Candidates Exchange Heavier Salvos in Campaign Attacks

The race for state attorney general turned increasingly harsh Thursday, with candidates attacking one another over gun control and hefty campaign contributions from gambling sources.

The attacks come as the candidates in Tuesday’s primary for the state’s top law enforcement job struggle to get voters’ attention in a campaign dominated by big-spending candidates for governor and U.S. Senate.

On the Democratic side, San Diego lawyer Lynn Schenk is airing a television ad alleging that state Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), who is leading in public opinion polls, “twice voted against the ban on assault weapons.”

The votes to which Schenk refers came in 1989, and did not block the bill from passing. The attack is especially surprising given that Lockyer repeatedly voted for stronger gun control laws during the past decade.

“That’s good for a chuckle or two,” National Rifle Assn. lobbyist Steve Helsley said of Schenk’s attack on Lockyer over gun control. “Lockyer has always been courteous. But in terms of him being a pro-gun vote, it’s laughable.”

For four years ending earlier this year, Lockyer was Senate president pro tem. In that job, he had the power to kill almost any bill. During that time, the Senate several times approved measures to restrict assault weapons and cheap handguns, and numerous other gun control measures.

On the 1989 legislation, Lockyer, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he voted against one version because of a single point--one that would have allowed a commission of local police chiefs and sheriffs to determine what constituted an assault weapon.

Lockyer contended that local law enforcement should not be allowed to determine what constitutes a crime while being responsible for enforcing it. That provision ultimately was dropped, and Lockyer ended up voting in favor of the final version of the assault weapons measure.

“He was absolutely a facilitator, not a roadblock to the legislation,” said former Assemblyman Mike Roos, who carried the landmark 1989 legislation that bears his name and that of former Sen. David A. Roberti.

Gun control, as well as gambling, also is an issue on the Republican campaign to replace incumbent Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, who is running for governor. Orange County Dist. Atty. Mike Capizzi, a Republican candidate, is airing a TV ad that opens with an attack on his rival, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Dave Stirling, over Stirling’s stand on assault weapons.

“Imagine a candidate for attorney general, Dave Stirling, who advocates convicted criminals keeping their assault weapons,” the ad says.

Stirling’s campaign manager, Sal Russo, called it “an outrageous distortion of the case. To suggest the chief deputy attorney wants criminals to have assault weapons is an insult to voters.”

The NRA has endorsed Stirling. And Stirling has said he opposes most gun control. But Stirling’s campaign says that Capizzi’s ad oversimplifies Stirling’s stand.

The spot is based on a criminal case from Santa Clara County in which local prosecutors won conviction of a man for possession of a copycat version of an assault weapon banned by the 1989 Roberti-Roos law.

In papers filed with a state court of appeals and the state Supreme Court, Stirling sided against Santa Clara County prosecutors, arguing that the weapon was not illegal under the 1989 law, and that the conviction should be overturned.

To affirm the conviction, Stirling says, would mean that thousands of other gun owners who bought the same type of semiautomatic rifles would have illegal guns.

After The Times wrote about the situation in September, Atty. Gen. Lungren, Stirling’s boss, withdrew papers filed by Stirling, and reversed Stirling’s position. The case is pending before the state Supreme Court.

“There was a change in thinking,” said Stirling, who is on leave to campaign. Adding that he took the position with Lungren’s knowledge, Stirling said: “I believe he was [aware]. But it wasn’t necessary for him to have approved everything that I, as second in command, did.”

In a news conference Thursday, Capizzi also lashed out at Stirling for taking nearly $300,000 from Native Americans battling state and federal authorities over their right to run casinos on reservations. The money constitutes almost half of what Stirling has raised.

“To accept it when [the attorney general] has such a key role in issues related to gambling is obscene,” Capizzi said.

The attorney general acts as the state’s lawyer in negotiations with tribes over the types of gambling allowed on reservations.

“I was proud to be a recipient of their financial support,” Stirling said, adding that Capizzi’s charge had “racist overtones.”

On the Democratic side, Sen. Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) has taken $469,000 from tribes involved in the gambling fight. Lockyer referred to the donations in a floor debate over a Native American gambling bill in the Senate this week. Like Stirling, Calderon defends Native Americans’ right to sovereignty on the gambling issue.

Meanwhile Thursday, Lockyer acknowledged a mistake on a slate card being sent to voters in which U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is said to support him. Feinstein hasn’t endorsed any candidate in the race. Lockyer said he is spending $110,000 on a new mailer to correct the error.

“I’ll believe it when I see it,” Calderon said Thursday in an interview.