Jerry Brown Vetoes 'Assault Weapon' Ban Covering Hunting Rifles

Warner BrothersWarner BrothersToday California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have expanded that state's definition of "assault weapons" to include any centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine, thereby recasting many popular hunting guns as tools of terror suitable only for mass murder. Here is the explanation Brown gave:

The State of Califomia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, including bans on military-style assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

While the author's intent is to strengthen these restrictions, this bill goes much farther by banning any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. This ban covers low-capacity rifles that are commonly used for hunting, firearms training, and marksmanship practice, as well as some historical and collectible firearms. Moreover, hundreds ofthousands of current gun owners would have to register their rifles as assault weapons and would be banned from selling or transferring them in the future....

I don't believe that this bill's blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights.

California started the legislative craze of banning guns based on "military-style" features back in 1989, and this latest iteration shows how utterly arbitrary such laws are. Since the term assault weapon has no independent meaning, its definition can be expanded indefinitely, ultimately covering the very sorts of guns that activists once said they had no intention of banning. Neither logic nor shame seems to impose any limit on this charade, although the Constitution does

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Moonbeam gets one right by accident. How many is that in a row now? One?

  • Paul.||

    Two. He vetoed a helmet ban a year or so ago along with a great Libertarian-ish comment: Not every human problem requires a law.

    But apparently it does require a high speed train, so, win some, lose some.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I believe that fails the "in a row" aspect, but bully for him on that one too.

  • Dweebston||

    Styalized jeeps marketed as Hummers are "military-style" vehicles, but they're no more dangerous to pedestrians than most other cars.

  • Pathogen||

    " but they're no more dangerous to pedestrians than most other cars."

    There are those who disagree....

  • R C Dean||

    Since the term assault weapon has no independent meaning,

    "Assault rifle" has a pretty clear and widely understood meaning. It just happens to be one that doesn't advance certain agendas.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    rifle .... weapon ...

    One of these is different from the others.

  • Paul.||

    One is for fightin', one is for fun?

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    One is a military term with a specific definition (pistol ammo, full auto), the other is a made-up ever-changing bucket of confusion from the gun control lobby.

  • Boisfeuras||

    I think assault rifles are usually defined as select fire (to include the three-round burst now used on the M4/M16A2) and as using an intermediate round (not pistol ammunition).

    The first assault rifle, the StG.44a, used a short cased 7.92mm round. The term "assault rifle" (sturmgewehr) was even coined by Hitler himself, so you know they have to be evil.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Yeah, that's probably a more precise definition. I'm used to making the distinction to hoplophobes, and it's easier to just say low powered pistol ammo at machine gun rates, meant for trench or urban warfare, as opposed to open areas and long distance more careful shots.

  • wingnutx||

    SMGs use pistol ammo.

  • wingnutx||

    SMGs use pistol ammo.

  • PapayaSF||

    "Pistol ammo, full auto" = submachine gun. Machine guns use rifle ammo.

  • MandatoryJimmy||

    Any rifle that you choose to assault someone with is an "assault" rifle. Bolt and lever guns included. Its on of the most politically charged terms out there.

  • MandatoryJimmy||

    *Its one of the...

  • Pathogen||

    Compare that to the term "first responder™": the actual (would-be)victim of a crime...

  • ||

    Since the term assault weapon has no independent meaning, its definition can be expanded indefinitely, ultimately covering the very sorts of guns that activists once said they had no intention of banning

    Which is the entire point. The BAN BONER crowd will never, ever stop, so you cannot give them an inch. Because next week it will be another inch. And again and again.

    At least Moonbeam saw some sense here (and also realized it would drive hunters and target shooters nuts).

  • Sudden||

    Kudos to Jerry Brown. I'm calling the national weather service to find out if hell has frozen over while I wasn't paying attention.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    They are "closed" due to a lack of funding. You can tell by the assault weapon armed personnel standing between you and your answer.

  • ||

    "....reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights."

    At least we have Moonbeam on record admitting that it is a rights violation. Perhaps some intrepid reporter could press him on how the state is empowered to violate people's rights based on some officials personal sense of when it is justified or not.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    This. He also signed a ban on lead ammo for hunting. Ballistically, lead is an amazing material and it's ban will almost certainly lead (pun intended) to more wounded animals.

  • ||

    While there are some pretty amazing advances in bullet technology in recent years, much of it using non-lead alloys, I have not found anything that will beat plain 'ol cast lead bullets with copper gas checks.

    If you are shooting out past 300 yards and faster than 1200 fps then lead core/copper jacket bullets will do anything the high-end designer bullets will. I go with the cheapest, which is usually Remington Corebons.

    As for shotguns, non-lead is SHIT. Even Heavyshot doesnt perform as well as lead #BB on ducks. Steel is like shooting those little styrofoam packing balls.

    To top all of that off, lead bullets do NOT add lead ions into 'the environment'. To get lead into an organism, including yourself, you must dissolve it in acid and then eat/drink it. If you are dumb enough to eat lead then chances are good that no one will notice you having symptoms of lead poisoning.

  • DblEagle||

    You miss one point Southernboy, the non-lead rounds are incredibly expensive and require you to zero for them since they have their own issues. I hunted extensively in CA in a condor recovery area so all the hunting was lead free. The non-Pb rounds have largely had their initial problems fixed (no expansion because companies were loading too much powder and they hit the animal too hot)but they cost $40-60 for a box of twenty. The shot shells must use 1-2 larger sizes of shot to hit a bird as hard and turkey rounds run $25-30 for a box of 5-10 rounds. Most hunters can't afford to shoot these rounds year round so either they burn 2-3 rounds before the season to re-zero and that adds up. Price those damn Neanderthals out of an activity the Libs don't approve of.

  • DblEagle||

    The irony of these damn Californians is that the state has some of the best hunting in the US. Beautiful and varied areas to hunt in with relatively light hunting pressure because such a small percentage of the population hunts. Hunting Tule Elk was a great hunt and the quail hunting is out of this world. My former career enabled me to hunt across the US and Cali is easily my number 2-3 favorite hunting. (It is still a progressive hell when you aren't in the field though.)

  • Harvard||

    Two choices here. Scour Ancestry.com for 1/16 redskin aboriginal blood, or......poach.

  • np||

    At least we have Moonbeam on record admitting that it is a rights violation. Perhaps some intrepid reporter could press him on how the state is empowered to violate people's rights based on some officials personal sense of when it is justified or not.

    Heck I'd go further and ask how ballot propositions, which is popular in California, trumps rights.

  • ||

    The answer of course, if you belief in democracy, magical fairies and positive rights, is FYTH.

  • Pathogen||

    " to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights"

    Well, the term "Shall not be infringed" pertaining to a federally guaranteed right is of course, purely arbitrary, and sooner or later an infringement that polls better warrants such a violation will come along... Moonbeam reserves the right to wipe his ass on those liberties when "public safety" polls better is more pressing than gentleman's agreement known as "the bill of arbitrary privileges". The arrogance of that statement.. sickens me...

  • Acosmist||

    Shorter Brown: "Incremental change, you fools, or SCOTUS will ruin the whole plan."

  • Jquip||

    Not likely. US v. Miller (1939) specifically states that it's the military features that can't be regulated. And then there's the next 70 odd years in which what can't be regulated must be, because it can't be.

    Otherwise known as the Roberts Roundabout. eg. Where a tax or a not-tax would be unconstitutional, but a tax and not-tax is ducky.

  • Corneliusm||

    Oddly, the Miller decision should have effectively eliminated the National Firearms Act of 1934 with this decision, since the NFA regulates military features of many modern firearms: select fire, short-barreled rifles, suppressors, and destructive devices are all in common use by our military today.

  • Jerry Baustian||

    Former California Attorney General Brown probably realized that this bill would be contested in court, at great expense to the state, and it would eventually be thrown out as an unconstitutional infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

  • thorax232||

    1 step forward? Time for 3 steps back!

  • LarryA||

    I don't believe that this bill's blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights.

    The same is true of the other laws, which he did sign.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Anything that scares, annoys or is found objectionable by anyone should be illegal.

  • Brandybuck||

    Only in the One Party Democrat Rule of California would Jerry Brown be the reactionary right wing thug. Who would have thunk it?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement