Confiscation comes to California
Lungren fulfills Feinstein's fantasy  

By Daryl N. Davis 

They said it would never happen. Any suggestion that it would was derided as "NRA paranoia." They told us they only wanted "reasonable controls."  
Well, it has happened. Gun confiscation is now the law in California. Thank you, Dan Lungren!  

  In a letter dated November 24, 1997, The Man Who Would Be Governor declared that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can prove they acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal "and must be relinquished to a local police or sheriff's department." This is a reversal of the opinion held by Mr. Lungren from the time he took office in January 1991, and which has been conveyed in numerous training sessions for peace officers, criminalists and prosecutors during the past four years.  
  When the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) became law in January 1989, it included "SKS with detachable magazine." At that time, there were two distinct models-one with a fixed magazine (Type 56) and one with a detachable, AK-47 magazine (Type 84). President Bush banned importation of the Type 84 in 1990. Later that year, aftermarket detachable magazines (which are not interchangeable with the AK-47 magazine) became available for SKS rifles originally designed to use only a fixed magazine.  
Until September 1997, Mr. Lungren's position had been that only the Type 84 was an "assault weapon." He allowed the sale of the aftermarket detachable magazines and of SKS rifles equipped with them. He also allowed the sale of the SKS Sporter, basically a Type 84 that, in compliance with the import restrictions imposed by President Bush, had its bayonet lug ground off and was fitted to a sporting stock rather than a military stock.  

  In September 1996, the Attorney General's office asked the state Supreme Court to "on its own motion order review of the Court of Appeals decision..." in the Dingman case. James Dingman had been convicted of possession of an unregistered assault weapon (Type 56 with detachable magazine) and his conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth District. Chief Deputy Attorney General (now candidate for Attorney General) David Stirling wrote:  
"The impact of the court's opinion cannot be over stated because of the millions of SKS rifles and after-market magazines currently in circulation. Tens of thousands of California citizens may become criminals simply by using a perfectly lawful rifle with a lawfully purchased magazine without adequate notice that such activity brings them within the proscriptions of the AWCA."  
  In October 1996, in response to the "unprecedented" request by the Attorney General, the Supreme Court granted review of the Dingman case. In February 1997, the Attorney General's office filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of Dingman; they asked that the opinion of the Court of Appeals be "reversed."  
  In September 1997, in response to a series of blatantly biased and aggressively uninformed hit pieces in the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Lungren reversed himself. He withdrew his amicus brief in the Dingman case, stating that it "inaccurately reflects the view of the Attorney General." Deputy Attorney General Paul Bishop, who had worked on the AWCA project since 1989, was transferred.  
Thanks to Mr. Lungren, "tens of thousands of California citizens" must either surrender their lawfully acquired property without compensation or become felons. Gun dealers throughout the state face felony prosecution, on individual counts, for each detachable magazine SKS they sold during the six years Mr. Lungren assured them it was legal to do so. Furthermore, the opinion does nothing to clarify what constitutes a "SKS with detachable magazine." Must the magazine be affixed to the rifle? With the rifle? The rifle in the owner's gun safe and the magazine buried somewhere in a box of miscellaneous parts in his/her garage?  
  On CBS's "60 Minutes" on February 5, 1995, Senator Dianne Feinstein declared, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright [firearms] ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." Thanks to Dan Lungren, Feinstein's fantasy is well on its way to becoming reality. Whether Mr. Lungren's fantasy of currying favor with the loony Left at the Los Angeles Times becomes reality, remains to be seen.  
What Should I Do?  
  1. If a law enforcement officer attempts to confiscate your SKS, live to fight another day. DO NOT RESIST! Do get a receipt, though.  
  2. Contact Governor Wilson and firmly but politely express your outrage at this situation. In addition to infringing the Second Amendment, the AG's position creates a taking of private property without just compensation (Fifth Amendment) and an ex post facto application of the Assault Weapons Control Act (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3).

Gov. Pete Wilson 
State Capitol 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Phone: 916-445-2864 FAX: 916-445-4633 

  3. Become active in your local NRA Members Council. You may call the Silicon Valley Members Council at 408-235-9175, 24 hours a day, for up to date legislative information or for information on contacting a Members Council in your area.  

 My short answer is one word, cleaned up for public posting, "manure." 

   Now, don't get me wrong. I do not want to see anybody, either patriot or police officer, get killed over this if it is at all avoidable. Even if, God forbid, it does come to that I would want the issue resolved with minimum bloodshed and loss of life. But it is my humble opinion for what those of you out there think it is worth that we are past the point where simply submitting to increasingly tyrannical governmental decrees is going to get us anywhere. 

   To put it simply, resistance is now the order of the day. I would suggest that the people who live in California plan at the very least to engage in passive resistance to this order. This would include but not be limited to finding various different creative ways to "hide" or "lose" the weapons in question. It also definitely includes all the standard peaceful means of trying to change the system that decent people have been using all along. As long as things can be handled peacefully, then we are duty and honor bound to handle them that way. 

   However, once the government of California or any of it's subordinate units actually starts trying to confiscate weaponry through some sort of cordon, search, seizure, raid or any other technique that makes outrageous and egregious use of armed force then there is no effective alternative but to meet it with such counterforce as is required to bring the operation to a halt. It was our Founding Fathers who decided over 220 years ago that the point in time to actually use lethal force in settling one's disputes with the government was when the government tried to forcefully confiscate the weaponry of the citizenry. The stage is now apparently being set in California for such operations by the current government there today. I see no reason why the response there should be any different now than it was back in Concord and Lexington on that fateful day of April 19, 1775.

   Because if it is not, then what do you do when after your SKS they come for your:
(1) Other weaponry, having now established the precedent that they can take any weapons they want if they only do it one type of weapon at a time?
(2) Automobile
(3) Real property
(4) Spouse
(5) Children

   All those receipts you saved aren't going to do you any good at all when you find out that what's coming out of those nozzles in the "re-education" camp shower isn't water.

- Mike Johnson
|Next Article|Back to Index|Back to CBG|

These  are the personal views of Mike Johnson. He was the elected spokesman of the North Central Florida Regional Militia. They are neither endorsed nor supported by Citizens For Better Government. They are presented for informational purposes only. 

Last Revision: January 25, 1997