California’s weapons laws effective, but loopholes remain
The horrific Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., has outraged the nation and energized the gun control movement. It’s also inspired California state legislators to propose a package of 10 new gun control bills. The proposals cement California’s position as the country’s leader on gun control.
Compared with the rest of the country, California has relatively strict gun laws, including a mandatory 10-day waiting period for gun buyers and a recently passed voter initiative to restrict ammunition sales. Studies show those efforts have made a difference. According to the Brady Campaign, California’s mortality rate by firearm declined by 56.6 percent from 1993 to 2013 — 29.9 percent more than the decline in the rest of the nation. That time period overlaps with California’s adoption of important gun control measures like an assault-weapons ban and universal background checks of gun sales, including at gun shows.
But without action from federal officials and other state governments, California is unlikely to continue seeing dramatic drops in gun-related deaths.
That’s because even a state with California’s determination and resources can only do so much.
One example of the state’s limits is its Armed Prohibited Persons System. A dozen years ago, the state set up a database to alert law-enforcement officials when registered gun owners have been convicted of felonies, deemed mentally ill, received a restraining order or met another qualifying standard to be prohibited from owning firearms.
The statewide list has 10,226 people, and last year, the state Justice Department seized nearly 4,000 guns.
While the victories are real, the backlogged database system has also been plagued by a lack of resources, legal checks (without warrants, agents are only allowed to ask for permission to seize the guns) and the ease of getting firearms from out of state.
Weak firearm regulations in other states and at the federal level have undermined the effectiveness of California’s smart regulatory response to gun violence.
Still, California must do what it can to protect its own residents. The state has its own loopholes to
close, as the package of bills shows.
The proposals include a strengthening of gun tracing programs (AB2222, from Assemblyman Bill Quirk, D-Hayward) and an expansion of California’s assault weapon definition to include high-powered semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines (AB1663, from Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco). Chiu’s bill was held in committee last session.
State Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, is proposing to to allow mental health workers, employers, co-workers and school staff to petition a court to temporarily restrict a person’s ability to access firearms if they believe the person is a danger to herself or others.
Under current state law, only family members and law-enforcement officers have that ability. (A similar 2016 bill was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown.)
Under AB2382, from Assemblyman Mike Gipson, D-Carson (Los Angeles County), the state would also require background checks for anyone buying a key part used for assembling assault weapons at home.
AB1927, a new bill from Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, would allow people to add themselves to the state’s Armed Prohibited Persons list if they feel they are a danger to themselves or others, and AB1968, from Democratic Assemblyman Evan Low of San Jose, would remove firearms from those who’ve been hospitalized for suicide prevention twice in one year.
Loopholes will remain in California’s gun laws even if Sacramento passes this entire package of bills, and, of course, the state’s efforts desperately need to be backed up by federal action. But state legislators are responding to a real need in this country for more restrictive gun measures, and real concerns from Californians about their safety in schools and on the streets.