In his L.A. Times OP-ED piece opposing Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All” initiative, UCLA Professor Adam Winkler starts his analysis by looking at the desirability of the measure’s actions. His thoughts on background checks for ammo buyers and magazine restrictions deserve their own post, so I’ll get to those later. Prof. Winkler specifically addresses the initiative’s “large capacity” magazine ban and its potential ill effect upon the rule of law; however, these concerns apply to all gun control laws…

What if we passed a law knowing that even usually law-abiding people wouldn’t comply with it? This fall, California voters may do just that if they approve Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Safety for All gun reform initiative. The result could be a small enhancement in public safety, and a potentially significant increase in disrespect for the law.

…

Some people have an ideological opposition to any gun control law. Yet when 95% of gun owners don’t comply with a law, it’s not just the die-hards objecting. Legal theorists argue that people are more likely to comply with laws they view as morally or socially just. To a person whose gun came standard with one of these magazines and who has owned it for years without incident, the idea that these devices are inherently dangerous does not resonate.

In the absence of cooperation from gun owners, the large-magazine ban is unenforceable. It would be practically and politically impossible for the government to go door to door to find and collect the magazines. The ban will be enforced only when someone gets caught with one, say in a search related to an arrest.

…

Americans have tried over and over to outlaw things that some insist are objectionable and others enjoy. Prohibition was repealed when its supporters realized that the disobeyed laws against alcohol brought the whole legal system into disrepute.

We have addressed these concerns before. Even if we accept the premise of a particular gun law, its actual benefit to society must also take into account its effect on the rule of law. Take, for example, as Prof. Winkler did, California’s 1990 “assault weapon” ban. The State estimated that there were 300,000 qualifying firearms in California at the time that should have been registered as “assault weapons”. Only 7,000 were actually registered. That’s a compliance rate of 2.3%.

So what happened to the other 293,000 naughty, naughty guns? Nothing. Has anything bad happened? No, not if we only look in terms of crimes committed. Those guns were (and probably still are) in the hands of otherwise law abiding citizens. These aren’t people inclined to commit violent crimes. However, they’re still criminals under the law. It is more accurate, though, to think of them as manufactured criminals. They weren’t doing anything wrong. They State just decided to declare them to be criminals.

But this is where we see the true harm that was done by that law. The State issued multiple threats to those noncompliant gun owners to get them to obey the new law. They were threatened repeatedly with arrest. Next, the State extended the registration deadline trying a softer touch. Neither approach worked. Those guns are still unregistered.

So a law was passed and promptly ignored by tens of thousands of our citizens. While there weren’t physical injuries that resulted from this, there was tremendous violence done to the rule of law. We are, allegedly, a nation of laws, not of men. When government inspires the People themselves to ignore the law, we stop being such a nation.

And if you can say it with video documentation, all the better!

There have been reports of misconduct by paid signature gatherers circulating petitions to put Gavin Newsom’s “Safety For All” initiative on the ballot. While it’s perhaps perfectly acceptable for a ballot measure to have a dodgy, misleading name, it’s not permissible for signature gatherers to mislead the public as to what that measure does. The “Safety For All” initiative, as per the Lt. Governor’s website, does the following…

1. Prohibits Possession of Large-Capacity Military-Style Magazines: The Safety for All initiative outlaws possession of large-capacity magazines of 11 rounds or more and provides for their legal disposal. If passed, California would join New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and The District of Columbia in banning possession of these military-style clips.
2. Treats Ammunition Sales Like Gun Sales: The initiative requires licensing of ammunition vendors and point-of-sale background checks for ammunition purchases. Under the initiative, if a person is convicted of a felony, a violent misdemeanor, has a restraining order or has been declared dangerously mentally ill, they will no longer be able to buy ammunition in California. California would be the first state to require background checks at point of sale.
3. Ensures People Prohibited from Owning Guns Do Not Possess Them: The initiative defines a clear firearms relinquishment process for those convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor.
4. Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns: The initiative requires firearm owners to notify law enforcement if their firearm has been lost or stolen. With the Safety for All initiative, California would join 11 other states and the City of Sacramento requiring lost and/or stolen firearm reporting.
5. Shares Data with Federal System on Prohibited People: The initiative mandates that California share data with the FBI/NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System).

It does not ban “assault weapons”. Nor does it require background checks for all gun sales. Nor does it “ban machine guns” or do anything else that might sound more sellable to gun muggle leaving Wal-Mart. It only does the five things listed above; no more, no less.

If you witness a signature gatherer making false claims about what the initiative does, you are urged to report their misconduct to Michel and Associates. To that end, this package has been prepared for witnesses to report misconduct. The package include instructions on how to best document what you saw, a form for reporting the violations, and a letter from Michel and Associates that can (optionally) be given to the signature gatherer. Reports and video evidence should be sent to [email protected].

From Guns.com:

A dozen gun rights and law enforcement organizations in the state have banded together to form the Coalition for Civil Liberties and set up a dedicated website,stoptheammograb.com, in an effort to get the word out against the [California Safety for All Act].

Member groups include the California Rifle & Pistol Association, FFLGuard, Jews Can Shoot, the CalGuns Shooting Sports Association and the California Reserve Peace Officers Association.

…

Besides the Coalition for Civil Liberties group, others have come out swinging against the Newsom plan.

The 1,000-member strong Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County went on file against the proposal on March 16.

…

The DA group joined the “thin green line” of the California Fish and Game Wardens’ Association and California State Sheriffs’ Association, both of which announced their opposition earlier this month.

“Effectively, this measure will create a new class of criminals out of those that already comply with common sense practices that now exist,” wrote Amador County Sheriff Martin Ryan, president of the CSSA. “The focus of efforts to reduce gun violence in this state should be on those responsible for that violence, not those that have no intent to do harm.”

The National Rifle Association and Firearms Policy Coalition have also slammed the Safety for All Act.