Supervisors Draw Bead on Assault-Gun Issue, and Shoot to the Side

Arguing that efforts to control the sale and possession of so-called “military assault weapons” should come from Sacramento and Washington, not San Diego, the county Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a weak measure urging state and federal legislators to review laws regulating semiautomatic rifles.

By a 3-0 vote, with Supervisors Susan Golding and Brian Bilbray absent, the board took action that does little more than offer moral support to state legislative and congressional efforts aimed at stemming the growing number of crimes committed with high-powered rifles, such as the AK-47.

“It is extremely general and doesn’t have much power,” said a disappointed Supervisor Leon Williams, who had proposed a more specific, though still mild, measure. “But at least it lets people know that this board is in favor of something.”

Called ‘Worthless’

Other county officials, however, were not that generous. As two supervisorial aides reviewed the rather innocuous wording of the board-approved measure, one looked at the other and said: “This thing is worthless!”

Williams’ original proposal, which he conceded was “very, very watered down,” called for the board to support state legislation banning the manufacture, sale and possession of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The San Diego City Council recently endorsed state legislation on the issue, and the council plans to soon consider two local gun-control ordinances.

But Supervisors George Bailey and John MacDonald were uncomfortable even with Williams’ mild proposal. Their legal questions and other reservations forced Williams to accept a Bailey-proposed alternative that Williams acknowledged further watered down an already watered-down plan.

The motion adopted states that the supervisors “support action by both the federal and state governments which would protect the public from dangerous and improper use of these weapons” and encourages them “to take necessary action to either limit or control these weapons and their use after due deliberation.”

Bailey disputed the contention that his proposal was too general to be of any import.

“Basically what we’ve said is that . . . we support the effort to do something ,” Bailey said.

Not a Local Issue?

Bailey characterized efforts to ban or regulate assault weapons through local laws as “absolutely ridiculous,” noting that a person could easily travel from one city--or even state--to another to circumvent local controls.

“The protection should come from the federal government or state government,” Bailey said.

MacDonald, meanwhile, said he was reluctant to “get into interpretations of the Constitution,” referring to the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Williams countered that the amendment “was never intended to protect” automatic assault weapons “for which killing people is the only purpose.”

“I think you can eliminate those type weapons from civilian use . . . without infringing upon constitutional rights,” Williams said.

Public testimony on the proposal fell along predictable lines, with gun advocates questioning the legality and wisdom of Williams’ proposal, while gun-control supporters backed it.