PDA

View Full Version : Bill to make Cali a "Shall Issue" CCW State


Plisk
03-27-2009, 2:06 AM
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab357.1&year=2009

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab1167.1&year=2009

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab225.1&year=2009

Guys, start making calls, sending faxes and letters. GET THIS PASSED!!!

Quiet
03-27-2009, 2:32 AM
You're kinda slow. :p
AB357 posts started here back in 02-23-09.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=156746&highlight=AB357
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161349&highlight=AB357
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161485&highlight=AB357
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=167094&highlight=AB357

Plisk
03-27-2009, 2:53 AM
Then consider it a reminder :D

Kid Stanislaus
03-27-2009, 10:10 AM
Don't get your hopes up.

mikehaas
03-27-2009, 10:25 AM
If you actually read what the poster posted, there are 2 OTHER bills (other than AB 357) that would improve CCW that stand a better chance...

AB 225 - http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab225.1&year=2009

AB 1167 - http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab1167.1&year=2009

Both are NRA-Sponsored (AB 357 is not). It is true that AB 357 probably reaches too far, but just it's presence makes NRA's bills seem more "moderate" and therefore increase their chances. Incremental improvement - it's how we lost ground, it's how we'll get it back.

Important stuff happening here, best not to gloss it over. One has to be able to read between the lines.

mej16489
03-27-2009, 12:08 PM
If you actually read what the poster posted, there are 2 OTHER bills (other than AB 357) that would improve CCW that stand a better chance...

AB 225 - http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab225.1&year=2009


I don't quite 'get' how AB225 improves CCW - by my reading all it does is change 'concealable weapon' to "handgun" to me that sounds more restrictive. I'm supposing there is someone out there that possibly wants to CCW a legally owned SBR or something...why would I want to prevent them?

cineski
03-27-2009, 12:17 PM
Didn't this all go to the powers that be to be voted on? What happened?

Edit: Nevermind, I see the 4/14 thread.

CCWFacts
03-27-2009, 12:31 PM
Both are NRA-Sponsored (AB 357 is not). It is true that AB 357 probably reaches too far, but just it's presence makes NRA's bills seem more "moderate" and therefore increase their chances. Incremental improvement - it's how we lost ground, it's how we'll get it back.

Can someone explain what AB 225 is going to do? Right now all it does is limit CCWs to handguns-only, which is not an improvement.

Anyway, I'm glad all these bills are in play and we should support all of them. I am a big believer in incremental improvement.

7x57
03-27-2009, 12:50 PM
Can someone explain what AB 225 is going to do? Right now all it does is limit CCWs to handguns-only, which is not an improvement.


So far as I understand it, the intent is to define "good cause" and take away the arbitrary judgment of the CLE.

7x57

yellowfin
03-27-2009, 12:58 PM
Mike, what's the deal with the hate for the SBR's? And the site claims AB 225 defines "good cause" but I can't see anywhere in the bill that it does so. I won't support this bill if it doesn't. The removal of SBR's from carry is not something I like at all. Where in this bill does it define good cause?? Point it out and quote, please.

Librarian
03-27-2009, 12:59 PM
And please - if the topic of the thread you start is a California bill, put the bill number in the title to the thread.

7x57
03-27-2009, 1:03 PM
Both are NRA-Sponsored (AB 357 is not). It is true that AB 357 probably reaches too far, but just it's presence makes NRA's bills seem more "moderate" and therefore increase their chances. Incremental improvement - it's how we lost ground, it's how we'll get it back.


Exactly. We would be real happy to run over them with the bus (357), but they'll certainly dodge that. They'd sooner order CA guard troops to fire on civilians. We can hope they dodge right in the way of the car or at least the moped on the sidewalk, however. :43:

I seem to recall that one of the reasons David Brower started Friends of the Earth was to make the Sierra Club seem mainstream. Whether that was the intent or not, the pattern works over and over; the left starts ever more extremist organizations to push ever more extremist ideas which then tend to shift the location of the perceived "center." We need to play this game too. AB 357 makes reciprocity and defined good cause a moderate alternative, so I suspect that the more visible support AB 357 has the more likely one of the others is to pass regardless of what happens to 357.

I would not be surprised to find out that one reason the media reports as though the NRA is the sum total of gun-rights in this country is that they are afraid that people might find out that JPFO, say, exists and then start perceiving the NRA as the moderate voice. That people might see the NRA that way would end up as their worst nightmare come true.

7x57

7x57
03-27-2009, 1:09 PM
Mike, what's the deal with the hate for the SBR's?


Any crack in the NFA gun segregation regime is probably the most nightmarishly terrifying idea any anti-gunner ever heard of. If the NFA declared open season on fuzzy puppies they'd probably rather be out there with clubs and gaffs killing the cute little things than have any part of the holy NFA touched.


And the site claims AB 225 defines "good cause" but I can't see anywhere in the bill that it does so. I won't support this bill if it doesn't. The removal of SBR's from carry is not something I like at all. Where in this bill does it define good cause?? Point it out and quote, please.

Honestly? I think it is a spot bill, basically sitting there waiting for the gut & amend treatment when the political horse-trading process gets to some sort of resolution. The precise language probably affects which special interest supports or does not oppose it a great deal. But I haven't read it, partly because I suspect it's an empty shell anyway. I doubt it matters much right now whether you support or oppose it.

AB 357, at least, is what it is, at least until the politicians get a hold of it. If it isn't quashed immediately it could end up as a bill to reduce coastal erosion, for all we know.

7x57

nicki
03-27-2009, 1:10 PM
AB357 addresses what is the problem with our ccw permit system.

The issue is "equality under the law" and that is the problem with the CCW system.

The "Equality under the Law" issue is something that is in the public mindset right now thanks to the gays and gay marriage.

A CCW specific bill running on gun rights has limited appeal.

Restoring equality under the law has a broader appeal than just "gun rights".

Forcing equality under the law may be a "radical step", but it is a necessary step.

Nicki

Librarian
03-27-2009, 1:15 PM
Honestly? I think it is a spot bill, basically sitting there waiting for the gut & amend treatment when the political horse-trading process gets to some sort of resolution.
Yes, that's exactly what it is. Until amended - doesn't need to be gutted yet, there's essentially nothing there - we won't know exactly what it will do. But Mike Haas tells us it's an NRA sponsored bill, so it ought to be something comparatively sensible.

CCWFacts
03-27-2009, 1:19 PM
Any crack in the NFA gun segregation regime is probably the most nightmarishly terrifying idea any anti-gunner ever heard of.

I don't think the "handguns only" thing is just about NFA.

There may well be some people who have ordinary shotguns and rifles on their CCWs, to allow them to carry them loaded and accessible in their vehicles. I would guess these people might be specialized security guards or reserves of some kind.

Limiting CCW to handguns only is something that I think would only impact either some specialized security guards or reserves.

7x57
03-27-2009, 1:35 PM
A CCW specific bill running on gun rights has limited appeal.

Restoring equality under the law has a broader appeal than just "gun rights".


Yep.

7x57

Can'thavenuthingood
03-27-2009, 2:09 PM
Well looky there, it appears 'Shall Issue' has been successfully splintered.

So we now turn our forces to support a Bill that pretty much says nothing now in the hopes it will say something later?
Spot bill, gut and amend.

NRA is a National organization.

CRPA and CALGUNS.NET are California organizations made up of California citizens and California voters from California. Yet the politicians that brought us these gun control laws are going to do what the national organization says before they will give credence to their own constituents.

Makes sense to me.

Vick

yellowfin
03-27-2009, 2:33 PM
Any crack in the NFA gun segregation regime is probably the most nightmarishly terrifying idea any anti-gunner ever heard of. If the NFA declared open season on fuzzy puppies they'd probably rather be out there with clubs and gaffs killing the cute little things than have any part of the holy NFA touched.
I understand their loony clinging to it, but this bill is just an out of the blue unsolicited knifeing of what limited access exists, which is utterly insignificant as far as they're concerned. It's totally uncalled for, achieves no tactical good for them, but damages us in several ways. It isn't so much that the permit when held is specifically for concealing an SBR or SBS, but a further affirmation of one's ability to carry it from place to place without having to go through the whole rigamarole of producing one's NFA paperwork, having to negotiate one's way through intentional LE harassment and praying and paying your way through a nasty ordeal ala UOC detention. Having a permit specifically saying do not mess with me I'm authorized to have this on me is a way of short circuiting an unnecessary problem before it starts; it is a security gate, so to speak.

7x57
03-27-2009, 3:17 PM
Well looky there, it appears 'Shall Issue' has been successfully splintered.


Not at all. We can support all of them. AB 357 is the big win for CCW. But everyone knows that, so it's a long shot at best. But if it passed before 225, we'd just shrug and (ask the author to) withdraw 225.

If it doesn't pass, 225 looks more moderate by comparison, and can even more easily be positioned as about fairness and not guns.

The antis have been winning for forty years based on these tactics. Every time we've gone for the hail Mary pass, we've lost. So we want to fight smart. Part of fighting smart is not underestimating the opponents, and not assuming that they'll be so weak we can force the big win all at once (which 357 would do). Game theory says we should plan for the worst case of perfect opposition, and take any mistakes they make as gravy. This multi-bill strategy appears to do just that.

7x57

the_donald_
03-27-2009, 3:25 PM
Sounds to me like the high-level goal can be pursued on multiple fronts. If it can begin a breakdown of the barrier, then I so no reason to not support it.

yellowfin
03-27-2009, 4:01 PM
The antis have been winning for forty years based on these tactics. Every time we've gone for the hail Mary pass, we've lost. So we want to fight smart. Part of fighting smart is not underestimating the opponents, and not assuming that they'll be so weak we can force the big win all at once (which 357 would do). Game theory says we should plan for the worst case of perfect opposition, and take any mistakes they make as gravy. This multi-bill strategy appears to do just that.

7x57
Except for one problem: AB 225 does NOTHING good on the surface as it is; we're hoping for a possible amendment to clarify good cause--IT CONTAINS NO SUCH WORDING AT ALL RIGHT NOW (unless you can show it to me...I might be missing some fine print) but for some reason the NRA endorsement says it does. That's BS if so that we deplore the other side for doing, making up words that aren't there, yet we're doing it?!? Where is the wording? It's either in there or it's not. Quote it and give the section--or it's not there and this is a net LOSS. We're playing a big what if that seems foolish to me: if as you say the Assembly and Senate don't like AB 357, what makes you think they'll approve an amendment to a bill they may only marginally like to make it have the same effect as a bill they state clearly that they don't? I don't see how throwing AOW's, SBR's, and SBS's under the bus for an imaginary now and contingent at best gain in the future is worth that.

7x57
03-27-2009, 4:37 PM
That's BS if so that we deplore the other side for doing, making up words that aren't there, yet we're doing it?!? Where is the wording? It's either in there or it's not. Quote it and give the section--or it's not there and this is a net LOSS.

Are you saying that we could not sneak a pro-gun amendment into a bill under the antis radar just as they snuck so many things in on us (like, IIRC, the rule that no new select-fire NFA weapons can be registered, but I could be wrong)? That's a political disability I'm not eager to assume.

I suspect that it would be somewhat counterproductive to put the language in there now, because the optimal language isn't really hammered out yet. Never the less, there was a deadline, and that's what spot bills are for. This appears to be SOP for the legislature.

Either you trust people who have a track record, or you do not. If you simply can't bring yourself to do that, then go yell at Paul Payne. You're not going to make an impression on me by shouting "show me."

If we were able to write new rules for the legislature, sure, maybe we'd try to outlaw such things. I'm not sure it can be done, however. There seems to me to be no identifiable line between major amendment and wholesale re-write, only a continuum of changes. It doesn't seem possible to outlaw, and if it exists it will be used. We might as well benefit from it as much as the other side.

7x57

Librarian
03-27-2009, 5:35 PM
Oh, let's give 225 a 'wait and see' and decide once the new language is in it.

I see no point in arguing to support something that does not yet exist, and no reason to argue against it, either.

mblat
03-27-2009, 5:54 PM
Except for one problem: AB 225 does NOTHING good on the surface as it is; we're hoping for a possible amendment to clarify good cause--IT CONTAINS NO SUCH WORDING AT ALL RIGHT NOW (unless you can show it to me...I might be missing some fine print) but for some reason the NRA endorsement says it does. That's BS if so that we deplore the other side for doing, making up words that aren't there, yet we're doing it?!? Where is the wording? It's either in there or it's not. Quote it and give the section--or it's not there and this is a net LOSS. We're playing a big what if that seems foolish to me: if as you say the Assembly and Senate don't like AB 357, what makes you think they'll approve an amendment to a bill they may only marginally like to make it have the same effect as a bill they state clearly that they don't? I don't see how throwing AOW's, SBR's, and SBS's under the bus for an imaginary now and contingent at best gain in the future is worth that.

Listen.... it is very simple. NRA said: we are going to inroduc ebill that will clarify that "good cause" is.

Now. NRA wants to win. It knows that even marginal improvement, approved by CA legislature, is HUGE win.
So they out there right now, negotiating exact verbiage for the bill. 357 is used and "scare craw".
It is boring, but it is sensible. We can't win anything at once - let's get some gradual improvements.

yellowfin
03-27-2009, 6:35 PM
I don't doubt the method nor the experts doing it. They have a fantastic track record and there's nobody better to do it, I just think it's a roll of the dice at an unlucky table- we have a chance at getting amendments we want, but equal chance of getting ones we don't. They probably know something I don't, though, and I do know to trust them. I'm just calling it from where I see it, apparently limited as that might be. Are you saying that we could not sneak a pro-gun amendment into a bill under the antis radar just as they snuck so many things in on us (like, IIRC, the rule that no new select-fire NFA weapons can be registered, but I could be wrong)? That's a political disability I'm not eager to assume.

I suspect that it would be somewhat counterproductive to put the language in there now, because the optimal language isn't really hammered out yet. Never the less, there was a deadline, and that's what spot bills are for. This appears to be SOP for the legislature.

Either you trust people who have a track record, or you do not. If you simply can't bring yourself to do that, then go yell at Paul Payne. You're not going to make an impression on me by shouting "show me."

If we were able to write new rules for the legislature, sure, maybe we'd try to outlaw such things. I'm not sure it can be done, however. There seems to me to be no identifiable line between major amendment and wholesale re-write, only a continuum of changes. It doesn't seem possible to outlaw, and if it exists it will be used. We might as well benefit from it as much as the other side.

7x57

hoffmang
03-27-2009, 9:33 PM
Guys,

225 is not at all in its final language. We'll all like it when it comes. NRA is not the backer of AB-357, but you should fully expect NRA to support it in the right form.

Our California NRA lobbyist is one of the very best. Remember he got the "no emergency seizures" bill through California unopposed.

-Gene

7x57
03-27-2009, 10:32 PM
Our California NRA lobbyist is one of the very best. Remember he got the "no emergency seizures" bill through California unopposed.


Ed seems harmless enough until he tells you the best way to get something done, then he's scary. But in a *good* way....

What I don't get is the idea that our plans should be posted on a public forum for reassurance. Remember, three can keep a secret if two are dead. I want to win more than I want to satisfy my curiosity (and, frankly, I'm mostly a curiosity-driven creature, so that is saying something).

If Ed had a history of questionable tactics, yeah I'd worry. But as it is, I'm not going to back-seat drive the F1 champ.

7x57

TheBundo
03-27-2009, 10:39 PM
Guys,

225 is not at all in its final language. We'll all like it when it comes. NRA is not the backer of AB-357, but you should fully expect NRA to support it in the right form.

Our California NRA lobbyist is one of the very best. Remember he got the "no emergency seizures" bill through California unopposed.

-Gene

What is the "no emergency seizures" law? I'm sure others may not know either

hoffmang
03-27-2009, 10:57 PM
What is the "no emergency seizures" law? I'm sure others may not know either

Here tis: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10152

Someone actually caught Jack Scott on video claiming that we shouldn't stop the state from confiscating firearms.

-Gene

7x57
03-27-2009, 10:58 PM
What is the "no emergency seizures" law? I'm sure others may not know either

You didn't know epileptics need to be permitted in California? No permit, no seizures allowed. ;)

7x57

TheBundo
03-27-2009, 11:00 PM
You didn't know epileptics need to be permitted in California? No permit, no seizures allowed. ;)

7x57

:D No, but I'm a little slow to keep up on new epilepsy laws. Am I allowed to use one as a designated driver?

7x57
03-27-2009, 11:18 PM
:D No, but I'm a little slow to keep up on new epilepsy laws. Am I allowed to use one as a designated driver?

Not if he's an "assault epileptic." AE's have to be transported in a locked container and can only be transported to and from their physician's office.

Epileptics named "Dave," "Sam," or "Harry" are AE's by definition as those names are listed specifically (note however that neither "David" nor "Harold" are AE names because of a judicial decision that an entire class of related names cannot be banned). Others are deemed AEs if they have "evil features." For example, an epileptic who refuses to get out of the passing lane while driving 55mph with the left turn signal on is definitely considered evil. Other features deemed evil include bad teeth, morning halitosis, or voting Republican.

<<<pistol-grip joke deleted for the sake of the children>>>

The Assault Epileptic flowchart is the best way to work out the details.

7x57

DDT
03-28-2009, 12:14 AM
:D No, but I'm a little slow to keep up on new epilepsy laws. Am I allowed to use one as a designated driver?

Actually epileptics have to show a clean history of no seizures (not sure how many years) to get a driver's license.

Plus you might not be able to tell if they're having a seizure or just driving by braille.

DDT
03-28-2009, 12:15 AM
For example, an epileptic who refuses to get out of the passing lane while driving 55mph with the left turn signal on is definitely considered evil.

This is why the guy in LA had the Ma Deuce mounted on his jeep.

mikehaas
03-28-2009, 5:53 AM
Here tis: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10152

Someone actually caught Jack Scott on video claiming that we shouldn't stop the state from confiscating firearms.

-Gene
Indeed. AB 1645 was passed in 2007...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab1645&year=2007

What would PLEASE Senator Jack Scott?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRvmYzAKQK0

mikehaas
03-28-2009, 6:19 AM
Ed seems harmless enough until he tells you the best way to get something done, then he's scary. But in a *good* way....
???

What I don't get is the idea that our plans should be posted on a public forum for reassurance...

Y'know, you experts that want to tell NRA how to do it need to GET TOGETHER ON THIS. You apparently didn't get the memo, but a whole bunch of your friends have been (predictably) blasting NRA for "not doing anything" after they discovered that magic pill called AB 357. Now NRA is wrong for putting out too much information.

If you experts can get your story straight and finally figure out EXACTLY what you want NRA to do, I'm sure they'll follow your instructions to the letter. Please hurry, because without your direction, they're obviously just guessing.

:banghead:

vrand
03-28-2009, 8:24 AM
Guys,

225 is not at all in its final language. We'll all like it when it comes. NRA is not the backer of AB-357, but you should fully expect NRA to support it in the right form.

Our California NRA lobbyist is one of the very best. Remember he got the "no emergency seizures" bill through California unopposed.

-Gene

:thumbsup:

7x57
03-28-2009, 8:33 AM
???
Y'know, you experts that want to tell NRA how to do it need to GET TOGETHER ON THIS.


I'm going to assume that was not aimed at me, even though I was quoted.

7x57

wildhawker
03-28-2009, 10:55 AM
Mike, some frustration is deserved; however, isn't this taking it a bit far?

While Calguns has its share of armchair quarterbacks, so does NRA- and the good work done here by some real experts (and regular joes with a passion for gun rights) is nothing to scoff at.

If you want to call out a particular post or person as being mal-informed or pure BS, that's one thing- such it how Calguns polices itself to a large degree (and brings some constructive argument to the table). That said, I'm not one to favor community a**-chewings.

???

Y'know, you experts that want to tell NRA how to do it need to GET TOGETHER ON THIS. You apparently didn't get the memo, but a whole bunch of your friends have been (predictably) blasting NRA for "not doing anything" after they discovered that magic pill called AB 357. Now NRA is wrong for putting out too much information.

If you experts can get your story straight and finally figure out EXACTLY what you want NRA to do, I'm sure they'll follow your instructions to the letter. Please hurry, because without your direction, they're obviously just guessing.

:banghead:

Ifticar
03-28-2009, 11:42 AM
Why have we not had a Constitutional changing voter initiative for "shall" issue?

hoffmang
03-28-2009, 12:39 PM
Mike,

I think you missed what 7x57 was saying.

1. He was agreeing that Ed W. rocks. I tend to agree with 7x57 that Ed seems a bit average when you first meet him, until he opens his mouth to explain political strategy. I'd put him up against Machiavelli any day. In short, Ed is a rockstar.

2. He was simply reminding others that not all plans and strategies should be posted on Calguns.net to remind others that it was probably a bad idea to complain about a spot bill that hadn't had its real language put in yet.

From my reading, 7x57 is fully on board and the antithesis of what you're (usually quite validly) concerned about.

-Gene

hoffmang
03-28-2009, 12:40 PM
Why have we not had a Constitutional changing voter initiative for "shall" issue?

They are exceedingly expensive and not guaranteed to pass or work. If you search on the forum you'll find a lot of discussion on the pros and cons.

-Gene

bussda
03-29-2009, 6:40 PM
:offtopic:
Actually epileptics have to show a clean history of no seizures (not sure how many years) to get a driver's license.

Plus you might not be able to tell if they're having a seizure or just driving by braille.

:fud:

I know of persons who have epilepsy, and driving today.

Epilsepy is a life time condition. There is no cure. But it can be controlled by drugs or sometimes surgery. Depends on the level of the seizures.

Persons who do not have it under control will lose their driving privilege.

I wonder what comes next. Stating they can't own a gun?

7x57
03-29-2009, 8:09 PM
1. He was agreeing that Ed W. rocks. I tend to agree with 7x57 that Ed seems a bit average when you first meet him, until he opens his mouth to explain political strategy. I'd put him up against Machiavelli any day. In short, Ed is a rockstar.


Indeed I think all that and more. In fact, it just now occurs to me that Ed Worley's nice-guy non-threatening first impression may simply be his ninja disguise when passing unseen among the people. :eek: Or, a bit less hyperbolically, it may be a professional trait for a guy who has to be able to turn on the charm just as easily as twist the knife. Scary, huh? ;)

I wish we had an Ed Worley in every state capitol, but I suppose there is only one master of Sinanju. :D


From my reading, 7x57 is fully on board and the antithesis of what you're (usually quite validly) concerned about.


I didn't even figure out what the concern was precisely, but I'm absolutely on board with this kind of multiple punch. I gather the NRA didn't plan 357, so it may just be a happy co-incidence, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised to find that this only means Ed figured out how to get it introduced without appearing to be involved, so that the NRA can position itself as the "mainstream alternative" when the time comes to campaign the other two major gun-rights bills (reciprocity and good cause). That's a bit cloak-and-dagger, but then I'm just a mundane and don't know the full extent of Ed's super powers.

It doesn't matter who introduced it, they're going to work well together. I suspect this is an example of how much more effective we can be with multiple groups working together. Here's to the progress in bringing CRPA up to speed as the third member of the Justice League (or whatever).

7x57