GUN WATCH : Off Target

When it comes to assault weapons, Mr. Attorney General, you cannot have it both ways.

Campaigning for reelection last fall, Dan Lungren touted his efforts to enforce the state’s 1989 assault weapons ban. He proclaimed his determination, in the face of opposition by gun makers, to bring additional assault guns under the ban, which focused on specifically identified models. Lungren even pointedly praised the 1993 decision by a state trial judge broadly upholding the constitutionality of the state ban.

Assault guns are weapons of mass destruction, not self-defense. That’s why most Americans and most police chiefs strongly support the existing federal ban.

Given Lungren’s seeming support for the state ban, his equivocation now on supporting the federal assault weapons ban passed last year is troubling.

Assemblyman Louis Caldera (D-Los Angeles) has authored a resolution asking Congress to reject a GOP effort to repeal or weaken the federal ban. That law, however flawed, is far more effective than California’s.

Caldera asked Lungren for support, but the attorney general has turned cagey. In a reply to Caldera, he wrote, “ . . . my energy can best be put to use . . . by working with Congress for an effective death penalty and an end to the explosion of frivolous prisoner lawsuits. I do not feel that my involvement in the assault weapons issue is consistent with that objective at this time.”

Is it just us or is California’s top law enforcement officer making no sense at all?