California lawmakers poised to pass new gun ban

California lawmakers this week are poised to use a budget maneuver to ban a new type of gun in a move that drew bipartisan criticism in a legislative committee hearing Wednesday evening.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration describes the firearm as an assault-style weapon that’s a cross between a rifle and a pistol. It doesn’t neatly fit into either category, however, because it lacks a shoulder stock needed to be a rifle and has a barrel too long to be a pistol.

Representatives for Newsom argued at a Senate Budget Committee hearing that the gun was designed to circumvent California gun control laws and that the policy change would close the loophole.

Jay Jacobson, president of the company that manufactures the firearm, disputed the administration’s characterization of the gun. He said the gun his company Franklin Armory manufactures, called a Title 1, is in a separate category from rifles and pistols and that the company has worked for years to ensure the weapon would be legal to sell in California.

Several lawmakers raised concerns about the move at the Wednesday hearing, arguing the ban should have been considered in a standalone bill, not as part of the sprawling budget deal that encompasses 19 pieces of complicated legislation.

“It should be a policy bill — banning of a new class of firearm,” said Republican Sen. Melissa Melendez from Lake Elsinore. “This isn’t a budget matter.”

Aaron Edwards, a representative from the governor’s Department of Finance, said that the administration had pushed to include the provision because the budget includes funding to regulate the weapons. Under questioning from lawmakers, Edwards said he wasn’t prepared to describe the type of firearm the administration wants to ban.

“I’d like someone to explain to me exactly what these weapons are, and referring to them as similar to assault weapons frankly doesn’t cut it for me,” said Sen. Richard Roth, a Democrat from Riverside. “I want to know what I’m voting on.”

Later in the hearing, Edwards and other administration officials provided more information on the weapons, which are not currently for sale in California.

Edwards pointed to the Franklin Armory Title 1, saying it “would fall under any reasonable person’s definition of an assault weapon” but does not fall under the state’s assault weapons bans because it does not meet the definition of either a pistol or a rifle.

“The longer we wait, the more people may be able to obtain these weapons,” Edwards said. “We think that they’re a public safety threat and we feel there’s an urgency to act now.”

Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, said she views the policy as trying to ensure California’s ban on assault weapons is up-to-date and encompasses all appropriate firearms.

‘THEY’RE USING DIRTY TRICKS,’ MANUFACTURER SAYS

Jacobson says the gun is not an assault weapon and that he anticipates people who buy it would use it for “defense or hunting or target shooting or plinking.”

“Franklin Armory Title 1 was created for our friends behind enemy lines where the modern sporting rifle is neutered beyond comprehension,” the company’s website says. “Title 1 provides a FULL FEATURE option to the consumer in restrictive jurisdictions.”

Jacobson said it wasn’t appropriate for California to craft a law targeting his business, specifically, and that using a budget bill to pass the legislation allows California to pass the law quickly without a two-thirds majority. 

Most bills signed into law in California take effect on Jan. 1 of the following year, unless they have an “urgency” clause, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Budget bills, however, require only a majority vote and take effect July 1.

“They’re using dirty tricks,” Jacobson said.

Franklin Armory is already suing the California Department of Justice in an attempt to begin selling the gun in California. Jacobson said it will also challenge the proposed law if it passes the Legislature.

The Legislature is scheduled to pass the bill that contains the new gun policy this week as part of the budget deal legislation. Newsom must sign the bills into law before the end of the month so they can take effect on the July 1 start of the next fiscal year.