In an effort to increase gun safety, the California legislature has been hitting and missing lately

–

annual meeting closed.

The misses attract the most attention.

My no. An example of a serious misstep was the bill the legislature passed to impose a new 11% state excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Once again, the ruling Democrats’ response to a problem was to raise taxes rather than prioritize spending.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has not indicated his views on the tax, but gun control groups are trying to pressure him to sign the measure. They fear he will veto it. He should.

A legislative bull’s-eye

bullseye

was a bill to resume restrictions on when concealed weapons can be carried in public. The U.S. Supreme Court essentially struck down the old law last year.

The proposed new regulation makes a lot of sense: we should not allow just anyone to drive around with loaded weapons in bars, town halls and playgrounds.

You don’t need a gun to go to your daughters’ soccer game, says Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank), author of Senate Bill 2. You need a water bottle and orange slices.

Another miss: Legislative passage of Newsom’s resolution calling for a constitutional convention to pass a 28th resolution

a

amendment mandating new federal gun controls.

Newsom’s proposals are good in principle: universal background checks for people buying guns and a minimum age of 21 for buyers. A reasonable wait before collecting the weapon. And no assault weapons. These restrictions are already law in California and should apply across America.

But a constitutional convention is a frightening idea, because red states could dominate and ultimately strengthen gun rights while weakening other protections, such as those embodied in the First Amendment.

A terrible idea, UC Berkeley Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar, has argued.

Regardless, in this political climate, Newsom has absolutely no chance of getting a constitutional amendment passed that would strengthen gun control. Zilch. It would require ratification by three-quarters of the states.

The governor seems primarily interested in increasing his national profile and raising political donations.

The constitutional convention resolution was passed on a party-line vote in each house, both of which have Democratic supermajorities. But several Democrats refused to vote.

The firearms and ammunition tax would raise about $160 million annually. The money would go to some very good programs that have proven themselves

proven

to be successful in reducing gun violence.

There would be $75 million available for local gun violence prevention programs and $50 million for school safety, plus millions more for law enforcement to seize firearms from convicted domestic abusers who have restraining orders.

All Californians benefit from these programs, not just law-abiding hunters, skeet shooters, and people concerned about their own safety. And all Californians would have to pay for them from the state’s general fund.

This annual state budget amounts to a record $311 billion. There is certainly enough money in the treasury to fund such worthwhile efforts.

In fact, the governor’s office recently bragged that Gov. Nieuwsom [invested] a record $156 million in anti-violence programs uniquely tailored to the needs of the individual community. He did it without raising taxes.

But if the Legislature and Governor decide that more tax revenue is needed to improve these programs, they should not only hit everyone,

comply with the law

gun owners. It’s doubtful that many criminals buy their guns from gun stores anyway so they wouldn’t pay the tax.

Supporters of the bill say the measure is modeled on a century-old federal excise tax of up to 11 percent on guns and ammunition. They note that this tax has always been supported by the firearms industry. But that’s a disingenuous argument.

Federal taxes pay for conservation. Hunters are fine with that. The proposed state tax would be the first in the nation to go to anti-violence, school safety and law enforcement programs that are traditionally paid for by all beneficiaries.

The bill, AB 28 from Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), needed a two-thirds majority and narrowly received it.

The bill regulating the carrying of concealed weapons would ban these weapons in government buildings, schools, medical facilities, churches, sports fields and bars, among other sensitive places.

It would impose uniform statewide standards for issuing permits to carry concealed firearms. Issuing permits would no longer be left to the discretion of the local sheriff. New York had a similar law, but that one

US

The Supreme Court ruled that it violated 2nd Amendment gun rights.

Portantino tried one

n identical

The bill is identical to last year’s AB 28, but fell victim to vindictive politics from a Democratic opponent who has since left the Legislature.

Two weeks ago, his measure was passed by the Senate 48

Unpleasant

21 and the General Meeting 28

Unpleasant

8th.

Newson announced long ago that he would sign the bill. But gun rights organizations have already submitted an application

law

suitable for challenging measures.

The Legislature also scored some lighter hits on gun safety and control.

A simple bill would require gun buyers to be notified in writing of the risks of being around firearms.

Many people buy firearms because they think it will make them safer at home, says Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), author of the bill, AB 1598. But the evidence is indisputable. Having a firearm in your home significantly increases the chance that you or someone you love will become a victim of gun violence…

You put a gun with a clip in the bedside table. And if your partner comes back from the bathroom in the middle of the night, she becomes a target.

The measure passed

largely

with predominantly Democratic votes.

The California legislature has gone almost out of its way to pass strict gun control laws. The states’ focus now is on defending current laws in gun-friendly courts, including the highest.

In the meantime, lawmakers must understand that reaching into the pockets of gun owners is not the same as fairly controlling who buys guns and what types.