Taming the Gun Monster: Local Crusades : Barring comprehensive federal action, local governments should do all they can to control guns

If California has become, in the eyes of some Americans, a tragic symbol of this nation’s bloody obsession with guns, then California could also become a national model for effective gun-control legislation. Some forward-thinking state and local legislators, disgusted with the epidemic of street violence, are considering a number of meritorious ideas to control gun crime.

California, like other states, has traditionally responded to rising violence by substantially increasing criminal penalties. Longer prison terms for violent offenders are certainly necessary, but tough punishment alone has not stemmed the rising rate of gun crime, here or elsewhere. A new approach is clearly needed all around--in Congress, in Sacramento and at City Hall.

In our view, the most effective gun control is federal gun control. That’s why The Times supports a near-total ban on the private ownership of handguns and assault weapons, leaving those guns almost solely in the hands of law-enforcement officials. Individuals would be permitted to own sporting weapons only if they had submitted to a background check and passed a safety course. Other special, closely monitored exceptions could be made, such as for gun collectors.

But just as we have enthusiastically supported some interim federal measures far short of the near-total ban we think is best--including the Brady bill, steep taxes on ammunition and a ban on gun possession by minors, among others--so too do we support some interim state and local efforts to rid our neighborhoods of guns.

THE STATE AGENDA: What, then, are the top priorities for California legislators? What is the best way to stop the killing on our streets, in our schools and in our homes until Congress has the courage to take on the gun lobby and adopt comprehensive federal measures?

California is one of a handful of states that already restricts the possession and sale of certain types of assault guns. And while this state was the first to enact such a ban, in 1989, our law is riddled with gaping loopholes that severely undercut its effectiveness.

Earlier this week, a Sacramento Superior Court judge upheld the constitutionality of the assault-weapons ban, clearing the way to add more models to the list.

But a much tougher ban, targeted to the generic features of assault weapons, such as pistol grips, folding stocks and high-volume detachable magazines, rather than specific manufacturers’ models, should be a major priority for Sacramento. So too is more rigorous enforcement of the the current ban and any future, tougher ban. State enforcement of the existing ban has been halfhearted at best, pending the court test of the law. With that settled, State Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren must move decisively to put some unmistakable muscle behind the law.

Similarly, the Legislature must muster the resolve this session to restrict ammunition clips for pistols, shotguns and rifles. No Californian needs the capability to shoot dozens of bullets without reloading. No one, that is, except someone wantonly bent on mass destruction. Senate President David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) introduced a bill last session that limits the number of rounds in detachable ammunition magazines. His bill passed the Senate but only after it was amended to allow more rounds per clip. Even in its weakened state, that bill is now stuck in the Assembly. It’s true that passage of this clip bill won’t have a major effect on gun violence, but its passage is a priority. Every Californian should regard it as a test of the Legislature’s integrity on the issue of crime.

Passage of a near-total ban on handgun possession is also a high priority for California; such a measure would be far more effective against gun crime than a monthly or annual limit on the number of handguns Californians could purchase. Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood) plans to introduce such a ban early next year. He also plans to couple the handgun-ban proposal with limits on handgun ammunition, financial incentives for gun owners to relinquish their weapons and steep sentence enhancements for criminal use or possession of handguns. His approach is comprehensive and sound.

A third priority--and one that should be a no-brainer for any lawmaker who professes to care about gun violence--is eliminating the preemption in the state’s Constitution against localities enacting gun measures that are stronger than state law. California is one of more than 30 states that either completely or partially preempt stronger local gun laws. Yet California’s cities and counties, increasingly besieged by gun crime, have the obligation--and should have the legal right--to enact stronger laws than the Legislature may be ready to support. California cities can--and some have--declared themselves “nuclear-free zones” but they may not be legally able to declare themselves to be “gun-free zones.” This constitutional straitjacket should be loosened immediately.

THE LOCAL AGENDA: Los Angeles would be an immediate beneficiary of such action. Rarely a day passes now without news of yet more grisly and senseless shootings. The daily bloodshed has prompted a number of prominent local officials to embrace passage of much stronger gun ordinances.

There are major anomalies in local laws governing gun possession and use that should be eliminated. For instance, carrying a concealed knife within the city of Los Angeles is a felony but carrying a concealed gun is only a misdemeanor. This discrepancy is absurd and its consequences tragic.

That’s why we support the efforts of Councilpersons Marvin Braude and Jackie Goldberg, along with Mayor Richard Riordan, to explore the city’s legal options for tighter gun control. Braude has introduced motions that, if adopted, would direct the city attorney and the Police Department to explore “all possible means” to reduce the number of weapons in the city. Goldberg has convened a countywide group of elected women officials to strengthen local efforts to reduce gun violence. Mayor Riordan--like Friedman, Roberti, Braude and Goldberg--is deeply concerned about this issue and personally involved in finding answers. He is also exploring new approaches to reducing gun violence, particularly in and around city schools.

THE GRASS-ROOTS MOMENTUM:

Local officials’ valuable resolve to control guns mirrors the public’s growing public alarm about violence. New citizen groups are coalescing around the goal of curbing gun crime.

Women Against Gun Violence is one such promising ventures; this coalition of local women’s groups was born in recent months out of despair over the corrosive effect of gun crime on the safety of women and children. The coalition’s aim is to push legislative and social strategies to control guns and prevent violence. Women’s groups that have generally not focused on gun control, including the League of Women Voters, the Council of Jewish Women, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, the African International Village Assn. and the American Assn. of University Women, are now united on this issue. The formation of Women Against Gun Violence is a marker of just how galvanizing the issue has become. So too is Physicians for a Violence Free Society, a San Francisco-based group of emergency-room physicians sick and tired of the carnage that nightly flows from the streets into their hospitals.

Longstanding groups too, particularly those that represent health professionals, are shifting their attention to the carnage in our streets. The Los Angeles chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, for example, once focused on nuclear weapons but, with the end of the Cold War, now views gun crime as a much greater threat.

Every step forward--no matter how tiny--is a step in the right direction. Every nudge away from the abyss of the arms race and gun violence now corroding America is a contribution to controlling crime, and an investment in our children’s future and that of our nation. The best step is a federal ban, but other, tough intermediate steps are welcome--and urgently needed.