How Many Guns Do You Need?

It’s a measure of the grinding fight against gun violence that even a modest bill, limiting handgun purchases to one per person per month, is not a sure thing in the California Legislature.

The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Wally Knox (D-Los Angeles), is patterned after laws in Virginia, Maryland and South Carolina, where the restrictions are credited with reducing crime.

The principle is clear: No law-abiding resident could possibly need to buy more than one handgun per month. Police records on weapons used in crimes indicate that most so-called bulk handgun purchases are made on behalf of thugs who can’t legally buy their own. In most of California, incredibly, it is legal for any qualified buyer--one without a felony record or a mental disorder--to walk out of a gun shop with an unlimited number of handguns. Last month, however, Los Angeles became the first California community to pass a limit similar to Knox’s.

Knox’s bill would restrict most Californians to one handgun purchase in a 30-day period. Even this limit seems ridiculous, allowing Californians to acquire a dozen guns over a year. Who could need that many? And for what reason?

Still, the bill represents a start, and a good one, toward efforts to combat gun crime. Nevertheless, the National Rifle Assn. and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. oppose the measure. They argue that the bill would unjustly penalize lawful gun purchasers while criminals and gangbangers would still find a way to get firearms. But where is the sense here? More and more guns in homes and on the streets can only increase violence.

Knox’s bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee earlier this month and goes Wednesday to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where its fate is uncertain. Any good sense at all among committee members will be noted. Easy access to lethal weapons has to be curbed.