Anti-Junk Gun Lobby Needs More Ammo

You want Gov. Pete Wilson to ban those cheap, little Saturday night specials? Forget it. But if they’re unsafe? That’s a different matter. He’d probably sign that bill--assuming somebody could prove they’re truly unsafe pieces of junk.

Wilson also probably would sign legislation to strengthen California’s ban on assault weapons. Such a bill is likely to pass the Legislature next year.

“I think assault weapons have no place in a modern civilized society,” the governor told me Tuesday.

I talked to Wilson about his controversial veto of a bill to ban the manufacture and sale of so-called Saturday night specials. These are the cheap, easily concealed handguns that the gun control lobby insists are used especially by young gangbangers and are unsafe for any user. Maybe they are, but the governor contends nobody proved that to him.

And it is true that as this bill--by Sen. Richard G. Polanco (D-Los Angeles)--moved through the Legislature, no testimony was offered by any victims. There were no personal tales of blown-off hands or shot-up faces. One reason, according to the bill’s backers, is that many victims have agreed to gag orders as part of their lawsuit settlements with gun manufacturers.

But without compelling evidence that they’re unsafe--or really assault weapons--don’t expect this Republican governor to sign a bill outlawing handguns.

Also, don’t expect to sway him with the argument that California merely would be copying the federal government by requiring American-made weapons to meet the same safety and size standards imposed on foreign imports.

Asserted Wilson’s chief gun advisor, Charles Fennessey: “It’s a 30-year-old standard that doesn’t make sense. Should we do everything the feds do?”

*

I asked Wilson whether he would sign a handgun ban if the weapons were proved to be unsafe. “You mean as a matter of consumer protection for gun users?” he responded. Right.

“Yes, I probably would, if they were demonstrably unsafe. If they actually blew up. That really is a different question.”

How about, say, if they fired when accidentally dropped? “If the question is, if the gun is actually unsafe, would I [sign]? I probably would.”

But, Wilson continued, “What I saw was a bill that was somewhat disingenuous because its real purpose, I think, was disguised. It was cast as consumer protection of gun users and I don’t think they made the case, very frankly.

“Plus, it was really over-broad. It was not a bill limited purely to junk guns. It included virtually every concealable weapon, including those of high quality, and that was the basic flaw.

“The fundamental premise of the legislation was that if something is concealable, then it is--quote--non-sporting and therefore prohibited, because it has no valid purpose. Well, that’s totally illogical.

“You’ve got millions of people who have bought weapons, not for sport, sadly, but because they feel it’s necessary for them to be able to defend themselves. . . . And I happen to think they are right. I don’t think that, given the demands on law enforcement, when you dial 911 you’re guaranteed of having someone there in time to prevent great harm to you or your family.”

But Wilson doesn’t think an assault weapon is needed for sport or self-defense.

“The concern I have had,” he said, “is the ability of someone with a semiautomatic and a [large] magazine to do incredible carnage. Assault weapons are for the purpose of conducting an armed assault. . . . I think the approach of limiting the [magazine] capacity is the correct approach.”

Wilson added, “As old Barry Goldwater once said, ‘If you can’t hit a buck with the first four shots, you ought to let the bastard go.”’

*

The gun control lobby insists it gave Wilson aides evidence that these cheap handguns are unsafe.

The information included summaries of court suits in which gun users or bystanders were injured, sometimes fatally. Weapons exploded. Or they fired accidentally when dropped, or safeties didn’t work, or a bullet remained in the chamber after the clip was removed. Or a gun jammed and later misfired.

But whatever Wilson got didn’t sell him. And, in truth, this bill moved through the Legislature less on hard evidence than on emotion and politics.

To enact gun control in a closely divided government requires more than merely being anti-gun--and being able to smell a 1998 election issue.

Based on Wilson’s comments, we can assume he’d sign a bill to ban handguns based on safety, but not on size. Democrats must decide what they want most: the policy or the politics.