Lungren Assault Gun Policy Attacked

Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, who has contended that there was no strict deadline for registering assault weapons with the state, spent $330,000 in taxpayer money in 1992 to tell gun owners exactly the opposite: Register by a deadline or go to jail.

This apparent contradiction is revealed in a suit--filed Tuesday against Lungren in San Francisco by Handgun Control Inc.--that could put thousands of gun owners and their firearms in legal limbo. Sarah Brady, who helped found the organization, is its co-chair.

The suit, which challenges the registration policy that was questioned in a Times series on assault weapons in August, seeks a court order requiring Lungren to notify gun owners that he had no authority to register assault firearms after a March 30, 1992, deadline imposed by the state Legislature and that such registrations are void.

It also urges that he be ordered to advise owners that possession of an unregistered weapon violates the law and is punishable by a fine and imprisonment.

“This is a mess, but the statute didn’t create it,” said Dennis Henigan, a lawyer for Handgun Control, the largest such organization in the country. “It was created because the attorney general didn’t enforce it.”

Part of the evidence in the suit is a series of videos made at government expense for a television campaign in early 1992, in which Lungren sternly warned gun owners that they would face “a heavy fine” or “even jail time” if they didn’t act by the end of March that year.

In one 60-second public service announcement, Lungren bluntly warned gun owners of the consequences of failing to register. “You are breaking the law,” he said. “It’s that simple.”

The public service announcements contrast with statements Lungren made to The Times when interviewed in August about registrations after the deadline. At that time, he argued that the Legislature did not intend the deadline to be hard and fast.

On Tuesday, his spokesman Robert Stutzman held to that view.

“We maintain that we have a different and correct and reasonable interpretation of the law,” Stutzman said. Although the law says owners must register their assault weapons by March 30, 1992, Stutzman says the law is not clear on the deadline issue: “We did conduct a thorough review . . . and we have concluded that this is a reasonable, intended interpretation of the law, that, in effect, there’s no hard deadline.”

He said they emphasized the March 1992 date in the videos to get as many people as possible to register. “It served a very valuable purpose,” he said.

Lungren began breaking the deadline almost as soon as it arrived. The attorney general has said he expected that registrations “would peter out after a month.” But as registration forms continued to pour in after the deadline, he accepted them.

The authors of the law, former state Sen. David A. Roberti and former Assemblyman Michael Roos, both Democrats from Los Angeles, have described the legislation as a “drop-dead deadline.”

Although Lungren’s 1992 ad campaign, aimed at educating the public, repeatedly cited the March deadline, Stutzman said the attorney general’s admitted open registration policy does not contradict the key message: “If you haven’t registered your gun, you still could be caught for a misdemeanor,” he said.

Of the more than 62,000 guns registered as of Sept. 23, Lungren’s office accepted more than 16,000 from nearly 11,000 gun owners after the deadline.

The registration requirement was part of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, which outlawed sale and possession of dozens of specific assault weapons. Penalties for violation included a fine of up to $500 and a year in prison.

The law says owners of the restricted weapons could keep them only if they registered the guns by Jan. 31, 1991, a deadline later extended by the Legislature to March 30, 1992, at Lungren’s behest.

The registration law was enacted partly at the request of law enforcement officials, who said it would help trace weapons used in crimes.

Brady, whose husband, James, was shot along with former President Ronald Reagan in 1981, said Lungren’s policies are allowing a buildup of assault weapons in California. “It saddens me,” she said.

“But even more than his actions, it should not be allowed that people can break the law,” and Lungren has bent the rules, she said.

Steve Helsley, chief California lobbyist for the National Rifle Assn., which opposes almost all gun control measures, said his primary concern is the impact on gun owners. “Right now what we’re worried about is people going to jail,” he said.

“The people that would get hammered on this thing are people who tried to comply with the letter of the law. Now there’s a great crime-fighting tool--hammer the good guys,” Helsley said.

Bruce L. Cavanaugh, president of the California Firearms Dealers Assn. and a registered assault weapons dealer in San Diego, said he doesn’t know how gun owners will react if their firearms are declared illegal.

“A lot of people stuck their necks out,” he said. “They said, ‘I want to do the right thing.’ And now they say, ‘We want to revoke your registration’? That wouldn’t sit well.”

Handgun Control lawyer Henigan said the suit could affect thousands of gun owners who relied on Lungren’s advice.

“To the extent that there are people confused, surprised or even angry at this situation, their reaction should be directed to the attorney general,” he said.

Lungren is planning to run for governor next year.

Stutzman said Tuesday that The Times has a conflict of interest in assigning coverage of the lawsuit to reporters who wrote an August article that is an exhibit in the complaint.

“We think there should be different reporters covering the lawsuit. We think you have a personal interest,” Stutzman said.

In response, Laura Morgan, director of communications for The Times, said: “We investigate and report the news thoroughly, objectively and fairly. Controversy and discussion often result, and we think that’s healthy.”