(CA) Gun bills status report via CalNRA (not good)

Oatka · June 10, 2001, 10:47 AM

Gun Folks,

"Nothing is over until we say it's over! Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!!!"
---Future Senator John (Bluto) Blutarski

Attached is the Word Document version of the latest California
Gun Control Legislative Watchlist from the office of Senator
Ray Haynes.

I started with the quote, because we all need a bit of levity after this past week. What is happening to us here in California is
ridiculous, but it is serious, and we must continue to fight.

All of the worst bills passed their house of origin this week.
Both gun owner licensing bills (AB 35 and SB 52) passed, and the bill to ban the sale of all handguns available today (AB 1219) passed
as well. We had already passed the loaded chamber/magazine disconnect
safety bill last week.

We had AB 35 on the ropes for a while, thanks to everyone's hard work.
They could not get their votes to remove the bill from the committee in
time for the deadline last Friday. This week, they waived the rules to
allow it to be considered, and Speaker Bob Hertzberg (D-LA) removed two
Democrats (Papan and Thomson) from the committee and replaced them with
supporters of the gun bill. Only then were they able to get it out of
Appropriations. On the floor Thursday, they again couldn't get the
necessary votes. Speaker Hertzberg called the Democrats off the floor
for a caucus, and when they came back an hour later he immediately called
for a vote, and received the bare minimum 41 votes for passage.

SB 52 did not pass with as much difficulty in the Senate, though my boss
made some impassioned arguments on the floor and Senator Pete Knight tried
unsuccessfully to add amendments to the bill to allow "licensees" to carry
their firearms in public.

Most frightening to me is how easily AB 1219 is passing. The media is
portraying this as a "safety" bill. It is nothing short of a handgun
moratorium. There is no handgun commercially manufactured today in the
World that will be allowed to be sold in California if this bill passes.
It does *not* grandfather used guns. You will continue to be allowed
to own used guns, but you will never again be allowed to purchase a 1911,
a Model 19, or a basic Glock. We must raise the visibility of this bill.

The good news is that not a single Assembly Republican has defected on a
gun bill so far this year. With one exception, the Senate Republican
Caucus
has been unified in opposition as well.

What next?

After talking to my boss, I suggest we use the lull between now and when
the committee hearings start heating up again in August to start writing
the
Governor. I don't mean e-mail, and I don't mean phone calls. Now is *not*
the time to start melting his phone. His public statements so far on the
gun bills have not been supportive. He is still saying he would prefer to
let the bills from two years ago take full affect before we add more. We
need to send reasoned, rational, well-argued letters to his office
encouraging
him to block these bills in the legislature, and to veto them if they get
to his desk. Real letters are handled differently than phone calls and
e-mails. We want them to see physical evidence of our opposition.

We also recommend calling his local offices (he has them in Sacramento,
Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Fresno and Riverside) and asking
for a meeting with a member of his staff to discuss your concerns. You
should also start calling your local Legislators and asking for a personal
appointment with them. They will be on summer recess (budget willing) and
in their districts from July 20th until August 20th. Now is the time to
schedule those appointments. Bring friends if you can all make a rational,
level-headed argument for our position. Face to face meetings can be
very persuasive.

All in all, it's been a crummy week, but we can't and won't give up.

If you have any comments or questions or information, please
feel free to contact me directly. As always, redistribution of this
Watchlist with attribution is encouraged and permitted.

Thanks for all the hard work,

JTG
Jeff.Greene@sen.ca.gov
"No government is better than our government"

Elker_43 · June 11, 2001, 09:59 AM

I will be "hand writing" a letter to Gov. Davis and will encourage all of my pro-2nd buddies to to the same. This has to stop!

I am also calling today and scheduling an appointment with my Legislator (Abel Maldonaldo). He recently voted for several of these bills and I have just received a letter back from him after several letters and phone calls expressing my diappointment. His letter did not set well with me.

I will be working hard this next election to defeat him!!!

Chaingun · June 11, 2001, 01:02 PM

Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
governor@governor.ca.gov

He also has a new web site
http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/gov...emfcfkmchcng.0

Dead · June 11, 2001, 01:47 PM

Guess the following doesnt mean A THING to them, as they have clearly shown.

I wonder if saying you can NO longer own x because we made a law that says so (after you already owned it legally) doesnt violates due process??? I cant see how it would not?? There was NO crime commited by the person owning x. I mean it would be the same if a law was passed banning ALL Honda Civics from being owned as those are "The Evil Gang Banger's" car of choice. So turn them in!!!

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this
Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public
entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which
exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use
of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation. In enforcing
this subdivision or any other provision of this Constitution, no
court of this State may impose upon the State of California or any
public entity, board, or official any obligation or responsibility
with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil
transportation, (1) except to remedy a specific violation by such
party that would also constitute a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and
(2) unless a federal court would be permitted under federal
decisional law to impose that obligation or responsibility upon such
party to remedy the specific violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Except as may be precluded by the Constitution of the United
States, every existing judgment, decree, writ, or other order of a
court of this State, whenever rendered, which includes provisions
regarding pupil school assignment or pupil transportation, or which
requires a plan including any such provisions shall, upon application
to a court having jurisdiction by any interested person, be modified
to conform to the provisions of this subdivision as amended, as
applied to the facts which exist at the time of such modification.
In all actions or proceedings arising under or seeking application
of the amendments to this subdivision proposed by the Legislature at
its 1979-80 Regular Session, all courts, wherein such actions or
proceedings are or may hereafter be pending, shall give such actions
or proceedings first precedence over all other civil actions therein.

Nothing herein shall prohibit the governing board of a school
district from voluntarily continuing or commencing a school
integration plan after the effective date of this subdivision as
amended.
In amending this subdivision, the Legislature and people of the
State of California find and declare that this amendment is necessary
to serve compelling public interests, including those of making the
most effective use of the limited financial resources now and
prospectively available to support public education, maximizing the
educational opportunities and protecting the health and safety of all
public school pupils, enhancing the ability of parents to
participate in the educational process, preserving harmony and
tranquility in this State and its public schools, preventing the
waste of scarce fuel resources, and protecting the environment.
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.

Russ · June 11, 2001, 05:19 PM

Thanks for the contact info Chiangun. This should make it easy for anyone intereted in their rights to send a message.

For all of you outside of Kalifornia, think about writting also. You may find there is a President Gray Davis one day. :barf:

This is really getting old. I wish these sorry legislators would go away.

Brett Bellmore · June 11, 2001, 06:21 PM

"You will continue to be allowed to own used guns, but you will never again be allowed to purchase a 1911, a Model 19, or a basic Glock. "

That's what makes it ok, so far as they're concerned. They're not going to take the guns away, YET, but you won't be able to transfer them to anybody else in the state, or buy any new ones. At least that's how I read it.

Gary H · June 12, 2001, 10:04 PM

I can't think of another handgun that I want to buy, nor a state that is more intrusive than California. I will earn as much money as I can and them move to a less offensive state. The liberals can have this state. It goes beyond guns. Socialism is here to stay.

Chaingun · June 13, 2001, 01:29 PM

I was unable to edit the previous post, but here's lniks to the bills. Be sure to write a seperate letter for each bill. At a minimum, short & sweet and to the point.

AB35 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ss=CUR&house=B

SB52 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ss=CUR&house=B

AB1219 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ss=CUR&house=B

Russ · June 13, 2001, 06:32 PM

I checked out the Floor votes on these bills. I live in a predominantly Republican district. There are a couple of DemocRAT Assembly members and Senators in the next district North of me. I am happy to say that they actually voted no on all of the bills so far. It's all those idiots from SF and LA blowing this garbage in.

June 10, 2001, 10:47 AM	#1
Oatka Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 1999 Location: Nevada Posts: 3,076	(CA) Gun bills status report via CalNRA (not good) Gun Folks, "Nothing is over until we say it's over! Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!!!" ---Future Senator John (Bluto) Blutarski Attached is the Word Document version of the latest California Gun Control Legislative Watchlist from the office of Senator Ray Haynes. I started with the quote, because we all need a bit of levity after this past week. What is happening to us here in California is ridiculous, but it is serious, and we must continue to fight. All of the worst bills passed their house of origin this week. Both gun owner licensing bills (AB 35 and SB 52) passed, and the bill to ban the sale of all handguns available today (AB 1219) passed as well. We had already passed the loaded chamber/magazine disconnect safety bill last week. We had AB 35 on the ropes for a while, thanks to everyone's hard work. They could not get their votes to remove the bill from the committee in time for the deadline last Friday. This week, they waived the rules to allow it to be considered, and Speaker Bob Hertzberg (D-LA) removed two Democrats (Papan and Thomson) from the committee and replaced them with supporters of the gun bill. Only then were they able to get it out of Appropriations. On the floor Thursday, they again couldn't get the necessary votes. Speaker Hertzberg called the Democrats off the floor for a caucus, and when they came back an hour later he immediately called for a vote, and received the bare minimum 41 votes for passage. SB 52 did not pass with as much difficulty in the Senate, though my boss made some impassioned arguments on the floor and Senator Pete Knight tried unsuccessfully to add amendments to the bill to allow "licensees" to carry their firearms in public. Most frightening to me is how easily AB 1219 is passing. The media is portraying this as a "safety" bill. It is nothing short of a handgun moratorium. There is no handgun commercially manufactured today in the World that will be allowed to be sold in California if this bill passes. It does not grandfather used guns. You will continue to be allowed to own used guns, but you will never again be allowed to purchase a 1911, a Model 19, or a basic Glock. We must raise the visibility of this bill. The good news is that not a single Assembly Republican has defected on a gun bill so far this year. With one exception, the Senate Republican Caucus has been unified in opposition as well. What next? After talking to my boss, I suggest we use the lull between now and when the committee hearings start heating up again in August to start writing the Governor. I don't mean e-mail, and I don't mean phone calls. Now is not the time to start melting his phone. His public statements so far on the gun bills have not been supportive. He is still saying he would prefer to let the bills from two years ago take full affect before we add more. We need to send reasoned, rational, well-argued letters to his office encouraging him to block these bills in the legislature, and to veto them if they get to his desk. Real letters are handled differently than phone calls and e-mails. We want them to see physical evidence of our opposition. We also recommend calling his local offices (he has them in Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Fresno and Riverside) and asking for a meeting with a member of his staff to discuss your concerns. You should also start calling your local Legislators and asking for a personal appointment with them. They will be on summer recess (budget willing) and in their districts from July 20th until August 20th. Now is the time to schedule those appointments. Bring friends if you can all make a rational, level-headed argument for our position. Face to face meetings can be very persuasive. All in all, it's been a crummy week, but we can't and won't give up. If you have any comments or questions or information, please feel free to contact me directly. As always, redistribution of this Watchlist with attribution is encouraged and permitted. Thanks for all the hard work, JTG Jeff.Greene@sen.ca.gov "No government is better than our government" __________________ The New World Order has a Third Reich Odor.

June 11, 2001, 09:59 AM	#2
Elker_43 Senior Member Join Date: April 29, 1999 Location: Idaho Posts: 489	Thanks for the post. I will be "hand writing" a letter to Gov. Davis and will encourage all of my pro-2nd buddies to to the same. This has to stop! I am also calling today and scheduling an appointment with my Legislator (Abel Maldonaldo). He recently voted for several of these bills and I have just received a letter back from him after several letters and phone calls expressing my diappointment. His letter did not set well with me. I will be working hard this next election to defeat him!!! __________________ To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. Winchesters Forever (Levers and Pumps 73s, 90s, 92s, 06s, 61s and 63s)

June 11, 2001, 01:02 PM	#3
Chaingun Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2000 Location: Caliban: Within the belly of the beast Posts: 265	Contact Info Governor Gray Davis State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-445-4633 governor@governor.ca.gov He also has a new web site http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/gov...emfcfkmchcng.0 __________________ Register Socialist Democrats not firearms MOLON LABE!

June 11, 2001, 01:47 PM	#4
Dead Senior Member Join Date: June 6, 2000 Location: AoW Land, USA Posts: 1,923	Guess the following doesnt mean A THING to them, as they have clearly shown. I wonder if saying you can NO longer own x because we made a law that says so (after you already owned it legally) doesnt violates due process??? I cant see how it would not?? There was NO crime commited by the person owning x. I mean it would be the same if a law was passed banning ALL Honda Civics from being owned as those are "The Evil Gang Banger's" car of choice. So turn them in!!! http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation. In enforcing this subdivision or any other provision of this Constitution, no court of this State may impose upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligation or responsibility with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation, (1) except to remedy a specific violation by such party that would also constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) unless a federal court would be permitted under federal decisional law to impose that obligation or responsibility upon such party to remedy the specific violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Except as may be precluded by the Constitution of the United States, every existing judgment, decree, writ, or other order of a court of this State, whenever rendered, which includes provisions regarding pupil school assignment or pupil transportation, or which requires a plan including any such provisions shall, upon application to a court having jurisdiction by any interested person, be modified to conform to the provisions of this subdivision as amended, as applied to the facts which exist at the time of such modification. In all actions or proceedings arising under or seeking application of the amendments to this subdivision proposed by the Legislature at its 1979-80 Regular Session, all courts, wherein such actions or proceedings are or may hereafter be pending, shall give such actions or proceedings first precedence over all other civil actions therein. Nothing herein shall prohibit the governing board of a school district from voluntarily continuing or commencing a school integration plan after the effective date of this subdivision as amended. In amending this subdivision, the Legislature and people of the State of California find and declare that this amendment is necessary to serve compelling public interests, including those of making the most effective use of the limited financial resources now and prospectively available to support public education, maximizing the educational opportunities and protecting the health and safety of all public school pupils, enhancing the ability of parents to participate in the educational process, preserving harmony and tranquility in this State and its public schools, preventing the waste of scarce fuel resources, and protecting the environment. (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. __________________ Dead [Black Ops] www.therallypoint.org

June 11, 2001, 06:21 PM	#6
Brett Bellmore Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 1999 Location: Capac, MI, USA Posts: 1,927	"You will continue to be allowed to own used guns, but you will never again be allowed to purchase a 1911, a Model 19, or a basic Glock. " That's what makes it ok, so far as they're concerned. They're not going to take the guns away, YET, but you won't be able to transfer them to anybody else in the state, or buy any new ones. At least that's how I read it. __________________ Sic semper tyrannis!

June 11, 2001, 05:19 PM	#5
Russ Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2001 Location: Kentucky, Refugee from California Posts: 1,096	Thanks for the contact info Chiangun. This should make it easy for anyone intereted in their rights to send a message. For all of you outside of Kalifornia, think about writting also. You may find there is a President Gray Davis one day. :barf: This is really getting old. I wish these sorry legislators would go away.

June 12, 2001, 10:04 PM	#7
Gary H Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2000 Location: California Posts: 2,255	I can't think of another handgun that I want to buy, nor a state that is more intrusive than California. I will earn as much money as I can and them move to a less offensive state. The liberals can have this state. It goes beyond guns. Socialism is here to stay.

June 13, 2001, 01:29 PM	#8
Chaingun Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2000 Location: Caliban: Within the belly of the beast Posts: 265	I was unable to edit the previous post, but here's lniks to the bills. Be sure to write a seperate letter for each bill. At a minimum, short & sweet and to the point. AB35 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ss=CUR&house=B SB52 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ss=CUR&house=B AB1219 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ss=CUR&house=B __________________ Register Socialist Democrats not firearms MOLON LABE!

June 13, 2001, 06:32 PM	#9
Russ Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2001 Location: Kentucky, Refugee from California Posts: 1,096	I checked out the Floor votes on these bills. I live in a predominantly Republican district. There are a couple of DemocRAT Assembly members and Senators in the next district North of me. I am happy to say that they actually voted no on all of the bills so far. It's all those idiots from SF and LA blowing this garbage in.