Chris
10-25-2009, 03:19 PM
I know it's super early for this, but it needs to be spread far and wide. All Republican candidates for Governor, Meg Whitman, who is currently ahead in the polls, Tom Campbell and Steve Poizner have stated in no uncertain terms that they are for gun control.
MW
-- Guns: She said she supports Second Amendment rights, but that an assault weapon ban and handgun restrictions are "probably the right thing in California." She does not own a gun.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/12/BACU15SUDJ.DTL
Tom Campbell
Yes, I currently support the CA "Assault Weapon Ban". The Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to keep and bear arms appropriate to the traditional purposes for which the Second Amendment was drafted; namely, the ability of the citizenry (who were the militia in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted) to be summoned to restore order in the case of breach of the peace, to hunt, to protect home, person, and property, and for sport. Against those traditional uses, the state may weigh the potential that the weapon in question could do massive harm. A field artillery piece could, on that basis, be kept from private ownership. An assault weapon designed and functional to shoot bullets in fully automatic mode with only a trivial amount of modification could also be kept from private hands. A weapon that can only be operated in semi-automatic mode, however, should be legal to possess.
I'd approach such decisions with an open mind, based on the characteristics of the weapon. If you have any specific firearm that you believe should be added to or subtracted from the current assault weapon ban, I'd be open to hearing about it and why.
Yes, I do support the current CA high capacity magazine ban. The high capacity magazine is designed to allow many shots before an individual using it can be rushed or disarmed. Police and other law enforcement officials who put their lives at risk for all of us favor this ban. I stand with them.
The AB 50 law of 2005 banned any 50 caliber rifles, including bolt action, calling them assault weapons. I disagree with the characterization of such a firearm as an assault weapon, and would not have signed that bill. Outlawing this firearm purely on the basis of the caliber of its ammunition makes illegal hunting rifles that have been legitimate for years. Further, such firearms lack the most important attribute of the kind of assault weapon that poses a public safety hazard, the ability to shoot many bullets in a very short period of time, or to be easily modified into such a weapon.
Yes, I do support the current CA law that requires handguns to be on a "CA Approved" listing prior to being sold in state. The right to keep and bear arms is to be balanced with the state's right to "well regulate" the militia. The "militia," as understood in 1791, are the citizenry capable of carrying arms. It is appropriate for the state to make the distinction between weapons appropriate to traditional Second Amendment functions of defense of home and property, hunting, sport, and being able to be summoned to quell breaches of the peace, and those weapons that pose a very great danger to a large number of persons (like a field artillery piece). Creating a list appears to me a way to do so with clarity and in advance. If there is any dispute as to whether a particular weapon should be on that list, there should be an accessible way to contest its listing in a fair hearing.
I would sign AB 962. It imposes restrictions on the sale of ammunition comparable to restrictions already in place on the sale of firearms. It is favored by policemen and women who risk their lives to protect us."
As much as it pains me, I suggest looking long and hard at Jerry Brown. While he is a Dem, he has stated several times that he does not think taxes are the answer to the states budget crisis. While he hasn't come right out and said he is pro gun, things have improved a lot at the DOJ during his time as AG and he wrote a friend of the court brief for Heller.
MW
-- Guns: She said she supports Second Amendment rights, but that an assault weapon ban and handgun restrictions are "probably the right thing in California." She does not own a gun.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/12/BACU15SUDJ.DTL
Tom Campbell
Yes, I currently support the CA "Assault Weapon Ban". The Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to keep and bear arms appropriate to the traditional purposes for which the Second Amendment was drafted; namely, the ability of the citizenry (who were the militia in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted) to be summoned to restore order in the case of breach of the peace, to hunt, to protect home, person, and property, and for sport. Against those traditional uses, the state may weigh the potential that the weapon in question could do massive harm. A field artillery piece could, on that basis, be kept from private ownership. An assault weapon designed and functional to shoot bullets in fully automatic mode with only a trivial amount of modification could also be kept from private hands. A weapon that can only be operated in semi-automatic mode, however, should be legal to possess.
I'd approach such decisions with an open mind, based on the characteristics of the weapon. If you have any specific firearm that you believe should be added to or subtracted from the current assault weapon ban, I'd be open to hearing about it and why.
Yes, I do support the current CA high capacity magazine ban. The high capacity magazine is designed to allow many shots before an individual using it can be rushed or disarmed. Police and other law enforcement officials who put their lives at risk for all of us favor this ban. I stand with them.
The AB 50 law of 2005 banned any 50 caliber rifles, including bolt action, calling them assault weapons. I disagree with the characterization of such a firearm as an assault weapon, and would not have signed that bill. Outlawing this firearm purely on the basis of the caliber of its ammunition makes illegal hunting rifles that have been legitimate for years. Further, such firearms lack the most important attribute of the kind of assault weapon that poses a public safety hazard, the ability to shoot many bullets in a very short period of time, or to be easily modified into such a weapon.
Yes, I do support the current CA law that requires handguns to be on a "CA Approved" listing prior to being sold in state. The right to keep and bear arms is to be balanced with the state's right to "well regulate" the militia. The "militia," as understood in 1791, are the citizenry capable of carrying arms. It is appropriate for the state to make the distinction between weapons appropriate to traditional Second Amendment functions of defense of home and property, hunting, sport, and being able to be summoned to quell breaches of the peace, and those weapons that pose a very great danger to a large number of persons (like a field artillery piece). Creating a list appears to me a way to do so with clarity and in advance. If there is any dispute as to whether a particular weapon should be on that list, there should be an accessible way to contest its listing in a fair hearing.
I would sign AB 962. It imposes restrictions on the sale of ammunition comparable to restrictions already in place on the sale of firearms. It is favored by policemen and women who risk their lives to protect us."
As much as it pains me, I suggest looking long and hard at Jerry Brown. While he is a Dem, he has stated several times that he does not think taxes are the answer to the states budget crisis. While he hasn't come right out and said he is pro gun, things have improved a lot at the DOJ during his time as AG and he wrote a friend of the court brief for Heller.