In some states, candidates fight to see who can pose with the largest gun. In California, they fight to see who can craft the toughest regulations on guns and ammo.
By Doug Porter
This measure is Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s baby. Prop 63 requires a background check to purchase ammo, bans possession of large capacity ammo clips, sets up a way to remove guns from felons, and requires reporting of stolen firearms/ammo.
This is all good stuff and there no denying it’s part of Newsom’s image building in the lead up to the 2018 gubernatorial contest.
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) also has political ambitions. He’s been feuding with Newsom over who is the true leader on gun control, In July, the legislature approved bills requiring background checks for ammunition purchasers and outlaw magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.
Bang! Bang! Another Day, and Another 80 Dead
With 300 Americans Second-Amendmenting themselves and other people daily, and 32,000 lives annually being lost to gun violence, the US stands head and shoulders above other developed countries, according to the American Journal of Medicine.
From CBS News:
Even though it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the United States accounted for 82 percent of all gun deaths. The United States also accounted for 90 percent of all women killed by guns, the study found. Ninety-one percent of children under 14 who died by gun violence were in the United States. And 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed by guns were in the United States, the study found.
Gun violence is a national health crisis. Thanks to the efforts of the gun lobby, we don’t know much about the “why” of this daily disaster in this country. The NRA and their ilk have blocked funding for research on gun violence by the Center on Disease Control for nearly two decades.
Prop 63 supporters include the California Democratic Party, Amnesty International, the California Medical Association, the California American College of Physicians, and the California American Academy of Preventative Medicine.
The Yes on 63’s page on 10 Gun Lobby Myths vs. Facts has a good rundown of the typical arguments you can expect to see on this issue.
It’s None of Your Damn Business
Nothing brings the paranoid element in politics out like a measure intended to regulate or limit the use of firearms, and Proposition 63 is no exception. Among the claims made by the opposition Coalition for Civil Liberties:
Prop 63 will criminalize gun owners, render millions of your firearms unusable and force you to give up your private property.
The perennial arguments against gun regulation and safety, namely that criminals (and now terrorists) will be the ultimate winners if new laws are enacted, are also being made. The old fear of bad guys is always good for few scary commercials.
At the base of all these arguments made by the gun fetish set (as opposed to ordinary Americans who happen to own firearms), is the fantasy of needing and being able to use guns to fight a repressive state. Yes indeedy, folks, these types are ready to take one for the team in the fight against Obamacare and gay marriage.
The “reasonable” gun nuts in the NRA leadership have decided to offer only token support for the No on 63 coalition; they’re busy funding ads in support of Donald Trump.
The opposition encompasses the National Rifle Association’s official state affiliate, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the California Republican Party, the California Libertarian Party, and several law enforcement associations, including the California Police Chief’s Association.
For More Information
Ballot Language: FIREARMS. AMMUNITION SALES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large–capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice’s participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted.
A YES Vote means: a new court process would be created for the removal of firearms from individuals upon conviction of certain crimes. New requirements related to the selling or purchasing of ammunition would be implemented.
A NO Vote means: No new firearm– or ammunition–related requirements would be implemented.
Most Recent Polling: A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll at the beginning of September showed broad support (64%) for Prop 63. Opposed likely voters came in a 28%, with 8% undecided.
For information on the November 2016 General Election, see our San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide
Other San Diego Free Press coverage of the 2016 general election.
Tomorrow: Prop 64. Legalize it and get it over with already. We’ll be writing about various state and local contests Monday-Friday for the next two weeks.
Key Dates for the November 8, 2016 General Election –> pic.twitter.com/uEQEgPKHRk
— CA SOS Vote (@CASOSvote) September 12, 2016
On This Day: 1845 – The United States Naval Academy opened in Annapolis, MD. 1933 – Six days into a cotton field strike by 18,000 Mexican and Mexican-American workers in Pixley, Calif., four strikers are killed and six wounded; eight growers were indicted and charged with murder. 1957 – President Dwight D. Eisenhower apologized to Komla Agbeli Gbdemah, the finance minister of Ghana, after the official had been refused service in a Dover, DE, restaurant.
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@SanDiegoFreePress.Org Check us out on Facebook and Twitter.