Piling on more gun laws won't stop shootings

Californians have understandably expressed shock after a three-day wave of mass shootings that left 19 people dead over a three-day period last month. Despite our horror, we can't help but believe that political opportunism is driving Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Democratic legislators to announce a new gun-control law that has little chance of working.

“We're doubling down on gun safety and strengthening our public carry law to protect it from radical Republican attacks,” Newsom said. The term “radical Republican attacks” offers a clue about political motives. So do the details of the bill, which is a reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York law similar to one in California.

Senate Bill 2 would ban people from carrying a concealed weapon in private businesses that are open to the public (unless the owners specifically allow them) and churches, banks, libraries, playgrounds and other public places. A potential mass killer won't be dissuaded from breaking this law. It might dissuade a lawabiding citizen from carrying a legal weapon and being able to use it in a defensive manner.

A fascinating article last month from The New York Times — hardly a bastion of radical Republicanism — pointed to a conundrum. “California has more than

100 gun laws,” the headline noted. “Why don't they stop more mass shootings?” That's a good question — one that policy makers need to answer if they're serious about stopping the violence.

“(T)he shootings are offering a lesson in the limits of state power to stop American gun violence, even with the political will at all levels of the state government to do so,” per the Times. The article noted that both alleged gunmen “had highly regulated weapons that cannot be acquired legally in California without numerous safeguards.”

Furthermore, they both “had previous brushes with law enforcement” and “both slipped through the overlapping public safety and health regulations that California imposes to mitigate the risk of gun death.” Our government is good at passing laws and regulations, but not so good at enforcing them. The result is a burdensome system that constrains lawabiding owners, but can't do much about criminals.

Consider California's Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) — a GOPdesigned plan that lets Department of Justice officials confiscate weapons from people who no longer may own them. The goal was to strip weapons from people under restraining orders or with disqualifying mental-health conditions. But the database is an inaccurate mess. Both parties complain about its effectiveness.

A recent federal appeals court ruling shows the legal difficulties in any gun-confiscation approach in a nation with constitutional gun protections. The court invalidated the conviction of a Texas man who was subject of a protective order, yet owned two firearms. Even if our state's gun-control approach is effective, it still must navigate these federal court restraints.

There are 393 million legal firearms in the United States, with 20 million of them in California. The chance of keeping just one of them out of the hands of a deranged killer is slim to none. We understand the need to “do something,” but it needs to reflect realities about U.S. gun ownership, constitutional rights and the limits of state regulation.

Press conferences and symbolic laws won't make us safer.