PDA

View Full Version : 2 weeks to AB357 hearings.


nicki
03-29-2009, 5:48 PM
Okay guys.

Alot of you want CCW, I talked with Assemblyman Steve Knight's staffer, he is a one man operation.

We really could help things out here if we get involved now.

If anyone here on the board wants to take the lead and run what we need to do, please come forward now. I'll be more than happy to step back and let someone else lead.

Dave Orozco is a guy you can talk to and he is willing to accept our help on this.

I will call him tommorrow and find out details as to how much time he expects to have for his witnesses. If we get 30 to 40 minutes for our witnesses, we can get alot of critical points out.

I would like to have a cross section of speakers across the spectrum so that we can show that AB357 is a needed reform.

The assembly testimonies are taped, that means we can put them on you tube and other sites. In short, it gets word out that we are doing something.

Even if AB357 goes down in flames, if we do a good job of helping Assemblyman Knight's staff, we will now have a strong friend in the Capital.

We get to destroy the stereotype that CCW is only something white males care about.

Hearing is scheduled Apr 14 at 9am and things will probably be over by noon.
Hope we can put things together.

Thanks guys
Nicki

radioburning
03-29-2009, 8:01 PM
What can we do to help besides be witnesses?

Mstrty
03-29-2009, 8:04 PM
I'm In north Sacramento let me know what I can do to help. Business owner so I have free time when need be.

Librarian
03-29-2009, 9:01 PM
There certainly will not be a long time for 357, though how much will actually be set aside or allowed isn't detailed.

Right now, the Assembly Daily File -- http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/defaulttext.asp -- for the ASM PS on the 14th shows
58 ASSEMBLY DAILY FILE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS—Continued
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2009—Continued
PUBLIC SAFETY
SOLORIO, Chair
9 a.m. — Room 126
BILLS HEARD IN SIGN–IN ORDER
Measure: Author: Summary:
A.B. No. 91 Feuer. Vehicles: driving under the influence (DUI):
ignition interlock device.
A.B. No. 241 Nava. Dogs and cats: breeders.
A.B. No. 242 Nava. Dog fighting.
A.B. No. 243 Nava. Animal abuse: penalties.
A.B. No. 312 Ammiano. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District: Office of Citizen Complaints.
A.B. No. 357 Knight. Firearms: license to
carry concealed firearm.
A.B. No. 458 Cook. Criminal procedure: witness testimony.
A.B. No. 614 Miller. Driving under the influence (DUI):
refusal to submit to chemical tests.
A.B. No. 640 Huber. Sentencing: methamphetamine.
A.B. No. 668 Lieu. Firearms: gun–free school zones.
A.B. No. 674 Salas. Criminal procedure: veterans.
A.B. No. 688 Eng. Misdemeanors.
A.B. No. 713 Gaines. Undocumented criminal aliens: costs of
incarceration: collection of data.
A.B. No. 714 Feuer. Metal or composite knuckles.
A.B. No. 731 Villines. Child abuse sentencing: child becoming
comatose or suffering paralysis.
A.B. No. 748 Gilmore. Controlled substances: 3,4–
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
A.B. No. 750 Bass. Deferred entry of judgment.
A.B. No. 751 Garrick. Theft: motor vehicle: penalties.
A.B. No. 777 Bass. Inmates: identification cards.
A.B. No. 785 Bass. Community sanctions: parole violators.
A.B. No. 787 Hill. State Commission on Juvenile Justice: report.
A.B. No. 807 Fuentes. Restitution centers.
A.B. No. 814 Krekorian. Firearms: surrender.
A.B. No. 819 Charles Calderon. Intellectual property piracy.
(Urgency)
A.B. No. 845 Bass. Corrections: Reentry Advisory Committee.
A.B. No. 858 Gilmore. Controlled substances: sentencing.
A.B. No. 870 Huber. Crime: school grounds: prohibited weapons.
A.B. No. 891 Bill Berryhill. Real property: gang abatement.
A.B. No. 937 Smyth. Destructive devices: registration.
A.B. No. 955 De Leon. Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill
of Rights Act: discipline.
A.B. No. 960 V. Manuel Perez. Body armor.
A.B. No. 962 De Leon. Ammunition.
A.B. No. 986 Mendoza. Vehicles: motor vehicle speed contests.
A.B. No. 988 Brownley. Human trafficking: U visas.
A.B. No. 1002 Fong. Human trafficking.
A.B. No. 1003 John A. Perez. Domestic violence grants.
A.B. No. 1013 Block. Corrections: veteran inmates.
A.B. No. 1015 Torlakson. Nitrous oxide: prohibit sale to minors.
A.B. No. 1017 Portantino. Sexual assault crimes.
A.B. No. 1048 Torrico. Child protection: safe surrender.
A.B. No. 1170 Charles Calderon. Registered sex offenders:
rental housing: consumer information booklet.

How many will they really get to? I don't know. But bill authors who are prepared seem to get due consideration. Helping prepare is a Good Idea.

nick
03-29-2009, 9:14 PM
WHat needs to be done? Anything one can do in SoCal?

jphaxx
03-29-2009, 10:53 PM
I second Nick, I'm in the OC and I would love to participate... already written emails and such.. hell, maybe I'll just hop on the train and cruise up there

nicki
03-29-2009, 10:58 PM
We won't get much time to talk, it is critical we get our core issues out.

The Sheriffs and Police Chiefs will of course be against this bill. We probably will only get to make sound bite arguments.

Both of those organizations have canned responses, what we need to do is destroy their arguments.

Based on prior hearings that I attended years back, I expect they will give the same sterile talking points they did in a CCW reform bill that I, Jim March, the NRA, GOC, the SAS and a muslim women were witnesses for that was at the time sponsored by Assemblyman Ray Haynes.

Each of us had about 1 minute to say our piece. In all honesty, we could have been alot better preparred on our side.

I learn from setbacks and failures.

The big issue will be how much time will we be able to get. Most of the bills ahead of us will not have much action.

The Deleon Ammo bill will be heard that day, so we might as well hang around and give our two cents so to speak.

The core issues or what I call smoke against CCW are the following:

1. The chiefs/sheriffs handle the process fairly: That is something we know that their has been alot of abuse on and is an issue we should go after with a vengeance.

2. It is a public safety issue: Pure BS, we got 40 states that say otherwise.

3. Officer safety issue: If it was, where are the bodies.

4. Everyone will carry guns: The issuance rates across the country are around 1 percent the population, hardly everyone carrying a gun.

5. Lack of a CCW permit doesn't seem to stop criminals from being armed.
In fact they don't follow other gun laws either.

Now, considering that we have a few sheriffs under indictment for corruption and one issue is apparent selling of CCW permits.

We have sheriffs with dual issuance policies, non compliance with PRA requests, end runs around court rulings

And speaking of court rulings, Alameda is basing their defense in the Nordyke case on US vs Crunshiak, a case where the SCOTUS in 1876 gutted the 14th amendment, overturned the murder convictions of one of worst racial massacres in US History, the Collafax massacre.

Need to have someone who can dryly say how absurd the current system is, do I see Gene or Ben there:D

As far as what everyone who can't make it do, once we develop talking points, we can keep hitting on it till we win.

Being against us will mean you are a racist, pro corruption, anti woman, homophobe, etc etc etc.

If we do things right the MSM may actually cover us because we will offer them Conflict and Controversy. That is what the news is all about.

Nicki

Nicki

We will probably be lucky to get 5 minutes, maybe 10

We will need to work on what our key soundbites will be and who will say them. If we do things right, we will get alot of points made even in 5 minutes.

I want to emphasis that legislative hearings are videotaped and we can get copies of the hearing. That means we can post the hearings.

Even if AB357 doesn't pass, if we make a good presentation, we can take that video, use it as a learning tool, and perhaps on the county and city level, we can use it to help make progress on the local level.

Librarian
03-29-2009, 11:53 PM
Another one is Sheriff's claiming 'liability' - GC 814.4 says agencies are not liable, and GC 821.2 says individual employees are not liable for any
injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension or
revocation of, or the failure or refusal to issue, deny,
suspend, or revoke any permit, license certificate,
approval or order or similar authorization where the
public entity or an employee of the public entity is
authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such
authorization should be issued, denied, suspended, or
revoked.
. See http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/California_License_to_Carry_Concealed_Weapon_(CCW) "Liability of Issuing Authority".

CABilly
03-30-2009, 12:01 AM
Considering the last 2 weeks of news coverage, I imagine this bill is will be DOA - no matter how sound your arguments are. I just don't see enough CA politicians voting to expand gun rights in this environment. And Arnold? I think he's got his eye on the Senate, so opening up CCW probably won't do him any good on another statewide election.

Bizcuits
03-30-2009, 12:10 AM
Something that may or may not be of consideration.

I've heard the arguement that civilians don't have nearly enough training or experience to be trusted with a firearm in public.

You may want to highlight the already required CCW training and mention that most police officers handle their firearms during their required requals.

- Add

I live in South Sacramento and don't mind going for support (if that's allowed). I'm not to fimilar with this process. Although I'd need to leave by noon for work.

PatriotnMore
03-30-2009, 6:47 AM
Nicki, if I may offer a suggestion, maybe it would be advantageous for you, or someone with experience in these matters, to write the bullet points for any individuals who show up in support. Keep it organized, to the point, and on target.

We know what reasoning the LEO will use, and there are statistics from Shall issue States to debunk the fear mongering.

Ten Rounder
03-30-2009, 8:01 AM
What is not needed at the hearing is a "camo clad 2nd amendment gun nut speaking about his personal rights."

What bothers me most, is that if I ever want to move I will surly loose my CCW to an unfriendly Sheriff to the new county.

I would like to see all the Sheriffs be on the same page.

Librarian
03-30-2009, 11:58 AM
Yet another argument often tried against: 'the crooks will take the gun away', usually associated with 'the crooks will start shooting first'.

There is simply no data to support the 'take away' argument. It would be possible if someone were to draw and just freeze, unable to go farther; that just doesn't seem to happen. People who think themselves unlikely to shoot usually self-select to not carry.

And if the 'shoot first' argument were accurate, then shortly after implementation a lot of robberies would convert to robbery-murder, and that has not happened either.

nicki
03-30-2009, 12:13 PM
Nicki, if I may offer a suggestion, maybe it would be advantageous for you, or someone with experience in these matters, to write the bullet points for any individuals who show up in support. Keep it organized, to the point, and on target.

We know what reasoning the LEO will use, and there are statistics from Shall issue States to debunk the fear mongering.



I will have bullet points for sure. I hope to have a commitment from Steve Knight's staffer for my witnesses.

I know I can't get everything out that I would like, but what I will go for is the meat.

The issue is not only what we say, but how we look. Ideally I want our panel to be diverse, not a bunch of "white guys". We need to break stereotypes.

My goal is even if the bill goes down in flames, we will have on record that the anti gunners voted for corruption, against equal rights and basically for hate crimes.

Voting against AB357 is voting for maintaining political corruption, against women, the safety of the poor, for street gangs, for hate crimes.

I believe that such votes actually would be helpful for us in future lawsuits on equal protection when it comes to CCW.

Nicki

7x57
03-30-2009, 12:21 PM
My goal is even if the bill goes down in flames, we will have on record that the anti gunners voted for corruption, against equal rights and basically for hate crimes.


The beautiful thing about this is that if/when 357 goes down, we'll have already made the opening arguments for 225 (I think that's the number of the bill that is supposed to end up defining good cause). All the same arguments will carry over to plan B, so we'll be ahead of the game.

7x57

GuyW
03-30-2009, 1:18 PM
I'm In north Sacramento let me know what I can do to help. Business owner so I have free time when need be.

Businessmen, especially retail store owners, need CCWs because the Penal Code says that they can HAVE a loaded gun uin their business, not CARRY a loaded gun. In order to carry a loaded gun, they need a CCW.

That's a huge reason that CCW should be revised, AND THE CURRENT LAW GOES AGAINST WHAT MANY PEOPLE THINK IS REASONABLE.

Get some gas station owners and liquor store owners to testify, who have been criminally assaulted in their businesses...
.

Aegis
03-30-2009, 2:26 PM
We can only hope AB357 passes. It appears that getting CCW permits via Nordyke (incorporation) may not happen for a very long time.

nicki
03-30-2009, 2:30 PM
Called staff office today, but got answering machine. Figure office is closed due to Caesar Chavez Holiday tommorrow, will follow up on Weds.

I will make a trip to Sac on thurs if I can get meetings, probably in the late afternoon early evening. I will try to get a post on Weds, have prior appointments I have to handle which will restrict my on line access.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bombmaster
I'm In north Sacramento let me know what I can do to help. Business owner so I have free time when need be.

Businessmen, especially retail store owners, need CCWs because the Penal Code says that they can HAVE a loaded gun uin their business, not CARRY a loaded gun. In order to carry a loaded gun, they need a CCW.

That's a huge reason that CCW should be revised, AND THE CURRENT LAW GOES AGAINST WHAT MANY PEOPLE THINK IS REASONABLE.

Get some gas station owners and liquor store owners to testify, who have been criminally assaulted in their businesses...


I don't know how much witness time we will have, that is going to be a key issue. I believe the equality under the law issue, the corruption factor, the non compliance with previous court rulings, the blantant disregard of the public records act, sheriffs under federal indictment, facts that the public safety issue is smoke to cover up political payoffs will be big factors.

We will be lucky if we can get one minute per speaker. Our speakers have to stay on point and be brief.

Those who are pro gun will vote pro gun, we need to swing the rest of the panel, which means we need to stay away from second amendment and focus on equal protection and corruption issues.

How and who are witnesses are will also be key. If we have a diverse witness panel, we will embrass opponents of the bill because what can they say.


They will have foot in mouth syndrome.

Now, as far as business owners and others. If we can get time for public comment, we really need to control our witnesses, each person has to make what I call bullet points.

We need to go emotional on this, we just don't have the time for analytical testimony or rants.

As far as businesses and others regarding CCW permits, I feel we need to stay away from justifying why some should have CCW's, we need to focus on how arbitrary the system really is.

Still, testimony about obvious people who should have permits, but can't get them, will be effective.

I would to have the room full of people and it would be great to have everyone say something.

The number one profession with on the job homicides are cab drivers.

Other professions I would look at are bail bondsmen, they clean up 90 percent of the trash(bail jumpers).

A few female speakers would be good also. It is kind of a public perception that one in three women will be raped in her lifetime. Since we now have AIDS, a Rape potentially could be death sentence.

We can have fun with this.

Nicki

nicki
03-31-2009, 7:58 PM
I will be following up with Assemblyman Knights staff tommorrow.

Hearings are going to be really tight, we may not be able to do much.
I will make some contacts and let everyone know what happens.

Nicki

TheBundo
03-31-2009, 11:09 PM
2 other bullet points are:

CLEO's claiming they won't issue becuase of liability, which is bunk

Protection of "stuff", like diamonds and money (which may be insured anyway) given more weight in CCW apps than protection of life

I believe I could go and testify, as I own my own business