A Missed Target

California’s legislators came within a single vote of dealing firmly with assault guns, but at the last minute they flinched. A broad, generic ban on military-style assault weapons failed in the final step in the Assembly Monday. The sponsor, Don Perata (D-Alameda), said he will raise the measure again, possibly before the end of the week. But he’ll need some help from the friends who deserted him.

Both houses had earlier passed versions of this bill; Monday’s vote should have been a slam-dunk. The measure was originally intended as an improvement over the state’s existing 9-year-old assault gun ban. By targeting specific makes and models, that law proved easy for gun manufacturers to evade through minor, cosmetic changes in their models. Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren’s obvious reluctance to enforce the bill didn’t help.

With the recent decision by a state appellate court striking down key provisions of the existing law, passage of Perata’s bill has become a matter of urgency. His measure targets a category of guns that have no legitimate sporting or hunting purpose. It would ban possession and sale of semiautomatic firearms with certain characteristics common to military assault weapons. Among them are high-capacity bullet magazines and handles and grips that steady the guns for rapid firing.

Predictably, the National Rifle Assn. views this measure as another step toward confiscation of all guns. Ridiculous. But by voting against Perata’s bill Monday, most Republicans and two Democrats said in effect that they agreed with the NRA’s twisted reasoning. Even pro-gun Americans generally support tough curbs on these most lethal of weapons--the same type used to slay four students and a teacher last month at a rural Arkansas school, the same type used to kill five employees at an Orange County Caltrans yard in January.

The last time his legislation came up in the Assembly, Perata had the votes of two Democratic colleagues, Dick Floyd of Wilmington and Edward Vincent of Inglewood. Shamefully and inexplicably, both assemblymen abstained Monday, ensuring a one-vote loss. What possible reason can justify their refusal now to stand behind this measure?