PDA

View Full Version : Did anyone else get this from NRA-ILA_Alerts.UM.A.1.4507@www.ilaalerts.org???


wikidklown
08-20-2008, 8:21 AM
Gun Show Ban Legislation Defeated in California Senate!
Yesterday, Monday, August 18, Assembly Bill 2948 was defeated by the California Senate by a vote of 20-19.

AB2948 would have prohibited the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace. In short, AB2948 was a stepping-stone to ban gun shows in California.

Thank you to all of the NRA members who answered the call and took action in opposition to AB2948. Without you, this victory would not have been possible.

wikidklown
08-20-2008, 8:24 AM
Gun Show Ban Legislation Defeated in California Senate!
Yesterday, Monday, August 18, Assembly Bill 2948 was defeated by the California Senate by a vote of 20-19.

AB2948 would have prohibited the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace. In short, AB2948 was a stepping-stone to ban gun shows in California.

Thank you to all of the NRA members who answered the call and took action in opposition to AB2948. Without you, this victory would not have been possible.

NM, it's on another thread, very good news indeed!

mikehaas
08-20-2008, 8:46 AM
Just a reminder that we aren't calling this one done yet. Ed and Paul still want you to keep on 'em...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ab2498

Right now, the big activity is on AB1634 - the Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill. Target shooters and personal protection gurus may not see this bill as important as gun show bans and ammo restrictions, but it will seriously impinge on our fellow gun-owners that frequently hunt.

Gun-owners need to stick together, so let's keep doing what we were doing about the gun show bill for AB 1634!
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ab1634

bwiese
08-20-2008, 9:06 AM
Right now, the big activity is on AB1634 - the Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill. Target shooters and personal protection gurus may not see this bill as important as gun show bans and ammo restrictions, but it will seriously impinge on our fellow gun-owners that frequently hunt.

Gun-owners need to stick together, so let's keep doing what we were doing about the gun show bill for AB 1634!
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ab1634


Are Kathy Lynch (and by extension Gerry Upholt) still tied in with this? What's she trying to trade off?

johnny_22
08-20-2008, 9:18 AM
Sent another NO message to Senator Corbett.

I got a bounce when I used the email address provided on the individual page:

http://calnra.com/legs/sen.shtml

Recommend using the "Contact Me" feature on the Senator's page:

http://dist10.casen.govoffice.com/

Annie Oakley
08-20-2008, 12:54 PM
Just a reminder that we aren't calling this one done yet. Ed and Paul still want you to keep on 'em...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ab2498

Right now, the big activity is on AB1634 - the Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill. Target shooters and personal protection gurus may not see this bill as important as gun show bans and ammo restrictions, but it will seriously impinge on our fellow gun-owners that frequently hunt.

Gun-owners need to stick together, so let's keep doing what we were doing about the gun show bill for AB 1634!
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ab1634

Someone help me out here. What is the point to this bill beyond just spaying/neutering and making Bob Barker happy ?

mikehaas
08-20-2008, 12:56 PM
Are Kathy Lynch (and by extension Gerry Upholt) still tied in with this? What's she trying to trade off?
Don't know what they're up to but you're wise (wiese?) to be wary when they are involved.

I see that at...
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_cfa_20080816_134313_sen_floor.html
...CRPA is on the OPPOSE list (at one point, they were listed in support of AB 1634. That may be evidence of a crack in the Lynch stanglehold on setting CRPA legislative positions. Or maybe Jerry walked out of the committee room. :-)

Ok, I'll say it - good on CRPA. Keep it up.

johnny_22
08-20-2008, 6:09 PM
Someone help me out here. What is the point to this bill beyond just spaying/neutering and making Bob Barker happy ?


The problems with a law to Spay and Neutered dogs and cats are not the well-cared for pets. It is the strays and "patio kittens" that people "own" but don't take care of. These will not be fixed and so the law will accomplish nothing.

My dog and my cats are from the Humane Society and are fixed (adoption requirement). It should be up to the owner, who cares for the animals, not the State of California.

wikidklown
08-20-2008, 8:08 PM
That's messed up. The problem is not cats and/or dogs but the uncaring owners. They should have a senate bill to punish/regulate/ban neglectful owners instead.
Will place a call for non-support on this, thanks!

Just a reminder that we aren't calling this one done yet. Ed and Paul still want you to keep on 'em...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ab2498

Right now, the big activity is on AB1634 - the Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill. Target shooters and personal protection gurus may not see this bill as important as gun show bans and ammo restrictions, but it will seriously impinge on our fellow gun-owners that frequently hunt.

Gun-owners need to stick together, so let's keep doing what we were doing about the gun show bill for AB 1634!
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ab1634

Annie Oakley
08-20-2008, 10:34 PM
The problems with a law to Spay and Neutered dogs and cats are not the well-cared for pets. It is the strays and "patio kittens" that people "own" but don't take care of. These will not be fixed and so the law will accomplish nothing.

My dog and my cats are from the Humane Society and are fixed (adoption requirement). It should be up to the owner, who cares for the animals, not the State of California.

Okay, now that I've had an opportunity to actually read this bill, it seems that if the dog catcher gets a call about your cat or dog, they can order you to have them spayed or neutered. So what if you have a bad neighbor that wants revenge for whatever reason. It seems that if this bill is made law, all the neighbor has to do is call and complain to the police about your pet and they will force you to fix them. Am I reading this right ?

AC Gould
08-20-2008, 11:01 PM
Here's a reply I received from Sen. Runner......

Thank you for your correspondence expressing opposition to Assembly Bill 1634 (Levine), which requires the owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog or cat, who is the subject of a complaint, to be cited and pay a civil penalty in addition to any other fine, fee, or penalty. The earlier versions of AB 1634 mandated a uniform, statewide program that would have relied on mandatory spaying and neutering of most dogs and cats. As amended, the bill now relies on local citations and gradually increasing civil penalties.

I continue to oppose this measure because existing law allows cities and counties to enact their own ordinances. Imposing state-mandated one-size-fits-all solutions removes any discretion from local officials, which I am always reluctant to do. My experience in local government (as councilmember and mayor of Lancaster) has taught me that most of the time local officials know better than state officials how to handle problems in their community.

Additionally, the bill provides no due process for those anonymously accused of having a nonspayed or unneutered pets and provides no mechanism to ascertain the veracity of those submitting the complaint. Therefore, AB 1634 makes it very easy for a disgruntled neighbor to allege a violation and force a monetary punishment on his or her neighbor. The bill fails to provide any system of recourse for pet owners. As such, the measure gives too much discretion to local animal control agencies over when to cite owners for their dog or cat’s behavior.

Finally, AB 1634 fails to address the issue of feral cats or un-owned pets which are the chief source of the high shelter population and euthanasia numbers. I believe that AB 1634 misses the end goal because it does not do anything to actually reduce the number of unwanted pets in the state. Unfortunately, I believe this bill targets responsible animal breeders—those who legally license their pets and comply with all local ordinances. While we both agree that something needs to be done about dog and cat over-population, I do not believe this bill is the solution.

AB 1634 is currently waiting to be heard on the Senate Floor. You may monitor the status of the bill by logging onto www.sen.ca.gov/runner.

Again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of your position. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other legislative issues of concern. It is an honor to serve you in the California State Senate.

Sincerely,


GEORGE C. RUNNER, JR.
Senator, 17th District

Annie Oakley
08-21-2008, 9:12 AM
Got it. Thanks.

Glock22Fan
08-21-2008, 9:25 AM
The problems with a law to Spay and Neutered dogs and cats are not the well-cared for pets. It is the strays and "patio kittens" that people "own" but don't take care of. These will not be fixed and so the law will accomplish nothing.

My dog and my cats are from the Humane Society and are fixed (adoption requirement). It should be up to the owner, who cares for the animals, not the State of California.

Yes, it's the Hollywood liberals telling us (once more) how they think that we should run our lives. Yet another nanny state move.

wikidklown
08-21-2008, 9:43 PM
Same reply I got....

This is the part I liked the best from his reply:
"Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other legislative issues of concern. It is an honor to serve you in the California State Senate."


Here's a reply I received from Sen. Runner......

Thank you for your correspondence expressing opposition to Assembly Bill 1634 (Levine), which requires the owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog or cat, who is the subject of a complaint, to be cited and pay a civil penalty in addition to any other fine, fee, or penalty. The earlier versions of AB 1634 mandated a uniform, statewide program that would have relied on mandatory spaying and neutering of most dogs and cats. As amended, the bill now relies on local citations and gradually increasing civil penalties.

I continue to oppose this measure because existing law allows cities and counties to enact their own ordinances. Imposing state-mandated one-size-fits-all solutions removes any discretion from local officials, which I am always reluctant to do. My experience in local government (as councilmember and mayor of Lancaster) has taught me that most of the time local officials know better than state officials how to handle problems in their community.

Additionally, the bill provides no due process for those anonymously accused of having a nonspayed or unneutered pets and provides no mechanism to ascertain the veracity of those submitting the complaint. Therefore, AB 1634 makes it very easy for a disgruntled neighbor to allege a violation and force a monetary punishment on his or her neighbor. The bill fails to provide any system of recourse for pet owners. As such, the measure gives too much discretion to local animal control agencies over when to cite owners for their dog or cat’s behavior.

Finally, AB 1634 fails to address the issue of feral cats or un-owned pets which are the chief source of the high shelter population and euthanasia numbers. I believe that AB 1634 misses the end goal because it does not do anything to actually reduce the number of unwanted pets in the state. Unfortunately, I believe this bill targets responsible animal breeders—those who legally license their pets and comply with all local ordinances. While we both agree that something needs to be done about dog and cat over-population, I do not believe this bill is the solution.

AB 1634 is currently waiting to be heard on the Senate Floor. You may monitor the status of the bill by logging onto www.sen.ca.gov/runner.

Again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of your position. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other legislative issues of concern. It is an honor to serve you in the California State Senate.

Sincerely,


GEORGE C. RUNNER, JR.
Senator, 17th District

wikidklown
08-22-2008, 4:50 PM
Thank you for contacting my office to express your views regarding Assembly Bill 1634 (Levine) relating to pet spaying and neutering. I appreciate hearing from you.


AB 1634 was defeated on the Senate Floor today, August 22. The bill failed by a wide margin with only five Senators voting in favor of the bill and 27 voting in opposition. As I was strongly opposed to this legislation, I spoke against the measure on the Senate Floor. A copy of my remarks can be found below.

In addition to voting against this bill on the Senate Floor, I voted against this bill in the Senate Local Government Committee on June 25. Since no Republican legislator had voted for this measure during its path through the Legislature, I had recommended that opponents focus their efforts on legislators in the Democratic majority. Clearly, that effort was successful. Not a single Republican voted in support of the legislation and we were able to limit the votes in support to only five of the Democratic Senators on the Floor.

During the presentation of the bill on the Senate Floor by Senator Alex Padilla, he made the claim that the American Kennel Club (AKC) had removed its opposition. We were quickly able to refute that claim by distributing copies of the AKC opposition statement that had been posted on the organization’s website. This information helped to persuade several Senators to vote in opposition or abstain.


My opposition to AB 1634 stems from my experience as a County Supervisor. Because every county has its own animal control policies and priorities which may differ significantly from county to county, I strongly believe that such policies should be left to local government discretion rather than dictated by the state. The County of Santa Cruz and the City of Los Angeles have approved local ordinances. I fully respect the local representatives’ decision to implement them, while also recognizing that similar ordinances may not be desirable or necessary in other areas of the state.


While AB 1634 is eligible for reconsideration, it would be surprising for another vote to be pursued given the overwhelming vote in opposition today. If you wish to track the progress of this legislation, you may access the status, votes, bill text and analyses on this and other legislation from my Senate home page at: www.senate.ca.gov/cox.


Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

DAVE COX
Senator, First District

Attachment

AB 1634 Floor Speech
Senator Dave Cox

Mr. President and members of the Senate, today I rise in opposition to a bill that seeks a punishment without a crime.

AB 1634 takes away individual rights replacing them with government authority regarding the health and welfare of pets. AB 1634 is a one-size-fits-all solution.

This is a local government issue rather than a state issue. Each local jurisdiction should be free to set their own animal control policies reflecting the unique problems and scenarios within their jurisdiction. What works for Los Angeles County won’t work and is not needed in Modoc County.

There is no language in the bill referring to due process, leaving the bill open for interpretation by the courts. Therefore, pet owners of unspayed or unneutered pets could be issued a citation or mandatory spay/neuter of their pet without any assurance of an appeal. In Sacramento County, according to their animal control citation, it will cost anywhere from $50 to $500 just to file for an appeal without even having a guarantee of a hearing.

Members, AB 1634 misses the mark by failing to address the issue of feral cats or stray animals which are the chief source of the increased shelter population. Instead, it attempts to target responsible pet owners who choose not to alter their pets.

This is an unnecessary bill that will not work in many parts of California.

I urge a “no” vote