Gun Control Controversy

I commend you on the closing portion of your editorial on the assault weapons controversy. As you point out, the federal government has already had great success in limiting the magazine capacity of certain firearms used in hunting federally protected waterfowl. Since the only practical difference between the modern military-style self-loader and its commercial cousin is magazine capacity, and since both the locally enacted and state proposed laws define “assault weapons” by magazine capacity, it would seem both reasonable and practical simply to ban either general ownership or possession in public of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of center-fire rifle cartridges. Enactment at the state level would encourage parallel federal legislation, as well as providing an effective tool for local law enforcement.

Such a law would, I believe, be a compromise acceptable to all but the most extreme on both sides of the argument. To have a significant long-term impact upon criminal misuse of firearms, however, such a law, and any law in this area, must be supported by legislation banning firearms ownership by such classes as those convicted of violent misdemeanors, those under a restraining order based upon findings of potential harm or harassment, etc.

Additionally, the forthcoming change in California drivers’ licenses, making them much harder to forge and encoding more information on them, offers this state an opportunity to join the U.S. Department of Justice in its congressionally mandated assignment of developing a method of verifying the identity and qualification of firearms purchasers at the point of sale.

SHERWIN COGAN

San Clemente