California Considers Licensing Guns
Stephan Archer
Thursday, July 27, 2000
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – If Democrats in the state legislature get their way,
California will join a growing list of states, including New York and
Massachusetts, that force their citizens to obtain a safety license before buying
a handgun.
"In California, you need a license to drive, fish, hunt, give a manicure, own a
dog or cat and in some communities, even to ride a bike. Surely it is
reasonable to require a license to purchase or borrow a handgun," said
Assembly Member Jack Scott, D-Pasadena, one of the bill’s joint authors.
Assembly Bill 273 passed 5-0 in the California Senate Public Safety
Committee on June 27. It would repeal the "basic firearms safety certificate,"
now required in the state to buy a handgun. In its place would be a safety
license that would require the applicant to provide, among other things, two
sets of thumbprints, along with a state driver's license or state-issued photo
identification card.
Assembly Member Hannah Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, and Assembly
Member Kevin Shelley, D-San Francisco, are also joint authors of the bill.
Under current California law, applicants can go into any gun store and watch a
video or take a 30-question multiple-choice test. After watching the video or
passing the test, the gun store clerk enters the applicant’s information into the
federal instant background check system. After the applicant’s personal
information is in the system, a waiting period of 10 days ensues.
If signed into law, AB 273 would require all handgun applicants to apply for the
firearm at a local police department under a state-mandated local program.
They would also have to go through firearm training – at their own expense –
and demonstrate their ability to handle the gun.
Sam Paredes, deputy director of Gun Owners of California, believes AB 273 is
an "odorous law" that violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"This is a thinly disguised first step towards the total elimination of the private
possession of handguns in the state of California," Paredes told
NewsMax.com. "This is their first hurdle. If they get this, the rest will begin to
come down like dominoes.”
Handgun Control Inc., a sponsor of the bill, disagrees, saying the bill would
close serious loopholes in the gun licensing system.
Luis Tolley, the western director for Handgun Control Inc., stated that a primary
loophole in the system is that the gun clerk is the one validating the ID. He
believes that a built-in conflict of interest exists between the clerk, who wants to
make a sale, and the applicant, who wants to buy a gun. He says sending all
prospective handgun owners to their local police department for the application
process is a sensible alternative.
Tolley told NewMax.com: "Many of us, when we were underage, remember
sneaking into bars and exchanging IDs, and that wasn’t very difficult to do. The
bartenders or the bouncers are only too happy to wink and nod because they’re
taking your money inside. The same principle applies here."
Even if all applicants can get to a police station, Paredes is concerned that
many may not have access to a shooting range for a demonstration test. Not all
counties in California, Paredes pointed out, have shooting ranges. Paredes is
also concerned that this bill unfairly attacks poor people.
If the bill passes, it will cost applicants up to $12 for the background check.
After the background check, an additional licensing fee costing up to $20 will
be charged. Although these costs are similar to fees already charged handgun
applicants, the training fee would be a whole new unregulated can of worms
costing applicants an unpredictable amount of money.
"What [the bill is] saying is that low-income people, who probably need the
firearm more than anybody to protect themselves because they live in crime
areas, will be basically cut out of the process of purchasing a firearm because
the may not be able to afford [it]," Paredes said.
"It’s discriminatory against the poor. It’s discriminatory across the board."
Discriminatory or not, the authors and sponsors of the bill may be reacting to
an ever-increasing call for more gun laws.
"Last [May], a million moms and others demanded action from their elected
officials to stem the tide of gun violence sweeping our communities," said
Assembly Member Jackson. "Those of us who are outraged by the gun
violence that has killed or wounded thousands of children recognize that
requiring a safety license to purchase a handgun is just common sense."
Common sense?
"It’s mind-boggling," said Paredes. "The idea that this is somehow going to
reduce crime is ludicrous."
Paredes explained that this new law, like any gun law, cannot take into account
guns that are stolen from honest citizens, nor can it take into account guns
bought on the streets and in the back alleys of our nation’s cities.
Looking beyond the impossibility of preventing every criminal from obtaining a
gun, other gun owners have also pointed out that unlike privileges such as
driving that may be licensed, civil rights should not be licensed. Through the
licensing of one civil right, other civil rights are violated.
For example, privacy becomes a big issue under this bill, said Paredes. He
believes the thumbprint taken during application is a beginning step by the
government to know as much as possible about gun owners.
"They know that they can’t get away with asking for a complete set [of prints]
because it would require law enforcement to do a lot more work, and it would
cost a lot more money to record that information," said Paredes. "So they’re
getting away first with the thumbprint, and then they’ll go for all of them."
According to the bill, "one copy of the fingerprints may be submitted to the
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation." Tolley insists this is just to
assist in the background check, but Paredes warns this could easily be
abused.
According to Tolley, the instant background check system already catches
4,000 to 5,000 criminals each year who walk into gun stores and lie about their
records, hoping to get a gun. Although it is unclear as to how many people slip
through the background check system, Tolley believes that a combination of
fingerprints and law enforcement officials in charge of applications will be able
to filter out the criminals even more.
Even though the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear
arms, Tolley believes that not even the U.S. Constitution is above the greater
social good.
"Any society lives as a process of responsibilities to the greater society," said
Tolley, "and there are no individual rights that the courts upheld of any kind that
supersede the society’s rights as a whole."
AB 273 is expected to go before California’s Senate Appropriations
Committee sometime in early August after the legislature reconvenes.
See more articles on guns and gun control in Hot Topics.
Printer Friendly Version
E-mail a Comment to NewsMax.com Discuss this Article in NewsMax.com's Forum
Reprint Information
Home · Search · Free E-mail News · ZipMax.com-Free Webmail · Columnists · News
Links · Late Night Jokes
Archives · Shopping Mall · Cartoons · Magazines · Forum · Classifieds · Contact Us
All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com
Stephan Archer
Thursday, July 27, 2000
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – If Democrats in the state legislature get their way,
California will join a growing list of states, including New York and
Massachusetts, that force their citizens to obtain a safety license before buying
a handgun.
"In California, you need a license to drive, fish, hunt, give a manicure, own a
dog or cat and in some communities, even to ride a bike. Surely it is
reasonable to require a license to purchase or borrow a handgun," said
Assembly Member Jack Scott, D-Pasadena, one of the bill’s joint authors.
Assembly Bill 273 passed 5-0 in the California Senate Public Safety
Committee on June 27. It would repeal the "basic firearms safety certificate,"
now required in the state to buy a handgun. In its place would be a safety
license that would require the applicant to provide, among other things, two
sets of thumbprints, along with a state driver's license or state-issued photo
identification card.
Assembly Member Hannah Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, and Assembly
Member Kevin Shelley, D-San Francisco, are also joint authors of the bill.
Under current California law, applicants can go into any gun store and watch a
video or take a 30-question multiple-choice test. After watching the video or
passing the test, the gun store clerk enters the applicant’s information into the
federal instant background check system. After the applicant’s personal
information is in the system, a waiting period of 10 days ensues.
If signed into law, AB 273 would require all handgun applicants to apply for the
firearm at a local police department under a state-mandated local program.
They would also have to go through firearm training – at their own expense –
and demonstrate their ability to handle the gun.
Sam Paredes, deputy director of Gun Owners of California, believes AB 273 is
an "odorous law" that violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"This is a thinly disguised first step towards the total elimination of the private
possession of handguns in the state of California," Paredes told
NewsMax.com. "This is their first hurdle. If they get this, the rest will begin to
come down like dominoes.”
Handgun Control Inc., a sponsor of the bill, disagrees, saying the bill would
close serious loopholes in the gun licensing system.
Luis Tolley, the western director for Handgun Control Inc., stated that a primary
loophole in the system is that the gun clerk is the one validating the ID. He
believes that a built-in conflict of interest exists between the clerk, who wants to
make a sale, and the applicant, who wants to buy a gun. He says sending all
prospective handgun owners to their local police department for the application
process is a sensible alternative.
Tolley told NewMax.com: "Many of us, when we were underage, remember
sneaking into bars and exchanging IDs, and that wasn’t very difficult to do. The
bartenders or the bouncers are only too happy to wink and nod because they’re
taking your money inside. The same principle applies here."
Even if all applicants can get to a police station, Paredes is concerned that
many may not have access to a shooting range for a demonstration test. Not all
counties in California, Paredes pointed out, have shooting ranges. Paredes is
also concerned that this bill unfairly attacks poor people.
If the bill passes, it will cost applicants up to $12 for the background check.
After the background check, an additional licensing fee costing up to $20 will
be charged. Although these costs are similar to fees already charged handgun
applicants, the training fee would be a whole new unregulated can of worms
costing applicants an unpredictable amount of money.
"What [the bill is] saying is that low-income people, who probably need the
firearm more than anybody to protect themselves because they live in crime
areas, will be basically cut out of the process of purchasing a firearm because
the may not be able to afford [it]," Paredes said.
"It’s discriminatory against the poor. It’s discriminatory across the board."
Discriminatory or not, the authors and sponsors of the bill may be reacting to
an ever-increasing call for more gun laws.
"Last [May], a million moms and others demanded action from their elected
officials to stem the tide of gun violence sweeping our communities," said
Assembly Member Jackson. "Those of us who are outraged by the gun
violence that has killed or wounded thousands of children recognize that
requiring a safety license to purchase a handgun is just common sense."
Common sense?
"It’s mind-boggling," said Paredes. "The idea that this is somehow going to
reduce crime is ludicrous."
Paredes explained that this new law, like any gun law, cannot take into account
guns that are stolen from honest citizens, nor can it take into account guns
bought on the streets and in the back alleys of our nation’s cities.
Looking beyond the impossibility of preventing every criminal from obtaining a
gun, other gun owners have also pointed out that unlike privileges such as
driving that may be licensed, civil rights should not be licensed. Through the
licensing of one civil right, other civil rights are violated.
For example, privacy becomes a big issue under this bill, said Paredes. He
believes the thumbprint taken during application is a beginning step by the
government to know as much as possible about gun owners.
"They know that they can’t get away with asking for a complete set [of prints]
because it would require law enforcement to do a lot more work, and it would
cost a lot more money to record that information," said Paredes. "So they’re
getting away first with the thumbprint, and then they’ll go for all of them."
According to the bill, "one copy of the fingerprints may be submitted to the
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation." Tolley insists this is just to
assist in the background check, but Paredes warns this could easily be
abused.
According to Tolley, the instant background check system already catches
4,000 to 5,000 criminals each year who walk into gun stores and lie about their
records, hoping to get a gun. Although it is unclear as to how many people slip
through the background check system, Tolley believes that a combination of
fingerprints and law enforcement officials in charge of applications will be able
to filter out the criminals even more.
Even though the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear
arms, Tolley believes that not even the U.S. Constitution is above the greater
social good.
"Any society lives as a process of responsibilities to the greater society," said
Tolley, "and there are no individual rights that the courts upheld of any kind that
supersede the society’s rights as a whole."
AB 273 is expected to go before California’s Senate Appropriations
Committee sometime in early August after the legislature reconvenes.
See more articles on guns and gun control in Hot Topics.
Printer Friendly Version
E-mail a Comment to NewsMax.com Discuss this Article in NewsMax.com's Forum
Reprint Information
Home · Search · Free E-mail News · ZipMax.com-Free Webmail · Columnists · News
Links · Late Night Jokes
Archives · Shopping Mall · Cartoons · Magazines · Forum · Classifieds · Contact Us
All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com
