Ethan Explains California Proposition 63

Ethan Explains California Proposition 63

This is number 13 of 17 of the California statewide ballot initiatives in 2016 that I’ll cover. Proposition 63 is the “The Safety for All Act of 2016.” Also known as the “Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban.”

Who doesn’t want to reduce the murder rate?

Proposition 63 claims to reduce gun crimes in the state of California by requiring background checks for the purchase of ammunition, banning possession of large capacity magazines, increasing penalties for theft of firearms, and requiring reporting for those thefts.

Requiring background checks for the purchase of ammunition

This is a newer approach by gun control advocates. The claim is that a criminal in possession of an illegal firearm still needs to buy ammunition. If we make the purchase of ammunition more difficult, they will commit fewer crimes with firearms. On the face of it, that appears logical. However, Illinois has already had this type of rule in effect for years. Yet, we consistently hear about the out of control murder rate in Chicago. The law doesn’t stop criminals and this approach hasn’t worked in Illinois other than inconveniencing legal firearm owners.

Banning possession of high capacity magazines

California banned the purchase of high capacity magazines in 2000. They are magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Proposition 63 seeks to outlaw them completely, including possession. So, a firearm owner who legally purchased on before 2000 will be required to dispose of it or sell it out-of-state if this initiative passes. The argument for this is that no reasonable person needs this kind of firepower. And the argument against is that these are used for sport shooting and jam quite frequently so any criminal who uses one has a significantly reduced chance of success. I am neutral on this argument.

Increasing penalties for theft of firearms

Right now in California, due to Prop 47, theft of a firearm valued less than $950 is petty theft. The maximum penalties for most petty theft convictions are a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), up to six (6) months in county jail, or both. And right now, maximum penalties for petty theft are not happening. Proposition 63 will recategorize ALL firearm thefts to felony with up to 3 years in prison, as they were before Prop 47. I strongly support this portion of the initiative.

Requiring reporting for firearm thefts

Under this initiative, sellers of ammunition would need to report a theft or loss within 48 hours. Individuals would be required to report a theft or loss within five days to local law enforcement. Right now, many criminals are acquiring their firearms through theft, like the Kate Steinle killer. In order to help law enforcement track stolen firearms a reporting requirement is a sensible approach. Plus, any rational firearm owner would want law enforcement to know the date their weapon was stolen so if it is used in a crime in the future, they aren’t a suspect. This section is entirely logical.

The problem with Proposition 63, like so many others, is that instead of focusing on a single issue, many are combined into one. I can support portions of this initiative, but not others. Further, this is a political move by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to burnsih his anti-gun credentials before the 2018 gubernatorial election. Infringing constitutional rights without evidence to support the intended conclusion sits poorly with me. Properly use the legislature to pass the reasonable sections.

I say NO to Proposition 63.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 –

Ethan Explains California Proposition 62

Ethan Explains California Proposition 62

This is number 12 of 17 of the California statewide ballot initiatives in 2016 that I’ll cover. Proposition 62 is the “Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.” Also known as the “Repeal of the Death Penalty Initiative.”

Does anybody actually like the death penalty? The purpose of the death penalty is to apply the ultimate retributive justice to the most vile offenders against society.

Think of brutal serial killers who murder many and terrorize whole communities. Those people are why we have the death penalty.

Proponents of Prop 62 argue that the death penalty is costly and justice isn’t served when people stay on death row for decades. True. However, the reason they are on death row for decades is because of the people who are against the death penalty. See the circular logic there?

Look, California is not Texas or Oklahoma. Two states where it seems like there is a blood-thirsty approach to the death penalty and retribution. California is a restrained state when it comes to applying for the death penalty.

Further, I’d like our prosecutors to have the discretion to apply for the death penalty in the cases of the most egregious murderers. Plus, if it deters even one killer, it is worthwhile.

I say NO to Proposition 62.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 –

Ethan Explains California Proposition 57

Ethan Explains California Proposition 57

This is number 7 of 17 of the California statewide ballot initiatives in 2016 that I’ll cover. Proposition 57 is the “California Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative.”

Prison overcrowding reached a crescendo resulting in federal court rulings to lessen the overcrowding in California. Governor Jerry Brown and the legislature passed AB109, prison realignment. That wasn’t enough so in 2014 there was Proposition 47, with a misleading title and facts no thanks to Attorney General Kamala Harris.

The governor and others claim we need to let even more “non-violent” criminals out of prison with Prop 57.

The problem is that within all of these “non-violent” criminals are a number of criminals interested in committing violent and property crimes. Crimes rates in both categories are up approximately 10% since Prop 47 took effect. That rise makes California the outlier in the United States as other states continue to see a drop in crime, ours is going up.

Even worse, take a look at what crimes will be recategorized as non-violent. According to the Riverside Country district attorney, Michael A. Hestrin, these will become lesser crimes in California and eligible for early release: Rape by intoxication (refers to a circumstance in which the victim was under the influence), Rape of an unconscious person, Human trafficking involving a sex act with minors, Assault with a deadly weapon, Drive-by shooting. Hostage taking, Supplying a firearm to a gang member. Hate crime causing physical injury, and many more.

Do you think those crimes should be reduced in severity and become eligible for early release?

I think California needs to pause in experimenting with recategorizing crimes and allowing so many people out of prison and jail.

I say NO to Proposition 57.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 –

Interview With Neal Coonerty

Neal Coonerty
Neal Coonerty, Chairman of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Today on KSCO Presents, I had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. Neal Coonerty in-studio. Mr. Coonerty is a longtime citizen and business owner in Santa Cruz along with his extensive involvement in local politics.

As promised during the interview today, posted here is the spreadsheet of crime data from which I based my information. All underlying data comes from the U.S. D.O.J.


Listen to the interview online or mp3 download at The Ethan Bearman Show Podcast Site

Don’t Steal In Iran

Iran Finger Amputation Machine
Thief About To Lose A Finger

Never wanting to lose a chance to combine the 21st century with the 7th century, the Islamic Republic of Iran has developed a machine for chopping off the finger of a thief.

And I thought the guillotine was the ultimate cutting device. My imagination just doesn’t stretch far enough in how many ways to barbarically punish people.

The photo above is from an official press release in Iran (there are more disturbing photos HERE) regarding this thief and adulterer. In addition to losing a finger, he received 99 lashes with a whip.

More disturbing trends from a country where apostasy (conversion from Islam) is a crime, stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.” Yet, the United Nations elected Iran to a four-year seat on the Commission on Women’s Rights.

Let this be a reminder to us in the West the dangers of a theocracy.