PA Bill Number: HB2235
Title: Providing for regulation of the meat packing and food processing industry by creating facility health and safety committees in the workplace; ...
Description: Providing for regulation of the meat packing and food processing industry by creating facility health and safety committees in the workplace; ... ...
Last Action: Referred to LABOR AND INDUSTRY
Last Action Date: Apr 25, 2024
Anti-Gunners: Newsom's guns measure will give residents a say :: 10/23/2015
For years, one thing standing in the way of a smart debate about gun laws has been the hesitance of many top politicians to take clear stands on the issue.
We mean politicians who have something to lose, who risk ticking off the other side of the guns argument and losing an election as a result.
Maybe that’s changing. Maybe fear of gun violence finally is worse than fear of the National Rifle Association.
Earlier this month, presidential contender Hillary Clinton reacted to the Roseburg, Ore., shooting spree by proposing four new gun-control laws. And last week, California lieutenant governor and gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom took the lead on the issue in the state by announcing a drive to put a firearms-control initiative on the November 2016 ballot.
Along with a group of activists called the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Newsom unveiled a measure that would, among other provisions, require gun owners who own magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to turn them in to police, sell them to licensed firearm dealers or move them out of California.
Yes, California already has a ban on so-called assault weapons, passed by the Legislature in 1989 and expanded in 1999. But those laws allowed people who owned the affected guns and magazines to keep them. This new proposal would force people to give them up.
After all, as can easily be noted by the Second Amendment, which we’ll quote it here: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We note the amendment says nothing about ammunition or gun magazines capable of carrying multiple rounds of ammo.
OK, so it’s a sticking point, but it’s a good one nonetheless. No one needs to own magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammo. That’s not self-defense, that’s a license to murder.
Gun-rights advocates have been on the draw in slamming Newsom. The president of a California gun club called this a “cynical shot” by Newsom to draw attention to his 2016 run for governor.
But it’s not a free shot. Newsom is putting his political future where his mouth is, and the public will have a chance to support or reject his position — and, perhaps, him.
At least 365,880 registered voters will have to sign petitions to put the measure on the ballot. If it qualifies, it will be subject to for-and-against campaigns that may be even more rancorous than the expected state proposition concerning marijuana legalization. And then there’s the potential impact on the 2016 gubernatorial race, for which a poll last week showed Newsom 1 percentage point behind former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Even if Californians are generally more pro-gun-control than other Americans, a gun-control measure could inspire conservatives to vote in larger than normal numbers in an effort to defeat the proposition and its main spokesman.
That’s why politicians inclined to support tighter gun control have usually been afraid to stand up too tall on the issue.
Of course, the last time Newsom stood up on an issue that looked this politically risky, he was promoting gay marriage as mayor of San Francisco. He was just ahead of his time.
In addition to requiring gun owners to give up magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, the measure would require licensing of ammunition sellers and point-of-sale background checks to prevent purchases by criminals and the mentally ill; establish a process for people convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors to surrender their guns; require the state to share with the FBI its information on people prohibited from owning guns, and require gun owners to report a lost or stolen gun.
It’s too early for us to try to judge if these laws would help or hurt — although we’ll admit out front that we think they would help. What’s important now is that Californians benefit from a real debate about the issue. Good for Newsom for helping to start it.
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/opinion/20151022/newsoms-guns-measure-will-give-residents-a-say
