Mr. Bill Lockyer
Attorney General
1300 I Street, 17th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Assault Weapon Task Force

Dear Mr. Lockyer:

         On behalf of the National Rifle Association, I want to thank you for including us as a member of your task force. As I mentioned during the December 12 meeting, I will serve in a "technical opposition" advisory role. I have been deeply involved in the "assault weapon" debate since 1988 and, as such, appreciate the profoundly vexing nature of the issue.

         As hope springs eternal, I assume that your advisors are convinced that they can legislatively return the "assault weapon" genie to its bottle. I also assume that those from both sides of the issue would agree that the current state of "assault weapon" affairs is nothing less than chaotic. Ten years and the best efforts of gifted attorneys and legislative staff have brought us to this point.

         At the core of the problem that you face is the belief that "assault weapons" can be regulated by imposing new restrictions on removable parts. It is difficult to take such a notion seriously. The "new" generic approach contained in SB 23 (Perata) is the "old" generic approach that was rejected by your legislative colleagues and law enforcement in 1989. I have come to admire both the tenacity of Senator Perata and the quality of this staff. SB 23 is the latest version of his four bill odyssey that began in December of 1996. One must assume that SB 23 represents the most refined understanding of the issue and the most precise response to date. Some of its many elements that would frighten even gun control proponents are the bans on both Civil War era and contemporary deer rifles and the criminalization of the handing of a bolt action tube feed .22 rimfire rifle by a parent to his/her child. This would be one of the most extreme and draconian gun control bills ever presented to the California Legislature. If SB 23, as introduced, is a serious legislative offering, it is devoid of law enforcement value while posing serious and unnecessary threats to unwitting violators.

         During the December 12 meeting, Dick Iglehart from the San Francisco District Attorneys office spoke to the importance of defining technical terms in "assault weapon" legislation. During the subsequent meeting of the smaller working group, there was discussion of leaving terms like "conspicuously protruding pistol grip" and "permanent alterations" of magazines undefined and deal with the problem in the "rule-making" process. Such an approach would be wrong and unfair. These definitions form the core of "assault weapon" legislation. If Senator Perata or your advisors know what they want those terms to mean - it should be in the legislation so that the members of both houses of the legislature can make an informed decision.

         So-called "assault weapons" are now your burden. I expect that you will be forced to choose between good law and good politics. Neither former Attorney General John Van de Kamp nor your immediate predecessor, Dan Lungren was well-served politically by "assault weapons". It is my hope that the work of your task force will deepen your understanding of this issue. I believe with new information, what once seemed so simple will prove to be daunting

         In a recent LA Times story you said "We're only going to supply ideas to the Legislature and the Governor's office. They can take them up or not. It's up to them." That may not be enough. If what they decide to do cannot be fairly implemented or subsequently managed by either your staff or your subordinate district attorneys, then it will be your responsibility to stand against it. As evidenced by AB 48 (Wright), law abiding firearm owners in California have been victimized by a combination of imprecise law and executive level bumbling for many years.

         Your predecessor never accepted his leadership responsibilities concerning "assault weapons". I hope that you will.