David Kopel peddles the Kool-Aid from abroad, pointing out at this late date (hat tip: Daniel Weintraub) the same weaknesses of Arnold’s gun control platform that I raised two weeks ago and Luis Tolley, California’s top gun-grabber, raised earlier still. before. All four stem from Arnold’s August 27 interview with Sean Hannity (audio link). To recap:

1. Schwarzenegger supports California’s “assault” weapons ban - a foolish law that targets cosmetic features that have nothing to do with combatting crime.
2. Schwarzenegger supports the Brady Bill.
3. Schwarzenegger supports the elimination of the private party exemption, which he and many others misname the “gun show loophole.”
4. Schwarzenegger supports trigger locks.

Kopel notes, correctly, that the first three proposals all state a subset of existing law in California, i.e. (1) our “assault” rifle ban is more draconian than its federal counterpart and will not expire in 2004, (2) our waiting period is longer than the Brady Bill has ever required, and (3) private party transfers are not exempt from background checks, as they are in other states. From this, Kopel concludes that Schwarzenegger is “amazingly ignorant of current gun laws in California.” He further marvels that “Surrounded by high-priced advisers and consultants, Schwarzenegger apparently cannot hire anyone who will explain to him the elementary facts of California gun law.”

While I would not be surprised if Schwarzenegger himself were ignorant of the three laws discussed above, I don’t believe for a minute that his advisors are. One of his top advisors, Pete Wilson, signed several of California’s existing laws (some good, others mildly bad) and vetoed others (all bad, most subsequently signed into law by Gov. Grayout). One of the good laws that Wilson signed was a bill shortening California’s waiting period from 15 days to 10, well after the Brady Bill had become law. Plus, Arnold’s character encountered California’s waiting period in Terminator, which preceded the Brady Bill by almost a decade. So the theory that Schwarzenegger didn’t know California had its own waiting period simply does not wash.

Another possibility which does wash, but which Kopel inexplicably does not consider, is that Schwarzenegger knows full well that we have too much gun control in this state, but also knows that coming off as too pro-gun is the kiss of death. Thus, the best he can be on the issue is a moderate, which he then accomplishes by supporting only “sensible,” gun control, and and leaving it up to the gunnies to figure out that the only gun control he finds “sensible” is a subset of that which already exists, and which he would not be able to persuade the Legislature to repeal if he wanted to. It is likely that George W. Bush may be pursuing a similar strategy with respect to the federal “assault” rifle ban, by tacitly supporting it but not lifting a finger to encourage Congress to pass it.

Kopel’s last example, gun locks, almost made me want to reel back in the vote I had cast for Arnold two weeks ago. Then I actually looked up the statement to Larry Elder that Kopel had paraphrased, and found the actual statement to be much less ambitious than the version Kopel had given us. According to Reuters, what Arnold actually said was this:

I support the Second Amendment that people have the right to have arms. But I want to make sure that also at the same time we have the Brady Bill which is the background checks and I think we should close the loophole with the gun trade shows and all those things and sometimes under certain circumstances we should have trigger locks on our guns.

“But I think that people should have the right to bear arms.”

[Emphasis added.]

Sorry, but observing that gun locks are “sometimes under certain circumstances” a good idea is simply a matter of common sense; it is hardly equivalent to advocating the ham-handed “safe” storage laws advocated by gun-grabbers that would make guns essetially useless for self-defense (as they are in Washington, D.C., for example), or even the somewhat overzealous “safe” storage laws Kopel blames on the August, 2000 tragedy in Merced. Should gun locks be used “under certain circumstances?” Why of course!

Finally, Kopel repeats the McLie that Tom McClintock is the only “serious candidate in the California governor’s race who supports Second Amendment rights.” Aside from relying on a delusional premise (McClintock is a potential spoiler, not a serious contender), it is also false. While Schwarzenegger may not be the NRA’s darling, he can’t be trying too hard to please the gun control crowd, either, as he has yet to propose a single gun law that would make California’s laws any more restrictive than they are now, despite the popular belief among the liberals, journalists and the Hollywood elites that Californians want more gun control. While Arnold is tough to pin down on the gun issue completely, I think it is reasonable to assume, as former Gun Owners of California head Bill Saracino does, that “the glass is half full, or way more.” I’m trying to convince myself that the same is true of the ideologues who cast one important vote for the recall, only to throw an equally important vote away on the unelectable McClintock.