Senator Jackson Proposes New Legislation Banning Specific Assault Weapons, Aims for Gun Reform



State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, who represents the 19th senatorial district — encompassing Santa Barbara County and parts of Ventura County — recently introduced a bill intended to ban certain types of assault shotguns, which, if passed, would expand an already existing assault weapons ban in California.

Prompted by the increased frequency of mass shootings around the nation, the bill could amend the ban on “smooth bore” shotguns with revolving cylinders to also include the usage and possession of “rifled bore” shotguns with revolving cylinders.

According to Jackson, legislation does not guarantee solutions for the issue of gun violence, but the purpose of the bill is to remain vigilant in updating California’s assault weapons ban, making the usage of certain highly dangerous weapons illegal.

“What I’m trying to do is stay a step ahead of these new technologies,” Jackson said. “The definition of an assault weapon is that the danger of the gun or firearm far outweighs any recreational use it may have. That is the criteria of this bill. Clearly the dangers, velocity, pinpoint accuracy [and] the speed with which it can be shot outweighs any recreational use that these weapons have.”

These shotguns contain a rifle barrel and a revolving cylinder, which contains two shells. Users must load and unload the gun, but if it is made to shoot six rounds without having to reload, the gun becomes more deadly. Manufacturers are now making guns using imprinting with a rifle barrel, in which the inside of the barrel is crafted to give the shot a greater velocity. This weapon is relatively new and can fire a large number of cartridges in a short

According to Jackson, who lived through and remembers the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., the country has seen increased gun violence throughout recent years. Jackson said the ban will help prevent people from having access to these specific firearms, lessening the possibility of future shootings.

“For me, I believe that gun violence is an epidemic in this country and we’ve got to do something to deal with the carnage that we’ve been seeing at Columbine, Aurora and particularly in Newtown,” Jackson said. “In far too many cases, access to firearms makes law-abiding citizens into criminals. Think about that. The young man who killed 20 children and six teachers all in Connecticut — he had no criminal record.”

Jackson said while the Second Amendment protects citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms, such a right is maintained for purposes of protection, hunting and recreation. However, the line drawn between these purposes and that of other uses becomes blurred due to the impact of popular American culture on common ideals and values, according to Jackson.

“I believe that the problem has three parts to it,” Jackson said. “One part is gun violence, another is mental health issues in many of these shooters, which we found out about too late, and the third component is that we live in a very violent society. We celebrate violence in this country, in our culture, and we really need to re-evaluate that.”

To tackle the issue of increased risks caused by such factors, Jackson said it is necessary to pass legislation that actively limits the use of firearms.

“I think the first step is to try to create measures of reducing access to firearms from people who should clearly not have them,” Jackson said. “We have to make sure to start moving forward with this.”

Michael Furlong, a professor in the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education Counseling, Clinical and School Psychology Department, said the bill is necessary in order to bring a measure of common sense to the restrictions on gun ownership.

“I avoid the use of the term ‘gun control’ because of all the irrational political history it has. The country seems to have firmly established the principal of Second Amendment rights, so there is no way that ‘gun control,’ as in substantially reducing the number of guns in the USA, will happen,” Furlong said. “I prefer the term ‘common sense gun regulations’ because this does not convey banning firearms but implementing regulations and procedures that make access to guns more reasonable and allow the sale of guns that have a clear sporting function.”

Furlong said when discussing the issue of gun accessibility and possession, the possibility that the weapons could be used for self-harm is commonly overlooked.

“Suicide is a problem and the debate over having guns for self-defense belies the reality that they are more likely to be used for self-annihilation,” Furlong said. “This issue seems to get completely lost in the broader discussion about guns.”

According to Jeremy Wenger, a fourth-year economics major, the bill is not necessary and goes against Second Amendment rights.

“The senator is going after a gun that is way less dangerous than other guns available,” Wenger said. “This thing can only shoot five rounds before reload, hardly a large number in comparison to other legal shotguns. This bill is essentially a publicity stunt to say she is banning ‘assault shotguns’ when in fact she is not. Time and effort would be better spent on the mental health issues that lead to gun violence than on the circuit judge.”

Jackson’s bill will be officially introduced this week as part of a package of bills that aims to reduce access to guns — including one calling for more extensive records of gun ownership and another requiring more safety training upon purchase. Jackson hopes the bill will eventually lead to reform on a national level.

“I don’t think that arming every citizen in this country is going to do anything to end gun violence.” Jackson said. “When we see that guns are introduced to a situation, the level of danger and violence and death increases geometrically. This is not the answer to the problem. The answer to the problem is to treat people’s mental health and to reduce our consistent use of violence to resolve disputes.”

A version of this article appeared on page 1 of February 20th 2013’s print edition of the Daily Nexus.
Print Friendly

9 Responses to Senator Jackson Proposes New Legislation Banning Specific Assault Weapons, Aims for Gun Reform

  1. limos Reply

    April 9, 2013 at 12:45 am

    What’s up, from Hidden Hills, California I want to mention, I enjoyed this post. However, it is strange how I ended up on your post. I searched for limousine service in kansas city on Lycos and ended up on your website. I must say I do like your site and will check back soon. But I need to find the limo I was originally looking for first. Have a happy day! adieu.

  2. Jim Reply

    February 21, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    Cartridge firing revolving rifles and shotguns have been around since the 1860s. The campaign against the Rossi Circuit Judge, a five-shot, manually loaded revolving rifle just demonstrates the ultimate aim of the gun ban lobby to take away all firearms and leave the electorate totally defenseless against the political class.

  3. matt clark Reply

    February 21, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    There is more people killes in drunk driveng acidents than mass shootings so why dont they ban alcohol.

  4. jonesy Reply

    February 21, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    “In far too many cases, access to firearms makes law-abiding citizens into criminals. Think about that.”

    OK…I thought about it. It’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Explain to me how the mere presence of a firearm turns people into murders…mine must not work, and I even have one of those evil ARs.

    “…while the Second Amendment protects citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms, such a right is maintained for purposes of protection, hunting and recreation.”

    Not even close…none of that is mentioned ANYwhere in the 2A. George Washington did not kick the British out of America so we could shoot ducks and sporting clays. None of our Nation’s founders would agree with that statement. The 2A is expressly for maintaining freedom against a tyrannical government. Protection and recreation are positive 2nd order effects of being armed.

    “…but implementing regulations and procedures that make access to guns more reasonable and allow the sale of guns that have a clear sporting function.”

    *facepalm* Any gun could be used for sporting purposes. Let’s not try to make the distiction that a gun with a “clear sporting function” isn’t lethal. When speaking about lethality, ANY gun can be lethal, no matter the caliber, how many rounds it holds or what it looks like.

    Senator Jackson and Professor Furlong lack a constitutional understanding of the right to bear arms in our country. I wish progressives would stop trying to rewrite history behind the 2A or regulate it into oblivion. Our Founders developed this wonderful system of government that allowed us to AMEND the constitution. If you aren’t happy with the 2A, then simply make a case to repeal it, or propose a replacement.

  5. kimberwarrior45 Reply

    February 21, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    Wow, Senator Jackson has a unique view of the problem with certain firearms as stated “Clearly the dangers, velocity, pinpoint accuracy [and] the speed with which it can be shot outweighs any recreational use that these weapons have.” Well now, let us look at these in reverse. As a matter of fact a revolver “shoots” faster than a semi-auto or even a full auto. That is why the military use rotating cannons or Gatling guns rather than machine guns on aircraft and if you have ever watched Jerry Miculek shot his revolver this will prove it. Now she also finds that having pinpoint accuracy, an accurate weapon, is another problem. Of course it would be best if no one knew where the bullet went after they pulled the trigger because everyone would then be protected. Only a politician would think this is safer. I am not sure what her problem is with velocity or how that could relate in shotguns. Now we come to the term dangers. More people are killed with hands and feet than the assault weapons being referred to in this piece of legislation. Since danger is subjective this one will require much more explanation and I do look forward to hearing this based on her previous descriptions. I also like her view that if it holds more than six rounds it is more dangerous. So it is ok to shoot five in one time but if you can load six, Danger Will Robinson Danger!.
    The real mental problem the Senator has is her statement “access to firearms makes law-abiding citizens into criminals”. So according to the mental processes of the Senator an inanimate mechanical object exerts control on a person that changes that individual forcing them into a physical course of action. Please keep any possible mechanical object away from this person who states she believes that an inanimate object has mysterious powers over a person and can force them to commit a crime. Perhaps she should ban forks since according to her thinking that is what makes people fat. In my research I have discovered that all the individuals involved with mass shootings used a vehicle with an engine, which is also a mechanical object, which has velocity, accuracy, and speed not to mention dangers. Perhaps these should be limited to 6 ounces of fuel? When will she address this issue because if we can save even one life is it not worth it?
    I will not even examine her complete, at best, ignorance of the second amendment and her denial of natural law.

  6. Shadow Reply

    February 21, 2013 at 7:18 am

    “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)

    ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

  7. DDS Reply

    February 21, 2013 at 4:15 am

    “I prefer the term ‘common sense gun regulations’ because this does not convey banning firearms but implementing regulations and procedures that make access to guns more reasonable and allow the sale of guns that have a clear sporting function.”

    It doesn’t matter what verbage you choose. You’re proposing to ban a firearm. You’re claiming the unilateral right to determine what is reasonable and what isn’t. You’re also making use of a “sporting purposes” test that was copied directly from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. (http://jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm)

  8. BBT Reply

    February 20, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Wow – mental health… what a new and revolutionary concept. Only in California would someone like this get voted into office. As a UCSB alumni – I possess the ability to predict the future. For example, when I get something in the mail from UCSB, I always know what’s in the envelope, before opening it. What is it, you might ask? Why donation requests, of course. But I digress… I predict this bill will do absolutely nothing to reduce gun deaths. If a psycho can’t use shotguns with rotating cylinders, he’ll simply use a different type of gun. Calfornia has banned the AR15 – Arizona allows the AR15 (and a bunch of other guns that California banned). Wanna guess which state has a higher death rate due to guns?

    • Dick Fancy Reply

      February 22, 2013 at 3:06 pm

      “Wanna guess which state has a higher death rate due to guns?” Oh oh oh oh…..I’ll guess! It’s California! Why? Oh, thats easy…more blacks and mexicans! Oh wait, that was racist…i meant to say….more Afro-American Gangs and Mexican-American Gangbangers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>