Home

Gun News Daily
 

William Lolli

Law versus debate.

January 14, 2000, California Attorney General Lockyer was on the Roger Hedgecock radio show in San Diego to answer questions from callers and discuss the implementation of the new ban on assault weapons and the registration of semi-auto rifles in the state of California.

I listened to the entire discussion, as AG Lockyer outlined and discussed his implemented interpretations of the new law.

In essence here is my recollection of his positions:

1. He asserts that there is no problem with the law's clarity. He perceives the definitions of a pistol grip as quite clear and declares that others can do the same. This he claims, notwithstanding the fact that the definitions of a pistol grip as written in regulation and law are at odds with his verbal presentation in the radio program. To date, there is nothing in the law or regulations about his verbal assertions regarding the gun user's hand crossing over the "imaginary line" and nullifying the definition of a pistol grip. He continues to deny that there is any confusion on this point.

978.20 Definitions

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(e) "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means any component that allows for the grasp, control, and fire of the firearm where the portion grasped is located beneath an imaginary line drawn parallel to the barrel that runs through the top of the exposed trigger.

2. He denied knowledge of, and categorically dismissed, the notion that Olympic shooters are concerned and confused that their target pistols are now considered "assault weapons". This, despite Roger Hedgecock telling him that he had been contacted by officials from the Olympics who remain confused and have not gained resolution of the matter from the DOJ.
3. Throughout all discussion related to the confusion of gun dealers, hunters, semi-auto rifle owners, gun store chains, public figures, and the Justice Department's inability to assign in writing the clarification of whether certain brands and makes of weapons fall under the definitions of the law, the AG dismissed the confusion as disinformation perpetuated by the NRA. In essence, he claims a conspiracy by the NRA to confused the public about a law that is very clear to him, law enforcement, and his department.
4. When asked about the relevancy of the 2^nd Amendment to this new law, he freely admitted that he was a gun-control advocate, that he saw no purpose in the general population having concealed weapon permits [although this position contradicted his previously stated position that he supported the use of privately owned firearms for self-protection], but that it made him uncomfortable to think that another citizen sitting next to him in a movie theater may have a firearm on his person. However, he added that he fully supports the 2^nd Amendment and a person's right to self defense.
5. Roger Hedgecock was extremely polite in asking the AG to discuss the law and its application; yet the AG seemed determined channel the discussion away from the law, but rather how philosophically the gun-control issue is an on-going debate. He downplayed his own opinions, suggesting instead that the new interpretations of the SB23 law are his practical application of the intent of the legislators who created the law. In this, I couldn't agree more, since it is obvious that the intent of the legislators is to ban the right to keep and bear arms altogether.
6. Roger Hedgecock asked the AG if he believed that there would be a voter backlash this election year, because of the legislation. Lockyer thought not, since he viewed that the people of California are sick of gun violence and want it stopped.
7. One caller objected to the new law, saying that he doesn't want to be registered like a common criminal or sex offender when he has done nothing. Lockyer had no direct comment to the man's charge, only noting that this was now the law, and that he understood the "strong feelings" of gun owners.
8. Roger Hedgecock asked about flash suppressors and a knowledgable gun dealer asked the AG how a flash suppressor made a semi-auto rifle more lethal or more of a threat to the public. In his answer, the AG made known how little he knows about the functionality of flash devices. When further pressed for details his mind blanked and he again stated that the will of the legislature was to protect law enforcement from difficult-to-see assailants firing weapons at night. (Which we all know is false.) He never did answer the second part of the caller's question regarding why law enforcement SWAT teams and sniper units don't use flash suppressors, if they improve accuracy and stealth.
9. The topic of the arrests at the Pomona Gun Show surfaced, and the apparent lack of prosecutions. He positioned that any failure to bring charges were the faults of local prosecutors, while he asserted that more arrests would have been made had his agents had more money. He also claimed that his agents worked closely with local law enforcement at the Show in the sting operation. [This claim has been widely disputed by local law enforcement.]

AG Lockyer is a consummate politician and liberal.

In many ways, he is to be given credit about two things:

• He didn't write the law; the liberal legislators in Sacramento did.
• He isn't stripping Californians of their right to bear arms, the liberal legislators in Sacramento are.

However, he did a remarkable job of spinning. He presented himself as a friendly, amiable man of good nature and character, simply going about the people's business. He isn't mean-spirited or hate-filled. But his positions are completely contrary to a society whose people would wish to remain free.

He has claimed that he is for a person's right to defend themselves, while condemning any need for concealed carry permits except for the elites, or for persons worthy of need [to be determined by elites].

He has inferred that countless gun-crimes are being committed at Gun Shows, yet deferred proof and blame to prosecutors, bureaucratic snafus, and lack of more money to investigate.

He has claimed that his interpretation of SB23 is clear to all Californians, yet dismisses as unfounded anyone or any group that asks for clarification.

He has pointed to the need for the rule of law, yet relegated to the level of public debate the moral foundation of the right to keep and bear arms.

He has claimed that he respects the right to privacy and due process, yet is setting about with the force and power of his office to register law-abiding citizens who have harmed no one and done no wrong, as if they were convicted criminals.

He has spoken in support of the banning of semi-automatic rifles from the hands of law-abiding citizens, while he simultaneously supports the arming of law enforcement officers of all levels with the very same weapons-- claiming that the arming of the officers is justified so that the officers cannot be outgunned by the criminals.

Politician Locator

Home