My full-time job...

Seems to be rapidly becoming writing letters.  Here's another I just put out:

-----     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.

     For a blow-by-blow of commentary on another site - http://offgridsurvival.com/californiatobansemiautomaticguns-confiscatefirearms/ :

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.

------     SNIP     -----

Per usual, I will post any replies I get.  I lose hope for a bloodless revolution as time goes on...