From: [r--s] at [cbnewsc.cb.att.com] (Morris the Cat) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: LA Daily Journal Article by Kates and Kasler Date: 14 Jun 93 14:17:37 GMT The Daily Journal (Los Angeles and San Francisco Editions) May 11, 1993 Assault-Weapon Fiasco -- Prosecutors and Police Can't Decide What Guns Are Banned by State Law by Don B. Kates and Peter Alan Kasler Having strongly opposed California's 1989 "assault weapon" ban, we are back to say: "We told you so." Four years of experience prove the Roberti Act unworkable and its premises deeply flawed. "Assault weapon" is just a fearsome epithet for common semiautomatic arms, which fire no faster than a civilian revolver, pump rifle or shotgun. Contrary to claims that military-style rifles are preferred by druglords and other criminals, studies across the country show them rarely found in drug raids. And though they represent an estimated 27 percent of new sales, they constitute only 1 percent to 5 percent of the guns used in crimes. Their popularity reflects their use of high-strength plastic instead of wood, making them light but rugged for hunting, camping, pest and predator control, Olympic and other target competition. So little a crime problem are they that national data do not separate out "assault weapon" crime. But rifle murders did consistently decline through the 1980s. By 1990-91 rifles were used in less than 4 percent of murders. Murders with knives were four times more frequent. Attorney General John Van de Kamp and state Senate majority leader David Roberti pushed the law with claims that "assault weapons" were a grave and growing menace. A recently leaked memo reveals that they nixed a Department of Justice statistical study because "it was unlikely to support the theses on which the [Roberti Act] would be based." Though the Los Angeles Times supported enactment of the measure in editorials, the headline of a subsequent news article published last May 20 says it all: "Assault Rifles Are Not Heavily Used in Crimes." The argument is over real military arms (fully automatic weapons firing 450 to 1,100 round a minute) and all other guns, including the look- alikes that the Roberti Act bans. Their approximate 50-round-per- minute rate of fire is equaled by common pump- or even lever-action hunting weapons, which also may be designed to use detachable magazines holding 30 or more rounds. Moreover the act's listing of "assault" rifles is senseless, arbitrary and confusing. It includes the Springfield BM-59, but not the Beretta BM-59 of which the Springfield is an identical copy, or the virtually identical M1, M1A, M-14A and M14S. The AK-47-based Valmet M-78 is banned, but not an identical design that differs only cosmetically and in name (Valmet Hunter). The Uzi carbine is banned but not the Norinco carbine which has the same weight, size and magazine capacity. The leaked DOJ memo sums it up: "The more our staff has worked with the legislation the more confused they have become. How the average cop on the beat or Joe 'Six Pack' who owns one of the weapons will ever figure it out escapes me." That's the analysis of DOJ's own primary expert. Other DOJ consultants say the act is so confusing that 50 percent to 60 percent or more of the guns registered aren't covered by the act. Some misregistrations represent error by befuddled owners and DOJ personnel. But most of the misregistrations involve disagreement between the DOJ and its own consultants over which guns the act covers. That speaks for itself: Four years after passage -- two years after amendments designed to clean it up -- experts still can't agree on what it means. Gun owners are suing, based on this disagreement. If the court upholds the consultants, our financially pressed state may have to refund $500,000 in registration fees and spend $3.7 million in personnel costs to deregister misregistered guns. The toll in false searches and prosecutions by confused or officious police is already great. In September 1991 police broke into paralegal Penny O-Hanlon's apartment in the belief she was being held at gunpoint. They expressed their irritation at finding her angry and ungrateful (rather than a damsel in distress), by ransacking her apartment and discovering a gun they misidentified as an assault rifle. Three months later, after thousands of dollars of wasted legal costs, the court dismissed the charges and ordered her rifle returned. Not all victims of "assault weapon" confusion are so lucky. In 1990 the Lake County Drug Task Force searched the home of a businessman they erroneously thought was involved with drugs. They found none but misidentified two firearms as being covered by the Roberti Act. Rather than admit error, they falsely charged the hapless businessman. (As the weapons custodial later explained to one of this article's authors, a prospective defense expert witness, "It doesn't matter; they're just like the ones that are on the list.") Charges were only dismissed after several costly hearings. The chagrined police and prosecutor proceeded on a separate gun charge on which the court precluded prosecution after two trials. Having lost his business and sold his house to pay legal bills, the defendant is now a used car salesman in Nevada. His guns have not been returned and he can't afford to sue for them. In 1991 officers executed a search warrant on a Contra Costa County couple who had a pet wildcat they legally purchased while living in Oregon. Finding a gun safe, the officers ordered that it be opened on threat of breaking it open. After a sergeant, the local police firearms "expert," misidentified two firearms as "assault weapon," the couple was arrested and a whole collection of arms seized. Months of negotiation were required before the district attorney would drop the charges. All guns were returned except an expensive single- shot competition gun that no one could mistake for an assault weapon. (It probably has been added to some cop's personal collection.) The couple have not sought recompense because their finances and attention are focused on saving their beloved cat, which the county wants to destroy. In December 1992, a San Francisco couple (he being the son of a retired FBI agent and she the daughter of a police chief) were falsely reported by a quarrelsome relative to own "AK-47s." Searching for any illegal weapon, police spread the couple's entire collection -- dozens of guns -- out on their front lawn in view of admiring residents of an adjacent high-rise housing project. Hours of checking with headquarters showed that all guns were legal. But when the man bitterly protested, "Look what you've done to me," the police retaliated by confiscating his entire collection "for your own protection." Four months later, no charges have been filed, but the police simply refuse to return the guns. Police abuses are promoted by knowledge that the media and the ACLU are too hostile to guns and gun owners to inquire or care. At the same time, the gun lobby seizes on abuses to scare owners about all new control proposals, however reasonable. Polls show most gun owners support reasonable controls in principle. But support in principle turns into fanatic, paranoid opposition as the gun lobby highlights examples like the Roberti Act -- ineptly designed, criminologically worthless legislation enacted through deception, hysteria and mindless hostility to gun owners. Unfortunately, the gun debate is dominated by the feverish hostility of rival extremes -- gun lovers vs. gun haters who are more respectable but no less irrational. Gun owner paranoia is heightened by knowing that they will receive no sympathy from the forces that normally safeguard Americans against oppressive law enforcement. We shall not achieve rational gun control until we can accept three things: that law-abiding, responsible people have a right to own guns, particularly for self-defense; that society has a right to control guns, particularly to keep them away from irresponsible individuals; and that everyone's civil liberties must be protected.