The Heller Gun Decision Week Four

Step Three: Appear in person at MPD headquarters to do the following:

• Report to the Firearms Registration Section with the completed Firearm Registration application, acquire two fingerprint cards, and provide 2passport-sized facial photos; a valid driver’s license or a letter from a physician attesting that the applicant has vision as least as good as that required for a driver’s license; and a residency verification, such as a DC current rental agreement, or a deed to property that includes a home.

• Complete a Firearm Registration written test with at least 75% proficiency.

• If successful on the test, pay all applicable and reasonable fees required by the Chief at the MPD cashier, including thirty five dollars ($35) for fingerprinting and thirteen dollars ($13) for a firearm registration;

• Present a fee receipt and the two fingerprint cards to the MPD fingerprint examiner, and submit to fingerprinting.

• Return to the Firearms Registration Section with one fingerprint card for the office file and the other for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) fingerprint analysis for the purpose of a criminal record check.

Step 4: Upon being notified that everything is OK, return to complete process.

Step 5: Have the gun subjected to ballistic identification.

Step 6: Retrieve the registered pistol from Firearms Registration section and transport it home.

There are two extra steps in terms of acquiring a handgun from another – which apparently has to be done from a FFL – though I suspect that DC is not asking too many questions about the source. Mark Segraves at www.wtopnews.com has been blogging and reporting on this issue. He even went through the process of trying to acquire a handgun outside of DC and register it within DC to see what the process was. To say that there are “issues” is an understatement.

In terms of the raw numbers per Mark’s latest posting are per DCMPD spokesperson Traci Hughes: (i) 195 people have picked up an application; (ii) 3 people have completed the registration process; (iii) 12 people are waiting for final approval; (iv) 1 rifle has been brought in to begin the registration process – rifles were always registerable; (v) 1 rifle application has been completed and the rifle has been registered; (vi) 1 handgun application has been denied to a criminal record; (vii) 2 handguns have been confiscated because the applicant or the gun did not meet requirements; and (viii) 1 handgun has been turned in for destruction.

Not surprisingly, all of the guns registered so far are either guns that were owned by DC residents being kept in another state, or owned illegally and are accepting the District's gun amnesty. Most of the guns were registered under amnesty. Everyone agrees that the main reason for the low numbers is because there is no way for D.C. residents to acquire handguns (unless they do it from an in-DC source) until Mr. Sykes is issued his BATFE license who will act as a transfer-broker agent within the District. Once Sykes receives his license DC residents will still have to in all probability go to Maryland (The DC Personal Protection Act does not change the Interstate FFL Rules) as Mr. Sykes is only willing to act as a broker.

The procedures that DC is using is really the Michigan procedure pre 3 bill package reform coupled with Maryland and New York. Since there has been a substantial amount of discussion about this, I wanted to set the record straight as I understand the ballistic testing issue.

The “ballistic testing” component this appears to be DC’s attempt to go down the road created in Maryland and New York (because of the insistence of George Pataki and Rudy Guliani) with CoBIS (Combined Ballistic Information system). Since 2000 in Maryland and 2001 in New York, when a licensed retailer receives a new handgun from a manufacturer since 2001 has to ensure that the firearm is accompanied by a properly completed and sealed approved container enclosing a ballistic sample which is a cartridge casing as to that gun.

The Maryland and New York rules are in effect national as manufacturers do not necessarily know where the end product will reach what retailer. While this is not per se a wacko proposal, the Maryland and New York systems have not been exactly the most effective. In New York, as of March 1, 2008, 189,383 handguns have been reported the New York State Police, at a cost of $28,333,333, and 2 hits. The converse argument is the fact that the program worked because it had a deterrence effect. In Maryland, $2.5 million has been spent with NO hits.

CoBIS is to be distinguished from – but in effect works in tandem with - NBIN. The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) Program is part of the Firearms Programs Division of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. ATF deploys Integrated Ballistic Identification System (IBIS) equipment into Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies for their use in imaging and comparing crime gun evidence. It basically is a CSI system whereby bullets recovered at crime scenes are compared to each other.

The NIBIN Program currently has 228 sites that have received IBIS equipment. There are 182 agencies participating in the Program. Every major population center has access to ballistic imaging technology. Since its implementation, there have been at least 18,731 NIBIN hits linking evidence from different crimes nationwide. In California, as of last year there have been 2,842 NIBIN hits since 2001.

In California, there are a limited number of IBS terminals located throughout California. Most of them are located in large population and crime centers (the distribution is based upon federal crime statistics).

Most of the terminals are located in Southern California (Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties). In Northern California, the only terminals are located in Stockton (1), Sacramento (2) and the San Francisco Bay Area (2). The terminals are quite a distance from rural law enforcement agencies, especially in the far north of the state presenting logistical obstacles for those agencies. Optimally, each agency would have its own IBIS terminal, but, at a cost of approximately $250,000 each, this has not been possible.

At the terminal site, any firearms that are available (e.g., a firearm recovered from a crime scene) must be test-fired to obtain casings with the ballistic markings. Images of the casings from the crime scene and/or fired from the gun are then entered into NIBIN. Last year in California, legislation was enacted to more formalize this process by mandating that the California Department of Justice to develop a protocol for local law enforcement agencies to enter that data in the NIBIN system, and requires DOJ to submit a report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2010, on the implementation of the program.

While the ballistic testing may be questionable, the notion that someone who already has the gun, takes the gun in to “get legal” and the police hold the weapon during that process is not unique to DC. That is how it works under the Jones-Mayes proposal in Michigan and is part and parcel of the process in Clark County, Nevada for private party transactions.

The real issue is not what is written on a piece of paper but how long it takes to do this and how painful it is. In Michigan, the issuance of the license is fairly quick – a matter of minutes. In Clark County it is fairly quick as well. New York takes much more time. If DC can do the ballistic testing and the other things in less than two hours, this should not be an issue.

In California – as I have noted – gun registration is an Internet driven process which can – and is done – quickly and we are trying to improve it in that regard and also in terms of accuracy.

While I have my views, the real expert on whether DC in adopting these procedures is or is not "thumbing" it’s nose at the US Supreme Court, is not the NRA or others but Alan Gura who – is or was - was Dick Heller's lawyer. In a blog posting stated July 18, 2008 at www.dcguncase.com, entitled "Clearing the Air", Alan in effect says that DC is complying. He writes:

“There’s been some confusion about how the Supreme Court’s decision is to be implemented, and what it means for DC’s registration system, going forward. We’d like to clear the air.

"The handgun that Mr. Heller tried to register in 2002, the registration of which was ordered by the courts, is a nine-shot revolver. It is fully registerable under D.C. law as it stands today, and Mr. Heller will have it registered to him. We are not expecting the city to resist the registration of this firearm. Once the gun is registered to Mr. Heller, he can use it to defend his home.

"There are significant, practical limits on the number of arguments that can be put together in one lawsuit. In our case, we chose to focus on the handgun and functional firearms bans – and that was plenty work for the courts to consider. Litigants do not have unlimited space in the briefing, or unlimited time in argument, and there is a significant strategic advantage – as we have demonstrated – in keeping constitutional litigation focused and narrow.

"That does not mean that the rest of the D.C. Code with respect to firearms is constitutional. Much of it is not. But the entire code was not directly at issue in our case. It is our hope that Mayor Fenty and the City Council, or Congress, if the Mayor and City Council are unwilling to do so, sit down with their code books and the Supreme Court’s opinion, and make a serious effort to conform the former to the latter. If the political branches do not make the city’s firearm laws constitutional, then as we’ve seen, the courts will do it for them.

"However, the judgment in this case relates only to the provisions that were struck down, and the city appears to be complying with the literal command of the judgment. Again, we do not believe that everything the city is doing is constitutional. Some of the city’s registration practices are clearly unconstitutional, as is the semi-auto ban. But these are not issues that can be resolved in the context of the current case.

"The Supreme Court’s decision is a smashing victory for liberty, and it has made immediate practical impact on the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents. Mr. Heller will have his handgun, lawfully, at home, and he can use it for self-defense should the need arise. That was the object of the case, and it has succeeded. We will continue to monitor the city’s behavior for compliance with the decision. And we are sure that in due time, all of the city’s unconstitutional practices will be altered, one way or another.”

As I have noted, going from a banned market to a regulated market takes time. Notwithstanding that fact, the NRA is pressing for a discharge petition on it’s flawed DC Personal Protection Act. I would suggest that if this bill is worthy of real consideration, Representative Souder and the NRA should insist on hearings on it as well as what DC is doing.

The one good thing about the Discharge Petition is that it forces DC to streamline its processes. Congressman Souder’s main complaints are: (i) on semiautomatics (he is partially correct), (ii) processing times (yet to be determined if he is right or wrong on that), and iii) trigger locks (totally correct). The Hill.com reported that Speaker Pelosi has in effect ordered Congressman John Dingell to try to utilize his influence to “fix” DC. If he is so inclined, he should look into what just happened in his home state of Michigan.

In terms of other DC issues, given Mr. Heller’s activities, I have been told that he will not be the person to bring the suit on the trigger lock requirements of on semiautomatics vis-à-vis Congressional intent. Probably the best person to bring suit on semiautomatics is a law enforcement or retired law enforcement type who can legally carry firearms under federal statute that authorizes him or her to carry – be it HR 218 (retired peace officer carry status) or otherwise - who resides in DC and cannot be prosecuted for carrying because of federal law and therefore does not face prosecution for “packing” who wishes to register a handgun.

DC may respond that the person does not need to register that gun which could create as to retirees vs. civilian non retirees the same equal protection issue as in the Ninth Circuits 2003 decision in Silveira v. Lockyer.

In terms of other issues, in Illinois the NRA is having considerable success with demand letters in terms of changing local practices – while not actually having served any of the complaints.

Last Tuesday, Wilmette repealed its handgun ban ordinance 7-0 with almost no discussion. There is no replacement being offered for the same and they are not looking for new lawsuits. One Village trustee noted that “We could discuss it at any length that we want, but the law right now is in a state of gross uncertainty, …While it will be interesting to look to possible legislation, I would suggest that anything we do until there are cases, Supreme Court cases that set some sort of ground rules for gun regulation, we're just asking for the same fiscal irresponsibility in that we would be defending our legislation at the taxpayers' expense …getting some sort of direction would take a couple of years at least.” Morton Grove also repealed its ordinance last week.

I wanted to address three final issues.

The first relates to the “food fight” at www.cato-unbound.org between Bob Levy, Dennis Henigan, and David Kopel (and soon to be joined by Professor Erwin Chemerinsky) which has now seriously gotten Loony Tunes. Bob Levy has rightly tried to straighten matters out (good luck on that) but not before this food fight got into religious issues which shows the wisdom of James Madison insisting on a “no religious test” requirement in the United States Constitution.

For whatever reason, somehow Professor Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University School of Law got injected into this matter as well as Justice Scalia’s religious beliefs. Reference was made to Professor Kmiec chastising Justice Scalia (who is Catholic) for disregarding a 1978 statement by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops allegedly in favor of a handgun ban.

While I am not Roman Catholic, the woman in my life is and I know several priests – because my father helped create their pension plan in the 1970’s. I also know a large number of Catholics who own guns – since I helped get them correctly situated and/or registered. In fact, I asked a priest the other day about “gun bans” and as far as he knew there was NO official church position on it. And, that priest allowed that he shot targets.

I also went to the web posting which started this “issue” and here is what I found in what was written by Ramesh Ponnuru:

“Kmiec goes on to note that Scalia's opinion ‘also disregards the long-standing teaching of the American Catholic bishops that 'handguns be effectively controlled and eventually eliminated from our society.'’Referring to the policy positions of the bishops as ‘teachings’ risks being misleading, since they clearly do not have the status of, say, a Magisterial teaching. American Catholics are not bound in conscience to agree with the bishops. So what exactly does it mean to say that Scalia ‘disregard[ed]’ the bishops rather than merely disagreed with them? Moreover, the bishops' statement as presented has nothing to do with constitutional interpretation (and it would be remarkable if it did have something to do with it). A justice who agreed with the bishops might favor a constitutional amendment to ban handguns while recognizing that he is bound by the Constitution we have. The justice is not supposed to be acting as a policymaker, and in judging him as though he were one it is Kmiec who is showing the mindset of an activist.”

I did send Professor Kmiec an email suggesting he state his position in fact on this issue. The implication of the posting is that Justice Scalia should somehow face church discipline for his ruling.

Besides having the very good sense to marry Dolley Payne Todd (this being the 18th Century version of Beauty and the Geek) James Madison was also the “Father of the Constitution” and of the Bill of Rights. (I should add that he received substantial help in this endeavor from Alexander Hamilton who was partially Jewish.)

Because of the history of the Church of England dominating public discourse in the 13 Colonies, the Founders wisely provided in the Constitution there is no religious test for office. The “no religious test” clause is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

This clause has been interpreted to mean that no federal or state or local employee, whether elected or appointed, “career” or “political,” can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Clause means what it says and applies to the States in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). The “No Religious Test” provision was based on the assumption that officials will follow their public oath of office and uphold the Constitution and NOT rely on their religious beliefs in their role as public officials and should not be barred from public office on that basis.

President Kennedy in 1960 when he ran for public office had to address the question of whether his religion or his oath would guide his public policy actions. He settled the issue of whether Catholics or any other group could serve as public officials by noting in his famous address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association delivered September 12, 1960 at the Rice Hotel in Houston, Texas when he stated in part:

“And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches -- when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes, and McCafferty, and Bailey, and Badillo, and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.”

President Kennedy got it right and I would suggest that everyone else take heed. The fact is that there are 5 Roman Catholics on the US Supreme Court and they ALL were part of the Heller majority thereby rejecting alleged church doctrine but fulfilling their civic duty. James Madison would have said Amen.

Heller is an “Only in America” type story: The gun rights of all Americans were vindicated by the struggles of African Americans told through the financial resources of several Jewish lawyers where the right was ultimately vindicated by 5 Roman Catholic Justices of the United States Supreme Court, the author of the opinion being the son of Italian immigrants who grew up in Queens, New York.

American history is replete with such examples of persons acting contrary to what others think might be the norm and criticizing them for the same.

One of President Lincoln’s most successful generals was a Southerner. I am of course referring to General George H. Thomas known first as “The Rock of Chicamauga” and then “The Sledgehammer of Nashville”. Thomas, unlike Robert S. Lee and others - remained loyal to the United States. In response, his family turned his picture against the wall, destroyed his letters, and never spoke to him again. Despite arguable personal anguish, George H. Thomas served his country as General Grant’s replacement as Western Division Commander.

Less well known is the fact that President Lincoln’s war policies were repeatedly sustained at the United States Supreme Court - the striking example being The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1863) - by the vote of Justice James Moore Wayne who was from Georgia who was — while a slaveholder — an ardent Jacksonian Federalist.

Secondly, notwithstanding Justice Scalia’s comments about felons, juveniles, and mentally ill persons having guns, Don Kates felt compelled to argue why felons have no gun rights on a New York Post op—ed piece earlier this week.

As a personal matter, it does not bother me - nor do I feel threatened - if Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby or similar individuals own guns provided that they have redeemed themselves.

In fact, the 2008 NICS Improvement Act may result in this issue being resolved in a fair and sensible manner. In 1986, the United States Supreme Court had granted certiorari in BATF v. Galioto, 477 U.S. 556 (1986)

Galioto had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for a period of several days in 1971, was unable to purchase a firearm from a store in 1982 because of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) prohibiting sales of firearms to such persons. Section 922(d) and other federal statutes prohibiting persons who have been committed to mental institutions from possessing, receiving, or transporting firearms also apply to felons. However, under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), certain felons could apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for administrative relief from the disabilities imposed by federal firearms laws, but no such relief was permitted for former mental patients.

After unsuccessfully seeking a special exemption from the Bureau, Galioto brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the firearms legislation. The court held that the statutory scheme was unconstitutional as violating equal protection principles because there was no rational basis for singling out mental patients for permanent disabled status, particularly as compared to convicts. The court also concluded that the statutory scheme unconstitutionally created an "irrebuttable presumption" that one who has been committed, no matter what the circumstances, is forever mentally ill and dangerous.

The Supreme Court held that issue was moot because Congress redrafted the provisions so that any prohibited person could apply to the Secretary of the Treasury for relief.

As part of the 1986 amendments to the Gun Control Act, the issue of prohibited persons was also addressed by basically restricting the use of state convictions vis-à-vis federal prohibitions on firearms and ammunition possession.

The Gun Control Act’s stated purpose is to assist States’ in enforcing their own firearms laws which is why there is – and must be – a “commerce nexus” in terms of persons being barred from having ammunition or firearms.

As such, in most cases GCA is a statutory style version of the 21st Amendment which bars the bringing into or importation of alcohol into a state in violation of state law. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment to wit Prohibition.

The GCA bar does not apply to “felony” convictions as such. Rather it applies to crimes punishable at term exceeding one year. It does not include any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices. (This provision is “an exclusion” and is thus a defense that the defendant must raise. See: United States v. Stanko, 491 F.3d 408 (6th. Cir. 2007) certiorari denied Apr. 14, 2008.) It also does not apply to any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

18 USC 921 (21 also contains an “unless clause”. The “unless clause” in essence provides that if a state conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored it is not considered a GCA “conviction” which makes ammunition or firearms possession a federal crime unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. Because the vast majority of prohibited persons are so because of state law – not because of federal convictions – notwithstanding Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby - 18 USC 921 (21)’s “unless clause” is critical.

Whether this “restoration of rights” has or has not occurred in specific cases has of course been repeatedly litigated with the United States Supreme Court twice hearing cases on the issue. See: Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308 (1998) and Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (1994). However, the general concept is that if a state provides that the conviction restores all or essentially all civil rights – and does not preclude gun possession in the sense that any citizen may possess that gun - as an incident of the conviction, neither does federal law.

In 1992 all funding for the 18 USC 925(c) relief program was wiped out as Josh Sugarman has noted. However, as part of the NICS Improvement Act a relief from disabilities program was restarted for persons with mental health issues. As such, the mirror image of Galioto exists and the same equal protection issues arise. The relief from disabilities provision was inserted at the specific insistence of the mental health advocates and veterans groups and is a specific part of the funding mechanism for the program. This process may be much fairer than the traditional pardoning process whereby rights are restored.

I should note that in California, the safest way to have the disability removed is via the pardon process – which raises a constitutional issue. In that regard, California from 1965 to 1990 per former Penal Code § 12560 barred all felons from possessing handguns but did not bar them from possessing rifles and shotguns unless a firearm was used in the underlying offense. In 1989, the law was changed to bar felons from possessing any gun.

Under Penal Code which is the “certificate of rehabilitation” approach which is via the Superior Court (See: People v. Ansell, (2001) 25 Cal.4th 868), because it is an alternative procedure the legislature has provided that gun rights are restored save that the prohibition applies if the person was ever convicted of a felony involving the use of a dangerous weapon. See Penal Code § 4852.17.

Under the traditional direct application procedure, Penal Code § 4854 allows the Governor to restore gun rights as part of the pardon except when except that this right may not be restored and the prohibition on gun possession still applies if the person ever convicted of a felony involving the use of a dangerous weapon.

While I believe that Section 4852.17 is valid, it is my personal view that Section 4854’s limitation on the Governor’s power is unconstitutional. The reason I say so is that the California Supreme Court and other appellate courts throughout the US have held that the pardoning power is an exclusive executive power – subject to whatever constitutional limitations are placed on the Governor as the Supreme Court itself alluded to in Ansell. Most if not all Governors when granting pardons have limited gun rights and if they do that that is in their power. And, per Caron that is not a restoration but that is an exercise of an executive decision.

In this state, while the application procedures may be governed by statute as the Constitution so provides in Article V, § 8 – which is why the certificate of rehabilitation procedure is valid, in terms of the exercise of the power the main limitation is that person who has been convicted of two felonies where one felony was committed after the conviction of the first any type of executive clemency can only occur with the written agreement of a majority of the judges of the California Supreme Court.

The third issue relates to the age “18 to 21” issue on handguns.This is a problem that Senator Obama needs to be aware of given his support from young people.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal firearms licensees may not deliver a handgun to a person under age 21. Given how the Gun Control Act works, a 19 year old who resides in Oregon cannot receive a handgun from a relative who lives in California or another state. The under age 21 issue is anomaly from the Gun Control Act of 1968 before the 18 year old vote was enshrined in the Constitution and States lowered the age of majority. This issue is one of the most frequent issues brought to my attention because of how California processes private party transactions.

I brought this issue to the attention of Don Kates and Gene Volokh on this point. They both agreed that the age 21 cutoff would be very difficult to defend as gun ownership is a constitutional right. This issue was recently addressed by the South Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Bolin, 662 S.E.2d 38 (S.C. 2008). Until recent amendments, South Carolina barred persons under age 21 from acquiring or possessing handguns.

While the issue in futuro was mooted by the amendment of SC Code § 16-23-30 to lower the minimum possession age to 18, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the ban on possession of a handgun while under the age of 21 was unconstitutional. The South Carolina Supreme Court Supreme Court held (using an argument since rejected in Heller that the statute did not violate the South Carolina Constitution’s RKBA Clause (S.C. Const. Art. I, § 20), but that it did violate South Carolina Const. Art. XVII, § 14 which states that persons 18 or older are deemed adults but that alcohol sales could be banned by the South Carolina General Assembly to persons until age twenty—one.

The woman in my life raised this exact issue on AB 2470 by former Assemblyman and State Senator Dick Rainey (R—Walnut Creek) in 1994 in the Assembly Public Safety Committee Analysis. The legislation at issue was a Wilson Administration effort to restrict handgun possession to persons under age 21 and under — an effort NOT opposed by the NRA. She noted that:

“c) Federal Age Requirements Persons who are between ages 18 and 21 cannot obtain handguns except through an exemption from dealer processing as dealers must take physical possession of the gun and then deliver the same in accordance with age restrictions.

“The dealer prohibition on delivery of handguns stems from federal law. As part of the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), federal firearms licensees may not deliver handguns to anyone under age 21. The age 21 provision of GCA predated the lowering of the age of majority to age 18 in 1972 in the wake of the adoption of the 18 year old vote amendment to the United States Constitution.

“Prior to the lowering of the age of majority to 18, California had prohibited dealer delivery of handguns to anyone under 18. Also the right to possess, carry, etc., provision in Penal Code Section 12026 was set at age 21. With the adoption of the 18 year old vote amendment, a number of states (including California) enacted legislation that changed the age from 21 to 18 for numerous and sundry rules reflecting the lowering of the age of majority. The Penal Code sections on guns reflected this trend.

“However, GCA was never amended to lower the dealer delivery requirements to age 18. Nor, did the NRA or other gun groups apparently seek change in 1986 when GCA was revised to reflect the lowering of the age of majority. As such, GCA is an arguable anachronism on the dealer delivery requirements.”

While the Public Safety Committee rejected the Wilson Gun Ban Proposal, it did point out a registration gap in then extant law. There were 5 possible ways to deal with issue which were listed in the Public Safety Committee Analysis. When Assemblyman Rainey did not agree to so-called “‘Option 2” a “‘mockup” was moved on Assemblyman Rainey which was probably the least acceptable — but then again when people do not cooperate they get the resulting results.

Fortunately, through a negotiation between the late Assemblyman Mike Gotch and former Assemblyman Dan Hauser (both Democrats) AB 2470 was amended to continue to allow grand parent and parents to give their offspring handguns between 18 and 21 BUT all intra-familial transactions exempt from through dealer processing were subjected to a handgun registration reporting system.

Governor Wilson graciously signed the Gotch—Hauser Agreement into law at a bill signing ceremony in late 1994. The forms to comply with Option 2 are at http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf. The form is in editable pdf format. This California solution is a state solution that still does not rectify the Gun Control Act issue.

Since the mid 1980's Irwin Nowick has worked for the California State Assembly and State Senate on a plethora of policy issues, most notably firearms legislation. He has been described as "The Assembly's resident genius" by a former Speaker of the Assembly and is seen frequently in the Capitol hallways and offices assisting legislators in drafting and amending pending legislation.