California banned assault weapons in 1989, and the nation followed. But that was just the beginning. Also: San Jose's mayor wants gun owners to have to buy liability insurance.
Today we talk about California’s huge role in influencing gun control laws in the U.S. and about the backlashes. We discuss the state’s historic 1989 ban on assault weapons and why a federal judge issued an order to overturn that ban. And we talk to the mayor of San Jose, who wants his city to be the first in the United States to require gun owners to buy liability insurance.
Read the full transcript here.
An earlier version of this episode was published Aug. 23, 2021.
CLIP: She was very happy and very outgoing, loved to dance and sing and play sports.
CLIP: Families are coming to grips with the deaths of 19 children at an elementary school in Ubell, Texas.
CLIP: I'm in physical pain for what they, what they're going through right now. It's so there are no words, no words. So sorry. It happened.
CLIP: Anyone who shoots his grandmother in the face has to have evil in his heart, but it is far more evil for someone to gun down little kids.
CLIP: I would normally say in a moment like this, we would all say naturally that our hearts break, but our hearts keep getting broken.
CLIP: So I understand how people could sell that type of a gun to kid to an 18 year old. Like what is he going to use it for? She was, she was very sweet.
Gustavo: A shooting massacre like the one in Texas happens, and the aftermath’s always the same: weeks of mourning and soul searching … funerals … Democrats promise to pass new laws to restrict the use and sales of guns … and Republicans call for more people to be armed, while activists sue to get any new restrictions overturned.
That same scenario that keeps happening again and again and again happened in Stockton, California in 1989.
A gunman went to an elementary school to specifically target Asian students. He killed five children and wounded 29 others.
California quickly issued an assault weapons ban, the first of its kind in the United States.
But then last year a federal judge overturned that ban, comparing AR-15s to Swiss Army knives in his controversial ruling.
Now, in the wake of the Texas massacre, California Governor Gavin Newsom and state legislators are vowing to expedite several gun control bills, including a bill modeled after Texas’ abortion ban that would give Californians residents the right to sue gun manufacturers, sellers and distributors and to collect at least $10,000 in civil damages per weapon.
I’m Gustavo Arellano. You’re listening to The Times, daily news from the L.A. Times.
It’s Thursday, May 26, 2022
Today, we’re re-airing an episode from last year about California's huge role in influencing gun control laws in the country – but also how those efforts inspire backlashes.
Patrick McGreevy covered the California Legislature for the L.A. Times until his retirement last year.
Gustavo: Patrick, welcome to The Times
Patrick: Thank you.
Gustavo: So the Stockton massacre of 1989, I vaguely remember it as a ten-year-old, but of course I've covered its influence as an adult. And it came at an interesting point in California history. The NRA held a lot of power at the state Capitol at the time. And a Republican George Deukmejian was a governor, but the public was so outraged that politicians sprang into action to do something about it.
Patrick: That's right. The legislature had killed other bills that, uh, would have regulated guns. ‘Cause the NRA basically held sway at the Capitol, but, uh, people on both sides of the aisle were, were really outraged by what happened in Stockton, you know, the children being killed and even the Republican governor, George Deukmejian, decided that it was time for change.
Gustavo: And what were the conversations going on at the time? Again, how did Democrats get Republicans who agree? Hey, we need to like, especially with these assault weapons, we need to do something about them.
Patrick: Yeah. So it was basically the same legislators that had in the past who tried to make one more effort and it was a heart full core press, basically. So, uh, at the time Mike Russo assemblyman, uh, decided that, uh, the law that had been proposed in the past, that sort of generally outlawed assault weapons was too vague and included many guns that hunters used and they were popular with hunters. So what Mike Rousseau and others did, was they went through catalogs, gun catalogs, and they picked 60 guns that were clearly assault weapons–used potentially more appropriate for the battlefield then in the state of California. And they wrote a bill limited to the weapons ban to those assault weapons. And they did a lot of work with their Republican and moderate-Democratic colleagues. They actually took them out to the California Highway Patrol shooting range and showed them the, sort of the devastating impact of an assault weapon. How many bullets it fires permitted, just awed a lot of people. And so that eventually it did get to governor Deukmejian and he sat down and listened. And Mike Rousseau said he was very sober about it. And eventually the Republican governor signed.
Gustavo: Yeah, this wasn't a case where, okay. You think of a gun, you think of one singular bullet then again and again. No, this is just bullets being splattered against a wall in this case at a shooting range. Now imagine what it does to people. And as you wrote in your story for the Times, California had had this long history with gun violence. What were some of the other key events right before the Stockton massacre that also weighed on the minds of these politicians?
Patrick: Yeah, there was a terrible shooting in San Ysidro and a McDonald's that took more than 20 lives. Um, there had been other, uh, mass shootings and, but this one, I think, because it involved children really, uh, caused the motions to change in the Capitol, people started looking at the issue a lot differently.
Gustavo: Yeah. The San Ysidro massacre happened in 1984 and in Stockton, it was mostly refugee children, Cambodian children, who got killed and the person who did the shooting, a report later on found out that he wanted to specifically target Asians in the massacre that happened. So this ban that happened in 1989, how consequential was it in the ensuing three decades and lowering the number of gun deaths and injuries we've seen in California?
Patrick:So in the state's defense of its law in the court papers, they said that the number of gun deaths went down by half, um, from 1993 to 2000. So that in 2000, uh, 2,900 people died, but previously over 5,000 had died. And then, you know, after California acted, uh, other states acted and there was a national gun ban, uh, enacted by Congress in 1994. And the state's court papers said that, uh, basically, uh, before, when the new federal law took effect, it cut, uh, the number of mass shootings and deaths by about 40%. And after it was, uh, lifted, cause it, it ran for 10 years and then it expired and wasn't renewed, uh, gun deaths soared by more than a hundred percent in the years after that.
Gustavo: And the federal assault weapons ban, when did it expire?
Patrick: So it ran from 1994 to 2004.
Gustavo: And why wasn't it renewed?
Patrick: Well, you know, Diane Feinstein, the Senator who was sponsor of the original bill just couldn't get the votes. I mean, uh, Congress was divided, you had years where Republicans held control in one of the houses.And it just hasn't gone anywhere and they've, they're still attempting it to this day.
Gustavo: And of course we're Feinstein, Daisha was personal, not just because of all the massacres that happened in California, but also because of her own career in San Francisco. She was there when, uh, Harvey Milk and George Moscone, uh, the, the supervisor and mayor of San Francisco were killed. Not by assault weapons, but nevertheless, gun violence.
Patrick: Yeah, exactly. Ever since that incident, uh, she was in City Hall when it happened, she feels like there should be some sort of restriction on them on hand guns, as well as assault weapons.
Gustavo: We'll be back after this break.
Gustavo: So this assault weapons ban in California stayed on the books for over 30 years. The gun lobby despised it and fought it all these years, all these decades, but nothing ever happened. But then here comes US District Court Judge Roger Benitez and his July 4th permanent injunction. It ruled the ban like you couldn't do it anymore. And his arguments were pretty, uh, pretty passionate.
Patrick: Yeah. I mean, he said essentially it was unconstitutional that you can't, um, outlaw a gun that is commonly used and that he likened it to a Swiss army knife. His quote was, um, “It's good for both a battle and home.” So, and his comments actually, you made a lot of people, uh, even angrier because they didn't see the logic of his argument. They thought he was politicizing it. And so, as you said, attorney general Bonta took it right to the appeals. The appeals court puts Benitez's ruling on ice for awhile, until the decision is made on the merits of the law. But definitely a challenge to one of the top bands, and it's potentially going to have repercussions in other states.
Gustavo: And at the same time Judge Benitez ruling also inspired a lot of cheering from the gun lobby. Uh, our colleague, Laura Nelson did a whole story about there's like a cult almost around judge Benitez, where they call them like St. Benitez of the holy AK-47 or something.
Patrick: Yeah, he's got a, you know, the gun rights groups are really, uh, seeing that he's the way to get this whole thing thrown out because they believe there's long-term strategy is maybe the appeals court overrules Benitez. Their strategy is to get to the U.S. Supreme court, that after president Trump is a lot more conservative, than it was before.And they believe that if this gets the US Supreme court, uh, gun laws, many of them including this one potentially will be set aside.
Gustavo:And Benitez's ruling right now is on hold though, because of the appeal by California Attorney General Bonta and also pending decisions in other gun cases. What are those cases about and how could they affect the injunction of Benitez?
Patrick: Yeah, the big one is Benitez has put a challenge or decided that there was a law that he didn't think it was constitutional. And basically it would have banned, uh, ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, which are commonly used with assault weapons. In the San Bernardino terrorist attack, they found many of these large capacity magazines and, uh, the state, uh, basically the legislature, uh, banned those magazines, but the gun rights groups sued immediately and the judge overturned it.
Gustavo: And in the meanwhile gun rights advocates, as you said earlier across the country, they're worried about what judge Benitez ruling is going to mean for similar laws.
Patrick: Yeah, not only potentially the US Supreme Court overruling the law, but also potentially damaging the political chances of the federal Congress enacting, reenacting, an assault weapon ban. I mean, basically it might be harder for people in Congress to vote for one, if the whole thing is up in the air in California.
Gustavo: And then finally attorney general of California, Rob Bonta, what is he saying in why he's appealing a Benitez’s ruling?
Patrick: Yeah. He says that Benitez’s decision has no merit, that it has no, uh, there's no logic to it in terms of the law and the constitution. That the other assault weapon bans have been challenged in court and the courts have upheld them as constitutional that the government has to, uh, ban weapons that it feels are a danger to the public. Uh, it has to sort of counter the second amendment rights of gun owners with an argument that this is a weapon that potentially has extraordinary, uh, risk to the public health.
Gustavo: Thank you so much for this interview, Patrick.
Patrick: You're welcome.
Gustavo: Exactly one year ago, a transportation worker shot and killed nine of his coworkers in San Jose before killing himself.
The massacre prompted mayor Sam Liccardo to pursue ordinances to clamp down on gun violence.
All gun owners would have to buy liability insurance and pay an annual fee to cover costs related to gun violence.
And prior to those moves, the San Jose city council approved another ordinance that requires all gun sellers to videotape in-person gun sales.
None of this has ever been attempted in the United States.
And now other municipalities are getting inspired to try and do the same.
Mayor Sam, welcome to the times.
Mayor Liccardo: Great to be with you, Gustavo.
Gustavo: When did you think to yourself that requiring gun insurance, paying an annual fee, videotaping all purchases? That, that would be a crucial way to help stop gun violence in San Jose.
Mayor Liccardo:Well, we've been working on this for a couple of years, looking for a variety of solutions, because we know there's not going to be one panacea. I, you know, unlike with a Coronavirus where there's one vaccine, we, we've got a challenge with 300 million guns in this country. And so it's going to take a lot of different solutions. So we've been working on different, uh, items. And so we got over the goal line, this requirement to videotape gun purchases, uh, and audio taped them because we think at least the evidence shows that it is an important way to be able to crack down on the third party straw man purchases of guns by criminal organizations that are trying to get guns illegally. So, so we're going to try a lot of different, uh, options. We know not nearly enough is being done at the federal level. So more and more cities are simply having to step up.
Gustavo: What's the financial burden right now in San Jose because of gun violence?
Mayor Liccardo: Well, we've got a consultant, actually. He's looking at that very question. Uh, if you looked at the collective costs of the community, uh, the estimate he came up with was more than $440 million, and we're a city of about 1 million residents, um, If you just looked at the taxpayers and what they're paying simply for response for emergency rooms and, and police officers and so forth, the number is a little north of $40 million.
Gustavo: Per year?
Mayor Liccardo: Every year, that's right. So, uh, there's no question there's been an enormous burden is being imposed on all of us because of gun violence, whether we're directly impacted by the devastation of the violence or not. Uh, and the reality is you know, taxpayers are subsidizing gun owners and I'm not sure that a lot of taxpayers are aware of that.
Gustavo:Yeah, With costs like that. It seems that trying to clamp down on gun violence actually helps out the bottom line of the city. At least that that's, that's some of the thinking because.
Mayor Liccardo: Yeah. I mean, we'd all love to have more resources for emergency medical response, for example. And if it just so happens that we know this is a cause for that cost or that expense, we should be able to charge a fee to be able to recover it.
Gustavo: So the ordinances let's go through them under the liability insurance one, is it retroactive? Do current gun owners have to buy it as well?
Mayor Liccardo: Yeah, the idea is that as soon as we get it formally enacted everyone who owns a gun would have to have insurance. Uh, and the good news is that insurance is pretty widely available. In fact, many homeowners and renters already have a policy that includes it. And if you don't have it, you can usually get a rider for next to nothing or no additional costs. So, um, we think that's pretty easy for folks to comply with and we simply want to make sure people are actually getting the insurance and they're aware of it, because we know there are a lot of victims who are not compensated, uh, for, um, accidental shootings. And there's more than 27,000 of those injuries every year and more than 500 deaths every year. And we also happen to live in a country with more than four and a half million kids who live in a home where a gun is loaded and unlocked. And so there's a lot of things that insurance companies would be requiring gun owners to do, to get discounts, for example, on, on the premiums. And if an insurance company can encourage folks to get a gun safe, to get a trigger lock, to take a gun safety class, then we're going to have a lot safer kids in this country. And that's not a bad thing.
Gustavo: And if people refuse to buy the insurance, the liability insurance, what would be the penalties?
Mayor Liccardo:Yeah, so we didn't want to criminalize the failure to get insurance, but there would be fines and there would be the ability for most importantly, I think for the police to seize guns.So we know, obviously crooks aren't going to comply with the law criminals. Don't do that. Um, but what this does, is it gives Officer's a tool. So when they're responding to the domestic violence call and they ask the question, as they always ask, is there a gun in the home? And they find the gun and they don't find any evidence of anyone having gotten that insurance. Uh, then it provides an easy mechanism for the police to get an unsafe gun out of the unsafe hands. Uh, and that is, I think what might be the best benefit. This approach, which is: we can clearly distinguish those gun owners who are lawful, we're going to comply. And those gun owners we know are not going to comply with the law and get the guns out of their hands.
Gustavo: We'll be back after this break.
Gustavo: Mayor Liccardo, so we were talking about how all gun owners in San Jose would be required to get liability insurance, but they would also have to pay a fee as well, right?
Mayor Liccardo: Yeah. I mean, these two policies are really designed to have sort of different functions, insurance, obviously compensates victims of gun harm. Uh, and it also hopefully encourages safer behavior. That's what we see for example, uh, in the case of drivers, we know we get good driver discounts or we use, uh, ABS brakes or, or get airbags and we get discounts. So we think insurance can help make for safer gun ownership and compensate victims. With the fee, the goal is simply to compensate taxpayers. Uh, and the state of California, taxpayers are paying more than $1.4 billion a year for emergency rooms, for emergency medical response, and the ambulances and police to respond to gun violence. And so if our taxpayers are subsidizing gun violence in this state, then we ought to be doing what we can to compensate taxpayers because certainly the second amendment protects everyone's right to own a gun, but it doesn't require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership and that's what we're getting at.
Gustavo: And then another ordinance that San Jose approved that would require gun sellers to videotape all transactions. How much would that cost for the retailers?
Mayor Liccardo: Yeah, and that's something we have actually approved already. But, um, what we know is that for all the gun stores that, that we've investigated, they already have video equipment, obviously in their stores for their own safety, but we're simply required that they point the camera at the transaction and audio and video record what's happening there in the transaction. And the whole goal here is we know that straw purchasing, uh, is a term used to describe, uh, you know, what happens when a criminal organization, a gang goes and finds somebody who can go buy a gun, uh, and, and to get the gun for them. Right? And we, we know that there are thousands of guns that get into the wrong hands this way. By actually videotaping and audio taping, we can verify identity of who's buying the gun. Uh, and that helps us also, it helps law enforcement be able to track down when there are straw purchasing rings going on, but who's really the one who's the culprit.
Gustavo: And as you mentioned earlier, this isn't the first time you've been pushing or proposing such measures in 2019, the San Jose city council also tried something similar in the wake of a massacre at the Gilroy Garlic Festival. Gilroy is a city about half an hour south of San Jose. Why do you think it went nowhere then? And what do you attribute the passage of the ordinances now?
Mayor Liccardo: Well, let me explain. It's a little more complicated than that. Um, we introduced the, the fee and the insurance proposal back in 2019. It never actually went to a vote of the council. Um, what we knew at the time, and as we've learned more about is, uh, we needed to go do some work to get essentially a study done, uh, to ensure that whatever we passed would be legal. So we need an economist to go figure out what is the cost to taxpayers of gun ownership and gun violence in our community. So we can actually assess the correct fee and under state law, if we charge too much for that fee, then this fee will get struck down in court. And so we had to go do that work and we had to do that in collaboration with the county whose it has got epidemiologists and other folks. And we got interrupted by a pandemic, obviously that caught everyone's attention in the health department. Uh, so, so everything's slowed down. We're now at a place where everybody's able to work on this and we can get this over the goal line.
Gustavo: There's critics, of course, a lot of critics and they have a roster of critiques against you. That what you propose violates the second amendment that it violates California's preemption law, which doesn't allow municipalities supersede state laws that all you're doing is grandstanding that these ordinances place an unfair burden on law abiding good citizens.So your response to all those critiques?
Mayor Liccardo: Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of complex legal issues there and I'm happy to, let me just take the biggest one, which is, “Hey, this is a constitutional right. How can you charge a fee in some way that might impose on folks in their ability to exercise that constitutional right?” And first, uh, there's no question, if someone does not have the resources to pay the fee, for example, uh, we need to provide a waiver process, uh, and there's a pretty standard way of doing it. We just have someone fill out a waiver it says I'm eligible for food stamps, I can't afford it. Uh, but here's my signature saying that I attest that I'm trying my best to comply. That's all it's required. And that's pretty standard in lots of contexts. For example, uh, you know, the seventh amendment gives us all a right to be able to use the courts to file a lawsuit, to protect our constitutional rights. But there's a fee that's charged for filing lawsuits. This is standard stuff. So they have a waiver for folks who can't afford it. The rest of us pay a fee. There's no constitutional violation in that. Similarly, you know, we all have a first amendment right to association, but if you want to go form an organization, in this state or any other state, you go to the Secretary of State, uh, and this may be a political organization or some other, and you're going to pay a filing fee. This is not unusual, constitutional rights don't exist in a vacuum. It still costs public agencies something to enable folks to take advantage of those rights. And as long as the fees are reasonable, we expect this will pass.
Gustavo: How about the charges that you're only doing this to further your political career?
Mayor Liccardo:Yeah, I, you know, it's not a, uh, a great recipe for building widespread consensus. I can tell you that much, uh, you know, th- th- the hate mail and the hate email is certainly pouring in, uh, there's no question that this is controversial and it gets attention: yes. The only reason why it's controversial is because literally nothing is being done in Congress, right now. Uh, and Congress has completely abdicated its responsibility over this entire area and even something so simple as passing the assault weapons ban, which expired about a decade and a half ago. It seems to be nearly impossible. And so inevitably, you're going to see mayors and local officials stepping up to say, “Look, if you guys aren't going to do something to protect my residents, I’m gonna.” And we're all going to try and I've got a lot of other mayors throughout the country who have been emailing me and calling me saying, “Tell me how it goes.” We want to jump in, you know, and, and look, obviously everybody wants to see, is it going to get through the courts or not? And, and that's going to be the battle. Uh, I expect we'll get plenty of lawsuits. Uh, no good deed when it comes to gun regulation, no good deed goes on litigated and we're gonna push and make sure that, um, we're doing everything in a way that's constitutional, and legally compliant.
Gustavo: You mentioned, mayor, the federal assault weapons bans that, uh, expired about 13 years ago. Well, here in California, there was a state assault weapons ban that was just found unconstitutional this year by a federal judge, given that court ruling and others. What makes you think that San Jose will be able to succeed in court once these lawsuits inevitably come against those ordinances?
Mayor Liccardo: Uh, there's no question. There's a deep divide in the courts and an awful lot is gonna depend on what the composition of the judges is on whatever panel you happen to draw on the ninth circuit or the Supreme Court that day. We're going to do everything we can. And we've been working with a great team of, uh, organizations, including, uh, the Gifford Law Center, for example, it's been offering us a lot of legal assistance. We've got great attorneys and private firms who are offering their services pro bono…. We've got a lot of folks who are ready to jump in with us. And the good news is an awful lot of those are pretty good attorneys, uh, and, uh, they've been litigating a long time, so I'm confident we're going to find a path that's going to be legal and constitutional
Gustavo: Mayor Liccardo, thank you for the interview.
Mayor Liccardo: It's been great to be with you.
Gustavo: And that’s it for this episode of THE TIMES, daily news from the LA Times.
Our show is produced by Shannon Lin, Denise Guerra, Kasia Brousalian, David Toledo, Ashlea Brown, and Angel Carreras. Our editorial assistants are Madalyn Amato and Carlos De Loera. Our engineers are Mario Diaz, Mark Nieto and Mike Heflin. Our editor is Kinsee Morlan. Our executive producers are Jazmin Aguilera and Shani Hilton. And our theme music is by Andrew Eapen.
Like what you’re listening to? Then make sure to follow the Times on whatever platform you use.
I'm Gustavo Arellano. We'll be back tomorrow with all the news and desmadre. Gracias, and stay safe out there – and hug your loved ones..