Lungren Does About-Face in Gun Law Case

Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren has made a stunning reversal in a key state Supreme Court battle over assault weapons, a decision that could have sweeping ramifications for thousands of owners of one the most popular models of the rapid-fire rifles.

Lungren, the state’s top law enforcement officer and probable Republican candidate for governor, acknowledged Friday that he had withdrawn a brief filed earlier this year with the high court defending a criminal defendant’s possession of an SKS semiautomatic assault rifle.

The decision, which comes after a Times review of Lungren’s enforcement of the law, represents a dramatic change for Lungren in a case that his critics cited as part of a pattern of actions that greatly narrowed the reach of the state’s precedent-setting assault weapons control law.

Some observers say they hope the about-face signals a more aggressive approach by Lungren to enforcing the law. That, they say, would be a significant change in his posture.

Although Lungren had vigorously defended his opinion in the SKS rifle case as recently as a month ago, he now is apologizing for it.

“Today, after a thorough review of the legal principles involved, the office withdraws its brief,” Lungren said in a letter Thursday to the California Supreme Court.

“The position taken there inaccurately reflects the view of the attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of the state of California. We regret any inconvenience to counsel or this court with respect to filing of this document.”

Lungren refused Friday to provide any additional explanation of the turnabout. However, Rob Stutzman, Lungren’s spokesman, indicated that the arguments advanced in the high court legal brief were a mistake from the outset. “It never should have been filed,” he said.

The state’s assault weapons law, enacted in June 1989, restricts 75 specific firearms and gives the attorney general a key role in deciding whether to add to the list new “copycats,” guns that are just as deadly as restricted weapons but only cosmetically different.

Among the weapons restricted is one model of the SKS that comes with a removable ammunition magazine. That SKS model is at the center of the Supreme Court case.

Lungren’s office has come under fire from judges, prosecutors, police, victims and gun control advocates in the SKS case.

Just five weeks ago in an interview with The Times, Lungren said his position in the SKS case was what the law required. That stance had shocked law enforcement officers and prosecutors because it placed Lungren in the unusual position of opposing them.

“It was an appalling thing for him to do,” said Stanley Voyles, the Santa Clara County assistant district attorney who prosecuted the defendant in the SKS case.

Now, Lungren is considering joining Voyles, an aide said Friday.

Voyles said the latest action may be an indication the attorney general is reexamining his interpretation of the entire law.

“They’ve always interpreted the law to cover the least amount of weapons,” Voyles said. “Maybe this signals a reevaluation of their position more in favor of the public.”

But Lungren spokesman Stutzman cautioned against interpreting the attorney general’s action to mean that he intends to significantly change his view on enforcement of the law.

“The decision to pull this brief doesn’t extend beyond the review that took place,” he said.

The case arose in March 1993, when Santa Clara officers responded to a complaint that James Dingman was disturbing the peace at a local motel. Court records say he told police that he had been hearing voices and that people were plotting his death, which he later denied.

Police found the assault rifle in his room along with a 30-round magazine, two pistols and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Police charged him with possession of an illegal assault weapon.

Dingman had purchased the gun legally, and then altered it so that it would accept a large-capacity magazine. Local prosecutors maintained that was illegal, a position Lungren had disagreed with until this week.

In a brief filed with the high court, Lungren had sided with Dingman and the National Rifle Assn. against the Santa Clara district attorney’s office.

The attorney general argued that Dingman’s rifle was not unlawful because it, like thousands of other SKS weapons, had not originally been manufactured to accept the removable magazines.

That had been the opinion of the attorney general’s office since the beginning of the case, said Voyles, the Santa Clara prosecutor. “They had never shown any inclination to agree with our position,” he said, adding that Lungren’s switch came as a “shock and surprise.”

Dingman’s attorney Donald Kates said the attorney general’s revised position is a setback to his client’s case. “A case that was overwhelmingly [in Dingman’s favor] now is less overwhelming,” he said.

He blamed The Times for Lungren’s shift, saying he believes the attorney general was reacting to “a set of hit pieces” that could have hurt his electoral chances.

A National Rifle Assn. official said Lungren’s action caught the gun owners group off-guard. “I’m sort of baffled, having spent so much time discussing this case with the Department of Justice,” said NRA spokesman Steve Helsley.

He said that Lungren and his staff had appeared fully committed to their previous position.

“This is a subject I’ve written to Lungren personally about. It has received a lot of debate and attention within the Department of Justice.”

Some observers said Lungren’s new position could significantly influence the pending case, one that could affect tens of thousands of owners of the popular, Chinese-made SKS rifles. Indeed, Lungren’s office had previously argued to the high court that many of the owners of the rifles would be seen as criminals if the high court ruled against Dingman.

As The Times reported last month, Lungren has been criticized in two other pending cases, including a Kings County case, in which his office opposed local authorities who had seized a copycat assault weapon. In that case, which also is before the state Supreme Court, Lungren’s office did not file a brief, but took the same position as the NRA in a lower court opposing the weapon seizure.

In addition, Lungren has been attacked by lawmakers for allowing thousands of gun owners to register weapons after a legislatively imposed deadline, a policy that Lungren said he is also reconsidering.