State Senate Approves Assault Weapons Ban

SACRAMENTO —  The state Senate on Wednesday approved a sweeping new assault weapons ban that would replace the landmark 1989 California weapons law struck down by an appellate court this month.

The measure includes a broad generic definition of military-style firearms, focusing on semiautomatic weapons that can be concealed easily and can fire large numbers of bullets in rapid succession.

The legislation, AB 23 by Assemblyman Don Perata (D-Alameda), would ban the sale of semiautomatic pistols that can hold more than 19 rounds, and semiautomatic rifles that hold more than 10 rounds. People who own such guns would have six months to register them or face criminal sanctions.

“It’s time we finish the job we started in 1989,” said Sen. Charles M. Calderon (D-Whittier), adding that the legislation “will ban once and for all assault weapons in California.”

The measure would restrict many more models of semiautomatic weapons than the 75 brand-name weapons covered by the 1989 state law. It also would go further than the 1994 federal assault weapons ban.

Perata expects his bill to pass the Assembly when it is put to a final vote set for March 30.

Given its sweep, the bill attracted wide interest, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the main author of the federal law, urging its passage, and pro- and anti-gun groups mounting major efforts to convince their adherents to contact legislators and Gov. Pete Wilson, who has not taken a stand on the bill.

The Senate voted 22-14 to approve the bill, with most Democrats backing it and most Republicans opposing it. The measure was approved in the Senate and Assembly last year, but in a different form.

Pro-gun groups led by the National Rifle Assn. are battling to kill the bill in the lower house. On the opposite side, Handgun Control plans to air radio ads touting the measure, in part to sway Wilson.

Although the Republican governor has not said whether he will sign Perata’s bill, he supported assault weapons restrictions when he was in the U.S. Senate. Perata has been meeting with Wilson aides in an effort to gain the governor’s signature.

Republican opponents of the bill charge that Democrats are using the legislation as part of their 1998 election strategy. Assault weapons restrictions have wide support among law enforcement groups, and public opinion polls show that voters overwhelmingly want such weapons banned.

Senators got one small indication of that sentiment when a visiting group of fourth-graders from Top of the World Elementary School in Laguna Beach, viewing the debate from the Senate gallery, broke into applause as the bill was approved.

“We’re concerned about gangs,” said parent Linda Butterwick, among those who lauded the action.

Insisting that the bill is politically motivated, Republican state senators contended that the military-style weapons covered by the legislation are no more lethal than semiautomatic weapons not banned by the bill.

“Basically, what the [legislation] says is that if they’re ugly we want to make them illegal,” said Sen. Raymond N. Haynes (R-Riverside). “They’re not any more dangerous than any other rifle that is out there. They’re just ugly. . . . This is the height of politics.”

Perata began pushing the legislation last year, but delayed a final vote in the 80-seat Assembly after a lawmaker who supported it the first time around left the Legislature. Since then, he has amended it extensively--”frankly to win bipartisan support,” he said.

In some ways, the latest incarnation goes further than last year’s version, specifically targeting semiautomatic pistols that can accept magazines of 19 or more rounds, and semiautomatic rifles that can take magazines of more than 10 rounds.

“The only way to broaden the net is [to limit] firepower,” Perata said. “What we take is the mental image people have of a weapon of war, and apply clear standards.”

But NRA lobbyist Steve Helsley said the bill is so broad that it could require registration of virtually any semiautomatic weapon that can take detachable magazines.

“Clearly the bill is focused on the good guys,” Helsley said. “This is not a crime-fighting tool. It’s just a way to beat up legitimate gun owners.”

Perata’s bill does not ban high-capacity magazines. But the bill would make it illegal to attach such magazines to semiautomatic rifles or pistols. Magazines are easily obtained, requiring no background check of the purchaser, and they are cheap. A magazine that can hold 50 bullets can cost less than $50.

“For the first time, this will restrict large ammunition magazines,” said Luis Tolley, western director of Handgun Control. “People will no longer be able to spray-fire 50 bullets. That goes right to the heart of the issue.”

Among its other provisions, the legislation would ban the sale of guns if they are:

* Semiautomatics rifles with an overall length of 30 inches that also have the ability to accept detachable magazines, and have a protruding pistol grip or thumb hole that make them easier to maneuver.

* Semiautomatic pistols that have folding stocks, which make them easier to conceal, a shroud that makes them easier to hold when the barrel heats up, or a threaded barrel that would allow them to accept a silencer.

* Semiautomatic shotguns that can take more than five rounds, accept detachable magazines or a revolving cylinder.

* Semiautomatic guns capable of firing rounds larger than .45 caliber. That provision is aimed at a .50-caliber weapon that was part of the Branch Davidians’ arsenal in Waco, Texas.

Perata said the need for the bill became more urgent after a state District Court of Appeal, acting on a lawsuit brought by gun manufacturers, on March 4 struck down key provisions of California’s 1989 assault weapons law.

The 1989 law, passed after Patrick Purdy killed five children in a Stockton schoolyard with an assault rifle, prohibited 75 guns by name. The appellate court invalidated a so-called copycat provision that allowed the state attorney general to add guns to the list if they contained only slight modifications.

Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, the leading Republican candidate for governor, is appealing the ruling. Lungren has said he might support a generic ban on assault weapons, but cautioned lawmakers against backing Perata’s bill, saying the new measure might hamper the appeal.

Lungren opposed Perata’s bill last year, in part because it did not contain the $830,000 estimated cost of enforcing its registration requirements.

Perata’s bill goes further than the 1994 federal assault weapons ban in several areas. Although the federal law bans the manufacture and importation of assault weapons, Perata’s bill would bar the sale of such weapons already in circulation and would require people who already own them to register with the state attorney general.

People who fail to register guns meeting the Perata bill’s definition within six months would face an infraction. If gun owners continued to fail to register their weapons, they could face a misdemeanor or felony charge.

Additionally, because of the broader definitions in the state proposal, Israeli-made Uzis could not be sold in California, although they might be permissible under federal law. The question of the Israeli-made guns was highlighted last fall after The Times detailed how large numbers of the weapons were being imported into the United States.

After protests by Feinstein, President Clinton in November blocked the importation of as many as 600,000 semiautomatic weapons that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms initially approved. A final decision is pending on whether those guns can be sold to civilians.

Even as the Senate was taking its vote, Assembly members were preparing for a showdown. Although Democrats tout their support for gun control and hold a majority in the Assembly, enough Democratic lawmakers oppose gun restrictions that the bill won’t pass without Republican votes.

In an interview, Assemblyman Steve T. Kuykendall (R-Rancho Palos Verdes), one of the swing votes, said he was “leaning toward supporting this one.”

“It’s a big deal to me that this [existing law] was thrown out,” Kuykendall said. “That’s one of the reasons I’m more inclined to support it.”