Opinion: L.A. City Council shouldn’t weaken its new gun-control laws

The Los Angeles City Council may be on the verge of screwing up what had been a good idea.

The council this summer began working on two measures aimed at making Los Angeles a little safer from guns, one requiring that handguns be securely stored or fitted with a trigger lock when not being used; the other banning ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. But at the urging of the powerful Los Angeles Police Protective League, the council’s Public Safety Committee on Tuesday voted to weaken the magazine ban by exempting retired and reserve police officers.

That’s an unwise move, made for fictitious reasons. According to Peter Repovich, the head of the police union, allowing retired and reserve cops to own the large clips gives them the advantage of surprise in the event of a shooting threat: “There’s nothing better than to have somebody pop up that they wouldn’t think was necessarily armed, ready to go and eliminate the threat.”

Added council member and former Los Angeles police Officer Joe Buscaino: “Heaven forbid, if this city were to be under attack, I would want retired and reserve officers who have the experience and the training to be allowed to protect the people of this city.”

Nonsense. John Parker Jr., an Air Force veteran and student who was carrying a concealed weapon during the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon earlier this month, told reporters afterward that he and fellow veterans at a campus vets center decided not to move toward the shooting scene because that “could have opened us up to be potential targets ourselves.” More significantly: “Not knowing where SWAT was on their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were, and if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think we were bad guys.”

Parker’s analysis rings as a reality check to this notion that flooding a shooting scene with armed civilians — whether they be military vets, retired or reserve cops or just run-of-the-mill gun enthusiasts — would somehow make this a safer society. What it does do is introduce another layer of confusion to fast-changing situations. And having large-capacity magazines floating around increases the breadth and scope of the carnage.

The council got it right the first time: Requiring guns be secured when not in use and banning large-capacity ammunition clips whose only purpose is to make it easier to kill more people faster, is good, common-sense public policy.

And despite the gun lobby’s protests, such bans are constitutional. The 2nd U.S. District Court of Appeals earlier this week upheld the core of laws, including bans on large-capacity magazines, that legislatures in New York and Connecticut adopted in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. And the Supreme Court in June refused to hear a National Rifle Association challenge to San Francisco’s trigger-lock law, which was the inspiration for the Los Angeles ordinance.

In a related development, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom — who hopes to succeed Jerry Brown as governor — says he’ll push for a ballot initiative that would expand the large-capacity magazine ban statewide, and also require instant background checks for anyone buying ammunition. So the fight over guns is just going to escalate.

Which is good. The Supreme Court may have recognized that owning a gun as a 2nd Amendment right (a decision I hope it eventually comes to realize is flawed and dangerous to public safety), but it also recognized the state’s interest in regulating firearms. Ultimately these are political decisions and the politics seems to be moving in the right direction.

And no, such laws won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but that logic argues against adopting laws against anything, which is preposterous. Why have laws against robbing banks if criminals are going to rob them anyway?

Laws establish what society agrees is legal behavior, and free and easy access to guns is contrary to the interests of a safe and secure society. We need to do more to solve that problem, and weakening what controls we have is a move in the wrong direction.

Follow Scott Martelle on Twitter @smartelle.