I’m seeing a fair few headlines about how Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bunch of gun-control legislation on Friday afternoon, and indeed, the California Democrat declined to enact into law several typically inept/inane progressive attempts at reducing gun violence, including the potential doozie of adding all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines to the state’s list of banned “assault” weapons. Brown himself honestly admitted that such a ban would accomplish precisely nothing to enhance the public safety:
AB 169 – Roger Dickinson’s bill would have limited the transfer of handguns deemed “unsafe.” Gov. Brown wrote in his veto message, “I do not support restricting sales in this way without evidence that such restrictions would improve public safety.”
AB 180 – AB 180 would have allowed the City of Oakland to pass gun control measures that are stricter than the state norm. Brown said the bill, authored by Asm. Rob Bonta, would only create confusion.
SB 299 – Concord Sen. Mark DeSaulnier’s bill would have required owners to report stolen guns within seven days. Brown argued that “responsible people report the loss of theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not. I remain skeptical that this bill would change those behaviors.”
SB 374 – Another controversial bill, Sen. Darrell Steinberg’s SB 374. It would have banned the sale of semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines. Brown wrote in his veto message that he doesn’t believe such a “blanket” legislation would enhance public safety.
SB 567 – Sen. Hannah Beth-Jackson’s bill would have changed the legal definition of what a shotgun is. Brown felt the bill was not necessary.
SB 755 – The law, introduced by Sen. Lois Wolk of Davis, would have added drug abuse convictions to the list of what would prohibit someone from owning a gun for 10 years. Again, Brown felt the bill was unnecessary.”
The true libs were spittin’ mad about that one, too:
Their key issue: the veto of SB 374 by Senator Darrell Steinberg,” which conservatives called called “draconian” — but which progressives supported for its ban on future sales of most semi-automatic rifles.
We just talked to Paul Song, head of the progressive Courage Campaign, who told us that his group was “devastated” by Brown’s actions.
“We expected that in a solidly blue state, where he doesn’t have to worry about recall, he would have shown a little bit of courage or backbone — and set an example for the test of the country. He let us down,” Song said. …
Here’s the full statement released from Song by the Courage Campaign:
“Today, in vetoing a series of gun safety measures, Governor Brown choose to put craven political considerations above the safety and well-being of California’s more than 38 million residents.”
Gov. Brown did sign, however, a slew of new measures that will ramp up California’s already prohibitive gun laws, including selling high-capacity magazine conversion kits and allowing the Justice Department to extend waiting times for background checks. The one stirring the most controversy, however, was the long sought-after prize of the state’s so-called environmentalist groups: Eventually outlawing the practice of hunting with lead ammunition. The greens in California are feeling pretty good right about now:
Gov. Jerry Brown approved a long-sought ban on lead hunting ammunition Friday, one of 11 firearms measures he signed that are designed to tighten controls on ownership, storage and types of weapons and ammunition available in California. …
Brown, a gun owner who has a home in Oakland, delighted environmentalists when he signed AB711, making California the first state in the nation to ban hunting with lead bullets. The law requires all ammunition used for hunting in California to be made out of something other than lead, such as copper or steel, by July 2019.
“It’s a big win for people and birds,” said David Yarnold, the president of the National Audubon Society, which has claimed for years that leftover fragments from lead ammunition were killing nontarget animals, including the endangered California condor. “This was a commonsense solution. It is not a ban on hunting. It’s a ban on poisons in the food chain.”
Brown acknowledged that hunters are typically America’s most conscientious conservationists, but went ahead and signed the bill anyway — and seeing as how non-lead ammo is both more expensive and often falls in the category of “armor-piercing” that the federal government reserves the right to prohibit, that could mean a lot more trouble down the road.
“I am concerned, however, the impression left from this bill is that hunters and sportsmen and women in California are not conservationist,” [Brown] said in a statement. “Since 1930, hunters have done more than any other community to conserve species and their habitats and this is a lasting conservation legacy.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association based in Newtown, said it was dismayed that Brown banned lead bullets, though it was pleased with his veto of the semiautomatic rifle bill. …
The lead-bullet law “amounts to a virtual ban on hunting because the federal government considers most types of non-lead ammunition to be ‘armor piercing’” and limits its manufacture and sale, Keene said. “Many types of standard hunting long rifles are not compatible with alternative metal ammunition or will require significant modification.”