Candidates Clash on Gun Control

The two candidates for California attorney general clashed over gun control Friday, with Republican Dave Stirling saying he opposes efforts to restrict gun ownership, while Democratic state Sen. Bill Lockyer called for tougher enforcement of the state’s assault weapons law.

Lockyer, the former Senate president pro tem, and Stirling, chief deputy to Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, faced one another at the Sacramento Press Club in one of their few joint campaign appearances as they battle for the post of the state’s chief law enforcement officer.

Gun control has emerged as one of the sharpest differences between the pair. During Lockyer’s tenure as Senate leader, the upper house consistently approved measures to restrict so-called Saturday night specials and expand the state’s assault weapons law. Most of the measures then stalled in the Assembly or were vetoed by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson.

“If I have any one commitment to make to Californians,” Lockyer said, “it is to communicate my alarm about the fact that every year in this country, a million kids go to school with a pistol in their pocket. I want to do something about that every day.”

Stirling, who was endorsed by the National Rifle Assn. during the GOP primary, responded: “I simply would like to change the lives of the kids so that they don’t go to school with a weapon and don’t feel they have to.” He said the notion that removing guns from society will solve such problems is “fiction.”

Lockyer quickly put his opponent on the defensive by accusing him of “defending a criminal” last year when, acting as Lungren’s chief deputy, Stirling urged the state Supreme Court to reverse the conviction of a man who had been convicted of possessing an illegal assault weapon.

“We don’t need an attorney general [who is] defending criminals,” Lockyer said.

Stirling defended his role in the Santa Clara County case, insisting that he was following a basic tenet of the criminal justice system--due process.

The case involved James Dingman, who was arrested at a Santa Clara motel on suspicion of possessing an assault weapon, a 30-round magazine, two pistols and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

Prosecutors contended that the assault weapon was illegal under the state’s 1989 ban. After a state appellate court affirmed Dingman’s conviction, Stirling stepped in on the side of the defendant, asking that the state Supreme Court overturn the conviction.

Stirling contended that the 1989 law permitted the attorney general--not the courts--to determine which guns were illegal. The weapon Dingman possessed, Stirling said, was not on the attorney general’s list of banned guns.

“The fact of the matter is it’s due process,” Stirling said. “You never make a crime out of something that wasn’t a crime initially. That’s the problem I was concerned about--due process for all the other people out there” who own similar guns.

A year ago, after The Times reported on the case, Lungren took the highly unusual step of reversing the office’s position and withdrawing Stirling’s brief.

On Friday, however, Stirling, who is on leave from the office during the campaign, said his boss’ action “doesn’t take away from the merits of what we were seeking to accomplish, which was to have the Supreme Court speak to this question.”

The high court is considering the matter.

Stirling said the form of gun control he favors consists of measures that impose tougher sentences on criminals who use guns during their crimes--”the only kind of gun control that is reality-based and not fiction-based.”

He cited a law pushed by the attorney general’s office that imposes an extra 10 years in prison for those who carry guns during a crime, 20 years if they fire it, and life in prison if someone is injured. Lockyer voted for the so-called 10-20-life bill.

“What I oppose,” said Stirling, “is the scatter approach of taking weapons away from everybody, whether they’ve ever committed any crime.”

On another matter, Lockyer and Stirling said they are neutral on Proposition 5, which would permit expanded gambling on Indian reservations. The next attorney general would have to defend the initiative in the courts, if it passed. The attorney general also has power to regulate state gambling law.