Gunpocalypse 2016

This year there are 16 anti-gun bills between the Assembly and Senate of California. So far 11 of them have passed and are waiting for the Governor’s signature or veto.  I am certain the only thing that might stop the other 5 from being sent to the governor’s desk is the redundant nature of several of these proposed bills. The remaining 5 will be voted on tomorrow. This crop of proposed laws have been coined “Gunpocalypse”. There are plenty of advocacy groups who break these bills down to digestible summaries for lay audiences, in doing so they often lack the clarity of the actual effect. I’ve got all 16 bills text in open tabs, let’s do this! I am going to be nerding out on some statutory text in this blog.

1. SB 880 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. The AR-patterned rifle is the most popular firearm in the United States. To own one in California with the “evil features” it must be a fixed magazine rifle.
2. This law redefines “fixed magazine” to include that the “device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.” At the same time this feature appears to meet the new definition of a fixed magazine.
3. Any firearm that was previously a “fixed magazine” rifle would have to be registered as an assault weapon or face criminal penalties. Once a firearm is a registered assault weapon it cannot ever be transferred to another person within the state. Between the online form of registration and the fee it looks to be at least $35/person but the text does not place an upper limit on the cost to register a firearm.
4. As far as I can find, a legal fixed magazine rifle has never been used in a criminal act. The bullet button accessory has been around close to a decade. News articles and police reports have difficulty enough reporting the accurate model of a firearm, not once has a fixed magazine rifle been mentioned in the commission of a crime. As a fixed magazine rifle, it is wholly ineffective for self defense or any activity that requires more than 10 shots.
5. At the same time, a part of me hopes this law passes because of the lawsuits it will induce. Per Heller (2007) the “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” The test of protected bearable arms has been all weapons in “common use.” Given the detachable magazine rifle is the most common across the nation and probably the most common in California, a law that goes further than the already present Assault Weapons ban taunts the courts to intervene.
2. AB-1135 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. This law redefines “assault weapons” from “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle” to “semiautomatic rifle” with the evil features.
2. This seeks to make the favorite plinking .22lr cartridge to be legally as hazardous as larger caliber hunting calibers. What does this practically mean? The Ruger 10/22 would now be an assault weapon.  
3. AB-1664 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. This law is verbatim the same as SB 880 above.
2. You might have noticed Secretary Clinton has stepped up her anti-gun game in the primaries, largely because that is the only issue she really differs from Senator Sanders on. Following her lead, Democrat leaders are scrambling to prove themselves by who is more anti-gun, thus submitting identical bills but with different names and credit for their effects.
4. AB-2607  Firearm restraining orders.
1. Following the Isla Vista spree murders where 3 people were stabbed to death, 3 were killed by firearms, 7 were shot, and 7 were run over with the perpetrators vehicle the Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) was passed. This enabled law enforcement to confiscate one’s firearms following a request from immediate family members fear that they may be a danger to themselves or others. This was because the perpetrator passed the background checks to purchase his firearms and he also passed a “health and welfare” check by law enforcement shortly before his heinous acts.
2. This bill adds to the list of people who can report such a concern to include: employer, coworker, mental health worker or educator. For the educator or mental health worker they must have interacted with the individual in the recent 6 months. The original GVRO text allowed for any person to issue such a report but following clear potential for abuse narrowed the text to immediate family members.
3. Given the current climate concerning the state of civil discourse in the nation it appears to me the potential for abuse between teachers/professors and/or coworkers who disagree politically over gun rights this bill would effectively hinder any gun owner from free speech. This reminds me of that time the DHS reported that veterans, conservatives, and gun owners were potential domestic terrorists.
5. AB-156 Ammunition.
1. This is the background check for ammunition sales bill. It will include a tax and registration fee in order to purchase ammunition within the state. Not only would a background check have to be done for any face to face ammunition sales, if I am reading this correctly, any out-of-state ammunition transactions (online) the delivery would have to be left at an ammunition dealer for the check to go through and be picked up.
2. Sen. De Leon has been actively trying to ban online ammo sales since 2009. His laws have passed twice, both times they were thrown out in the federal courts because state legislatures cannot make such demands of delivery service agents conducting interstate commerce. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress that exclusive right. The other ammo ban attempt was redefining any ammunition that could pierce metal to be “armor piercing” and thus illegal. The bill did not provide any technical specifications of “metal” thus included tin foil. Effectively his bill sought to ban all ammunition in the state.
3. This doesn't mention how much of a backup to the NICS background check it will be when California exponentially increases the demand for background checks. When the system is down does that mean no one could purchase ammunition in the state?
6. SB 1446  Firearms: magazine capacity.
1. Ever since 2002 (really 1994 because of the Federal Assault Weapons ban), the sale, manufacture, or importation of ammunition magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds have been illegal. Those who had standard capacity magazines over 10 rounds prior to 2002, we able to maintain possession, although the types of firearms one can use in them are very limited.

   

   A "Featureless" rifle lacks a pistol grip, telescoping stock, flash hider, and forward grip.

2. This law prohibits possession of the pre-ban magazines.
3. I would like to point to the most updated assessment of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban that like the previous assessments could not associate magazine size with crime rates because the number of crimes committed with assault weapons on a national scale was so small. “Accordingly, the LCM ban has greater potential for affecting gun crime. However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks” Page 19.
7. SB 1407 Firearms: identifying information.
1. Ever since an infamous press conference by now Senator Pro Tem Kevin De Leon who claimed “ghost gun” rifles were short barreled machine guns he has been on the warpath to ban homemade rifles. There are a number of videos on Youtube that show how to turn a block of metal into a legally defined firearm. The technical difference, the block of metal does not have a slot for the fire control group components that make a legally defined firearm. Once the block of metal is milled out, it is a firearm according to the federal government.
2. According to the text, following July 1, 2018 any firearm built at home must be serialized and registered. Doing so requires an $18 tax per weapon.
3. The legal reason why firearms are serialized and can be mandated to be registered are found under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. Therefore, in theory any item not being sold or manufactured for sale, there is no legal jurisdiction to prompt such a requirement. There are no reliable estimates how many home built firearms there are in the state of California. I have not seen any publications showing a high level of criminal use of such weapons. The support or opposition to this bill goes back to the “criminals don’t follow laws” argument of the ineffectiveness of this measure to reduce crime but extending the government’s oversight on its people.
8. AB-857 Firearms: identifying information.
1. This is just like SB 1407 trying to steal anti-gun bill credit by making its way in the Assembly versus the Senate. It is roughly the same tactic as AB 1664.
9. AB 1673 Firearms: unfinished frame or receiver.
1. This redefines firearm to “a frame or receiver blank, casting, or machined body, that is designed and clearly identifiable as a component of a functional weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.”
2. Remember the metal frame from the above law? This law classifies that block of metal, which does not have any moving components in it as a firearm.

   

   Half joking but still legally true, even this literal block of metal would be classified as a firearm according to this law.

10. SB-1006 Firearm Violence Research Center
1. The premises this bill is based upon are:
1. “infamous mass shootings” over the last 3 decades to include the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
2. “In 2014, there were 2,939 firearm-related deaths in California, including 1,582 suicides, 1,230 homicides, 89 deaths by legal intervention, and 38 unintentional or undetermined deaths.”
3. “Federal funding for firearm violence research through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been virtually eliminated by Congress since 1996.”
2. Therefore, this bill enables the “Legislature to establish a center for research into firearm-related violence” “by the University of California” for the purpose of transdisciplinary research concerning:
1. “The nature of firearm violence, including individual and societal determinants of risk for involvement in firearm violence, whether as a victim or a perpetrator.”
2. “The individual, community, and societal consequences of firearm violence.”
3. “Prevention and treatment of firearm violence at the individual, community, and societal levels.”
3. Because this bill specifically targets “firearm-related deaths” it is difficult to see a purpose of neutrality to even mask its purpose. At least they were honest enough to recognize over 50% of the firearms related deaths were suicide, nationally the average consists of about ⅔ of firearm deaths to suicide. But the bill is not interested in violence as a whole, only “firearm violence.” I am not sure if an unexpected death is less of a tragedy whether the tool used was a gun, knife, or hammer.
11. AB-1511 Firearms: lending.
1. Present law allows “a loan of a firearm between persons who are personally known to each other” for 30 days or less.
2. This law narrows the list of people who can be loaned a firearm for 30 days or less to immediate family members, grandparents, grandchildren, or domestic partners. Furthermore, if a handgun is being loaned, it must be owned and registered to the person making the loan.
3. I have known people who were legitimately threatened and were in regular contact with law enforcement because of the threats. At the time I was legally allowed to loan them a firearm for 30 days or less, which I offered. This law would prevent such a gesture, which when combined with the 10 day waiting period, might prove to be insufficient.
12. AB-2510 Firearms: license to carry concealed: uniform license.
1. Presently if a California resident wishes to get a concealed carry permit (CCW) they apply and are approved at the county level by the county sheriff. This has allowed many counties to issue CCWs per the conditions of the locality. This law makes the criteria for CCW issuance a state issue to be determined by the Attorney General.

   

   CCW Issuance by County, 2015

2. As you can see by the Issuance map, the more urban an area is, the less likely one is to be issued a permit. Most of the states in the nation have a policy of “shall issue” whereas if you are not prohibited from owning or purchasing a gun you will be approved. California is one of a few states who are “may issue” which the ability to acquire an CCW depends on the good graces of the sheriff. Given the electorate in California, if the AG crafts the may issue policy, almost no one will be able to get a CCW if this is signed. This is also a centralized power grab from the local jurisdictions. I would think the senior elected law enforcement officer would have the best understanding of their community’s needs more than the state elected Attorney General. At the same time, Puerta v. San Diego decision which may override this bill has been due for some time.
13. AB 1674 Firearms: transfers.
1. Presently there is a rationing of one firearm purchase per 30 day period in California. This applied to any firearm purchased from a Federal Firearms Dealer (FFL). Private party transfers, that is two people selling a pre-owned firearm, which is still required to go through the FFL and background check, did not have the 1 gun per 30 day limit.
2. This law makes no exceptions. Only one firearm transfer per 30 day period.
3. I am curious why this law was deemed necessary? There is already a 10-day waiting period for a firearm so it is not as though someone facing an imminent threat can legally acquire a firearm for self defense when needed. I can imagine a number of estate sales or transfers which family members will now have to spend years to disperse the belongings of a gun enthusiast relative. This is a measure that will limit another means of revenue for gun dealers who tend to charge significant transfer fees between Private Party Transfers.
14. AB 1695 Firearms: notice to purchasers: false reports of stolen firearms.
1. This bill makes false lost or stolen firearm reports a misdemeanor which includes a stripping of gun ownership for 10 years.
2. Purchasing a gun in California also signs you up for a pamphlet of the laws “relating to firearms, gun trafficking, and safe storage” from the Attorney General.
3. I’m not really opposed to this one. I’ve been actively following firearm legislation since 2009, in California there are new laws that are passed every year. Several have been vetoed or overturned by courts, some stay. It can be rather laborious to remain properly informed, especially for people who do not enjoy reading legal documents.
15. SB 894 Firearms: lost or stolen: reports.
1. This law requires a gun owner to report to law enforcement within 5 days of realizing their weapon has been stolen or face fines or more. If the weapon is recovered, subsequent report must be made within 48 hours.
2. I find this uniquely funny and sad because following the passage of Prop 47 last year, a person who stole a firearm worth less than $950 was only guilty of a misdemeanor. Wouldn’t it be something if the criminal laws targeted criminals more than it did victims?
16. AB-2459 Firearms dealers: conduct of business.
1. This is only directed at Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL), aka gun dealers. It requires the licenses to correlate with a business location. It also requires dealers have color video recordings of every sale of a firearm or ammo. The dealer is also required to maintain that video archive for 3 years. The dealer is required to do ensure the recording system is working properly weekly and get annually inspected by the state. If a firearm is traced to a local shop the police must be given access to the video.
2. This is presumably to help reduce the number of firearms straw purchases. A straw purchase is when an individual who can pass a background check purchases a firearm for someone who is not legally able to purchase or possess a firearm. The ATF does not publish how many active straw purchase investigations occur by state. Based on 2014 data, 23% of the 19,679 firearms traced by the ATF come from other states. A firearm is only traced by the ATF if it has been requested by law enforcement. In FY2015 470 firearms were reported stolen. This is prior to Prop 47, so most stolen firearms would presumably have been reported. This actually may serve to argue for SB 894.
3. The effect of this law is two fold. Many FFLs operate small businesses from their homes. This shuts them down. Those FFLs and ammunition dealers with storefront locations will now have to record every single purchase for 3 years. Between the surveillance array necessary in the store and the archival data necessary this will greatly hinder firearm businesses across the state. Per the statute, during the recordings must be constant and continuous throughout the operating hours. Figure a business is open 8 hours a day almost everyday, so minus Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving, 4th of July, and Memorial Day for rough estimate. That is 8640 hours of surveillance to maintain 3 years of footage. Standard definition video data rate is 1Mbit/s for 480 resolution. The data storage should then accommodate 31,104,000 MB or 31TB of data, at minimum. This setup looks to require a RAID drive, which will provide new overhead costs, although computer technicians will appreciate this law. Somewhere the gun dealer must now manage that volume of data while operating their business.
4. This is state of reasonable business oversight in CA? Don’t forget the additional costs from the ammo permit from AB-156. How much of a price increase does this mean for ammunition? In 2010 it was common to find .22lr at $.04 or less per round, in a retail outlet one is doing well to find it for $.12/round. If ammo costs keep increasing how will gun owners reasonably be able to maintain training?

I was really tempted to break this up into a couple posts, but the only purpose for that would be to make this click bait. I cannot do such a thing. I am confident Gov. Brown will veto some of these laws, but I cannot know which ones will be vetoed and which will remain. Whatever the result, any of the more grievous laws (I tried to arrange the bills from the worst down) will be fought in the courts.

Women in Combat: Theological Considerations

Gender has become a rather contentious issue in recent years. From the Obergefell v. Hodges decision on marriage, to the transition of celebrity’s gender identity, to the bathroom issues within the private and public realm, it appears to be a defining time in our social history. Within the military community changes have also been made and achieved. Most recently women almost had to register for the draft.  There are several military cultural factors that contribute to the discussion which have not been articulated well. I will attempt to address them as best as I can. In this part, I’ll consider the theological implications.

A brief summary of Complementarianism. It is a theological view that gender roles exist for men and women. This takes place in the home and church. As a single guy, I have never had to work out the exact details of what that will look like for the family I hope to have. I have had amazing demonstrations of what this looks like in practice with a number of families in my church. Of particular influence has been the example of the family I have lived with for the last several years. Their godly example has added numerous practical examples to a theology I embraced from a predominantly scholastic understanding. Men and women are of equal value as image bearers of God, but they are not the same. Based on my observations, outside of churches who make this position a distinctive, complementarianism is a minority view within the Christian community.

Perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of complementarianism is the confusion with chauvinism. Gender roles are not about ability or fitness. Given the whole of the Christian life is not about our abilities or anything we do but depends on who God is and what he has done, this understanding should not be difficult to receive. This probably makes more sense coming from a Reformed theological position concerning salvation.

How does a theologically conservative Christian integrate his somewhat libertarian political beliefs within this political discussion? Yes, I am a “combat veteran” according to the Department of Veteran Affairs. Excluding the infrequent basic combat training, my time in the  Army were all as staff positions. Every level of training and every unit I was assigned was integrated. Throughout the totality of both my deployments I worked alongside of and was subordinate to women.

Being subordinate to women in those roles did not challenge my complementarian view of gender because Complementarianism concerns itself with the order of the home and church. I do not see it necessarily applying outside those institutions. I do not see a conflict between women in secular supervisory positions and a complementarianism. I do not see a clear theologically based teaching that would prohibit women from operating in combat roles.

Even in the designation of men as protector, the context is between a husband and wife. The Genesis account of the Fall makes certain implications that the man should be the protector, but again, that was a husband and wife context. The argument is “Why did God call to Adam even though Eve sinned first?” I think this implied that Adam should have protected his wife, he failed to protect her in that instance. The purpose of the text was not to articulate a firm position on gender roles, at best I have to insert my understandings to find that conclusion. The examples throughout the Old Testament where only men were designated as soldiers were descriptive over prescriptive. I think there are certain practical and strategic reasons why the armies in the ancient world were almost exclusively for men. Those reasons are not based in a theological understanding.

The best biblical instance of men being designated as the protectors come from the analogy of husband and wife to Christ and the Church. Once again, this is limited within the husband and wife relationship. This is where I derive that the man is to be the protector. To be the protector he does not have to have a disposition towards violence. In fact, I have known many women, Christ followers and not, who had better dispositions to physical hostility than men. Half jokingly even as ushers we have coined the emergency exit in the sanctuary adjacent to childcare as the “mama bear door.” Given the instance of an emergency evacuation, there is no question many moms will attain what might be superhuman strength and will to get to their children.

Whether one is predisposed to address physical hostility or not on a theological level is irrelevant. Remember, the basis of the Christian faith is to do things through God’s power and ability, not our own. Therefore the sacrificial husband needs only to sacrifice himself in obedience to God. Whether that means engaging in the fight he may or may not win, or he will pick up the extra shifts of work to provide, all of it is in obedience to Christ from the example he provided. To be the head means to set himself aside for the good of others. When there is a sacrifice to be made, it first comes from the man. Depending on the day, this may look like a burden or a joy, hopefully it will be a joy more than a burden.

Within the secular context, the sacrificial nature of the relationship tends to only exert itself in the dire circumstances. There is certainly a predominant view that men are natural protectors, whether this comes from an evolutionary understanding of society and social constructs or is an example of biblical masculinity, I would argue the popular understanding is a result of all the influences. Anecdotally, I have encountered many agnostic and non-theist men who held a “traditional” view of women and children especially when the issue relates to self defense. Especially in this nation of immigrants there are innumerable stories of poor families with hard working parents who provided opportunity for their kids they could not achieve. This is perhaps the most common and still compelling example of sacrifice in American society.

I do not see a clear biblical teaching which men ought to be generally postured towards violence. I know between my years in the military and working in numerous security capacities, I am not apprehensive to the idea of physical altercation. There is clear teaching that we ought to be Peacemakers. In the months that working as a Bouncer I have yet to get into a fight. Every opportunity so far, I have been able to de-escalate the tensions to prevent the fight that likely would have occurred. In contrast to the methods of my coworkers, the more I approach Security with an apprehension towards violence the more often the altercations are resolved peacefully. Throughout the process of conflict resolution one must be willing to recognize the real possibilities of harm, but one ought not look forward to it. Any violent action should only be done with the most reluctance. This is the same manner I approach my philosophy of self-defense. I have spent thousands of dollars in equipment and supplies. I’ve spent countless hours practicing at ranges and at home. These exercises are fun in their own right, but the purpose for which I train, I hope with the utmost sincerity will never be needed.