The statement that the firearms homicide rate did not change is not correct. It changed, along with the overall homicide rate and the non-firearm homicide rate. As with suicides, the decrease in rates was virtually the same. The percentage of homicides with firearms varied by less than 10% from 1991 to 2000. In 1991 it was 70.1%, in 2000, it was 70.4%, essentially no change.

The study in the Journal of Epidemiology compared the California results with those in 32 control states, where the California law was not implemented. The comparison allowed them to determine the overall decrease in the homicide was not the result of the California law but was common to the control states as well.

This is a powerful indictment against the usefulness of Universal Background Checks to reduce homicides or suicides.

Not only did the California law prohibit private sales of firearms; firearm sales are not private when they are required to be conducted and recorded through a government system. California created a completely new class of prohibited possessors, people who had been convicted of a “violent” misdemeanor. Most proposals for Universal Background Checks do not go so far. California has a much more extensive list of prohibited possessors than exist in federal law.

California firearms law is complex and convoluted. It is difficult to read and understand. Recently, it has been changing radically and rapidly.

California has some of the strictest and most severe infringements on Second Amendment rights, of any state in the nation.

In this most favorable approach to evaluating the effectiveness of Universal Background Checks (evaluating firearms suicides and homicides separately) and an entire new class of prohibited possessors, there was no measurable effect on firearms homicides, firearms suicides, or overall homicides or suicides.

The authors of the study likely expected to find a positive effect. The fact they wrote the paper and reported the negative result reflects well on their integrity. Negative results are just as important in science as positive results.

The conclusions show a certain bias. Translated into easily digested English, they say, these laws may have failed because they were not strict enough, or enforced rigorously enough.

It is the classic leftist response. If the policy fails, it is not the fault of the policy. We just need to spend more and do more of the same!

California has far more infringements on Second Amendment rights than most states in the Union.

It is ripe to have numerous firearms laws struck down by the Supreme Court.