Governor Under the Gun

Few issues tug more at the political and moral seams in Gov. Pete Wilson than gun control.

He is a law-and-order Republican and a former Marine who won special decorations for his proficiency with a .45-caliber sidearm. But he is also the grandson of a murdered Chicago cop, and he recognizes a need to limit the public’s access to weapons.

Now that the Legislature appears likely to pass a menu of landmark gun laws, Wilson finds himself back in the cross-hairs of the national debate.

If he goes along--in defiance of his Republican colleagues in the Legislature--advocates say California could inspire a national effort to further restrict firearms. In that case, political observers say Wilson would likely immortalize himself as one of the nation’s leading Republican advocates for gun control.

“Pete Wilson has been strong and reliable on gun laws,” said Bob Walker, president of Handgun Control Inc. in Washington. “I think Gov. Wilson has always had a reputation for moderation. We think this is a very moderate and sensible approach to the problem.”

Wilson has not yet taken a position on any of the three major gun bills that Democrats are powering through the Legislature in their latest attempt to address crime issues.

One of the legislative proposals would broaden the state’s existing ban on assault weapons by establishing new criteria for identifying the targeted guns. Proponents say the current law, which identifies 58 types of banned guns by name, has created a market of equally dangerous copycat weapons.

Two other bills would halt the sale and manufacture of what gun-control advocates call junk guns, also known as Saturday night specials.

The ban on cheap handguns would be particularly significant, advocates say, because 80% of the nation’s Saturday night special-style weapons are made in California. The U.S. Justice Department says such weapons account for seven of the 10 guns most frequently used in crimes.

No other state has adopted such far-reaching restrictions, experts say. “[Wilson] would send a signal to the entire nation,” Walker said.

All three of the pending gun bills have been passed by one of the state’s two legislative chambers, and most observers expect each of the proposals--or similar versions--to reach the governor’s desk in coming weeks.

That has prompted a Capitol guessing game about Wilson’s intentions.

“It’s real tough to predict what he is going to do,” said Bill Saracino, spokesman for the Gun Owners of California.

So far, the governor has been mostly silent. His only comment on the matter came at a press conference last week when he said: “I’ll tell you more about that later.”

By remaining ambiguous, however, Wilson has already parted with many in his party who reflexively opposed the Democrat-sponsored bills. Only five favorable Republican votes have been cast so far on all three gun bills combined.

But on this issue, Wilson’s record demonstrates a willingness to break political ranks.

As a U.S. senator, he was one of the first Republicans in Congress to back the Brady bill’s call for a waiting period after the purchase of a handgun. And as governor, he has actively backed the federal and state bans on assault guns.

Wilson has also signed bills to require mandatory training for handgun owners, prohibit the sale of ammunition to minors and hold gun owners criminally liable for leaving weapons within reach of children. He supports legislation to outlaw armor-piercing bullets.

In all, Handgun Control lobbyists said Wilson has signed every bill they have sponsored that has reached his desk except one. That one, passed by the Legislature last year, would have required that new guns come equipped with trigger locks. It has been resubmitted in the Legislature this year.

Wilson’s record has fueled speculation that he will sign the pending bills. But Capitol handicappers say he could go either way. Lately, his office has delicately highlighted some concerns the governor might use to explain a veto of the bills.

They said he worries about poor people who cannot afford pricey weapons and therefore rely on the Saturday night special-style guns for protection. The small handguns cost about $150 new and about $40 on the street.

Wilson aides said they are also unconvinced about the extent to which a ban on cheap guns will improve public safety.

On the assault weapons bill, Wilson spokesman Sean Walsh said the governor has not determined whether the measure would unnecessarily expand the scope of the existing gun ban.

“He has supported some reasonable measures of gun control,” Walsh said. “But again, reasonable. The governor believes personal guns for protection and long guns for hunting should be allowed.”

Walsh acknowledged that one of the most important influences for Wilson will come from police, and all three of the gun bills are strongly backed by the California Police Chiefs Assn., one of the state’s most prominent law enforcement groups.

Los Gatos Police Chief Larry Todd, chairman of the organization’s firearms committee, said the group considers the pending legislation to be as significant as any of the landmark bills passed in recent years.

“These bills are extremely important to the California Police Chiefs Assn.,” he said. “My expectation is that he will sign them.”

With that attention, the pending gun bills could also loom large for Republican state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, who is hoping to succeed Wilson as governor in next year’s election.

Lungren has come out against all three of the pending bills. On the handgun bill, he said in an interview Wednesday that he sides with those who say that by outlawing only cheaply made guns, the bill would discriminate against the poor.

“This idea that you outlaw guns by virtue of their cost is bogus,” he said. “Why is it OK for an upscale housewife in Beverly Hills to have a gun if she can afford $500 or $1,000, but you make it a criminal offense for someone to obtain a gun who happens to be a single mother who lives in the inner city?”

Lungren has backed the state’s existing assault weapons ban, angering conservatives in his party. He opposes the current assault weapons legislation because he is already working through the courts to try and close the same loopholes, said his spokesman, Rob Stutzman. If that effort fails, Lungren might look to a legislative remedy, Stutzman said.

The goal should be to have “effective” legislation, Lungren said. “If the real purpose is to try and do something about people who commit crimes with guns, I think we ought to throw the book at them. If the idea is that some people don’t like guns [and feel] they are simply evil and therefore we ought to take them off, then I sort of part company there.”

Despite the explanations, Democrats say Lungren’s opposition could represent a sharp contrast between the gubernatorial candidates in next year’s race--particularly if Lungren is pitted against U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Feinstein, who is considering entering the race, is the author of the federal ban on assault weapons, and she has already backed the pending bills in the California Legislature.

“He gives Feinstein an issue that highlights one of her great strengths,” said one Democratic strategist.

For his part, Lungren says he is unconcerned about that possibility. “If anybody wants to debate me on law enforcement in the next campaign, I’ll welcome it,” he said.

Also at stake is the endorsement of police groups. In 1994, Todd said the police chiefs association endorsed both Feinstein for Senate and Lungren for attorney general.

“It’s too early to tell,” he said, “but these are linchpin issues for the California Police Chiefs Assn.”