhile, a bill by Assemblywoman Kathleen Galgiani, D-Tracy, to ‘micro-stamp’ ammunition went nowhere. AB 2062 would have required a registration and manufacturing system by which each gun stamped a tiny serial number into a shell casing each time a gun was fired. The idea was that a shooter would essentially leave a bunch of ID tags at any crime scene. The gun lobby has said the idea is onerous and flawed. Assemblyman Kevin De Leon, D-Los Angeles, carried a similar unsuccessful bill last session.”

Talk about a one-sided take on the story, and again where are the facts? This reporting is actually what went nowhere. The authors give all the reasons why micro-stamping is a good idea, but then simply say “the gun has said the idea is onerous and flawed.”

Instead of explaining those flaws, such as the fact that shell casings can be picked up, or that it doesn’t address what would happen to the millions of bullets currently in the market that aren’t micro-stamped, the authors make it sound like the argument from the gun lobby is just flawed. What is really flawed however, is this reporting.