If Assemblyman Miguel Santiago gets his way, Californian’s would only be allowed to purchase 1 firearm per month according to Assembly Bill 1674.
The Bill, AB 1674 caps the amount of firearms that may be purchased by a person at one per month – the same restriction currently in place for handguns.
Assemblymember Santiago noted that, “It is past time for us to treat long guns the same as handguns – they hold equal powers of destruction and create major problems for law enforcement, and society in general, when they fall into the wrong hands.”
Here is a copy of his Press Release:
Assembly Majority Whip, Miguel Santiago, Introduces Legislation to Reduce Gun Trafficking in California
Earlier today, the Majority Whip of the State Assembly, Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles), introduced Assembly Bill 1674 to help reduce gun violence in California. AB 1674 caps the amount of firearms that may be purchased by a person at one per month – the same restriction currently in place for handguns.
“Reducing gun violence is an issue that is of vital importance to me,” said Assemblymember Santiago.
“It is mind boggling that a person – no matter their intentions – could purchase as many rifles or shotguns that they want at any given time,” continued the Assemblymember. “This is a common sense solution to gun violence in California.”
Historically, policymakers have believed that the bulk of gun violence is perpetuated by handguns. Recent data collection efforts in California and elsewhere have refuted that theory, however and also revealed that long guns are a significant piece of California’s gun trafficking problem.
Over the past ten years, Californians have typically purchased more long guns than handguns, including 538,149 guns in 2013. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Automated Firearms Systems database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns . Furthermore, DOJ has found that half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons are long guns .
A 2007 University of Pennsylvania report to the National Institute of Justice found that a quarter of all guns used in crimes were purchased as part of a multiple-gun sale, and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually. Further, “guns sold in multiple sales also had an elevated risk of being recovered … from someone other than the last registered buyer.”
Moreover, experts believe that unstable individuals frequently attempt to stockpile large quantities of weapons for use in mass shootings . An examination of forensic data collected from the mass shootings that have occurred in the United States throughout the last 30 years shows that 72 (exactly half) of the weapons used in those crimes were long guns: rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic versions thereof. Of the 11 mass shootings in California, nearly the same is true: 12 long guns were used along with 16 handguns .
Assemblymember Santiago noted that, “It is past time for us to treat long guns the same as handguns – they hold equal powers of destruction and create major problems for law enforcement, and society in general, when they fall into the wrong hands.”
“The 26 California Chapters of the Brady Campaign fully support AB 1674 to prevent illegal trafficking of long guns, including “bullet button” assault weapons, that often wind up in the hands of dangerous and prohibited people,” said Amanda Wilcox, legislative co-chair of the California Brady Campaign Chapters. “We applaud Assemblymember Santiago for his leadership on this legislation that will make our communities safer while protecting the ability of law-abiding hunters and sport shooters to purchase long guns.”
“We thank Assemblymember Santiago for introducing this important legislation,” said Juliet Leftwich, Legal Director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “Studies have shown that firearms sold in multiple purchases to the same buyer are frequently used in crime and that laws limiting multiple purchases help reduce gun trafficking. The California Legislature enacted a law to limit the purchase of handguns to one per person per month in 1999. We encourage the Legislature to enact AB 1674 to impose similar limitations on the purchases of long guns, given the significant role they play in our gun violence epidemic. AB 1674 would not unduly burden law-abiding Californians, who would still be able to buy 12 long guns a year.”
AB 1674 is likely to be referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee for a hearing in March.
Assemblymember Miguel Santiago is the Majority Whip of the California State Assembly and sits on the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee. He represents the 53rd District composed of the cities of Los Angeles, Huntington Park, and Vernon.
Koper, Christopher S.; Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, Univ. of Penn., Crime Gun Risk Factors: Buyer, Seller, Firearm, and Transaction Characteristics Associated with Gun Trafficking and Criminal Gun Use — A report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice (2007). https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221074.pdf.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., School Shooters: The Warning Signs (Jul. 29, 2014), https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/school_shooters_warning_signs_1.1.pdf
28 comments
People can still buy 12 guns per year. How many do they want to have?
Maybe we should limit lawmakers to proposing just 1 law per month. Fair is fair.
Doesn’t this politician have real problems to solve. According to FBI 2014 statistics for California more people are murdered with knives, clubs, hands and feet than are murdered by all rifles and shotguns combined. Long guns are used in a small percentage of firearms murders. How about writing laws that hold actual criminals responsible for their actions instead of proposing more feel good gun laws that do nothing to stop real criminals who don’t buy their guns in gun stores? How about enforcing real gun laws that hold the criminal responsible for the criminal misuse of a gun instead of limiting the rights of honest law abiding citizens?
Because it is their personal hate for guns and AGENDA has blinded them, they Don’t care how they are betraying the law abiding citizens of California, they are sitting in Sacramento and are having a field DAY at yours and my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND EXPENSE.
SHAME ON THEM.
IF SOMEONE ALREADY OWNS MANY HANDGUNS AND RIFLES, WHY SHOULD THEY NOT BE ABLE TO BUY MULTI GUNS.
THUS ASSEMBLYMAN IS JUST ANOTHER DEMOCRAT SHEEP OR A MONKEY, TAKE YOUR PICK, TRYING TO MAKE A NAME FOR HIMSELF AT OUR EXPENSE.
LOOK AT HIS FACE, DUMB IS PRINTED ALL OVER IT.
Robert, because their objective is not to keep the community safe, it’s an AGENDA OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THEIR HATE FOR GUNS, they rather see people die by knives and CLUBS, AS LONG AS GUNS ARE ERADICATED FROM THIS STATE.
HOW IS THIS GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE , when someone already owns msny rifkes and handguns previously purchased.
THIS IS WHY I SAY IT’S AN AGENDA, NOT TO KEEP US SAFE, BUT TO DISARM US.
I wonder if and how this would effect people that hold an FFL/03 along with a C.O.E. (collector of curios relics).
How would this law stop a criminal or psycho bent on committing a mass shooting? If someone can’t purchas e, say, 5 rifles now, then they just buy 5 over a 5 month span. Will delaying the evil intent really help?
Perhaps current laws should be enforced and law abiding citizens shouldn’t be hindered from exercising their constitutional right.
John, nothing they do makes sense, they are doing this based on their PERSONAL HATE AND AGENDA AND IF THEY COULD, they would DISARM ALL OF US.
Look at his face, smiling and laughing at us, SAYING YES WE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE HOUSE AND WE WILL CRUSAFIE YOU WITH OUR PASSIONATE HATE AND GUN BANNING AGENDA.
Society will never come to an agreement on guns, so why bother? I understand both arguments.
because it’s a basic right, that is guaranteed to not be infringed by the Constitution, just like the one you used to say “why bother”…it is not about agreements, it’s about not allowing the erosion and elimination of those rights which are inalienable… that is why you should bother Jennifer.
This is not gun contral.
Anytime you have a law that puts any type of restrictions such as when you pick it up, amount you can purchase, what you can or cannot have, its gun control.
We’ve had gun control for decades in California, the first waiting period for handguns started in 1952. If you track CA waiting period, you would see that with each passing year that crime was going up. Progressive politicians push gun control and have been pushing gun control for 6 decades now, we have seen dismal results. Politicians simply do not realize or they do not understand that criminals do not obey gun laws. They still believe that gun control will lead them to a gun free, violence free utopia. They are in a world of winged horses and unicorns.
This is the most gun hating state assembly members ever assembled in California, these people are passing unfair laws at the expense of all the law abiding citizen of California.
If someone already owns many handguns or rifles, why should they be subjected to these absurd laws, I swear they have no clue what they are doing.
These Democrats are passing ANTI GUN LAWS IN MOST HATEFUL VINDICTIVE MANNER EVER.
SHAME ON THEM, SHAME ON THEM.
They ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT DOING THIS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLUC, it’s only to MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES and are PRESSING A PERSONAL GUN HATING AGENDA.
THEY ARE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED SACRAMENTO and there is no body SENSIBLE TO STOP THEM FROM PASSING THESE UNFAIR HATEFUL GUN LAWS.
There needs to be big law suit brought upon these people, THERE PERSONAL FEELINGS HATE AND AGENDA FOR GUNS HAS BLINDED THEM FROM REALITY AND I WILL SAY AGAIN.
SHAME ON THEM, I LOVE TO SEE THEM IN A LIFE AND DEATH SITUATION ONE DAY UNARMED, THEN THEY WILL UNDERSTAND HOW WE THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN OF CALIFORNIA FEEL BEING BETRAYED LIKE THUS BY THESE communists.
What a moron this idiot ought to go out and try to shoot two rifles at once the tell me how that stupid idea of Senior Santiagos is going to stop gun violence , as was pointed out there are more issues which need more attention the only thing this law would affect are honest business’s right to do business . Try spending our tax dollars on training our police force to shoot so there will be fewer innocent bystanders being shot by unskilled officers.
Officers are trained and skilled. Most agencies shoot multiple times a year. I believe APD shoots monthly. Very rarely do innocent bystanders get shot by the police, so find another scapegoat.
What I meant by “why bother” is it’s a conversation going nowhere, and society will never come to terms on gun issues. It’s like arguing about abortion or gay marriage. Good luck getting people to agree. Agree to disagree and move on.
Hi Jennifer, I think where it gets emotional and personal is its one thing to have an opinion and move on, its another if ones belief is imposed upon a person or people, such as a politician wanting to put limits or even a ban on guns. A good way to look at gun control is to ask yourself how will it affect me in terms of possibly taking away a choice that I want to have on whether or not to purchase one. You may recall the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, emergency services such as police were not available because all law enforcement was tied up trying to maintain order. Fearful citizens ran to gun stores and wanted to make immediate over the counter purchases only to find out they had to deal with a simple waiting period. As one guy put it: “The gun control that I supported came back and bit me.”
Jerry, thank you for wonderful comment, sadly this person and his alikes, think they know what’s best for you and pass laws BASED ON THEIR PASSION OF HATE FOR GUNS AND THEIR OBJECTIVE AND AGENDA, IS TO EVENTUALLY DISARM ALL OF US.
Some decisions to do the right thing are hard to make but must be done. Dig into the statistics for firearms, violent crimes and compare them to other countries. Compare violence statistics between cities and rural communities, democratic vs. republican run governments, self defense vs. justifiable homicide vs murders vs accidents vs suicide. Intentional vs unintentional. Really look at the information and sources used by the NRA, FBI, Violence Policy Center, Everytown for Gun Safety and such. Look at the facts carefully. Your conclusion will be easier to come to.
This guy is so DUMB FOUNDED, HE CAN’T BELIEVE HE IS ACTUALLY SITTING WHERE HE IS, thanks to his COMMUNITY.
ALL these Democrats got there by default, none of them are qualified to run this state.
The Democratic party will be known in U.S. history as the party that was the foundation of the DOWN FALL OF OUR SOCIETY.
Santiago is prime example and the REST OF THE LUNATICS IN SACRAMENTO.
This will only hurt the collectors, manufactures, and economy. It does nothing to reduce crime. More time should be spent on enforcing existing laws. Making more laws to restrict honest law abiding citizens only makes it easier for the criminals and convicts to prey on society. If the lawmakers are bored and have nothing to do, start repealing redundant laws. There are thousands.
That the whole Agenda, to hurt collectors and put gun stores out of business, these Democrats are like Parasites, driving their gun hating Agenda and disarming California.
Why do I picture you with Yosemite as your first name, Sam?
Well, Anon, based on your comment, I guess you like the Bugs bunnies that are running our state, so you don’t like Yosemite Sam.
These guys are not passing these laws for any good reason, none of them will ever reduce crimes, it’s just the personal venomous Agenda of the Democratic party, to rub it in their face, Republican party. It’s their way of getting even and feel good thing and disarming me and you.
You my friend, you really need to wake up.
Sam,
They will only disarm good citizens and arm criminals. Yosemite is a good name. Where is Rambo in all this ?
Santiago must be daft. Look at the undeniable results of other gun control efforts nationwide and in the state:
– Federal “assault weapons” ban 1994 – 2004 – During the ban, a proliferation of both models and sales of firearms that were not quite covered by the ban. After the expiration of the ban, a massive increase in firearms that would have been covered by the ban, and in companies that manufacture them.
– State “assault weapons” ban – A proliferation of not-quite-an-assault-weapons, and you can be sure that the current effort to restrict “bullet button” rifles will result in a huge increase in their popularity. Many people will decide to buy them while they still can, and those who choose to register them during the grace period will then be able to reconfigure them legally with standard magazine releases. Net result: A vast increase in the number of registered, grandfathered “assault weapons” in the state.
– “Safe handgun” chapter of the Penal Code – A large increase in handgun sales in spite of the gradual attrition of choices available to handgun buyers. The decision by Attorney General Kamala Harris to implement the code requiring microstamping, a feature that does not exist on any firearm manufactured in the world, guarantees that the entire chapter will end up in court and very likely gutted. BTW, why are California police officers allowed to carry weapons that are deemed unsafe by the state? It makes no sense at all.
– City of Los Angeles banning grandfathered magazines that hold more than 10 rounds – Not a single magazine turned in to law enforcement by the deadline. A complete failure.
If what you REALLY want to do is reduce the sales of rifles and shotguns, proposing a limit of one per month is possibly the worst choice you could possibly make.
David, their whole thing is to push their anti gun Agenda, it’s very clear that they just want to inject every ounce of their Venom to the gum owners
These people hate guns and frankly if they had the balls, which they don’t, they would straight out say turn them all in, every gun even revolvers, so what do they do. They pass insane stupid laws, to EVENTUALLY LEAD INTO THAT INDIRECTLY.
You gave the examples, the micro stamp is a very clear way that CAMEL THE HARRIS, OBAMA LOVER DID. She knowingly passed, because she knows it doesn’t exist and did anyways, she figured let it get RAPPED UP IN COURTS FOR YEARS, mean while it will eliminate semiauto handguns for now.
This Santiago is another want to be BABOON, if someone owns 10 guns for example, why should that person be deprived of buying few out a time, if he wants to do anything crazy, he already has enough to do so.
I just wish all of them fall sick to some disease that will make them visit forest lawn very very fast.
Comments are closed.