California sheriffs oppose Gavin Newsom’s gun control initiative

[lostinblue 1,989]

Measure would institute background checks for ammunition purchasers and outlaw military-style clips

Sheriffs say it wouldn’t prevent criminals from getting guns and ammo

They believe it would instead punish law-abiding gun owners

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article65970452.html#storylink=cpy

"After San Bernardino... People are fed up with the NRA," Gavin Newsom said during a meeting with The Sacramento Bee editorial board in February 2016. Hector Amezcua The Sacramento Bee

By Christopher Cadelago

California sheriffs announced Monday that they are opposing Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s gun-control measure aimed for the fall ballot, arguing it would not prevent criminals from obtaining guns and ammunition via the black market or theft.

Instead, the proposal would place additional restrictions on law-abiding people who want to buy ammunition for recreational use, retain guns and magazines that are currently legal or pass down historical or family heirlooms, the California State Sheriffs’ Association wrote in a letter to Newsom’s campaign.

“Effectively, this measure will create a new class of criminals out of those that already comply with common sense practices that now exist,” wrote President Martin Ryan, Amador County sheriff and PAC Chair Gregory J. Ahern, Alameda County sheriff . “The focus of efforts to reduce gun violence in this state should be on those responsible for that violence, not those that have no intent to do harm.”

The focus of efforts to reduce gun violence in this state should be on those responsible for that violence, not those that have no intent to do harm.

Letter from Martin Ryan, Amador County sheriff and Gregory J. Ahern, Alameda County sheriff

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article65970452.html#storylink=cpy

The sheriffs note that they remain supportive of domestic violence restraining orders, existing background checks and waiting periods to purchase firearms.

But their position on the measure could add institutional heft to a coalition led by gun-rights groups. The chief critic to date had been the California Rifle & Pistol Association, whose Coalition for Civil Liberties considers the planned measure the biggest threat to gun rights in California in more than three decades.

Newsom’s proposal, which must collect 366,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot, would require most people to pass background checks to buy ammunition, sales of which must be made through licensed vendors and reported to the Department of Justice.

While California has some of the nation’s most restrictive firearms policies, including a 1999 ban on assault weapons, it would expand that prohibition to high-capacity magazines grandfathered in by the law. If it passes, the owners would need to sell them to a licensed dealer, transfer them out of the state or turn them in to law enforcement to be disposed of.

Newsom is working with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and their bid is backed by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the mayors of San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose and others.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article65970452.html#storylink=cpy

[ExPatty 502]

It's become a plank of any media article on guns now that they misuse essential terms (e.g. clip). I think it's important to understand terminology when you're creating laws.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I think it's important to read articles you plan to post to insure that they reflect the views you hope that they express. I realize that the OP was put up to show California Sheriff's are opposed to a new law, but within the post are a number of points counter to the original posters oft stated opinions.

You two are a couple of bright fellows so I will let you figure out what I am seeing wrong with deciding to post this particular article.

[Sousuke 1,214]

This is another classic example of a past compromise being turned into a future loophole which is pretty disgusting.

California previously banned magazines over 10 rds but as a compromise to make sure it passed, they grandfathered magazines that were already owned. Now those 20 year old magazines are suddenly a "loophole"

On the subject of ammo, its extremely far reaching. It requires a 50 dollar permit to buy ammo with a background check and cuts off internet sales of ammo. Moreover it actually bans a private person from bringing in legal ammo into the state.

That last part is, I believe is unprecedented. Does anyone have an example of this happening before with any other product? Alcohol comes to mind (having lived in Kansas for awhile, I know internet sales of alcohol from other states are illegal....however as far as I am aware no state has tried to make it illegal to bring privately owned beer or wine across state borders on their person.)

For me this law is the impetus I needed to get into reloading which isn't regulated. (IE casting my own bullets, loading brass with powder/primer etc.) I suspect that if this law were to pass with voter approval a lot of ammo will go underground and actually there will be criminal activity in the trafficking of ammo.

Also its not like the law can be enforced with ammo anyway. Cartridges, unlike firearms, are not serialized. Police will have no idea if a cartridge was illegally obtained.

Overall, this law is exploiting a campaign loophole. Newsom doesn't really care whether the law passes or not. It has provided publicity for his campaign for the office of Governor...something he would not be allowed to do otherwise at this point in time.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Sousuke

[lostinblue 1,989]