CA Pension Systems to Divest Stocks, Cite Assault Weapons Production
By Blake Bunch | 02/22/2013 | California, Economy, Issues, News Ticker, Pensions, Safety, States | 4 Comments
On Tuesday, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) voted to sell off its investments in Smith and Wesson Holding Corp. and Sturm Ruger & Co. The shares, totaling $5 million, are to be sold off because both companies produce weapons that are illegal in the state. Tweet at @CalPERS: Tweet
Though state legislators from both sides of the fence have promoted new gun control measures, this is the first solid move the state has taken in response to gun violence. It was spearheaded by treasurer Bill Lockyer, ultimately in response to the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.
Not only did CalPERS vote to divest the shares, but the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) did as well. Tweet at @CalSTRS: Tweet
The CalPERS board voted 9-3 to sell off its 196,664 shares of Smith and Wesson, and 116,594 Sturm Ruger shares.
Board member Dan Dunmoyer, who offered one of the dissenting votes, argued that since CalPERS invests in other companies that produce illegal goods, it was presumptuous to exclude firearm manufacturers. Dunmoyer was referring to companies that produce gasoline only available in other states, cars that don’t hold up to California’s clean air standards, and even some acne medicines.
Smith and Wesson produces semiautomatic models such as the M&P10 and M&P15, which are illegal assault rifles under California law. Sturm Ruger makes semi-auto handheld weapons like the SR9 or 22 Charger, as well as the SR-556 assault rifle.
In a recent CalPERS press release, however, board administration president Rob Feckner elaborated:
“As trustees, we take divestment very seriously. As Californians, we also take gun violence very seriously. Eliminating these investments allows us to keep our duty to our members and, in some small part, do what we can to help stop the proliferation of weapons that can magnify and multiply horrific acts of mass violence.” Tweet quote: Tweet
It is widely known that California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 bans essentially all semiautomatic, center-fire rifles with detachable magazines.
The state has strict regulations for “open carry” permits. California is also tough on ammunition purchases as well as background checks. In California, one must fill out an application with the Department of Justice. The DOJ then runs a background check, which is typically a ten-day period, and is applicable for thirty days.
CalPERS and CalSTRS stance on gun control has caused some to question why the pension systems for state workers and teachers were investing in firearms manufacturers to begin with. Overall, their vote to divest the funds will be appreciated by some and scorned by others.
Leave Your Comment →
4 Comments
Alex Gauthier
02.22.2013
@alexg
it’d be interesting to look at how effective these gun bans are in reducing violence in california as opposed to other states with more relaxed regulations
Lucas Eaves
02.22.2013
@lucaseaves
I like the idea that a pension fund does think about what type of companies they invest in.
Scott W. Trent Jr.
02.22.2013
@scott_w-_trent_jr
MY only ? is, IF what THEY are selling OFF is making a PROFIT for their retirement system and the holders thereof, and by doing this, would not THEY be guilty of mis-management?, or at least the “holders” of the funds who expect to have MONEY when they retire, COME BACK and SUE the HELL out of the state or the ones who created THIS bright idea? I would, IF IT causes a current or future LOSS to the retirement system, in fact IT IS probably a good case of a huge CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT!!! ??
PhdMarty
03.05.2013
@phdmarty
As California is being foolish with this, I suggest they learn some very simple facts. Cotrary to what our wonderful media reports, According to the studies mandated by the assault weapons ban of 1994, they found no scientific or other proof that it affected violent crime in any measureable way. The other fact is that ban used mostly cosmetic features to qualify those weapons as assault weapons. Things such as hand guards, flash hiders, and grips, have no affect on function of the weapon at all. It banned many weapons on how they appeard not how dangerous they were. I equate this to having two Dodge Challenger cars, one with a hemi and one with an ordinary four cylinder. Both look exactly the same, but don’t try to get into traffic quickly in the four cylinder one. Although the AR-15 (AR stands for Armalite, the manufacturer not assault rifle as some say) looks very much like a military M-16, but hardly functions the same. Magazine size also has little affect on most shoootings. Data shows most who are shot have been hit by the fourth round. However, if using a weapon, whether it be a pistol or a rifle, although very few shootings happen with rifles, if there is more than one attacker, you may very well need more than the ten rounds mandates have. The media rarely reports about a woman fending off a violent attacker with her pistol, but always reports the rare shootings that happen in a far away state. If you look at the right resources, you would find firearms are used often to protect or save a life. Lastly, every public shooting that more than three people were shot, with the exception of Gabby Giffords, since at least 1950, have occurred in gun free zones. Just as the highest violent crime rates are in metropolitan areas that have the strictest gun laws, so is it that these incidents show guns and violence DO NOT go hand in hand.