Brown vetoes bill banning future sales of semi-auto rifles -

Brown vetoes bill banning future sales of semi-auto rifles


SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill Friday that would have imposed the nation’s toughest gun ownership restrictions on Californians, saying it was too far-reaching.

The legislation would have banned future sales of most semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, part of a firearms package approved by state lawmakers in response to mass shootings in other states.

It was lawmakers’ latest attempt to close loopholes that have allowed manufacturers to work around previous assault weapon bans. Gun rights groups had threatened to sue if the semi-automatic weapons ban became law.

“I don’t believe that this bill’s blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners’ rights,” the Democratic governor wrote in his veto message.

He also noted that California already has some of the nation’s strictest gun and ammunition laws.

The legislation was among 18 gun bills considered by the governor as he works toward a Sunday deadline to act on bills sent to his desk last month. He signed 11 firearms bills into law and vetoed seven.

Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who proposed the rifle restrictions, said in a statement that more than 1,100 Californians have been killed with guns since the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December.

“I believe aggressive action is precisely what’s needed to reduce the carnage in our communities, and to counter the equally aggressive action by the gun industry,” Steinberg said.

The bill sought to ban the sale of assault rifles, but Brown objected that it also would have applied to low-capacity weapons commonly used for hunting, firearms training and target shooting, and some historical and collectible firearms. Brown also didn’t want thousands of legal gun owners to have to register their existing weapons as assault rifles and be blocked from selling or transferring the weapons.

“That was, without a doubt, the most egregious piece of anti-gun legislation ever brought to a governor for his signature,” said Clint Montfort, an attorney with Michel and Associates, West Coast counsel for the National Rifle Association. “We appreciate that the governor has respected the rights of California gun owners.”

Montfort said the NRA is examining the bills that Brown did sign to see if any merit legal challenges.

The governor signed a measure from Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which bans kits that allow people to turn regular ammunition magazines into high-capacity magazines, as well as two other pieces of legislation that restrict the ability of mentally ill people to possess firearms.

Brown approved a measure making California the first state to impose a statewide ban on lead bullets for all types of hunting. Hunting with lead bullets already is prohibited in eight counties with endangered California condors. About two dozen states also have partial bans, mostly in sensitive wildlife refuges.

But Brown rejected a bill that would have required owners whose firearms are lost or stolen to promptly notify law enforcement. The governor noted he vetoed a similar bill last year and still doubts that criminalizing the failure to report missing weapons would help law enforcement track down gun traffickers or those prohibited from owning weapons.

Nick Wilcox, whose daughter was killed by a gunman during a 2001 Nevada County rampage, said he was hopeful Brown would have approved more.

“It’s a step forward. It’s not as big a step forward as we would have liked,” Wilcox said on behalf of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Paul Song, executive chairman of the Courage Campaign, an advocacy organization that supported the gun bills, said in a telephone interview that Brown appeared to be trying to defuse a possible campaign issue as he runs for re-election next year. The organization later released a much stronger statement accusing the governor of “cowardly behaviour” and saying he “will have blood on his hands.”

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said gun owners’ rights groups will consider mounting recall campaigns or election-year challenges against Democratic lawmakers who voted for the gun bills. Final votes on the legislation occurred last month, just as two Colorado state lawmakers were recalled for supporting tougher gun laws in that state.

Paredes predicted lawsuits challenging bills that require safe storage of handguns, Skinner’s high-capacity magazine bill, and legislation requiring that buyers of rifles and shotguns pass a safety test.

Still, he said, “We were only shot in the heart six times instead of 12 times, and I guess we should be happy with that.”

Filed under:

Brown vetoes bill banning future sales of semi-auto rifles

  1. A semi automatic rifle is an assault rifle. Assault weapons provide a clear and present danger to society which far
    outweighs the threat of a black market. An AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle based loosely on
    the military’s M-16, “will fire automatically merely by manipulation of
    the selector or removal of the dis connector.” With relative ease,
    assault rifles can be made to mimic weapons of war. Their potential for
    destruction is staggering.
    It cannot be used for hunting or target practice but their great if you want to kill allot of people in a hurry. This is insane.

    • Politics is the art of the possible

    • Some semi-autos are just regular hunting rifles. Including nearly all semi-autos sold in Canada (and they are completely legal here). I’m not a fan of them, due to safety concerns – as soon as you fire a shot, another shell is in the chamber – too easy to accidentally fire another round. But other than that, they are little different from a lever action or pump action, both of which can be worked very quickly.

      • Pump and lever actions are also illegal in the UK and Australia, for the same supposed public safety reasons as autoloaders. A pump or lever can be cycled as fast as an autoloader, without the risk of Murphy’s Law intervening. Eventually, the Fudds realize that the objective of the gun control movement is to ban ALL guns.

        As for safety reasons, if you don’t pull the trigger, the gun won’t fire. Repeat: finger off the trigger, until you want to fire. There is NEVER such a thing as an ‘accidental’ discharge, only a negligent one. Anyone who can’t grasp THAT is too stupid to operate power tools, drive a car, or even cross a street, let alone hunt.

        • But accidents do happen. I was not suggesting a ban on semi-autos. I just said I wasn’t a fan. I’ve owned them before.

    • Your ignorance is showing rather badly. You really should educate yourself on the subject matter before masquerading as someone who knows whereof he speaks.

    • You just went full auto retard with that statement. One of the most popular HUNTING AND PREDATOR CONTROL (farmers, ranchers) firearm in Canada is the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. And there are tens of thousands of such firearms in Canada, of various brands and models. You are basically duckspeaking Wendy Cukier’s Coalition for Gun Control press manual.

      The AR-15 has as much in common with the full-auto military M-16 as an H3 Hummer does with the military Hummvee: kind of resembles it, but the guts are different. And, as far as ‘staggering potential for destruction’ goes, the chipati flour and hair bleach specials used by the 7/7 bombers killed more civilians than any mass shooting in America, so you might as well target the local grocery-cum-pharmacy for enhanced regulations.

  2. “Paredes predicted lawsuits challenging bills that require safe storage of handguns, Skinner’s high-capacity magazine bill, and legislation requiring that buyers of rifles and shotguns pass a safety test.”
    This shows just how fanatical and stupid US gun nuts are. Who in their right mind could object to a law requiring the safe storage of killing machines? This is the same country that required warnings to be placed on coffee cup lids but doesn’t see the need to make weapons safe. And likewise with the safety test; people have to pass a driving test to get their licence to drive, but this jacka$$ doesn’t think the same is reasonable for those who want to own rifles and shotguns… What an idiot.

    • Are there laws for the ‘safe storage’ of, say, pharmaceuticals, the ingestion of which kills many times as many children per year as firearms? Of course not. So-called safe storage regulations (only brought about in Canada by that Red Tory Kim Campbell, in 1991) are another tool in the chest of the statist civilian disarmament.movement.

      • Of course there are
        There are laws banning the supply of prescription drugs to those who are not on the prescription. There are also laws forbidding minors from drinking, driving and smoking until they reach a certain age and sometimes pass a test. Here in Canada even adults have to pass a test and also store weapons safely..
        I see no problems with insisting that people treat dangerous equipment with respect and pass a test to illustrate some kind of understanding of the equipment that they wish to handle.
        But then I’m not an idiot

        • A couple years ago, I had an abscessed tooth extracted, and the dentist gave me an Rx for a bottle of T3s. I took a couple, didn’t have any more , and lost the bottle out of my messenger bag. Would I be liable under Canada’s laws, if some junkie found the bottle and ODed? Of course not. How about if I had guns that burglars broke out of a secured safe, over several days, with acetylene torches?

          Canada’s ‘safe storage’ laws, brought in by Kim Campbell in 1991, have one purpose only: civilian disarmament. We are not drinking that Kool Aid any more, especially after recent revelations, re. the ever-expanding police state in the U.S., and alarming events up here (High River, etc,), As for drug and alcohol laws, I guess in your universe there are no underage drinkers, or people buying illegal drugs–illegal markets ALWAYS exist for firearms, too.

          • If the cops found your drug bottle on the body of a dead person and it was determined that they had caused the death, you bet you would be visited by the police. Negligently disposing of prescription drugs can be dealt with via the criminal code, like any other form of negligence. Just because authorities tend not to add to the misery of people by charging them with negligence when their child dies via prescription drugs or shooting themselves with an unsecured firearm doesn’t mean that they can’t. Failing to secure your prescription drugs in a reasonable manner is against the law. Haven’t you seen the ads on teen use of prescription drugs on TV?

          • Are there really safe storage laws regarding narcotics? I don’t believe so. If you have them in your cupboard and someone breaks in and steals them and ODs on them, you aren’t arrested for unsafe storage because the cupboard wasn’t locked. If someone steals a firearm from your closet that was not locked up, you can be charged. You will be considered a criminal just as much as the thief who stole your gun. The law does NOT treat these two things the same way. Not even close.

          • Letting prescription drugs fall into the hands of others is against the law. Of course if your home is broken into and your medicine cabinet is emptied then you cannot be held liable. Just like if your gun closet is raided and your trigger locked guns are removed.

            But you’re right the law does treat the two differently; the huge difference between meds and guns is…. meds have to be swallowed in order to affect people, guns on the other hand just need to pointed at people and the trigger pulled.

            That said try and see what happens if a neighbour’s child gets your prescription drugs and ODs because you left the packet on the countertop at a pot luck. See if the law is enforced in a different manner to if you left a loaded weapon within easy reach.
            The odd thing is I bet the gun owner gets a walk, while the drug recipient gets ostracised and possibly charged

          • It would be the opposite, and you know it.

          • No I don’t think it would and precedence supports this hunch

            “Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, prosecutors are loath to charge and prosecute negligent parents. “They say the family has suffered enough,” says Miller. “But if you do not use a law, it’s a waste of time and there is no deterrent value.”

            But why let reality infringe on your persecution complex?

  3. ‘Assault rifle’ is a media, and not technical term. These are basically garden-variety Fud guns tarted up with bayonet lugs and plastic pistol grips, in the same way a milquetoast coupe becomes a ‘sports car’ with the addition of a spoiler and aluminum wheels. And, yes, these spiffed-up semiautos are used for hunting and predator control, even in Canada.

    If Cali’s government really wanted to take a bite out of crime, they should pull an Arizona and rid themselves of the Mexican and Central American gangbangers that outnumber cops on the city streets. But the politicians wouldn’t like that. The exceptionalism in American politics is not gun control, or healthcare: California’s gun control laws are more strict than Canada’s pre-1977, and there is the excellent FREE LA County health system. What truly sets America apart is the utter lack of voter ID requirements, which means that large numbers of illegals can and do vote in local, State and Federal elections. Mustn’t lose the Mexican Mafia and MS-13 vote, after all.

  4. The US needs to lose it’s ‘gun culture’…otherwise none of it’s laws matter.

    • Canada has a ‘gun culture,’ despite the efforts of Trudeau, Mulroney-Campbell, Chretien-Martin and all of the other social engineers. Before 1977, Canada actually had less strict gun laws than the U.S. Federal Gun Control Act–civilians could buy machine guns, and there were no background checks. And New York City, Chicago and DC have had gun laws far more strict than Canada ever had. If you want to live in a paradise free of civilian gun ownership, may I suggest the utopias of China, Cuba, North Korea, which all completely forbid the rabble from being dangerously armed.

      • Canada has never had a ‘gun culture’ and doesn’t now.

        It has nothing to do with guns as such, but with the culture surrounding their use.

        Canada never had a ‘wild west’ or the idea of quick draws and shoot-outs in Dodge city. No Jesse James comic books. No hokum about silver bullets, or shooting from the back of a horse, or the OK corral. That’s all American. Hollywood American. Myths.

        Kindly don’t post myths on here.

        • Really? There’s no mythologized gun culture or “wild west” in Canada’s history? You sure about that? Seven Oaks ring a bell? (Look it up sometime – I know history isn’t your strong point.) The Northwest Mounted Police? Nope, no mythologized gun culture there. The Albert Johnson Incident and the manhunt that followed? We don’t need Hollywood myths, we’ve got the real deal.

          The Internet is often a place where people inadvertently display their ignorance. But few do so intentionally and proudly. You wear your ignorance of Canadian history like a badge of honour.

          • I said I don’t talk to crude rude people who try to bully others….but are so frightened of other’s posts they have them removed

            You are over.

          • I have never had anyone’s posts removed. I’m flattered you think I have that kind of power here at Macleans, but you’re imagining things. Your “aspie” posts were removed because they were dismissive, demeaning and insulting to developmentally disabled people. Macleans made that decision, not me. Other than that, I don’t recall any of your posts being removed, though I wouldn’t miss them if they were.

          • Mmmmhmmmm

            Well check out the million dollar baby article…..all my posts were removed…..even though they weren’t obscene, profane or anything else. They just disagreed with YOU.

            Now they’ve vanished, and the page is unreadable….your posts don’t even make any sense since no one can tell what you’re talking about.

            I didn’t ask for them to be removed….I’ve never done that even when people post vile things to me….so it must have been you.

            And I didn’t make any ‘aspie’ posts…..I said the boy is question sounded like an aspie with an obsession. They are called aspies….and they aren’t ‘developmentally disabled’….in fact they’re considered intelligent… I doubt Macleans removed them…..I don’t even know if they were removed…they weren’t the last time I looked.

            There are also autistic, savant autistic, savant, idiot savant, genius, aspies and so on…’s a big field.

            Amazing….posts that are racist, sexist, violent, profane, obscene, outright crazy….stay on site.

            I say ‘aspie’….a subject I have cause to know about….and you figure my post should vanish?

            People like you are the problem. Self-appointed censors….and ignorant to boot.

          • If Macleans is removing your posts, maybe you should consider your content more carefully. Many of your comments come across as nothing more than trollish and inflammatory. I don’t – and can’t – remove anything. Macleans has never granted me mod privileges. And your ‘aspie’ comment was removed. Twice. But not by me.

            I only once ever suggested Macleans remove a post, and that was when someone attacked you with a profanity-laced diatribe a few weeks back. And I made the suggestion in a comment. I have no back door access to Macleans comments moderators, if such people exist.

          • They never have.

            You’ve complained to them though….even said so once when someone was vile to me. Said you’d had comments removed that weren’t a tenth as offensive as that one. So I know you do it.

            Only the ignorant would be offended by ‘aspie’…..and it certainly doesn’t come close to the things I’ve been called.

            Male comments….even bad ones….don’t get removed. I gather men are allowed to speak up, and women are not.

          • I just acknowledged the one time I suggested a comment be removed, and yes, it was when someone launched a profane attack on you. Such comments should be removed. And yes, I did have one comment removed once for using a swear word. I believe it was in that same Million Dollar Baby discussion. But no, they’re just discriminating against you because you’re a woman.

          • If they don’t remove posts that are racist, sexist, profane, obscene and so on by men….and they do not….then it’s because the content is being censored because I’m posting as female.

          • Oh, give it up. It’s enough the Cons constantly play victim. We’re liberated, we don’t need to snivel about the men picking on us.

          • I’m sorry JanBC your effort doesn’t work either. Impersonation never does.

          • What really offended me was the ‘at least he’s making money’ crack. How frigging condescending of you. I am sure you don’t remember, you don’t remember all the years at Bourque.

          • He….actually his mother…..IS making money….and how absurd you are to be offended by someone making money. Is it illegal or immoral in your eyes?

            It could be seen as such….someone making money off a child….you know. I’ve seen a lot of kids….gifted….exploited by greedy adults.

            THAT should have been your concern. Not me.

            But then I don’t know you…and you don’t know me, so give it a rest.

          • Oh yes, the memory loss again – sigh. You didn’t mention his mother – you said it about him. Geez, at least be honest.

          • I don’t have memory loss….you have a vivid imagination.

  5. Fascinating….after high-jacking the thread, Jan and the Ranter…..have disappeared.

    • Unlike you, I don’t live on the Internet 24/7. It’s called having a life. I spend too damned much time commenting here as it is.