California’s Continuing Attack on the 2nd Amendment
By Bruce Skane
CNS Commentary
August 30, 2000

The latest counterproductive scheme being pushed by victim disarmament
zealots is licensing of all law-abiding handgun owners in California. They
can’t cite any scientific studies or statistics which support such schemes, but
instead use the specious argument that, “we license automobile drivers, why
aren’t we licensing law-abiding gun owners?”

In contrast, there have been several studies conducted by pro-gun-control
researchers (i.e., “Under The Gun” by Profs. Wright, Rossi, and Daly for
the U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1986) which have shown that the best result of
gun control laws is a net zero effect. The more historically likely result of
gun control laws is that gun control increases violent crime by shifting the
balance of power to favor criminals while it disarms or handicaps innocent
victims.

While on the surface the “automobile analog” appears to be a reasonable
argument, the comparison is not apples to apples but apples to
supercomputers. In California, as most other states, driving a vehicle on
government built and maintained roads is a privilege. There is no specific
constitutional right to drive a vehicle on a public road so the government is
probably within its legitimate authority to require that drivers have a
knowledge of the rules of the road and issuing a license as proof thereof.

On the other hand, if you want your 11 year old daughter to drive your
1600 horsepower race car on a road on your private property, you do not
need a license, or car registration, or criminal background checks, or
waiting periods, or driving tests, or anything else.

If you really believe the car-to-firearm analog, then you would agree that
there would be no purchase criminal background checks (which makes you
much more radical than I am), that people could buy as many firearms as
they want, that people could buy without any waiting period, that there
would be no restrictions on “power” for firearms used on private property,
that all high school students would receive a semester’s worth of firearms
range training, that anyone with a license in one state could carry a firearm
in public in all states, and that when you fly somewhere for business or
pleasure you could rent a firearm when you reach your destination. If a true
car-to-firearm analog is what you want, I would be in favor of it.

In contrast, the Constitution is very explicit, “…the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The keeping of firearms by law
abiding citizens is a right not a privilege and imposing a licensing
requirement would clearly infringe on that right.

At the present time in California all prospective handgun purchasers are
required to:

* Pass a criminal and mental health background check.

* Pass a test showing safety knowledge regarding handguns.

* Not be under a restraining order.

So what will licensing do to advance public safety that hasn’t already been
done? Almost all the criminals in the state are already prohibited from
owning firearms, so any new requirement will not even apply to them.
Suicides would not be prevented, since the people committing suicide
already know that firearms are dangerous, yet they use them intentionally in
a dangerous manner. Most accidents among children or juveniles would not
be prevented, since they are not the ones who would be safety tested. The
one safety plan that reduces accidents is widespread safety training, such as
that provided by the NRA and other firearms owner groups. But none of
the proposed legislation would implement firearms safety training in schools.
Don’t you wonder why?

It is obvious that the anti-self-defense legislators want to impose licensing of
law-abiding gun owners in order to convert a right into a privilege – a
privilege for which law-abiding citizens will have to jump through an
ever-increasing number of unreasonable hoops, until only the ultra-rich and
the political elite will be allowed to own any means of self-defense.

In England, the supposed example of perfect gun control laws, the crime
rate has been climbing steadily since 1921, when they first enacted gun
control. As the laws became more and more oppressive to average
citizens, crime flourished. Today, their overall crime rate has matched that
of the US, except for their murder rate (which is rising as ours is falling).
They have reached the point where it is now illegal for a citizen to defend
themselves with any effective tools. If they do so, they are charged with
“the use of an offensive weapon” rather than being allowed to act in defense
of themselves and their loved ones.

In New York City, that well know paragon of public safety, a handgun
license to own (not carry) requires that you prove to a bureaucrat who
hates self-defense and firearms that you “need” a firearm. It usually takes 6
months to get the license, including multiple personal appearances at the
police station during normal business hours. You submit hundreds of dollars
in fees for various forms and fingerprints, and most people wind up hiring a
lawyer to handle all the paperwork and personal appearances, at a cost of
$5000 or more.

Washington DC’s licensing scheme has virtually disenfranchised ordinary
citizens from keeping a gun to protect themselves from criminal predators
with the result that ordinary citizens are defenseless against vicious criminal
thugs and street gangs. It is no coincidence that Washington is among the
nation’s murder capitals.

Even citizens who don’t own guns are protected by those that do because
criminals don’t know which home has guns and which doesn’t. Californians
who want to preserve their right to self-defense and who also don’t want
their state turned into a paradise for criminals and a hell for ordinary
law-abiding citizens should reject any licensing schemes being pushed by
the gun control zealots.

If you really wanted to promote public safety, you should be supporting the
widespread issuance of Self Defense Permits (also called Concealed Carry
Licenses, or CCW’s) on a “shall issue” basis, as is now practiced in 31 of
the 50 states. Crime has decreased faster than the national average in those
states and there have been no negative effects, such as increased murders,
suicides or accidents. There has never been a gun control law anywhere
that has had such positive effects. If it saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?

Bruce Skane is president of the San Diego County Gun Rights
Committee, which is affiliated with CalNRA.