Why It Matters: Sportsmen’s issues are fundamentally intertwined with firearms issues, given that firearms of every kind are routinely used in hunting and recreational shooting. Additionally, approximately 80% of Pittman-Robertson funding comes from firearms and ammunition purchases made by recreational shooters. While many hunters may wish to stay out of gun politics, the fact remains that many hunting opportunities rely on the ability to acquire and use firearms and wildlife conservation is dependent on recreational shooting, meaning that anyone concerned with hunting and wildlife conservation needs to also pay attention to what’s happening with guns.
Highlights:
- A couple firearms bills that would have impacted sportsmen significantly died this past week in California: Senate Bill 15 (SB 15), and Assembly Bill 1187 (AB 1187)
- SB 15 would have created an unfair system for FFL inspections by implying that FFL holders are responsible for what happens to firearms after the legal transfer is completed.
- AB 1187 would have made it more challenging for new gun owners to acquire the necessary training needed to receive their Firearm Safety Card prior to purchasing their own firearm.
While firearm policy victories in state like California may seem rare, sportsmen and women have something to celebrate following the recent defeat of a couple of bills that sought to make firearms more difficult to acquire for otherwise law-abiding sportsmen and women.
First, Senate Bill 15, which proponents claim would have targeted “bad FFLs” was defeated for now. SB 15 would have, among other things, created a list of the top 10 FFL holders who performed that last legal transfer for “recovered firearms” (i.e., those obtained by law enforcement and determined to have been stolen, used in a crime, or suspected of having been used in a crime). These 10 FFLs would then be subject to an inspection and, if any violations were uncovered and failed to be resolved within a 90-day grace period, would result in suspension of their license for a period of two years. While the sporting-conservation community agrees that FFLs should follow all applicable laws related to the sale and transfer of firearms, SB 15 implies that FFL holders are to blame for the illegal trade and use of firearms, an implication to which our community takes great offense. While SB 15 initially passed out of committee, it was rereferred and failed to receive another vote prior to California’s recent committee deadline.
Similarly, AB 1187 which would have, among other things, added live-fire training to the requirements necessary to receive a Firearm Safety Card, failed to pass out of committee before recent deadlines, effectively killing the bill at this time. While sportsmen and women often enjoy practicing at the range, the new live-fire requirements would have potentially created a situation where aspiring first-time firearm owners would be unable to complete this training due to California’s existing prohibition on the transfer (including loan) of firearms to individuals who do not possess a Firearm Safety Card. While the ambiguous language of the bill may have provided an opportunity for firearm safety instructors to furnish firearms needed to satisfy live-fire requirements as a part of their training, the sporting-conservation community was pleased to see this bill fail to advance, protecting opportunities for aspiring firearm owners while preventing new, confusing situations for those who wish to acquire their Firearm Safety Card.
While these bills may seem a bit fringe, it is important to recognize the role that access to firearms plays in protecting both recreational shooting and access to lawful, regulated hunting opportunities. This includes the role of firearms in supporting conservation efforts through the “user pays – public benefits” American System of Conservation Funding.
