NRA-ILA Legislative Counsel Chris Conte with Chuck Michel

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has honored California attorney C.D. “Chuck” Michel with the NRA’s Defender of Justice Award for 2013. The award recognizes outstanding efforts by attorneys who defend the right to keep and bear arms, and particularly recognizes attorneys who make a significant contribution to those efforts pro bono.

Chuck received the prestigious award at the NRA’s 2013 annual meetings in Houston, Texas. It recognizes him for his extensive work, and particularly pro bono work, defending the right to keep and bear arms.

“For years, Chuck Michel has played a critical role in defending the rights of California gun owners and hunters,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA. “Whether it’s bringing major Second Amendment litigation in federal court, defending individual gun owners caught up in California’s maze of laws and regulations, or preserving hunters’ rights against animal extremists, Californians owe a debt of gratitude for his efforts.”

Chuck is the Senior Counsel at Michel & Associates, P.C.. His practice focuses on civil litigation, including firearms law, business litigation, labor and employment law, civil rights advocacy, land use, and environmental law. He has over 20 years of experience representing the NRA and California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), as well as firearm manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and gun owners.

Over the last 20 years, Chuck has generously contributed thousands of hours of his time and the time of the team of civil rights lawyers employed at his law firm, worth millions of dollars, to Second Amendment causes and on behalf of gun owners.

Chuck is also the author of California Gun Laws: A Guide to State and Federal Firearm Regulations, and is a frequent lecturer to community groups and organizations on Second Amendment issues. He has represented many clients in high-profile cases that garnered significant state and national media attention. He has appeared as a spokesperson for the NRA, CRPA, and other associations, and for individual clients on dozens of television and radio interviews and in thousands of newspaper articles. He has been profiled in recognition of his work in multiple periodicals, and has published several articles and editorials in the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Daily Journal and several other state and national newspapers. Chuck has also taught classes in Firearms Law and Law Practice Management as an Adjunct Professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California.

NRA is proud to have Michel & Associates working on behalf of our right to keep and bear arms.

Some law firms, particularly in Los Angeles and San Francisco, support anti-gun-owner efforts to undermine your right to keep and bear arms by providing pro bono legal services to the gun ban lobby and to politicians who would deprive you of your Second Amendment rights. The anti-Second Amendment efforts by these law firms are effectively subsidized through the legal fees paid by their business clients. Shop for your legal service provider carefully so you don’t inadvertently subsidize the gun ban lobby!

Past Defender of Justice Award Recipients:

2007 – Mike Minton (St. Louis)

2008 – Kenn Hanson (Louisville)

2009 – Dave Kopel (Phoenix)

2010 – Lonnie Anderson (Charlotte)

2011 – Jonathan Goldstein (Pittsburgh)

2012 – (Not Presented) (St. Louis)

2013 – Chuck Michel (Houston)

Violence is the product of numerous factors, most of them far more fundamental than the availability of any particular form of weaponry. In the case of modern massacres, however, one of the main causes is rarely discussed, though it is simple and obvious: TV, particularly instantaneous broadcast news, repeatedly shows our outcasts, losers and misfits how to call nationwide attention to themselves and even go down in history.

Though many other causes are obscure, on this the pattern is clear. While there were massacres before instant nationwide TV coverage, they did not inspire nationwide imitators. In 1913 the print media widely reported the killing by a disgruntled employee with an axe, of Frank Lloyd Wright’s mistress and six others in Wisconsin. In 1929 a demented tax protester dynamited a grammar school near Lansing, Michigan, killing 45 children and teachers. In 1944 a disgruntled Barnum & Bailey employee set fire to a circus in Hartford, Connecticut killing 168. In 1949 a Camden, N.J. man, feeling his neighbors were laughing at him, shot 13 of\ them to death. What did not happen in the era before live broadcasts on
nationwide TV was massacre after massacre after massacre.

Local TV coverage can perform valuable services broadcasting emergency information that relatives and police urgently need. But CNN’s nationwide live re-broadcast coverage provides nothing that could not wait for the evening news — which itself could usefully minimize sensational coverage rather than maximizing it.

Of course, no matter how sensationalistic, TV news does no harm to the great majority of its consumers. But it teaches a tiny minority of misfits and losers (of all ages) how to produce great effects and obtain attention — even go down in history — as they could never otherwise hope to do.

The brief supports the plaintiffs in the case and joins with the amicus brief filed by the NRA in asking the court to block the enforcement of the laws.

The law enforcement brief provides the court with unique law enforcement perspectives concerning the lack of justification for the new laws and the negative impact the laws will have on public safety. The brief also points out the many vague and hopelessly confusing terms used in the law, all of which will promote arbitrary and inequitable enforcement by police.

The law enforcement coalition brief informs the court that many officers regularly choose the banned firearms and magazines for defense of themselves and their families when they are off duty, and after they retire. The brief maintains that the laws are “willfully blind to legitimate safety interests, don’t assist law enforcement in reducing violent crime, and instead are tailored to negatively impact law-abiding firearm owners.” According to the amici, “it is hard to imagine that any officer would intentionally limit himself or herself to seven-round magazines in a self-defense situation, whether in the field or at home, where an officer’s self-defense needs are equal to that of law-abiding citizens. It is likewise doubtful that any officer would suggest that a law-abiding person do so.”

The brief explains that the laws fail to provide clear standards to govern law enforcement, particularly because the laws require enforcement against individuals attempting to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Importantly, law enforcement urge the court to adopt a “heightened vagueness standard” to ensure that laws restricting Second Amendment freedoms provide the greatest clarity. The police coalition brief explains that officers “are put in the unenviable position of guessing whether individuals exercising their Second Amendment rights should be arrested, and that law enforcement officials are likely to face suits for wrongful arrests and have prosecutions dismissed.”

The New York State Sheriffs’ Association is the lead organization on the law enforcement brief. It is joined by Erie County Sheriff Timothy B. Howard, Oswego County Sheriff Reuel A. Todd, Wayne County Sheriff Barry C. Virts, Putnam County Sheriff Donald B. Smith, and Fulton County Sheriff Thomas J. Lorey, the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF), the Law Enforcement Action Network (LEAN), and the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA). The decision of these prestigious law enforcement organizations to submit a legal brief opposing the legislation is an important step in the fight to protect the Second Amendment for New York gun owners. The NYSSA-led coalition’s views should be influential with the court.

Several prominent attorneys also signed onto the brief along with Michel & Associates, P.C.. They include Edwin Meese, former United States Attorney General and Counsel to the President under President Ronald Reagan, and esteemed New York attorney and noted firearms law scholar Jeffrey Chamberlain.

The State’s opposition brief is due next month. Oral arguments are expected to take place sometime this summer.

Although this case involves a challenge to New York firearms laws, it could have significant ramifications for California firearm owners, who find themselves subject to similar restrictions on so-called “assault weapons” and the sale of standard-capacity magazines that hold over ten rounds. Californians are also facing many bills pending in the state legislature that would drastically expand these prohibitions, as California’s own gun-grabbing politicians attempt to capitalize on the tragic events of Newtown. California gun owners can expect these laws to be met with fierce resistance by the NRA in the courts, and this case could set important precedent for the NRA’s California legal team.

Seventy-five years ago this week, Austria and Nazi Germany became united in the Anschluss. Thus, with celebration in the streets, passed the last point in time when Britain and France could have prevented World War II.

The disastrous policy of appeasement is often attributed to foolish governments in London and Paris. But the truth is more complicated, and 75 years of hindsight have brought us no closer to understanding it.

Simply put, France and Britain demonstrated in 1938 that the democratic system of government has a grave weakness: To a certain extent, it is structurally incapable of defending itself.

Because democracy can generate vastly more military power than any other political system ever devised, it can win wars. The problem is that because of the constraints of democratic politics, it can’t always prevent them.

In particular, as the Anschluss showed, democracies are very bad at defending the balance of power from a determined challenger, even one playing a comparatively weak military hand. They are therefore bad at preventing the downward spirals through which small events lead to major catastrophes.

Start with this simple observation: To avert the downward spiral that led to global war in 1939, it was absolutely vital to prevent — by war, if necessary — the Anschluss of Germany and Austria in 1938. Otherwise, the balance of power on which the peace of Europe depended would become impossible to maintain.

The interwar alliance of Western powers — Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, Poland — depended vitally on a strong and secure Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia’s industrial base had made it a formidable military power by 1938. As long as Czechoslovakia remained independent, with a neutral Austria to its south, Germany would be tied down in a defensive straitjacket.

But if the anschluss was allowed to proceed, Czechoslovakia would be virtually surrounded by Nazi Germany. It might then be a matter of months before she was cowed to her knees, and Britain and France cowed into abandoning her — the most vital bastion of their strategic defense. Once that happened, it would no longer be possible for them to defend Poland, and the alliance keeping Germany on defense would unravel, leaving all of Europe at Hitler’s mercy.

And so it happened. Just weeks after the Anschluss, the Sudeten crisis began, and in September of that year the leaders of Britain and France traveled to Munich to offer Czechoslovakia up to Hitler for free.

Absolute monarchies had many weaknesses; they tended, among other things, to cause lots of unnecessary conflicts. World War I likely would never have happened if the monarch who ruled Germany had not been quite so reckless.

But under proper management, monarchies could also prevent unnecessary conflict — by properly managing the balance of power, as European governments had done for nearly 100 years before World War I. Liberated from the vicissitudes of public opinion, and able to conduct foreign policy according to reasons of state, absolute monarchies could prevent dangerous situations from deteriorating into catastrophes. That’s not an argument in favor of absolute monarchies; the point, rather, is to illustrate a dangerous vulnerability of the democratic system of government.

In the 1930s, Britain and France were parliamentary democracies. That made the vicissitudes of public opinion an overwhelming determinant of government policy, chiefly by severely restricting the range of options available to the government.

For example, a government in Paris or London that decided to threaten war in order to prevent the Anschluss would face major hurdles. The people had grown more pacifist than ever. They were still picking up the pieces of the last war and had no stomach for another. And, as free people, accustomed to self-determination and self-governance, they might wonder why Germans and Austrians should be denied the right to unify when that was what they wanted to do.

The reason Britain and France had to deny them that right was necessity — the basis for the right of self-defense in virtually every legal system known to man. But Western leaders had bought into the foolish attempt to make all wars illegal, and had therefore failed to gain acceptance of any principles that could justify a forcible prevention of the Anschluss. So the democracies of Europe were led to World War II like docile sheep to the slaughter.

The only way for leaders to overcome this democratic vulnerability is to gain public support for the principles that will guide their actions as they seek to maintain the balance of power. It is vital to convince people that aggression does not always come in the form of an “imminent threat,” and that sometimes the threat of war is necessary to maintain the peace. That effort is vital not just for domestic politics but also for foreign policy. Hence the importance of international law, an enormously valuable strategic asset that in the modern era has been hijacked by proponents (both witting and unwitting) of world government.

Perhaps the most brilliant achievement of Hitler’s career was that in just a few years, he managed to disarm Europe’s democracies without firing a shot. Before the Anschluss of March 1938, Germany couldn’t afford to go to war with anyone. A year later, the German high command was putting the final touches on its plan for the invasion of Poland — and the conquest of Europe.

The United Nations was invented, supposedly, to prevent anything like that from happening again. But the U.N. Charter doesn’t facilitate “the prevention and removal of threats to the peace” as it proclaims — on the contrary. Had the charter existed during the 1930s, it would only have shielded Hitler’s various moves toward war, much as it is now shielding Iran’s nuclear program.

Henry Kissinger has made a career of trying to square this circle: How can democracies institutionalize a rational balance-of-power foreign policy? The question remains as unanswered — and as urgent — as it was in 1938.

Despite the National Rifle Association (NRA)’s high profile political activities, gun safety training and marksmanships comprise the overwhelming majority of its activities. Roughly 80% of its budget goes to these types of programs.

Gun control organizations, recognizing a way to rebuild themselves and fool the public into being less critical of their gun ban messages, have deceptively rebranded themselves as “gun safety” groups. In the process, they distort conventional notions of safety training and ignore that organizations like the NRA have been conducting actual gun safety classes since Reconstruction.

This is one of the gun ban lobby’s more modern and transparent political canards. While the disingenuous rebranding ploy insults true gun safety trainers, the gun ban lobby’s attempt at “safely” positioning also ignores one truly relevant trend; thanks to real and very common gun safety training programs, accidental gun deaths and injuries are at historic lows, and still falling.

As gun ownership rates climbed, accidents declined

Nationally, the gun ban lobby has steadily lost each of its arguments, and so the patience of most of the voting population. They lost the Constitutional argument when the Supreme Court certified, again, that the Second Amendment protected a fundamental individual right; just as the NRA, and constitutional scholars, had said all along. They lost the self-defense argument over the last two decades as 42 states voted to allow citizens to carry concealed firearms in public — and the dire predictions of Wild West shoot-outs in the streets didn’t happen.

Exaggerating the risk of death in the home from guns is their last fear card. So they have turned the debate to “gun safety,” and mislabeled gun accidents as a disease.

Gun control advocates claim that firearms are inherently dangerous. Some go as far as to cite suspect research that insinuates (but, due to methodology mistakes, failed to prove) that the existence of guns in the home were contributory to deaths. But during the last few decades, private firearm ownership has steadily risen, while accidental firearm deaths have steadily dropped. The gun ban lobby’s claim that more gun control will improve safety runs counter to the data. That shows people are increasingly safe with firearms – even without the “benefit” of Vice President Joe Biden’s advice.

Overall, from 1979 through 2009 (a conveniently round 30 year window for analysis), the accidental death rate from all types of firearms has fallen a whopping 80%! It has dropped from 0.9 deaths per 100,000 people to less than 0.2 in 2009. Meanwhile, the accidental death rate from guns has fallen vis-à-vis handgun ownership at a much faster rate. Refuting the gun ban lobby’s claims is the fact that accidental deaths from firearms fell nearly 90% as a function of handgun ownership, dropping from four deaths for every 100,000 handguns in America to less than 0.5. This occurred despite the number of revolvers and pistols owned in private hands doubling in the same period.

The kids are alright

And kids are doing even better.

The gun ban lobby likes to make children, properly defined as folks under the age of 14, as a “gun safety” crusade cause (though certain gun control groups have included “children” as old as 24 years in the calculations). Yet, the firearm death rate for kids under 14 has dropped 82% over the last twenty years (the range of years used here is shorter due to limitations of government data online). Child accidental mortality rates from firearms are falling faster than deaths in the general population, so much so that in the last reporting year a mere 62 children nationwide died from firearm accidents. The trend is markedly different for the actual major causes of childhood death; motor vehicles kill over 1,200 kids, more than 1,100 die from suffocation, and the better part of 1,000 children under 14 drown.

Suicide is painful

Also, buried in sound bites slipping from lobbyist lips is that most of the firearm deaths in America are suicides. In the last reporting year, there were 75% more firearm suicides than firearm homicides. In fact, suicides composed a full 61% of all gun deaths.

There is a reason lobbyist and politicos don’t highlight the distinction. Nearly all studies (time-series and cross-sectional) concerning guns and suicides show that the presence or absence of a gun does not change the likelihood of a successful suicide – it just changes the means. A seriously depressed individual will find alternate methods to die; mixing pills and alcohol, hanging, tailpipe suffocation, jumping off of tall buildings and more. And the issue becomes even clearer once you consider suicide as a cultural issue. Japan has strict firearm laws. Very few people there own any. Yet Japan’s suicide rate is much higher than the United States, double the American rate not too many years ago. It’s not a gun thing. It’s a culture thing.                 To make their case, gun control lobbyist use linguistic trickery. When reciting statistics, be it for guns in general or suicide in particular, they use phrases like “America’s high gun suicide rates.” But no country’s suicide rate is affected by the number of firearms people own. America is downright average in terms of self-inflicted deaths, ranking 42^nd out of 100 World Health Organization monitored nations (Lithuania, Russia and Korea have the most suicides, about three times as many per capita than the United States). The “Gun suicides” characterization then is a ruse because guns do not cause suicides. But “gun suicides” sounds great on a press release.

And though the data is a little harder to come by, most firearm suicides are committed with legally owned guns. In other words, the person who decided that life was not worth living used his already legally possessed firearm, or legally bought one just for that purpose. For longer than anyone can remember, the term “suicide special” has been law enforcement slang for an inexpensive handgun that is popular with people wanting to leave this world. What law will stop that?

This is why the gun ban lobby never mentions that a strong majority of gun deaths are suicides, encapsulating them as part of a mystically labeled “gun violence” figure. Suicide via legally owned firearms is completely outside of the efficacy of legislation. However, passing gun control laws requires the perception of a problem. To diminish the perception of a public threat would diminish demand for firearm prohibitions.

Safety came first

American’s have shown great concern for gun safety. Even in self-defense situations, where the victims life is on the line, American’s rarely shoot their attacker as a safety precaution – they prefer to brandish a handgun, or at worst fire a warning shot. Americans also have proven to not be suicidal above worldwide averages, despite owning more firearms than other countries.

We practice gun safety, be it through personal restraint or signing-up for a gun safety class. This makes the gun ban lobby’s “gun safety” slogan unsafe rhetorical grounds for them.

Sources

Accidental death statistics:

Center for Disease Control – Fatal Injury Reports

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html

Firearm ownership data:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Firearm Commerce in the United States, cumulative reports since inception of estimates and tracking

Global suicide rates:

World Health organization

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/

The decision clarifies that hundreds of Californians previously thought to be prohibited from possessing firearms are not prohibited after all.

Mr. Shirey was charged in 1992 with domestic violence and battery under California Penal Code sections 273.5 and 242. At trial, Mr. Shirey was found not guilty of the domestic violence charge under section 273.5 allegation, but he was convicted of the lesser charge of battery under section 242.

Shirey was sentenced to probation, then had his case expunged under Penal Code section 1203.4, and had his firearm possession rights restored under California law via California Penal Code section 12021(c)(3).

After having his firearm possession rights restored under California state law, Shirey worked for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. But in 2009 the Sheriff’s Department determined he was prohibited from possessing firearms under the federal MCDV law, commonly know as the “Lautenberg Amendment.” Deputy Shirey contested that determination.

The Lautenberg Amendment created the federal law that prohibits people convicted of a MCDV from receiving and possessing firearms. 18 USC 922(g)(9). An MCDV is defined under 921(a)(33)(A). The violation does not need to be defined as a “domestic violence” charge under the state’s laws but simply a misdemeanor offense that has as an element:

the use or attempted use of physical force, or threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim…” (Emphasis added).

Under California Penal Code section 242, a “battery” is defined as “any willful or unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.”

The issue in the Shirey case was whether the required “use of force or violence” element for a 242 conviction was the same as the “use or attempted use of physical force” element for an MCDV conviction. The court of appeals held that it was not.

Under California state courts’ interpretations, the phrase “use of force or violence” for battery can include harmful or offensive touching, and even the “least touching” can constitute battery.

In contrast, federal courts have held that “physical force” element of an MCDV offense requires some kind of “violence” or “violent force,” not just touching.

So to prove the “physical force” element of an MCDV offense, something more than mere touching is required. And since California’s battery statute, section 242, does not require proof of more than mere touching, it does not prove the “physical force” element of an MCDV offense.

Because the Shirey decision held that the 242 simple battery conviction did not meet the definition of an MCDV conviction, the court did not address the significant related question of whether the two California state law rights restoration statutes in combination would have restored Shirey’s firearm rights under the federal restriction.

This case should effectively “restore” the rights of those convicted of a misdemeanor 242 (and 243(e)) if they have been considered by the state of California to be prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law only. But remember, both 242 and 243 convictions carry 10 year firearm possession restrictions under California state law.

The State of California will probably appeal the Shirey decision to the California Supreme Court, and therefore, the California Department of Justice may not consider this case binding until it is considered “final.” A case can be final after the time for it to be appealed has lapsed, all avenues of appeal have been denied, or after a court with the authority to review the decision has heard the case and issued an opinion and there is no where else to appeal the decision to.

People who are uncertain of their eligibility to possess and own firearms in California should request a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check using the form provided by the California Department of Justice Website. California is being particularly aggressive in seizing firearms from people prohibited from possessing them. Many people are unaware of their prohibited status.

Pay close attention to our firm’s alerts for further information on this interesting development.

The licenses and permits delayed include dangerous weapons permits, certificates of eligibility (“COE”), large-capacity magazine (LCM) permits, entertainment firearms permits, and centralized list of firearm dealers permits. Currently, the DOJ is issuing temporary permits to avoid any lapses in the renewal of licenses and permits.

Because of the flood of calls concerning these delays, DOJ has stopped answering its phones. There is a recorded message informing licensees and permitteees that it may take up to eight weeks in processing any renewals. Generally, DOJ does not send out renewal notices until 30 days before the licenses or permits are set to expire.

All federal firearms licensees and permittees should review their permits and licenses for the expirations dates. Licensees and permittees should have any necessary supplemental paperwork prepared up to two months before filing a renewal. Once the renewal notice is received from the DOJ, the necessary paperwork should promptly be submitted to ensure that there will be no lapses in any licenses or permits. If a license or permit has expired and no renewal license or permit has been sent, make sure that you have a valid temporary license or permit from the DOJ in the meantime.

This was the case as to the Florence Cathedral which was built w/o a roof. Perhaps the original architect had some idea of how to put a roof on the massive building but by the time to do so the Cathedral was huge and he was dead. No one then alive had any idea how to roof it and for decades it just stood there w/ no roof. That was severely embarrassing for in the winters rain would drench the priests and anyone else in the Cathedral.

In the early 15th Century a contest was held to select the greatest architect in Italy who would be commissioned to roof the Cathedral. Filippo Brunelleschi and Lorenzo Ghiberti were among the contestants.

Brunelleschi outraged the others by claiming that he alone could do it. But to receive the commission he and the others would have to pass the designated test which was to make an egg stand on end on a table. He waited as contestant after contestant tried and failed to make the egg stand on end. After all the other contestants had failed, Brunelleschi simply took the egg and smashed it into the table top.

“We could have done that” cried the outraged other contestants. “Yes you could” Brunelleschi replied, “and you could build the roof too — if I showed you how. But I can do it now.” And he did.

The analogy to gun control is instructive. Policing began in the U.S. in the 1840s. Originally the police were not allowed to carry guns. But universally they realized they needed to carry guns. So NYC and Phili cops began carrying guns illegally. They did so w/ no regulation or training or rhyme or reason so that some officers carried .22s, others .38s, others yet .45s. No cop would enforce the anti-gun rule against another cop – or report his violation of it. Eventually the brass made a rare gesture toward common sense. Realizing that they could not control the phenomenon by banning guns, they instead adopted rules whereby cops could carry guns (generally .38s) and were trained and periodically required to qualify w/ them.

Miranda is a disaster: cops uniformly despise it and lie to circumvent it. Lots of judges feel the same and just look the other way as cops lie. And lying becomes accepted by cops who extend it to other situations in which their lies do actual harm.

When all cops are accustomed to lying to avoid a rule they despise, some extend it to lying about police misconduct, and often to actual corrupt conduct. Miranda has many results, all bad! 1) It sometimes frees criminals who should be in jail. 2) It leads good cops to despise the rules and evade superior authority. 3) It creates an atmosphere where no cop will testify against another. 4) All this drives good cops from the force and encourages bad ones in all kinds of misconduct, including actual corruption.

I have made this point before using a telling example which I repeat:

MACARTHUR IN JAPAN

Be patient, this is an anecdote that requires a lengthy set-up. General Douglas MacArthur was the son of General Arthur MacArthur who, though now long forgotten, had been nearly as famous in his time as Douglas was by the mid-20th Century.

After WWII Douglas became the virtual dictator of Japan, imposing such American innovations as a liberal written constitution renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, laws designed to rein in the cartels, and a real democratic government based on universal suffrage – including voting and office holding for women. In the first election women not only voted but actually ran for seats in the legislature, one of the seats being won by a famous prostitute. MacArthur sent bouquets to all the winning women including the prostitute.

From the 1920s on Japan had experienced multiple assassinations of government leaders and other powerful, influential people. During the war MacArthur had been as heavily body-guarded as any other general. But on taking power over Japan MacArthur disdained bodyguards declaring “the Japanese people are my guardians.”

As a matter of policy as well as of his immense ego, all traffic would be stopped at 6:00 a.m. as he courted assassination by being driven at precisely 5 mph down the exact same route from his quarters to his office every morning. On one of those morning drives he pointed out to his aide a GI and a Japanese woman going at it in a doorway. “You see that, major? Those fools in Washington wanted me to institute a non-fraternization policy. I would not do it. My father taught me an officer never gives an order he can’t enforce.”

No more than a general can a society benefit from imposing rules it cannot enforce.

There is broad agreement across America that “bad guys shouldn’t have guns.” How the two should be separated is another matter – and recent legislation has triggered a debate between some of the “good guys.”

In dueling opinion pieces, Attorney General Kamala Harris argues that her office should have the lead role, while former Sacramento Sheriff John McGinness supports a local law enforcement-based approach. If cost efficiency or public safety is important, the winner should have been obvious.

The program in question is the Armed Prohibited Persons System, or APPS. Created in 2001, initially it enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support and the backing of the National Rifle Association. The program’s objective was to take guns away from people convicted of felonies or certain misdemeanors and from folks with mental health problems. California’s attorney general was tasked with managing the program, and most assumed that legions of outlaw motorcycle gang members, drug dealers, criminal street gang members and other “bad guys” would soon hear cell doors slam behind them. The reality proved far different.

The program is law enforcement at its most basic level. It calls for no wiretaps, undercover negotiations, long-term surveillances or anything that even resembles a complex investigation. The attorney general’s Bureau of Firearms simply compares the names of registered owners of firearms against records in its other databases. If someone is identified as possibly being in illegal possession of a firearm, law enforcement might schedule a “visit.”

The question was: Who should make the visits – the Bureau of Firearms or a local law enforcement agency? Some of the suspects identified by the program are genuine threats to public safety. Others were involved in nonviolent offenses. Many have no idea they are prohibited from owning firearms – because no one in the legal system so informed them.

As the program evolved, the NRA withdrew its support. That decision was based on two factors: the program’s lack of arrests and prosecutions, and that funding would come from a surplus created by the Bureau of Firearms’ excessive background investigation charge for firearm purchasers.

During a joint legislative hearing on gun violence earlier this year, the Bureau of Firearms disclosed a backlog of 20,000 (and growing) violators who illegally possessed 40,000 firearms. In response, SB 140 by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, will allow the use of $24 million of surplus in excessive background investigation funds to attack the backlog by doing more of the same.

The Bureau of Firearms suggests that the Armed Prohibited Persons System program is “saving lives.” If so, neither the attorney general nor the Legislature feels a sense of urgency, as implementation of SB 140 is scheduled to take three years and the legislation doesn’t require a progress report until March 1, 2019. A more objective measurement of success might be the number of arrests, prosecutions and convictions since the current program began in 2007. On that subject the attorney general is silent. (It’s not pretty).

When a Bureau of Firearms team visits someone identified by the program, the most important enforcement tool is a congenial special agent at the front door. Since the information developed by the program is too stale to support a search warrant, the objective is to get the suspect to give consent for a search. If the suspect is guilt-ridden or just “felony stupid,” he or she will consent. Hard-core crooks are more apt to respond with, “My dog ate the gun” or “I sold it to the Taliban, so please go away, officer” – either of which would unceremoniously terminate the visit.

Recently, a Bee columnist traveled with a nine-agent team as they made night visits to a number of suspects identified by the program. If you’re wondering why nine or why at night, the words of a long-retired special agent might explain it: “If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing on overtime.”

There’s a bunch of territory between El Centro and Crescent City. Currently, the attorney general has six teams for the Armed Prohibited Persons System. Even if this is eventually tripled, it will still be inadequate – and tasking her special agents with such work is like having FBI agents provide security at high school basketball games. Local law enforcement has the necessary skills, and a patrol unit may have driven by a suspect’s house three times on the same day that a Bureau of Firearms team traveled 200 miles to learn he wasn’t home.

McGinness is correct: This program is ideally suited for local law enforcement. There’s no need to burn $24 million of “surplus” funds – just send the local agencies the results of the database analysis and let their thousands of patrol units make the contacts. There are probably 500 local law enforcement agencies in California, and in almost every case one of them will be closer to a given target than is a Bureau of Firearms team. Local authorities could have done in months what the Bureau of Firearms hopes to accomplish in years – if ever.

As former attorney general and overseer of the Armed Prohibited Persons System program, Gov. Jerry Brown should have insisted on substance – but by signing SB 140, he opted for symbolism instead.

Steve Helsley of El Dorado Hills is a retired California Dept.  of Justice executive and  a consultant to the NRA.