Ammo measure genesis is grisly family tragedy
The November ballot measure aimed at clamping down on the sale of bullets in California can trace its genesis to one grisly death 43 years ago at a dining room table in Mill Valley.
That table is where Gavin Newsom’s grandfather shot himself to death in front of the future lieutenant governor’s mother and aunt. Arthur Menzies had endured the Bataan Death March as a World War II prisoner, and apparently was never able to shed the anguish.
“My grandfather committed suicide, but not before putting his daughter — my mother — and
her twin against the fireplace and saying he was going to blow their brains out,” Newsom said. “That’s how I grew up. That’s how I found out about guns. “I can’t stand ’em.” The family revulsion for the killing power of a gun barrel, Newsom said, had a lot to do with why he assembled Proposition 63 to require background checks for anyone selling or buying ammunition, ban ammo magazines of more than 10 rounds, and make it an infraction for dealers not to report bullet thefts to police within 48 hours.
Prop. 63 would also make it an infraction to not quickly report a gun theft — it could escalate to a misdemeanor on the third violation — and would tighten rules forbidding felons from owning guns. But it’s the ammunition clampdown that makes this initiative unusual — it’s the first ballot measure in California history to focus on the purchase of large-capacity clips rather than the gun itself.
The state already bans such clips. But codifying the ban with a statewide vote would mean it could be overturned only by another ballot measure, not the Legislature. That’s considered a higher bar.
The issue is more than personal, said Newsom, who was also a gun control advocate as mayor of San Francisco. Like many activists, he can quickly cite statistics meant to show that limiting firearms can lead to a safer society — and with this measure, he’s trying to push the national gun control movement into new territory.
Crimping the availability of bullets crimps the murder power of guns, and for those who are fighting to limit weapons in the U.S., “I think it’s a game changer,” Newsom said.
“This is the next big battle, I think, in gun safety nationwide,” he said. “This — ammunition — and relinquishment of guns by those who should not have them.”
Gun rights advocates view the initiative as a game changer, all right — a terrible one.
Law enforcement groups, including the California State Sheriffs’ Association, have generally lined up with gun rights organizations, including the California Rifle and Pistol Association. They say the measure would put small ammunition retailers out of business, force people to get a license to buy ammo, and do nothing to stop terrorists or other criminals from obtaining bullets. They also don’t like the proposed $50 fee for the ammunition license.
“Bad guys are always going to do whatever they want to get guns and ammo,” said Sean Brady, a lawyer with the Coalition for Civil Liberties, which draws together more than a dozen groups, including the National Rifle Association, to fight the initiative. “I know Lt. Gov. Newsom says, ‘Oh, that’s the golden oldie, it doesn’t work like that.’ But the proof is in the pudding.”
Despite state and federal laws that require background checks and prohibit gun ownership by felons, he said, terrorist slaughters such as those that rocked San Bernardino and Orlando over the past year are happening with greater frequency. Shooting a potential killer in the wee hours in your house with your own gun is still a better tactic than betting on police showing up to protect you, he said.
“Are (they) doing this (the initiative) solely to harass, to say, ‘I don’t like these people, I don’t like what they’re doing, so I’m going to stick my thumb in their eye’?” Brady said.
Lara Smith, vice president of the Liberal Gun Club of California, is also campaigning with her group against the initiative. She says that, unlike many gun-control opponents, she not only is a Democrat but also is in favor of some weapons limits, such as “well-implemented background checks.”
Going after people’s ammunition, Smith said, is pointing in the wrong direction.
“Of course there’s a problem with people being killed — we all see it,” she said. “What we want to focus on, though, is the root causes, not just going after people’s guns.”
By that, she said, she means ramping up programs that give job training for felons, or counseling to prevent suicides — which account for more than half of all gun deaths.
Eliminate the despair and anger that can push someone to pick up a gun and kill, Smith said, and you’ve gone further toward controlling the problem.
“Look, I’m a true liberal,” Smith said. “I’m very concerned about women’s rights, marriage equality, LGBT issues. But our group doesn’t see the Second Amendment as something to take lightly. What we really need is better enforcement of the laws already on the books and getting at those root causes.”
Juliet Leftwich, legal director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said opponents of the measure are on the wrong side of history. The prevalence of massacres and gun deaths in the United States — 34,000 Californians were shot to death from 2004 through 2014, according to the center — means that “the time is right now,” she said.
“I’ve been doing this work for 20 years, and I’ve never seen so much public concern and outrage and despair over this issue,” said Leftwich, who survived the rampage at the 101 California St. high-rise office building in 1993, when a gunman killed eight people and wounded six others before fatally shooting himself. It was the worst mass shooting in San Francisco history, and led to the formation of the law center.
“The fact that our presidential candidates, at least on the Democratic side, are talking about this is remarkable,” Leftwich said. “Gun violence was viewed as the third rail in politics for decades, so things have changed.”
So far, momentum is in Prop. 63’s favor. A Field/IGS Poll of likely voters taken Sept. 7-13 found the initiative leading by 60 percent to 30 percent. Through last week, the “yes” campaign had raised $4.5 million, nearly 10 times more than its opponents.
Many gun-oriented business owners in the Bay Area are reluctant to give their views of the initiative openly, for fear of retaliation, but they are planning to fight the measure if it passes. They’re already collecting signatures for a ballot measure that would overturn six gun laws signed this year by Gov. Jerry Brown that anticipated Newsom’s initiative by banning large-capacity clips and requiring background checks for buying bullets.
“My customers aren’t happy with any of this. It ruins everyone’s lives but the criminals’, and it’s totally unconstitutional,” said Scott Jackson, who teaches 350 people a month how to shoot at his Bay Area Firearms Training center in Burlingame.
“We’re going to get rid of those recently passed laws, and we’ll do it if this one passes,” Jackson said. “It’s absolutely the wrong way to go.”