Gun Bills Facing Big Barricades : Legislature: Backers of new controls have little optimism this year. Gun owner organizations have regrouped after defeats and one relatively benign bill has been trounced.

SACRAMENTO —  In spite of the Legislature’s election year war on crime, enactment of substantive new controls on guns faces huge political barricades.

Historically, enacting restrictions on gun ownership in California has been a struggle, even under circumstances considered favorable. This year, there is little optimism among proponents.

Already, the Legislature has trounced a relatively benign bill that would have toughened penalties for illegally carrying a concealed gun. Another proposal limiting the number of bullets that can be loaded into a gun is paralyzed on the Assembly floor.

The chances appear worse for more far-reaching bills, which range from outlawing the civilian sale, exchange, manufacture or import of handguns to the licensing of handgun and ammunition buyers. Other proposals include limiting buyers to one pistol or revolver a year and authorizing local governments to adopt tougher firearms ordinances than the state laws enacted in Sacramento.

“I don’t expect to see a lot done with guns,” said Sheriff Glen Craig of Sacramento, an influential veteran lobbyist for law enforcement who supports tighter regulation of guns.

Although recent polls indicate public support for some new gun controls, there are countervailing political pressures. Among them:

* The April 12 recall election of veteran Sen. David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) by gun activists and others has sent a political tremor through the Capitol. Whether he survives or not, Roberti’s enemies have made a strong point just by mounting the recall.

Election-conscious incumbents, especially Democrats in marginal districts, have been reluctant to support any move that could be interpreted by opponents as tinkering with basic gun ownership--even for law and order reasons.

* After suffering defeats in landmark fights over banning assault weapons and subjecting all firearm buyers to a 15-day waiting period in 1989-90, the National Rifle Assn. and other gun owner organizations have regrouped and helped elect several sympathetic candidates who are opposed to further restrictions on guns.

Pro-gun supporters have been able to frame much of the debate around the argument that Californians no longer can depend on law enforcement for protection and instead must arm themselves for safety.

At the outset, the new legislative session had appeared tailor-made for gun control reformers. Congress had finally overcome years of resistance by the gun lobby and passed the Brady bill, which President Clinton swiftly signed.

The national law requires a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases. California law is tougher, mandating a 15-day wait for the purchase not only of handguns, but rifles and shotguns as well.

Gun control activists also got a boost from opinion polls that reflected a revulsion with crime and support for a crackdown on firearms, including registration of handguns.

“This should be the year to take back our streets from the arms merchants and their busy lobbyists,” said state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), who recently declared his candidacy for governor.

Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles) said he intends to introduce legislation prohibiting the civilian sale, exchange, importation or manufacture of handguns in California starting next year. Friedman, who is running for a Superior Court judgeship, has proposed the bill in spite of its poor chances of success because he said only bold measures can be effective.

“In addition to sentence enhancements and putting more police on the street, we must take away the handguns that make crime so deadly,” Friedman said in a memo asking colleagues to sign on as co-authors. So far, only five have done so.

In the Senate, retiring Sen. Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara), a moderate, and Hayden, a liberal, introduced packages of gun control bills. One Hart bill would require handgun purchasers to be licensed every four years, similar to the licensing of automobile drivers.

Hart said the California debate rages between the argument that citizens must protect themselves with guns and the contention that accessibility to guns makes California a more dangerous place.

“It is a race between a civilized and rational response and a Beirut,” Hart said.

One Hayden bill would repeal the state’s preemption of the field of gun regulation and authorize city councils and boards of supervisors to adopt tougher laws than those imposed by the Legislature. Several cities favor such authority, including Berkeley.

But foes of gun control long have argued that restrictions on firearms enacted in the name of crime control unfairly target law-abiding citizens while lawbreakers act with impunity. Instead, they propose the abolition of plea-bargaining and tougher sentences for criminals.

Assemblyman Richard Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), a leading defender of gun ownership, argues that imposing additional restrictions, especially in an era of high crime, “denies the right of citizens of this state to defend themselves.”

In the first showdown of the new session over guns, law enforcement came up battered last month in the Assembly at the hands of the gun lobby, Republicans and a handful of Assembly Democrats.

The battle was joined over a bill by Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) that would have allowed district attorneys to charge people with either a misdemeanor or a felony for carrying a concealed gun without a permit. Now, the offense is a misdemeanor.

Backed by Republican Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and statewide police and sheriffs organizations, Katz characterized his bill as urgently needed in the fight against armed street gangs and others.

But opponents assailed it as veiled gun control that could subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to three years in prison. As an alternative, they argued for greater access to concealed weapons permits.

Even though Democrats, who are more likely to vote for gun control than Republicans, heavily outnumber the GOP in the Assembly, the bill failed on a 40-34 vote. Eight Democrats broke ranks to join Republicans in voting no. Two Democrats and two Republicans, both former law officers, abstained.

Katz blamed the defeat on NRA lobbying. Law enforcement also drew private criticism for mounting a weak counteroffensive, a point conceded by Sheriff Craig. “It wasn’t a full-court press. It probably was not organized as effectively as it could have been,” Craig said.

It was the big push of the law enforcement lobby, consisting mostly of police chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors, that made the difference in the narrow passage of the 1989 assault gun ban.

Hart said the active involvement of law enforcement also will be key in the 1994 debate. “It’s an important factor in the politics of the Legislature and gun control,” he said.

But Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), who argues that guns “ought to be out of every community,” said that although gun control bills are “always in trouble,” prospects this session are especially poor.

“The gun lobby and the gun nuts in this state have an enormous amount of power because they have virtually 100% of the (Assembly) Republican caucus and some of the Democratic caucus,” he said.

Katz said that if legislation empowering prosecutors to file felony charges against illegal carrying of a gun cannot win approval in a law and order year, “I don’t know how they’re going to pass anything else.” The odds for enacting other anti-gun legislation, he said, “is going to be virtually impossible.”

Critical to the outcome of gun control legislation has been timing and public opinion. The murders of five children in a Stockton schoolyard and the wounding of 30 by a madman firing an AK-47 provided the shock needed for the Legislature and Gov. George Deukmejian to ban assault guns in 1989.

More recently, however, the police retreat during the Los Angeles riots and the subsequent rush by frightened Angelenos to buy arms was seized upon by pro-gun forces, who said it showed that citizens realize they need guns for protection.

Mountjoy maintains that the public mood has swung in favor of guns since passage of the assault gun ban.

“There is a great feeling out there that nobody can protect us,” Mountjoy said. “I think they (gun control advocates) are going to have to prove their case a lot more this year than they have before.”

In the shadow of the debate is the recall election April 12 of Roberti, Senate sponsor of the assault gun law. Roberti contends that gun owners launched the campaign against him in retribution for his authorship of the bill.

“The implication, whether it is expressed or implied, is very clear: If you vote for laws that the NRA or members of the NRA don’t like, they will recall you or attempt to recall you,” Katz said.

The NRA’s chief lobbyist in Sacramento, Steve Helsley, said the NRA is not financially involved in the recall.

But Sen. Don Rogers (R-Tehachapi), a pro-gun spokesman, said the recall election of Roberti is sending “a clear message to the Legislature that you had better stop interfering with our 2nd Amendment rights or you are going to be on our list of projects for recall.”

Gun Control Proposals

Gun control bills are facing an uphill battle in the state Legislature this year. Here are some proposals that have been introduced:

* Licensing: Would require handgun buyers to be licensed by the state Department of Justice after passing the existing background check. A onetime fee estimated at $45 to $60 would be charged. The tamper-proof license could be renewed every four years if the holder passed a safety test. (SB1275, Hart).

* Ammunition: Purchasers would have to display a state handgun license and a California driver’s license to buy handgun ammunition. Now, those prohibited from buying handguns can legally purchase ammunition for pistols and revolvers. Also, the attorney general would be empowered to ban “cop killer” bullets. (SB1276, Hart).

* Magazine limits: In an effort to reduce firepower, the number of center-fire rounds in a detachable magazine would be restricted to 15 for pistols and 10 for rifles. Detachable magazines for shotguns would be limited to six shells. (SB1128, Roberti.)

* Handgun numbers: Patterned after a newly enacted Virginia law, civilian purchases of a pistol or revolver would be restricted to one per year. The legislation is intended to gradually reduce the number of legal guns that are stolen and resold in the underground market. (SB1277, Hart).

* Seizing guns: Defendants named in domestic violence protective orders would be prohibited from owning or possessing a gun during the life of the order. If a court found that the defendant posed a reasonable threat of violence to someone else, law enforcement could seize the subject’s guns. (SB1278, Hart).

* Local control: Local governments, reflecting local needs, could enact gun restrictions tougher than those imposed statewide by the Legislature and governor. The state has long preempted the entire field of gun regulation. (SB822, Hayden).