Bill Seeks Extension for Assault Gun Registration

Senate leader David A. Roberti on Thursday introduced urgency legislation sponsored by Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren that would give owners of assault guns an extra 90 days to register them or risk criminal charges.

But Roberti (D-Los Angeles), Senate author of landmark 1989 legislation that severely restricts ownership of military-style semiautomatics, said that while he would work for approval of Lungren’s measure, “if it is defeated, it’s no skin off my back.”

Faced with a widespread failure of assault gun owners to register their weapons by last Dec. 31, the newly elected Lungren this month asked for legislation to extend the deadline rather than seek prosecutions for possession of illegal firearms.

Roberti told reporters that he and Lungren, a Republican, have agreed on a 90-day extension, starting the day the legislation is signed. As an urgency bill, it would get fast-track action, at least in the Senate.

In the Assembly, however, the proposal is almost certain to face stiff opposition from Assemblyman Mike Roos (D-Los Angeles), the Assembly author of the 1989 ban on assault weapons. He has pronounced himself an “obstacle” to its passage.

The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act banned nearly 60 specific firearms in California. But it did allow citizens who legally owned them before June, 1989, to keep them if the arms were registered by Dec. 31.

No one knows how many such weapons are privately owned in California, but estimates have put the total at 300,000. However, assault gun owners had registered only 19,936 as of Thursday.

The Department of Justice said approximately 2,500 registration applications were received bearing postmarks after the Dec. 31 deadline. Lungren has put those on a shelf pending the outcome of his bill.

“I think we are giving an extension to those who made an attempt to affirmatively comply,” he told reporters.

Roberti said he was persuaded to support an extension by Lungren’s argument that the Department of Justice under his predecessor and local police agencies had not adequately publicized the registration requirement.

Asked if he would favor such an extension for an inebriated motorist who pleaded ignorance of a new drunk-driving law, Roberti said: “No. In the drunk-driving situation, you don’t have any attempt at affirmative compliance with the law. The issue here is, should (assault gun owners) be penalized for affirmative compliance even though they (missed the deadline).”