KPBS Misreports on California’s “Strong Gun” Laws
Last week KPBS reported that “California Tops Rankings of States for Gun Control Laws,” and offered this factually incorrect information:
California has the strongest gun control laws in the country, according to an annual ranking of states by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. California scored eighty-one points out of a possible one-hundred. Amanda Wilcox is the Legislation and Policy Chair for the state Chapter of the Brady Campaign. She said the policy covering background checks on gun sales is notable, as are other rules limiting gun ownership.
The wording is inaccurate as California doesn’t have the “strongest” laws but rather the “most restrictive,” because strong laws would deter crime and punish those who break the law. But California has gun crime, and yet the restrictive laws actually address law-abiding citizens.
NRA News: New California Laws Target Handguns, Alcohol
Cam Edwards talks to California attorney Chuck Michel
SAF, CALGUNS FOUNDATION SUE CALIFORNIA OVER FIREARMS STATUTE
The case is known as Jeff Silvester et.al. v Kamala Harris, et.al. Read more
Who Guards the Guards: One Law For Them…
Today seems to be a big day for “Who Guards the Guards” stories, and this one is something to think about very hard. California has extremely strict gun laws regarding what private citizens can and cannot own, and yet the Associated Press noted, via the San Jose Mercury News:
Peace officers throughout California have bought more than 7,600 assault weapons that are outlawed for civilians in the decade since state lawmakers allowed the practice, according to data obtained by The Associated Press after it was revealed that federal authorities are investigating illegal gun sales by law enforcement.
Investigators have not said what kinds of weapons were involved, but did say they were ones that officers can buy but civilians cannot. That category also can include certain types of handguns and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
We would ask, if private citizens can’t own these guns, why do the police need them?
NRA News: California: 9th Circuit Agrees to Rehear Long-Running Alameda County Gun Rights Case
Cam Edwards talks to California attorney Chuck Michel
SAF FILES CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF CALIFORNIA ASSAULT WEAPONS’ LAW
Second Amendment Foundation:
SAF is joined in the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, by the CalGuns Foundation and Brendan John Richards, an honorably-discharged Marine and Iraq war veteran, who was arrested and jailed in May 2010 and August 2011. On both occasions, charges against Richards were dismissed when it was determined that he had not violated the law because firearms in his possession on both occasions were not “assault weapons” as defined by California law. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason A. Davis of Mission Viejo. Read more
Who Guards the Guards: Illegal guns case said to target Sacramento sheriff’s deputies
The Sacramento Bee on Friday reported “Illegal guns case said to target Sacramento sheriff’s deputies, others” and noted:
“In a highly secret operation, federal agents in Sacramento executed search warrants Thursday as part of an investigation of illegal gun sales that targets law enforcement officials, The Bee has learned.”
According to the story at least targets in the investigation, which includes sheriff’s deputies. The article adds:
“Police officers can obtain some weapons that are not available to the public, experts say, and typically must provide a gun dealer with proper paperwork, such as a letter from their chief or sheriff.”
Those who say, “only the police should have guns” should think hard about that statement given this latest case of police selling illegal guns. We also would like to point out this occurred in California, a state with very strict gun laws. How are those working out, we ask, if the police are doing the selling?
Rules Necessary to Fight Mexican Drug Cartels
This week Main Justice offered a story titled, “DOJ: New Gun Store Rules Necessary to Fight Mexican Drug Cartels,” which actually makes us question again why American gun owners and gun shops need to face greater scrutiny because of the situation south of the border?
Actually to the story, “the two month old regulation on gun merchants in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas is necessary to prevent guns from being sold to Mexican drug cartels.”
Again, this is a disgraceful situation considering ATF’s role in Fast and Furious, and Mexico’s handling of their affairs.
Bloomberg Puts Spin on Gun Shop Lawsuit
No surprise that Bloomberg offered a story from the AP that had just a hint of bias about the situation over the requirement for gun shops in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to provide ATF information about purchases of multiple long guns.
The story titled, “US defends gun sale reporting requirement in court,” does at least offer some key facts on the situation:
“The requirement was imposed amid controversy over ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious which tried to track guns suspected of being bought by straw purchasers back to gun-smuggling ringleaders, who have long eluded law enforcement.”
While that passage is fair enough, it still puts the blame on the gun shops as much as the ATF.
Who Guards the Guards: TSA Misses Gun in California
The TSA is probably no one’s “friend” these days, and California is certainly no friend to guns either. So imagine our surprise when LAist.com reported that a gun was missed by screening agents of the Transportation Security Administration this past weekend:
“The TSA missed a loaded handgun that was packed in the luggage of a passenger bound for Portland. The airport ramp crew found the gun when it tumbled out of the unzipped compartment of a bag.”
No doubt this will spur more crack downs that will affect law-abiding gun owners, while the TSA clearly dropped the ball!
