Virginia recently wrapped up its legislative session with more than 15 new laws aiming to ban “assault weapons,” detachable magazines, and such. Governor Abigail Spanberger, “a former federal law enforcement officer who carried a gun every day,” seems disposed to sign them all. Devotees of the Second Amendment might review how similar measures are working out in California. A school shooting in Stockton prompted the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA), banning the ownership, sale, importation, and even lending of rifles modeled on the Soviet AK-47 and American AR-15. These and other rifles, pistols, and even some shotguns required registration with the state Department of Justice. For California politicians and bureaucrats, that wasn’t enough In 2016, as part of Governor Jerry Brown’s budget package, the legislature approved a five-year $5 million grant for the Firearms Violence Research Center at UC Davis, touted as the first such center in the nation. Director Garen Wintemute claimed his work was based on “science,” but Second Amendment advocates had reason to be wary. The center’s first project would be a survey that looks at “who owns guns, why they own them and how they use firearms.” The state-funded center wanted “the names,” which sounds more like state-sponsored snooping than any matter of science. The center also targeted those who sell guns, claiming that cities with increases in gun purchases also experience more gun-related injuries. That same year, Brown signed Senate Bill 1446, which prohibited rifle and pistol magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those who surrendered their magazines received no compensation, and those who declined to hand them over faced fines. According to Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, the measure was “making law-abiding citizens into criminals.” The next target was the ammunition itself. The 2016 Proposition 63, heavily supported by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, required a criminal background check to purchase ammunition. Ammunition dealers would be required “to collect and report information” on the buyer, which would be stored in a database for two years. Failure to comply was punishable by a fine or imprisonment. On July 1, 2019, the background checks went into effect. By December 2019, California had run 345,000 background checks and rejected 62,000 Californians legally entitled to purchase ammunition, including off-duty sheriff’s deputies purchasing shotgun shells to hunt ducks. The state Department of Justice soon mounted operations to confiscate firearms and ammunition from gun owners who failed the ammunition background checks. Law-abiding citizens could be forgiven for seeing the measure as more government snooping and gun confiscation through the back door. The legislators seem to ignore a troubling precedent for such actions. In Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State,“ author Stephen P. Halbrook showed how Hitler’s Germany restricted firearms. The National Socialists used the registration records of the Weimar Republic to learn who owned guns. They ruthlessly suppressed firearm ownership by disfavored groups, who were also forbidden access to ammunition. California politicians also seem unaware that criminals disregard gun laws and how that can endanger the public and even law enforcement. Back in 1997, in North Hollywood, bank robbers Larry Phillips and Emil Matasareanu deployed fully automatic rifles, illegal to possess at the time, firing at anything that moved, including news helicopters With only their 9mm pistols, the police were outgunned, so they headed to B&B Sales, a nearby gun store. The owner supplied the officers with four 5.56mm Bushmaster XM-15 semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines and two Remington shotguns with rifled slugs. Thus equipped, the cops took down the robbers with no loss of innocent life. Guns are mechanical devices that do nothing apart from human agency. Calls to end “gun violence” are seldom accompanied by open condemnations of the criminals who perpetrate the violence. In 2015 in San Bernardino, California, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik gunned down 14 people and wounded more than 20 others. Attorney General Kamala Harris failed to condemn the shooters and did not name a single victim. Ten years later, Harris appeared to have no second thoughts. Last August, Robert Westman, who called himself “Robin,” opened fire on students at the Annunciation Catholic Church and school in Minneapolis, killing Fletcher Merkel, eight years old, and Harper Moyski, only 10 years old. In an X post, Abigail Spanberger said she was “horrified by today’s shooting” and praying for the victims “of this horrific act of gun violence.” On the other hand, the candidate for governor failed to condemn the murderer or name any of the victims. Governor Spanberger now faces a raft of bills aiming to prevent “gun violence.” Based on the experience of California, these measures will deprive law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights, empower criminals, and endanger the public. Don’t say you weren’t warned. READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: CARBifornia Versus the People ‘Snowcialism’: Where a Nor’easter Becomes a State of Emergency Greenland Rejects USNS Mercy Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif.