California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill last week that would have added repeated alcohol and drug offenses as reasons for denying gun ownership. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press / May 29, 2013)
Los Angeles Times
One thing I don't get: If people kill people — guns don't — why is it OK for a perpetually drunken person to own a gun? Gov. Jerry Brown thinks it is. A drunk with a gun is double-barreled trouble. Studies show that a gun owner with one misdemeanor conviction — such as a DUI — is five times more likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than a gunner with no prior arrest record, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program. But Brown vetoed a bill last week that would have added repeated alcohol and drug offenses as reasons for denying gun ownership. Two DUIs or other misdemeanor substance abuse convictions within three years and you couldn't possess a firearm for 10 years. Not even the gun lobby aggressively opposed that legislation, SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis). Brown, in his veto message, said: "I am not persuaded that it is necessary to prohibit gun ownership on the basis of crimes that are non-felonies, non-violent and do not involve misuse of a firearm." I asked the governor's office for some elaboration. The response: "The message speaks for itself." So the message is that the governor doesn't see why a convicted drunk or druggie shouldn't be armed. "I was just stunned," Wintemute says. "He was just wrong on the facts. There is persuasive evidence out there. There are dozens of studies associating acute alcohol intoxication and a history of DUIs with the risk of committing future gun violence. That's established beyond doubt." Wintemute, an emergency room physician who has been researching firearms violence for three decades, adds, "Of all the gun bills proposed this year, SB 755 might have been the one to have the largest effect on crime rates. We missed a chance to do some good here."
