MILESFORTIS

California’s gun restrictions are a failure

Inevitably, last weekend’s horrendous fusillade of bullets on a downtown Sacramento street that left six people dead and at least a dozen wounded generated demands for new gun controls in state that already has the nation’s most restrictive firearms laws.

However, if anything, what happened just two blocks from the state Capitol underscores the folly of believing that “gun violence” can be meaningfully reduced by trying to choke off the supply of firearms – any more than the prohibition of liquor or the war on drugs succeeded.

The state’s gun laws have hassled law-abiding hunters and gun hobbyists and some are in danger of being declared unconstitutional. However, Californians already own more than 20 million rifles, shotguns and handguns and are buying hundreds of thousands more each year.

Nor have these laws prevented the lawless from obtaining weapons via theft, smuggling from other states or the illicit manufacture of untraceable “ghost guns.” Indeed, state restrictions have made the black market even more lucrative, mirroring the side effects of Prohibition and the decades-long drug war.

Initial evidence indicates that those who fired more than 100 rounds in a street crowded with bar and nightclub patrons probably were violating one or more gun laws. The two brothers that police arrested and are suspected of involvement in the mass shooting were charged with illegal possession of weapons – one for possession of an illegal fully automatic firearm.

So why, if California’s much-vaunted gun control laws have failed to choke off the supply of legal and illegal weapons, do politicians continue to claim that enacting even more will have an effect?

Some may believe it, the evidence notwithstanding, while others want to appear to be doing something about a problem because they don’t have any other answers. And those who propose and enact new gun laws are often woefully ignorant about guns or even existing laws.

In the aftermath of the shooting, Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg lamented to a radio interviewer about California’s difficulty in reducing the number of guns, saying, “You just have to go to a gun show in Reno to buy an assault weapon without a background check and come right back to California.”

Advocates of more laws often cite a “gun show loophole” but it’s a myth. Under federal law, one must be a resident of Nevada and undergo a federal background check to legally buy a gun in Reno.

Moreover, while California professes to have banned “assault weapons,” the state’s definition of them involves cosmetic features, rather than their lethality. Perfectly legal semi-automatic rifles that lack those features are available for sale everywhere in the state.

The newest effort at gun control in California, backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, would authorize personal lawsuits against the manufacturers and sellers of illegal assault rifles or ghost guns, mirroring a new Texas law allowing suits against those who perform abortions.

The legislation, Senate Bill 1327, is just a stunt – one of Newsom’s periodic jabs at a rival state. Those who could be sued under the bill are already committing criminal acts in California and a federal law prohibits suits against manufacturers of legal firearms, including the “assault weapons” that California and a few other states purport – but fail – to outlaw.

The bottom line is this: Actor Alec Baldwin’s claims notwithstanding, guns don’t fire on their own. Someone must accidentally or purposely pull the trigger and that should be the focus of efforts to reduce violence – such as more vigorous enforcement of laws banning gun possession by felons and those under court order.

If You Can’t Ban It, Overregulate It: Democrats War on Guns Continues

In 2020, my husband and I took a concealed carry course at Magnum Shooting Center in Colorado Springs. The class itself was approximately four hours and covered a number of topics related to gun ownership and safety. After the classroom instruction, we spent an hour on the range.

What surprised me about this course was that a fair portion of it included instruction on Colorado laws, and specifically, what to do if I were ever in a situation when I needed to discharge my weapon (answer, get a lawyer).

Indeed, even in cases of clear self-defense, legally owning a gun and using it to protect yourself can ruin you financially if the person you shot decides to come after you in court. What’s more, this happens regularly. Someone shoots a would-be perpetrator in self-defense, and the assailant turns around and presses charges.

If the above sounds outrageous to you, you’re not alone. But, owning a gun and using it for protection is not as straightforward as you might think. That’s because while Colorado Democrats in the General Assembly can’t outright ban gun ownership thanks to the Second Amendment, they’ve made fair progress toward making gun ownership impractical. And while Republicans are trying to safeguard Second Amendment rights, they’re facing an uphill battle. Here’s what just happened in the Colorado House of Representatives and why it matters to the overall picture of gun ownership.

Restricting Constitutional Carry

Colorado is currently considered an open carry state. That means if you’re legally allowed to possess a firearm, you can open carry it as long as it’s not in a restricted area. However, in 2021, Democratic lawmakers successfully passed Senate Bill 21-256, allowing local governments and municipalities the right to enact any gun law or regulation it wants, as long as that rule is not less restrictive than current Colorado law.

That means places like Boulder can now legally ban open carry of firearms even though open carry is legal under Colorado’s state law. And indeed, that’s what’s happening. So far, Denver is the only area to prohibit open carry, but liberal places like Boulder will follow.

In response to the above, Representative Ron Hanks (Republican, D-60) introduced House Bill 22-1033, “Constitutional Carry of a Handgun.” If it’d passed, HB 1033 would allow anyone 21 years or older who is legally permitted to own a handgun, to also be permitted to carry that weapon concealed without a concealed carry permit. In other words, if you’re 21 or older and you legally own a gun, you wouldn’t have to attend a class and then get a permit to carry that gun under your jacket. More importantly, HB 1033 would’ve repealed part of SB 256. It stated, “The bill repeals local government authority to regulate open or concealed carry of a handgun, including repealing the authority of special districts and the governing boards of institutions of higher education, as applicable.”

After Hanks introduced HB 1033 to the House, it was assigned to the House Committee on Public & Behavioral Health and Human Services. And on Feb. 8, after less than three hours of deliberation, Democrats voted to postpone HB 1033 indefinitely on a party-line vote.

Republicans’ Hands are Tied

Over the past year, The Maverick Observer has detailed how Democrats in the Colorado General Assembly have worked to increase barriers to gun ownership. And with recent bills like HB 22-1086 successfully making their way through the legislative process (link to be included once my article is published), 2022 will end with even more bureaucratic red tape. Make no mistake, the end goal is to overregulate guns into obscurity.

Republican lawmakers like Hanks have tried to push back on these measures, but because Democrats make up a majority in both the House and Senate, and Colorado has a Democratic Governor, these efforts have almost zero chance of passing and are, essentially, dead on arrival.

If the above concerns you, you can take a number of actions. First, contact your representatives and tell them how you feel about the continued encroachments to your Second Amendment rights. Second, sign up to testify either for or against bills making their way through the legislative process. And third — and arguably the only way to enact change given the current makeup in the General Assembly — vote in November for representatives who support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.