A Little Help for Lungren

As attorney general, Dan Lungren is California’s chief law enforcement officer. The constitutional oath he took following his election in 1990 and his reelection in 1994 requires that he rigorously enforce all state laws without regard to his personal views. Yet as Times staff writers Steve Berry and Jeff Brazil have documented, Lungren has largely failed to live up to his obligation where California’s assault weapons law is concerned. Lungren considers himself a moderate on gun control, but his apparent reluctance to enforce this law raises questions about his commitment.

The 1989 law banned the sale of 54 assault gun models and was later expanded to cover 75. The statute, the first of its kind in the nation, was born in tragedy. Earlier that year, a drifter returned to his childhood elementary school in Stockton and opened fire with an assault gun, killing five children and wounding 30 when he sprayed the playground with more than 100 rounds. Then he turned the gun on himself. The Stockton massacre crystallized the feeling of many Californians that assault guns, with their awesome rapid-firing ability, have no legitimate hunting or sporting use. What these guns do best is maim humans.

California’s assault gun ban was followed five years later by a federal law that targeted 19 specific gun models as well as guns with two or more generic features such as a folding stock, (which makes it easier to conceal the weapon), a bayonet mount and a detachable magazine capability.

But weaknesses in both the federal and state law became immediately obvious. For instance, banned guns already in private hands or transferred through private sale are exempt.

Both the federal and state bans need strengthening. In the near term, the state Legislature seems more likely than Congress to act. A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Don Perata (D-Alameda) would create a generic definition of assault guns, and another by Sen. Charles M. Calderon (D-Whittier) would ban the manufacture and sale of magazines for assault guns. Passage of both bills would be a good start.

Lungren’s enforcement of California’s existing assault gun ban has been grudging at best. The attorney general contends that the law is “complex” and “difficult.” But Lungren appears to have simply ignored the Legislature’s intent.

He waived a provision that imposed criminal penalties on assault gun owners who failed to register their weapons before a 1992 deadline. He now says he’s reconsidering that decision.

After Colt Manufacturing Co. challenged the law’s constitutionality in 1991, Lungren originally supported suspending a provision of the law aimed at restricting sales of newly marketed assault guns. Just last week, the appellate court in which the Colt suit is pending set an October hearing date. The six-year suspension has permitted arms manufacturers to flood the state with thousands of guns, putting the public’s safety, which Lungren is sworn to protect, at risk.

The attorney general says he knows what state lawmakers envisioned when they passed the 1989 law. If so, he should correct his enforcement record. Legislators could stiffen his spine on this issue by passing the two bills now before them.