Your Aug. 25 article regarding California's troubled assault weapons law cheated readers of important context and facts.
Readers find the first inaccuracy in the second paragraph, where your reporters write that I "agreed" to a delay--that still holds today--preventing me from adding new "copycat" assault weapons to the list of those banned under California law. That assertion also appeared in the accompanying article about a man badly wounded by assault weapon firepower. These statements are plainly false. The current injunction was ordered by the appellate court over my objection.
Amazingly, your reporters contradict themselves by finally correctly noting this fact deep into the article.
In the third paragraph, you proclaim that my office doesn't require proof that registered assault weapons were purchased prior to the law's March 1992 "grandfather" deadline. I repeatedly explained to your reporters that my office requires a statement to be signed by the weapon's owner, under penalty of perjury, that the weapon was acquired before the deadline.
Perjury is a straight felony in California; it is a serious crime.
During the course of my interview with your reporters, they indicated that they had information about individuals who stated their intention to commit perjury when they registered their assault weapons. I repeatedly asked them to provide that information so that my office could pursue lawbreakers. My office has received no response, even though the information was clearly not obtained in a protected "reporter-confidential source" manner. I renew my request that you provide any information regarding assault weapon buyers who may have committed perjury and would also therefore be illegally in the possession of an assault weapon.