Yesterday, the two leading candidates for California Attorney General, liberal San Francisco Democrat Kamala Harris and moderate Los Angeles Republican Steve Cooley, participated in 
their only scheduled debate. It was sponsored by the Sacramento Bee and held at UC Davis School of Law.
I’ve spoken with a wide variety of individuals who watched the debate – either in person or on the webcast of it – and the consensus was that Cooley mopped the floor with Harris. I heard that from some current and former prosecutors, journalists and even Democrats. Believe me, not all these folks are Cooley fans but they all agreed that he came across with gravitas and conveyed substance and a seriousness of purpose. Harris, in contrast, seemed uncertain, unconvincing and even flustered at times – particularly during the first half of the debate
Harris was on the defensive from the very beginning when Cooley introduced in the audience the mother, sister and widow of slain San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza. Harris, who adamantly opposes the death penalty and has refused to seek it as San Francisco District Attorney, earned the enmity of law enforcement officers everywhere when she announced that she wouldn’t seek the death penalty for the gang member who used an automatic weapon to murder Officer Espinoza. Even more insulting, she made the announcement before Espinoza was even buried.
Harris tried to duck questions on the death penalty and how she could claim to enforce it when she considered it immoral. Cooley took her to task and repeatedly underscored the impressive fact that he has been endorsed by every single law enforcement organization that has made an endorsement in the race for Attorney General – a whopping 47 law enforcement groups so far.
The most amazing part of the debate was when Harris claimed she opposed the Sanctuary City policy that she has spent the past decade repeatedly and consistently championing in San Francisco. This is the same policy that led to a dangerous criminal illegal alien not being reported to immigration who then used an AK-47 to slaughter an innocent family – the Bolognas – a father and two sons – in an act of road rage.
Harris’ statement was beyond dishonest and a completely contradicted by her own record – but the press can be counted on to gloss over it.
Cooley was direct and knowledgeable. Harris prevaricated and pandered.
Cooley proved once again he has the goods to be a strong and effective Attorney General who will use the office to represent the will of the people. Harris showed she is a San Francisco liberal interested in using the powers of the office to push her own agenda and ambitions, regardless of the will of the people of California.
After watching that debate it was hard not to respect him and acknowledge he has the experience, the credentials and the integrity for the job.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Jon,
The gang member in question did NOT use an ‘automatic weapon’ to murder Officer Espinoza.
I understand the rifle was an ordinary plain-jane semiautomatic surplus SKS rifle, which is legally sold today in CA gunshops.
Facts matter: misstatements regarding gun facts play straight into the antigunners’ hands. I’d expect better from a Republican, but CA Republican support for the 2nd Amendment is lukewarm at best (esp with a crew of antigunners Whitman and Poizner and Lungren…)
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
October 8th, 2010 at 12:00 am
You understand wrong.
A few seconds with Google led me to the < href = "http://www.odmp.org/officer/17277-police-officer-isaac-anthony-espinoza">Officer Down Memorial Page, which says it was an AK-47, though it doesn’t indicate whether semi-automatic or automatic, nor whether Chinese-made.
October 8th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Nick,
Actually I understand right.
You’ve just showed Random Googling leads to random BS in terms of gun matters. You have to talk to a ‘gun person’ (which usually doesn’t include cops).
Information I got int the past also indicates it was indeed a Simonov-pattern rifle.
Partially correct phrasing but in the “still-doesn’t-get-it” league:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Isaac+Espinoza+SKS&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701
No, Virginia, any SKS is NOT a variation of an AK47, AKS or AKM: Simonov and Kalashnikov were two different people who developed two entirely distinct rifle architectures. Also, there are legal distinctions in CA law as well relating to certain model variants of both these guns.
News reporters, cops and DAs almost always get SKS vs AK-47 wrong. (Hell, every gun is an AK47 to these folks.)
My organization has fun with cops & DAs on these issues, and the lack of clarity will be one of the reasons California’s arbitrary ban on certain gun types will eventually fall. [Probably much to friggin’ gun-grabber Dan Lungren’s distress, a whole ‘nuther subject.]
Bill Wiese
The Calguns Foundation
October 11th, 2010 at 12:00 am
You’re relying on an internally inconsistent article to show that I’m wrong?
Reporters are clueless on gun issues. Many DAs are as well. A large portion of cops, however, are gun people themselves.
References in police-affiliated sources seem to be basically unanimous that it was a semiautomatic AK-47, and those that mention a country of origin all indicate Chinese (and therefore banned in CA).
Even the indictment of Marvin Jeffrey for furnishing Hill a firearm (Jeffrey traded it to Hill for other firearms) specified that it was an AK-47. You get the type of firearm wrong in an indictment, the defendant can end up walking away a free man.
October 12th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Nick…
Other information I have seen in past indicates it was a Simonov-pattern rifle. Also, a gun related charging document coming out of the SF DA’s office may have zero relation to reality :)
BTW, “gun people cops” are often the most misinformed on gun issues and gun laws in CA because they walk around in a cloud of assumptions and never read the Penal Code. (CGF just took $35K settlement from SDPD for an illegal arrest of an open carrier because the cops thought they knew guns & gun laws.)
“You get the type of firearm wrong in an indictment…” – yes, and that’s why Calguns Foundation has won all their assault weapons cases (or they get no-filed) :-)
Also, not all Chinese SKSes are banned – many Norinco SKSes are entirely legal if they are not SKS-D models with detachable magazines banned in 12281PC. There are tens of thousands of legal Norinco SKS rifles in CA.
At Calguns we’ve seen lots of individuals charged with AK
possession for SKS, and vice versa.
-Bill
October 12th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Agreed on the SKSes – though Chinese-made AK-47s are banned in CA, which is what I was referring to.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Nick…
Not all Chinese made AKs are banned by name in CA, only the ones specifically marked AK-47, listed by variant in 12276PC or on the Kasler ‘series’ list (11 CCR 5499). I think there are quite a few that escape. (Of course, SB23 features need to be configured properly to avoid 12276.1PC).
-Bill
October 13th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Also we got sidetracked on SKS stuff: my concern is that a Republican author was referring to an “automatic” weapon when the gun in question is semiautomatic.
That logic mishsmash has led to public confusion over ordinary semiauto fuction rifles vs machineguns and led to bad law like SB23.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA