----- SNIP -----
Senator Darrell Steinberg
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
Senator Steinberg;
I
note with dismay a large number of measures being proposed, theoretically in an
effort to “curb firearms violence,” but I feel that these measures will achieve
little more than making criminals out of people with no criminal intent whatever.
Is this what our system of law is meant to do?
I
refer you first to your own website - http://sd06.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-02-07-proposals-curb-gun-violence
Fixed Magazines
(Senator Steinberg.) Once again, we’re
trying to ban firearms based on features.
While a fixed vice a removable magazine is not strictly a “cosmetic”
features (as the incredibly asinine criteria of “bayonet lugs” and “thumbhole
stocks” are – even “protruding pistol grips” are more cosmetic than functional,)
it is still silly to ban a firearm – or a class of firearms – based on
features. Or at all. What was once the work of visionaries is now
simply the work of craftsmen – once it’s known to be possible, much of the hard
work is done.
High-Capacity Magazines (Senator Hancock.) Why the arbitrary limit of ten rounds? How is limiting firearms to ten rounds in
capacity going to serve to help anyone?
Maybe if, in the middle of a home invasion committed by one or two
people, ten rounds of ammunition would be useful. Confronted by a group with nefarious
intent? Not so much. If a ten-round limit is so useful, then the
police should be limited to ten rounds as well (given their track record, I
think they need the magazine capacity ban more than private citizens do…)
“Bullet Button” (Senator Yee.) Wants to
ban a magazine catch that is easier to work?
This is the same mentality that would ban vehicle makers from using “double-cut”
keys that can be inserted into the lock cylinder with either side up, I
think. What, honestly, is the point of
this? Is Senator Yee merely trying to
justify his paycheque?
Redefining Banned Shotguns (Senator
Jackson.) “New technology of a
shotgun-rifle combination?” Senator
Jackson sounds more like she’s from Hanna-Barbera than Santa Barbara. First, combining a shotgun and a rifle in a
given firearm is not at all new – it’s called a “drilling,” and has been around
at least since World War Two. These were in common use among African game
hunters as backup firearms in the 1920s and 1930s, often combining a mid-weight
rifle (analogous to, say, the .308 Winchester) and a 12ga shotgun barrel. The Taurus Judge mentioned (firing .45
Colt/.410 shotgun) merely takes advantage of the coincidence that the two cartridges
are roughly equivalent in critical dimensions.
This makes for a firearm that would be quite useful in snake
country. However, by rifling the bore,
the shotgun loads become useless rather rapidly (shot load dispersion and
rifled barrels simply don’t get along well at all – you get a “donut” shaped
pattern, and it becomes too dispersed to be of any use whatever beyond 10-20
yards, depending on shot size and charge density. These firearms are hardly any “more dangerous”
than anything else.)
Ownership record of all firearms (Senator
Steinberg.) Isn’t that what the CA DROS and BATF Form 4473 are for? Are you losing these records? Perhaps you should work on recordkeeping and
filing, instead of passing a new law (that will do little to nothing to
actually help the problems.)
Gun Loans (Senator Block.) Providing a
firearm – through transfer, sale, or loan – to a “prohibited possessor” is
already a violation of state and federal laws – a felony, I believe. So, why do we need another law?
Ammunition Purchase Permit (Senator de
Leon.) And what is to prevent the capricious denial of ammunition purchase
permits, just as CCW permits are capriciously denied here in CA? How will this help? Possession of ammunition – as possession of
firearms – by “prohibited possessors” is already illegal, once again. We do
not need a duplication of law.
APPS Expansion & Enforcement (Senators
Leno & Steinberg.) I am unable to find information on APPS in a casual
search – but I assume this is yet another database listing people, probably
persons prohibited from legal ownership of firearms under state or federal law,
as a state reference. If so, this seems
to have the same potential for misuse or overuse as the TSA “No Fly” list – and
can people find out what they did to find themselves on the list, or are they
left to guess, if there was no obvious cause?
What “other crimes” are proposed to be added? Why add DUIs?
(While I honestly don’t think that DUI is punished harshly enough in
this country, I don’t think stripping rights is the way to go. Fifty lashes would be more appropriate.)
Firearms Safety Certificate (Senator Block.) While I think people should be trained &
safe with firearms, I think that forcing a license – and forcing annual renewal
of same – isn’t the way to go. However,
I offer this compromise: if the requirements for the Firearm Safety Certificate
(FSC) are to be similar to the requirements for CCW, then the CCW should be
replaced by the FSC entirely. Having a
valid FSC should constitute permitting for carry of a concealed sidearm in California. And, the FSC should be freely available to
anyone who wishes to take the course, no argument about eligibility or cause,
and the fee should be reasonable (in no case, more than $50, say, for a four-year
license. If annual renewal is to be
required, then the fee should not exceed ten dollars.
Banning Possession of magazines with a capacity
greater than ten rounds: You have just made criminals out of a few million
people who have no criminal intent whatever, and you have deprived them of real
property without due process – or, I suspect, compensation for same.
Possession of Hollowpoint bullets a felony:
Did you know that the original purpose
of a hollownose projectile had nothing to do with wounding or killing
potential? By shifting weight from the
core of the projectile to the rim, gyroscopic stability was increased – which lead
to much less “wobble” in flight, and a straighter ballistic path. Yes – hollowpoint bullets were originally
developed for accuracy in competition
marksmanship! As far as “assault bullets”
– I’ll leave this alone until I know what you’re talking about, because I can’t
figure out what you mean here.
Ammunition purchase permit/background check
– See previous comments
Registration & reporting of ammunition
purchases. Limit to 500 rounds. Dumb idea.
Take one guy with a .22 rifle who enjoys plinking – he can go through a
good thousand rounds in a single outing!
He harms no-one, but you’re going to take that hobby away from him? As far as permitting to purchase ammunition,
see comments above
Gun owners licensed like drivers. See
previous comments. However, if you’re
going to make me get a license, then that license should not restrict me in
what firearms I can purchase – meaning that Form 4s for Class III/Title 2 and
AOW would no longer be an obstacle.
After all, I can take my driver’s license and essentially buy whatever
new or used vehicle I care to, yes?
Magazines not grandfathered. Possession of a magazine
manufactured/purchased prior to the ban a felony. Something about ex post facto laws comes to mind here – and how they’re not permitted
under Constitutional law. Again, you’re
making criminals out of people with no criminal intent.
Prohibited possessors can’t live in a house
with a firearm, even if they don’t have access to it. Yet another dumb
idea. Now, you’ve effectively made two people felons, through “constructive
intent.”
Expanding the list of crimes that would bar
a person from firearms possession.
Again – what are you proposing to add?
Why? What justification are you
using?
Senator
Steinberg, I implore you to first compare the incidence in homicide in Chicago
against the incidence of combat deaths in Afghanistan over the last ten years
to see the “beneficial” effect gun control legislation has. Or compare crimes against the person
before-and-after firearms bans in England and Australia. Then, do a similar comparison for Kennesaw,
Georgia.
Final question –
“Steinberg” is a Jewish name, is it not?
Recall the lessons of history – what happened when the Jews were no
longer allowed to own firearms? How many
were killed? Or rounded up and put into
ghettoes, and left to die? I would
honestly hope that, of all people, the Jews would see the fallacy in firearms
control legislation – although given the typical sources of such, I am forced
to wonder. Many of these proposals come
from people with Jewish surnames.
Perhaps you should spend some time speaking to the leaders of the Jews
for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership?
Their founder (Aaron Zelman)
left us a few years ago, but I had the good fortune to have met him – and to
have learned a few things from him (and he did not mind that I am a Scot,
rather than a Jew.) I haven’t had
occasion to interact with their new leadership – but if they’re cut from the
same cloth as Mr. Zelman, nearly anyone would find much to learn from them! I have had occasion to interact with many
Jews over the years, there are quite a few I have been proud to call friends,
and most of the Jews I’ve known have shared one common characteristic – a keen
knowledge of history and an aggressive desire to not repeat its mistakes.
Senator, I am at
your disposal if you should wish to discuss these matters. Due to a roads incident a few years ago, I
keep bizarre hours – so electronic mail is easiest. I have provided my address at the top of this
letter. I realize that I am not one of
your direct constituents – but as a resident of California, what you do does
have some effect on me. Also, our son
and his family live up in the Sacramento area, (our other son and his family
are local to us here,) so you can see where my vested interests lie. I find it odd that no-one ever seems to want
to discuss these matters, but I am hoping that this trend eventually
reverses. I often feel that no input is
accepted from dissenting voices, when such policies are crafted.
Per usual, I will post any replies I get. I lose hope for a bloodless revolution as time goes on...
