The "pistol grip" issue has been central to Senator Perata's assault weapon efforts since he introduced his first bill (AB 23) in December. 1996. Thus, your firearm program has had over three yews to work on the definitions of key terms. In June 1999, a meeting was held with Senators Vasconcellos and Perata, members of their staffs, SAAG De Alba, Luis Tolley of Handgun Control Inc. (HCI). Jerry Upholt from California Rifle and Pistol Association and myself. The topic was how to define "conspicuously protruding pistol grips" and "permanent alterations" to large capacity feeding devices. Senator Perata's assault weapon bill (SB 23) was then scheduled to be heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee which, Mr. Vasconcellos chairs. I requested the meeting and argued, to no avail, that the key terms should be defined so that the members of the legislature would understand what the bill actually required.

         With the passage of SB 23 and the Governor's subsequent approval, the notion of another assault weapon task force surfaced. When I inquired of Firearms Division Director Randy Rossi as to whether the NRA would be involved, I was told that we wouldn't. The reason given was that we had "thwarted" your departments' legislative efforts. That of course is correct and is an activity that we are fully committed to, if your efforts are not in our members' best interests. On September 29. 1999, the Associated Press reported that you said, "We intend to have full involvement of local law enforcement, gun manufacturers, gun users, sports organizations and associations, including the National Rifle Association, to work with us to get the correct definition". Your remarks resulted in an invitation for me to join the task force. The definition to which you were referring was that of the "assault weapon". You were also quoted as suggesting that the assault weapon definitions "will have to be fine-tuned by practice". I assume you meant that the courts would eventually resolve the definitional issues. That mirrors the oft expressed desire of Chief Todd and HCI to arrest them all and let the courts sort it out. So the legislature finds the issue too vexing - they "punt" it to you and you in turn hand if off to the courts. You can appreciate how painful such an approach is for unwitting violators who can't figure out how to comply with the law.

         The new assault weapon task force met on October 6 and November 4, 1999. I think your staff would agree that the firearm organization representatives asked a series of incisive and relevant questions. Answers to most of our questions were never provided. On December 23, 1999, we (the firearm representatives) saw the proposed regulations for the first time when they were released publically. The regulations included the creative "imaginary line" standard for defining "conspicuously protruding pistol grips". For reasons that are unclear to me, your staff chose not to discuss the "imaginary line" concept at the task force meetings. I know that your office had likely settled on that definition by the November 4 meeting. because I stood by Special Agent Chinn while he explained it to another DOJ employee.

         Your staff described the task force meetings as forums for "stakeholder" input. Given how they were conducted, they would be better characterized as latter day "Potemkin Villages". None of the proposed definitions were openly discussed by your task force. Chief Todd's declaration of majority support for the proposed regulations may well be correct, but how he determined that is unstated. What is clear is that no honest debate was involved in reaching the decisions that resulted in the regulations.

         Just before your election, one of your advisers opined, regarding the Lungren Administration's handling of the assault weapon issue that, "the state has been without adequate legal council for eight years". That notion is hard to dispute, but from our perspective, the regulation development process suggests that it's "business as usual" at DOJ regarding assault weapons. I assume that the difficulty of adequately defining assault weapon terminology is becoming more and more apparent. The "imaginary line" standard in the regulations would clearly effect so called "hunting rifles". While you insisted that our comments about your "imaginary line" were creating unnecessary public anxiety, your staff immediately posted a clarification on the department's website. You will learn, if you haven't already, that the "clarification" also suffers from a fatal flaw. It is difficult to understand why your staff would propose using the word "imaginary" for such a critical element of the regulations. Even more perplexing is that you would accept it. I consulted Websters New Collegiate Dictionary (1981) to determine the definition of imaginary. It is 1: Existing only in imagination : lacking factual reality. This is an excellent definition indeed - but for how the regulation was developed - not pistol grips.

         A reporter said to me that SB 23 was a "political letter bomb" sent by your former associates in the legislature. The assault weapon issue was certainly not a plus for your two immediate predecessors. Your defense of the regulations and the statute will have to be of epic proportions. SB 23 has at its core the "conspicuously protruding pistol grip". That in turn is given dimension with an "imaginary line". You must somehow sell the notion that clarity and the imaginary are complimentary.