Gray Davis' Cop-Killing Gun Law

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=129


Gray Davis' Cop-Killing Gun Law
By Richard Poe

October 8, 2003

GRAY DAVIS is gone. But his destructive legacy lives on.

In the final weeks before his ouster, Davis used what dwindling power he had to hamstring California’s legal and political system for years to come. He made over 260 last-minute judicial and state commission appointments. Davis also quietly signed into law one of the most far-reaching handgun bans in the nation on September 24 – a law which threatens to send many California police officers to their graves.

Police and sheriffs all over the state pleaded with Governor Davis not to sign SB 489. But he ignored them. The law exemplifies a new trend in anti-gun activism: cop disarmament – a movement which seeks to limit the gun rights of police officers as well as civilians.

Democrats are the worst offenders, as usual. But the cop disarmament movement spans both major parties. New York City’s Republican mayor Michael Bloomberg, for instance, wants to bar off-duty and former cops from carrying weapons in City Hall. Perhaps His Honor fears that one of New York’s finest might try to shoot him. "I don't know why people carry guns," Bloomberg famously confessed. "Guns kill people..."

"Unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg's reaction is not unusual," writes John Lott, Jr., author of The Bias Against Guns in the National Review Online. "Legislation to let off-duty and retired police carry guns with them when they travel across state lines is being held up in Congress by a threatened Senate Democratic filibuster. Sen. Ted Kennedy, (D., Mass.), who is leading the threatened filibuster claims that the measure would `do great damage to the effort of state and local governments to protect their citizens from gun violence.' "

Anti-gun activist Sarah Brady also opposes the bill, whose Senate designation is S253. "t will… jeopardize public safety," she says

"What is next?" asks Lott. "Banning guns carried by on-duty officers?"

Now California’s lame-duck governor has dealt another blow to police officers’ gun rights. His new law, SB 489 requires all newly-designed, semi-automatic handguns sold in California to be equipped with two so-called "safety devices" by 2007.

The first device is a chamber load indicator, which shows whether or not a round is loaded in the firing chamber. The second is a magazine disconnect device which prevents the gun from firing once the magazine is removed.

Gun prohibitionists are delighted.

"We are so tired and sickened at heart to hear about all the children who die from guns every day, day after day," said Jane Roth, president of the Million Mom March's California State Council.

"This new law will prevent deaths all across the country," gushed Eric Gorovitz, Policy Director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in a September 24 press release.

In reality, SB 489 seems poorly designed to save any lives at all. Properly trained shooters always assume that the chamber is loaded and treat their guns accordingly, with or without a mechanical indicator. Careless or irresponsible shooters are another story. Chamber load indicators may cause such people to become even more reckless than they already are. A malfunctioning indicator could lull careless shooters into assuming that the chamber is empty when it is not.

The "magazine disconnect" device offers more serious dangers.

"The law enforcement community expressly rejects the `magazine disconnect’ feature, as it seeks to disable the firearm during a magazine change, a potentially life-threatening result for an officer in a shoot-out," states a press release from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA), a national anti-crime organization of law enforcement professionals, crime victims and concerned citizens.

Davis’ bill exempts cops from mandatory use of the new "safety" features. However, even this exemption creates new dangers for police.

"Governor Davis’ bill… exposes California law enforcement and taxpayers to additional liability risk," says the September 25 LEAA press release. "The law officially defines guns lacking these features as `unsafe guns.’ As a result, nearly every single handgun used by California law enforcement officers will be officially defined as an `unsafe handgun,’ a notion certain to be exploited in lawsuits involving police use of firearms."

In short, California sheriffs and police chiefs must now choose between issuing mechanically unreliable guns to their officers, or guns deemed legally "unsafe." Either way, officers on the street will be forced to think twice before pulling the trigger – a hesitation that could well prove fatal in a shoot-out.

Anti-gun activists used to tell citizens to leave police work to the police. Now even cops must fight to retain what is left of their gun rights.
 
Anti-gun activists used to tell citizens to leave police work to the police. Now even cops must fight to retain what is left of their gun rights.
Perish the thought!

As much as I support good LEOs and want them to have effective tools for their job, I have to admit I tend to smile when the same administrators and officers who support laws that restrict my RKBA cry bloody murder when they realize that a law might restrict their RKBA, or open them up to lawsuits.
Police should not be exempted from weapons laws.

Good for the goose.
 
Wouldn't it be fairly easy to do a stress test, say 10K rounds, thru a police issue gun and some kluge that meets the SB489 requirement, and thus demonstrate that the SB489 pistols are not safer than, and possibly less so, than current pistols?

Wouldn't this also mean that all current issue pistols, the Glocks, Beretta's, HK's 1911's, etc., are by their nature unsafe? This flies in the face of the (in aggregate) centuries of testing by both manufacturers and users. Would this not mean that the State of California is the possible subject of a libel and defamation lawsuit by all these manufacturers?



(It probably wouldn't, but might this asinine bit of drivel also affect US armed Forces issue side arms? There are a large number of military bases out here in CA. How often do service personel buy their own sidearms? Or am I still stuck in the late 19th century?)
 
Gray davis: long after he's gone, his essence remains.

So, in that respect, history will record him as being like a beer fart in an elevator.
 
Everyone! Everyone! Listen up!

This law is NOT about police, safety, lives saved, or anything else it has been touted to be.

It is to cause the implementation of devices into firearms that are SUPPOSED to fail so that the firearms manufacturers can be successfully sued into oblivion!!!

Never forget that the goal is to bankrupt the manufacturers, distributors, and vendors; demonize the ownership; confiscate all firearms; and do whatever they want with us after that.

This is a law that is designed to fail to be successful!
 
Jim:

Clearly, this is the motivation. So I reiterate:"Wouldn't this also mean that all current issue pistols, the Glocks, Beretta's, HK's 1911's, etc., are by their nature unsafe? This flies in the face of the (in aggregate) centuries of testing and use by both manufacturers and users. Would this not mean that the State of California is the possible subject of a libel and defamation lawsuit by all these manufacturers?" Sue the state first.
 
The manufacturers sue a state? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

We can't even get them to countersue when they are sued speciously.

Barrett has a great slander suit against VPC and does nothing but put a letter of response on his webpage. Man of action, I tell ya.
 
In short, California sheriffs and police chiefs must now choose between issuing mechanically unreliable guns to their officers, or guns deemed legally "unsafe."

Did this idiot just state that the mandatory "safety device" equipped handguns are safe when used by civilians but are mechanically unreliable when used by a police officer?
 
Former Governor Davis might be a wimp, a non-entity, a bum or anything else, however even in California, the governor does not, all by himself, pass legislation concerning firearms, dog licenses or ANYTHING ELSE, for that matter.

The governor can sign or veto legislation enacted by THE STATE LEGISLATURE. Now perhaps a bum governor will all to willingly sign anything put upon his desk, but it remains that it is the STATE LEGISLATURE that created any particular piece of legislation. Governor Wilson vetoed examples of anti gun idiocy passed by the STATE LEGISLATURE, Governor Davis didn't. It was, and remains the STATE LEGISLATURE, that is the problem in California, respecting anti gun idiocy.

The fact that California seems to be a fount of one example of anti gun legislative idiocy after another notwithstanding, people who chew on whomever it might be that is governor at any goiven time, are all to often, barking up the wrong tree, for while a pro gun governor, has there ever been one in California could help to some extent, the root of the problem lies in and with the STSATE LEGISLATURE.
 
Gray Davis has sealed his legacy w/ his last minute attempt at vengence against the people of California. :cuss: :banghead: :fire:
 
This law is another Great Triumph of leftist extremist anti-Second Amendment bigotry over American law and standards of decency.

My hat's off to you, Californians, for kicking the socialist parasite out of office!
 
10ring and standing wolf:

If I may, you both seem to be missing the point.

It strikes me that while former governor Davis likely leaves a lot to be desired, re firearms, is Arnold any real improvement??, the root of the problem re idiotic gun laws enacted in California is not so much the governor, though that is certainly a factor, rather it is the state legislature, which for one reason or another seems fatally enamoured with the idea of "gun control".

I also note that a majority of the voters in California are either unable or unwilling to effect the necessary changes in that body, and until such needed changes are effected, there seems little liklehood of improvement.

I seem to recall that Pete Wilson, a previous governor vetoed at least one gun control enactment, it was subsequently passed and signed, however Governor Wilson could not keep the legislature from enacting legislative idiocy. Davis didn't try, and Arnold might not either. Only time will tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top