PDA

View Full Version : AB357 (shall issue) hearings on Apr 21, 9am to12noon.


nicki
04-13-2009, 12:06 PM
Called Steve Knight's office, talked with staffer who is in charge of this bill. AB357 is on the calender for Apr 21.

I called GOC last friday, they told me it was off the schedule, so I got bad info.

Others may have bad info also.

I wish I had "good news" on this bill, but what I have is limbo.

I am going to go and be in that room and give support. At this point, all we can do is just show up to show support. I wish I could give a better gameplan, but right now, Steve Knight's office has not come up with their gameplan on this bill.

Time at hearings is always tight. I have included a simple poll on this.

If you can attend, please do.

Nicki

Shotgun Man
04-13-2009, 6:58 PM
Good luck.

This seems more important than attending oral argument on an appellate court case.

Nanook
04-13-2009, 7:22 PM
Address?

KylaGWolf
04-13-2009, 7:29 PM
::sighs:: After dropping what I did on the HK yesterday there is no way I could fly up there testify or be there for support and fly back that night even if I could afford to miss class for a day. Nicki please keep me updated what happens that day. Any chance of getting Hofmang to testify? Are you going to be one of the speakers to put a a face on this bill? Yeah I know a lot of questions.

smokingloon
04-13-2009, 7:37 PM
Is this the meeting in Irvine?

Librarian
04-13-2009, 8:46 PM
Address?

Room 126 of the California State Capitol
10th Street and Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814

Latest committee calendar says
TESTIMONY LIMITED TO TWO WITNESSES PER SIDE -

TWO MINUTES PER WITNESS

Hearing starts at 9 am, 357 is third on the list, and it appears - only appears, I haven't tried it - that this link
http://192.234.214.75/asm-126
will let us listen.

ETA: I can't make that link do anything; either there's nothing there to hear, or none of Quicktime, Real Player or Windows Media Player can do anything with it.

nicki
04-14-2009, 1:25 PM
Barring unplanned problems, I will be up at the hearing.

I will let you guys know how it went. Of course I want a chance to comment on the bill and if I have the opportunity, I certainly will.

At the very least I hope to go to the mike, state name, groups I represent and that we support AB357.

Even though I unfortunately expect the bill to go down in flames, it is important that a record is created.

Who our pro gun witnesses will be, I don't know.

Hopefully they will focus on the "equal protection issues" and destroy the so called "public safety arguements" that the sheriffs, police and Brady Bunch types are going to come up with.

Nicki

Heatseeker
04-14-2009, 1:54 PM
For an issue this important, you'd think there would be more than 4 minutes allotted for witness testimony.

Good luck Nicki. I hope you get the opportunity to speak!

Legasat
04-14-2009, 4:44 PM
As much as I would enjoy to be there....

Work

MP301
04-15-2009, 7:45 PM
well, not very promising results... I think some of you need to reevaluate your priorites that day...this is an important start and if the turnout sucks, then we are screwed....

KylaGWolf
04-15-2009, 7:58 PM
MP not that I don't want to be there I am over five hundred miles away. If it were closer than a plane flight I would do it. I would only be able to go for the day and it is a 14 hour drive one way. Not to mention the fact we have one car and my bf uses it to get back and forth to work.

audiophil2
04-15-2009, 7:59 PM
PM sent to Nicki

evan69
04-15-2009, 8:13 PM
it's a 2 hour drive each way and I remember that particular freeway area to be confusing as ****. I don't feel like getting lost, or driving for 4 hours.

sreiter
04-15-2009, 8:24 PM
it's a 2 hour drive each way and I remember that particular freeway area to be confusing as ****. I don't feel like getting lost, or driving for 4 hours.

not confusing at all. take the 5 get off at J st. (one way) start heading up towards 9th and make a right on 9th (one way)

streets running parallel are letters, perpendicular are numbers

the capitol sits between 10th and 15th streets, and L and N streets

capitol ave and capitol mall (same street, different sides of the capitol) run into the capitol and would really be considered "M" street if they stuck with letter

get there early - parking's rough, but the metro light rail runs a few blocks from there. one goes down 7th or up 8th



http://www.sacrt.com/schedules/current/routes.stm

sreiter
04-15-2009, 8:27 PM
i work 2 blocks away - if someone wants me to give testimony - let me know - maybe let me know points i should hit

evan69
04-15-2009, 9:26 PM
Well, my parents don't want me going alone for some reason, but my dad is showing interest. If he goes with me I will be able to show up. I'm 18, so I probably wouldn't be of any use for giving a testimony. The only thing I have is that I am handicapped and unable to run, so I would like a ccw when I am of age, just in case I get into a fight or flight situation.

nicki
04-16-2009, 2:08 AM
Our opportunity to speak will be extremely limited if at all.

This panel does not care about "GUN RIGHTS", what we really need to focus on is "EQUAL RIGHTS".

The most we probably we get to say is our names and that we support the bill.

We should talk outside the before the hearings.

This is the state capital guys, the better you look, the better we look.

To all those who come, thank you.
To all those who couldn't come, we know you wanted to be here.

I will come up with some ideas over the weekend so that we can have follow up.

Nicki

TheBundo
04-16-2009, 2:35 AM
Maybe we should get a hypnotist, Nikki, and forget the testimony :)

sreiter
04-16-2009, 9:35 AM
Our opportunity to speak will be extremely limited if at all.

This panel does not care about "GUN RIGHTS", what we really need to focus on is "EQUAL RIGHTS".

The most we probably we get to say is our names and that we support the bill.

We should talk outside the before the hearings.

This is the state capital guys, the better you look, the better we look.

To all those who come, thank you.
To all those who couldn't come, we know you wanted to be here.

I will come up with some ideas over the weekend so that we can have follow up.

Nicki

I was planning on discussing starting off with how the council all have access to , and some member HAVE ccw's because the feel they are at risk and feel they need the most protection possible. With that in mind, why does the legislators feel their constituents and less deserving of same chance at protecting ourselves from the same people they themselves are afraid of. The constitution guarantee's every citizen equal protection under the law, yet some legislators feel that being protect against those who would do law abiding citizens harm is reserve only for those with political clout.

And speaking of equal protection, there is no uniform standards for a CCW. Since the issuance is left to the discretion of MEN, and no two men think alike, and unfortunately all men dont have the wisdom of soloman, abuses in the system can, and do occur to such a degree, that this has become the rule rather then the except.

I was also going to list stat's on gun related crimes with illegal weapons, and mention that criminals dont care about illegally ccw'ing, providing stats on 911 call response times,and if i could find the stats, how many times officers responding to 911 were to late to prevent the crime.

i was going to rattle off stats where cities and states had lower crime stats then non-ccw states cities

finally as a appeal to their electability i was going to mention that while being anti-gun might help them get elected, the real issues is people think guns equal crime. If the CCW passed and crime WENT DOWN, think of the quantifiable feather they would have in their caps come election time

tango-52
04-16-2009, 9:50 AM
There are several Sheriffs and Chiefs that are women, so using the MEN argument won't fly. I think the best argument is going to be along the civil rights and equal protection aspects. Apparently the Sheriffs and Chiefs have presented their opposition to this bill to the Committee, so it will be a real tough sell.

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/legal/9076-ab-357-just-got-proposed-6.html#post138896

Midian
04-16-2009, 9:57 AM
I can't attend, but I hope it goes well.

FWIW, look presentable. Consider a dress shirt, or best case scenario, a good suit that fits. Don't go in looking like what they will see as a hayseed.

These are California Government Yahoos, all they know is what they think about you, and that isn't much. They see themselves as the elite, and love that about themselves. They want you unarmed and paying your taxes like a good serf.

Don't give them any more fuel for the fire.

CA_Libertarian
04-16-2009, 11:33 AM
If anybody happens to be passing through Modesto on the way to this, and has an empty seat, I'd like to attend. There's a box of 9mm ammo in it for ya!

evan69
04-16-2009, 12:33 PM
ill be sure to dress nice if i go. how do they/we decide who testifies anyway, is it just whoever wants to? i will testify if i am wanted to, but since i am so young, and look young, i dont think the court would take me seriously. if you do want me to speak though, i will :/

sreiter
04-16-2009, 1:16 PM
There are several Sheriffs and Chiefs that are women, so using the MEN argument won't fly. I think the best argument is going to be along the civil rights and equal protection aspects. Apparently the Sheriffs and Chiefs have presented their opposition to this bill to the Committee, so it will be a real tough sell.

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/legal/9076-ab-357-just-got-proposed-6.html#post138896

MEN was used in the "royal" sense

Rivers
04-16-2009, 1:23 PM
One thing to also bring up is how voicing your political opinion, should it disagree with that of the issuing sheriff, puts your CCW in jeopardy. Any CCW holders in Sac who feel safe speaking up for "shall issue" at this hearing? Like living on the edge? This situation actually stops me from voicing my political opinion in such a way that might be noticed by my elected officials. (Hopefully they don't know already...)

nicki
04-17-2009, 3:53 AM
At this time we don't know who or what is going to be said by our official witnesses. What should be said and what will be said may be two different things.

If we get a chance to say anything besides our name and our support for the bill, we will be lucky.

Time is critical, it is imperative that if we get a chance to speak that we make significant hits.

Some of the issues that we must hit on.

1.The "discriminatory issue" CCW law conflicts with Art 1 Sec7b of the California constitution. Our constitution does not say only selected rights and privileges, it says ALL RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES.

2. It is "Good Cause" to protect large sums of money and valuables even though it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property.

3. Only people with "documented death threats or those in immeninent danger" should get ccw permits, but their permits take 3 months or more to process?

4. We need to restrict CCW for public safety. Well 40 states are now shall issue and 4 million CCW permits have been a public safety benefit.

5. The CCW law was racist in orign, today it has mutated into a privilege available only to the politically connected, in effect, a defacto title of nobility.

6. Sheriffs have abused the CCW system for personal gain. The CCW system needs this fix to send a message that the legislature is serious about equal rights.

7. Your failure to correct the CCW system means you support this. The legislature has a track record of protecting this CCW system. The courts will be harsh.

Of course you guys have your own ideas, share some.

Nicki

Musclemom
04-17-2009, 11:35 AM
I think that's a good list to start with. Hopefully you'll have time to hit on them all.

I sure wish I could be there since I'm less than 2 hours away. If it were any other day it wouldn't be a problem, but I have a monster of a math test that day :(

nicki
04-19-2009, 3:41 PM
What we need at this time is bodies.

Let's try to get together about 8:45am or so outside the hearing room.

I'm easy to spot, I'm a 6ft blonde. Just intro yourselves.

Got a e mail for Assemblyman Knight's office, the issue we need to focus on is equal protection.

In the event any of us do get a chance to say a few words, we need to keep tight on equal protection.

We need to keep things down to soundbites and keep it short.
We can 't go into personal issues, or ramble on about our 2nd amendment rights.

Equal protection IS THE ISSUE. It is written in our state constitution and it is carved in stone on the US SUPREME COURT BUILDING.

We need to say things like,

Our constitution says equal rights for all, there is no exception for gun permits.

If someone wants to, and can keep a straight face. Make the following comment.

What if "Marriage Licenses" were on a "May Issue" basis and the state association of registered ministers wanted to keep it that way so that they could continue to refuse to perform inter racial marriages, would that be okay?

You can make comments like. Are you guys for equal rights or selective rights, vote yes, because all rights are important.

Other issues: Directly attack administration of the law.

40 states are "non discriminatory issue", "equal issue" without subjective Good cause has not been a public safety issue.

This reform of the current law will probably lead to no more than 2 percent of the population carrying guns, that is hardly everyone carrying a gun.

Right now, there are 7 of us who have committed to show. There is a chance all of us could get 15 to 30 seconds.

If each of us has a soundbite, we can make a difference.

I realize that I have been taking a lead on this, if anyone of you wants to step up with your ideas, please do so.

I'm a dummie, I don't see everything.

Nicki

timmyb21
04-19-2009, 6:55 PM
I wish I could make it, but I'll be getting back from SD about 4am on the 21st. That's a long drive after a long drive.

jmlivingston
04-19-2009, 7:32 PM
2. It is "Good Cause" to protect large sums of money and valuables even though it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property.


Nicki,

You might want to rephrase that a bit. It should reflect Good Cause to protect an individual who is at higher risk of being attacked due to the money and valuables being carried. Not to protect the money and valuables, which as you correctly indicated is unlawful to use deadly force to protect.

John

nicki
04-19-2009, 8:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki
2. It is "Good Cause" to protect large sums of money and valuables even though it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property.

Nicki,

You might want to rephrase that a bit. It should reflect Good Cause to protect an individual who is at higher risk of being attacked due to the money and valuables being carried. Not to protect the money and valuables, which as you correctly indicated is unlawful to use deadly force to protect.

John
__________________


Actually, that is exactly what I meant to say because that is what was found thru some public records act requests done a few years ago by Jim March under "Good Cause".

As far as being at higher risk, Jim, the geek that he is, did a analysis and what he found was the higher income bracket a person was, the lower their risk of being a victim of violent crime.

The reality is the person who gets robbed for 20 dollars is at higher risk than the person who gets robbed for carrying 20,000 dollars.

"Good Cause" is smoke to cover a corrupt issuance system. Personally I feel we should treat the "May Issue" system like cancer.

It is best to cut it all out. Of course, there are times when you can only fix part of it, and a sheriff issuing some permits is better than no permits.

Our Constitution doesn't say "Equal rights except for CCW permits".

I am not begrudging those people who have CCW permits, I just want the rest of us to be treated equally under the law.

After all, sheriffs are "Government Servants".

Nicki


Nicki

chunger
04-19-2009, 9:10 PM
one day to the left or to the right and I would have been able to make it. Doh!

evan69
04-19-2009, 9:33 PM
I am saddened to inform you that I cannot show up. Parents still rule my life, and their word goes. Their word told me not to go, :(.

gvazquez
04-20-2009, 1:23 AM
n00b here, how long after the hearings will there be a decision made? :confused:

jmlivingston
04-20-2009, 5:43 AM
Actually, that is exactly what I meant to say because that is what was found thru some public records act requests done a few years ago by Jim March under "Good Cause".

As far as being at higher risk, Jim, the geek that he is, did a analysis and what he found was the higher income bracket a person was, the lower their risk of being a victim of violent crime.

The reality is the person who gets robbed for 20 dollars is at higher risk than the person who gets robbed for carrying 20,000 dollars.


Good arguement Nicki, if you end up making this arguement at the hearing I'd suggest you reinforce the hypocrisy of the "acceptable" Good Cause statement versus what the law says for deadly force. I didn't catch it the first time reading it, and if you've only got a couple minutes to speak it should be a clear point and not muddled.

Good luck!

cousinkix1953
04-20-2009, 5:53 AM
Actually, that is exactly what I meant to say because that is what was found thru some public records act requests done a few years ago by Jim March under "Good Cause".

As far as being at higher risk, Jim, the geek that he is, did a analysis and what he found was the higher income bracket a person was, the lower their risk of being a victim of violent crime.

The reality is the person who gets robbed for 20 dollars is at higher risk than the person who gets robbed for carrying 20,000 dollars.

"Good Cause" is smoke to cover a corrupt issuance system. Personally I feel we should treat the "May Issue" system like cancer.

It is best to cut it all out. Of course, there are times when you can only fix part of it, and a sheriff issuing some permits is better than no permits.

Our Constitution doesn't say "Equal rights except for CCW permits".

I am not begrudging those people who have CCW permits, I just want the rest of us to be treated equally under the law.

After all, sheriffs are "Government Servants".

Nicki


Nicki
It doesn't say CCW permits for rock musicians, movie stars and so-called VIPs either. Common sense tells me that a corrupt sheriff could issue a permit, to campaign contributor who pay a big enough bribe. Does anybody bother to compare the lists of contributors with another one that names who packs a piece in a certain county? It should be shall issue, or no issue in my book. The current system is no better than being racist in the past...

nicki
04-20-2009, 10:05 AM
It doesn't say CCW permits for rock musicians, movie stars and so-called VIPs either. Common sense tells me that a corrupt sheriff could issue a permit, to campaign contributor who pay a big enough bribe. Does anybody bother to compare the lists of contributors with another one that names who packs a piece in a certain county? It should be shall issue, or no issue in my book. The current system is no better than being racist in the past...


Actually the "current system" has mutated into something worse than racism, the reality is it is common knowledge that only "connected people" can score a CCW permit.

What this means is a "CCW Permit has become a defacto TITLE OF NOBILITY".
Something that was so repulsive to the people who founded this country that they expressly prohibited it in the US Constitution.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution states:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Then, in Article I, Section X, Clause 1, States are prohibited to “... grant any Title of Nobility.”

So what is “nobility”? According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, it is

“A class of persons distinguished by high birth or rank…”; “noble rank or status”; “The state or quality of being exalted in character”

A elite class of people, celebrities, etc etc.

We got Nordyke btw that the second amendment is a individual right.
I expect Alan Gura is going to be really bussssssssssssssssssssy.

Nicki

wildhawker
04-20-2009, 11:51 AM
If I'm a betting man, I'd say that any chance of AB357 passing was just about decimated today by Nordyke.

AB357 (and the like) may end up being killed solely for politcal capital and to serve as their "last stand" (for anti-gun campaign ad material) prior to the 2010 elections.

That said, my hope is that the committee (and leg) will see shall-issue via AB357 as a "quiet out".

Aegis
04-20-2009, 12:35 PM
If I'm a betting man, I'd say that any chance of AB357 passing was just about decimated today by Nordyke.

AB357 (and the like) may end up being killed solely for politcal capital and to serve as their "last stand" (for anti-gun campaign ad material) prior to the 2010 elections.

That said, my hope is that the committee (and leg) will see shall-issue via AB357 as a "quiet out".

We can only hope that the anti 2A members of the legislature realize that shall issue CCW or LOC is going to happen eventually now with incorporation and they vote for AB357 thinking it may give them some control over training and licensing. If AB357 fails, then doing via the courts will take a long time.

Librarian
04-20-2009, 12:38 PM
n00b here, how long after the hearings will there be a decision made? :confused:

Committee hearings are 'gating factors'. After whatever testimony may be heard, the Public Safety Committee may vote to pass the bill or defeat it. If it votes to defeat it, the bill is probably dead for 2009-10.

And it may not vote; it may amend and re-schedule a hearing; the author may withdraw it, though I'd be surprised by that.

If it votes to pass it on, it apparently would go to the entire Assembly for a vote (no fiscal impact, so it does not need to go to Appropriations); if it were to pass there, it would go to the Senate, probably its Public Safety Committee. If it were to pass there, it probably would go to the whole Senate for a vote. If that vote passed it, and no amendments were made in the Senate, it would go to the Governor.

If the Governor were to sign it, it would become law on Jan 1, 2010.

4 votes and the Governor; it could be stopped at any point.

Cr6IC
04-20-2009, 1:04 PM
Hopefully I'm wrong, but I doubt it'll get out of committee.

wildhawker
04-20-2009, 1:47 PM
4 votes and the Governor; it could be stopped at any point.

This really highlights that the [many] bad laws on the books could have been stopped just as well as could AB357; let us not grow complacent from a Nordyke win and remove ourselves from the legislative process- activism is a never-ending profession.

demnogis
04-20-2009, 2:14 PM
I wish I could go! There is no way I can make it to Sacramento, even if I left from work right now. Is there a way we can phone in for comments or support of AB 357?

cousinkix1953
04-20-2009, 8:12 PM
Actually the "current system" has mutated into something worse than racism, the reality is it is common knowledge that only "connected people" can score a CCW permit.

What this means is a "CCW Permit has become a defacto TITLE OF NOBILITY".
Something that was so repulsive to the people who founded this country that they expressly prohibited it in the US Constitution.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution states:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Then, in Article I, Section X, Clause 1, States are prohibited to “... grant any Title of Nobility.”

So what is “nobility”? According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, it is

“A class of persons distinguished by high birth or rank…”; “noble rank or status”; “The state or quality of being exalted in character”

A elite class of people, celebrities, etc etc.

We got Nordyke btw that the second amendment is a individual right.
I expect Alan Gura is going to be really bussssssssssssssssssssy.

Nicki

If they don't adopt a standard uniform "shall issue" system, then I'm all for disarmimng these well connected people too. Then we will see wealthy hypocritical Hollywood movie stars 8i+ching because tey don't have special rights any more. If you aren't or weren't a LEO, then too frigging bad. No CCWs for the Feinstein crowd either...

bigcalidave
04-21-2009, 9:14 AM
So what's going on there! Any feedback from the meeting yet? Why isn't someone with a blackberry reporting on this !!!

ZRX61
04-21-2009, 9:30 AM
Listen right now:
http://192.234.214.75/asm-126

lobonegro
04-21-2009, 9:38 AM
Great job Nikki. Very well spoken.

PatriotnMore
04-21-2009, 9:44 AM
Leave it to the Police Chiefs to fear monger the issue. Makes me want to puke, fender bender will end in shoot out, and I like the way the Raiders, and fans are used.

MudCamper
04-21-2009, 9:45 AM
Great job Nikki. Very well spoken.

Yes. Well argued.

But sadly the followup "against" arguments are being made by Police and Sheriffs associations. So damn annoying. These guys give the anti-gun assemblymen all the ammunition they need to defend their no votes. "We're just doing what the police and sheriffs advise us to do."

CSDGuy
04-21-2009, 9:56 AM
I didn't hear a lot of Aye votes. I did hear a lot of "No" votes. Didn't sound very good. I could be wrong, as I started listening in right at the end of the hearing of what I believe was AB 357.

cineski
04-21-2009, 9:59 AM
Anyone have any solid updates?

CSDGuy
04-21-2009, 10:00 AM
In another thread, it sounds like the bill has been held for reconsideration. It sounds like it's effectively dead for now.

MudCamper
04-21-2009, 10:01 AM
Same. Heard mostly "no" votes.

If it wasn't already obvious, it's clear that our legislature is utterly useless. Our only hope is the courts, where the rule of law applies, not the pathetic pleadings of power hungry police chiefs and sheriffs.

Frijolito1988
04-21-2009, 10:07 AM
Same. Heard mostly "no" votes.

If it wasn't already obvious, it's clear that our legislature is utterly useless. Our only hope is the courts, where the rule of law applies, not the pathetic pleadings of power hungry police chiefs and sheriffs.

tell me about it, pissed me off when i was hearing it :mad:

lobonegro
04-21-2009, 10:13 AM
Yeah, the outlook appears bleak in obtaining shall issue ccw through our elected officials. It now appears that only through the courts will we get fair issuance.

Roadrunner
04-21-2009, 10:16 AM
I'm listening to them talking about AB668.

http://192.234.214.75/asm-126

sreiter
04-21-2009, 10:20 AM
Yeah..it was strange, even thought there were more no votes, it didnt seem "dead" per se'. I think it is held over for reconsideration, but, it aint going no where

Roadrunner
04-21-2009, 10:21 AM
AB668 just passed out of committee.

tonelar
04-21-2009, 10:35 AM
They're all in denial over Nordyke incorporating the 2nd Amendment

MudCamper
04-21-2009, 12:31 PM
They're all in denial over Nordyke incorporating the 2nd Amendment

No they are either unaware of it, or completely ignorant to what it means. And if they did, they don't give a rats ***. Our state reps are idiots who gleefully trample the Constitution. What else is new.

tonelar
04-21-2009, 1:11 PM
...And if they did, they don't give a rats ***. Our state reps are idiots who gleefully trample the Constitution. What else is new.

Like I said, they're in Denial. It's the first stage of the grieving process.

wash
04-21-2009, 1:37 PM
We've got to make them hit bottom.

Mstrty
04-21-2009, 3:46 PM
Really disapointed with the CalGuns Turnout.... Other than Pink Pistols, CRPA, NRA there was only like 4-5 other people there in support. :gene: When will you guys get active.... When they come to take your guns? They are coming... I hear them knocking at your door now.

cousinkix1953
04-21-2009, 8:15 PM
Does anybody remember those Joe McNamara commercials that used to air right after the news on KNTV 11 in San Jose back in 1988? "The Santa Clara county sheriff is an elected official. Nothing prevents a crooked politician, from issuing CCW permits to his biggest campaign contributors." He didn't trust Bob Winter as far as he could throw him.

Well no kidding. Common sense tells me, that these hypocritical sheriffs and police chiefs should not issue permits at all any more. Existing ones should be revoked. No more special rights for celebrities and their friends. No more permits for those corrupt politicians, who never worked a day on the crime infested streets either. Perata, Feinstein etc; gimme a break.

The initiative process can be used to disarm these ruling class elites too. The Santa Cruz hippies even put a measure on the ballot (to ban the sheriff's SWAT teams and take away his assault weapons) back in 1978. I wouldn't have voted for it in those days. Given a second chance, I would do it now as payback for all of their hysterical anti-gun activities in Sacramento...

CABilly
04-21-2009, 8:25 PM
AB668 just passed out of committee.

Great.

KylaGWolf
04-21-2009, 10:19 PM
Really disapointed with the CalGuns Turnout.... Other than Pink Pistols, CRPA, NRA there was only like 4-5 other people there in support. :gene: When will you guys get active.... When they come to take your guns? They are coming... I hear them knocking at your door now.

If I could have been there I would have I had a test in my class today for a computer class that I could not miss.

DDT
04-21-2009, 10:45 PM
Really disapointed with the CalGuns Turnout.... Other than Pink Pistols, CRPA, NRA there was only like 4-5 other people there in support. :gene: When will you guys get active....

When the snowball has a chance of surviving. If they ignored 460:0 email/phone etc. contacts why do you think that 5 or 20 more people showing up in person will make a difference?

cousinkix1953
04-21-2009, 11:36 PM
When the snowball has a chance of surviving. If they ignored 460:0 email/phone etc. contacts why do you think that 5 or 20 more people showing up in person will make a difference?
Unfortunately not. Most people are too busy working and those idiots in Sacramento rarely conduct business at night. They don't want to deal with the kind of turn outs that you'll see at city council meetings...

AEC1
04-22-2009, 7:52 AM
If Sac wasnt so far north...

MudCamper
04-22-2009, 8:11 AM
Really disapointed with the CalGuns Turnout.... Other than Pink Pistols, CRPA, NRA there was only like 4-5 other people there in support. :gene: When will you guys get active.... When they come to take your guns? They are coming... I hear them knocking at your door now.

100 of us showed for the Nordyke hearings, because everyone (including everyone who really knows what's going on) told us it was important and we should. This hearing didn't have that kind of push, probably because we all knew it would fail.

marshaul
04-22-2009, 1:13 PM
The initiative process can be used to disarm these ruling class elites too. The Santa Cruz hippies even put a measure on the ballot (to ban the sheriff's SWAT teams and take away his assault weapons) back in 1978. I wouldn't have voted for it in those days. Given a second chance, I would do it now as payback for all of their hysterical anti-gun activities in Sacramento...
Actually, I would vote for that because it would effect a necessary and positive change. Revenge would be an added bonus.

Mstrty
04-22-2009, 1:35 PM
This hearing didn't have that kind of push, probably because we all knew it would fail.

When the snowball has a chance of surviving. If they ignored 460:0 email/phone etc. contacts why do you think that 5 or 20 more people showing up in person will make a difference?

If I could have been there I would have I had a test in my class today for a computer class that I could not miss.

This is the attitude Im talking about. Just turn in your guns now you have already admitted defeat:confused:

MudCamper
04-22-2009, 2:57 PM
This is the attitude Im talking about. Just turn in your guns now you have already admitted defeat:confused:

Welcome to my ignore list, a-hole.

cousinkix1953
04-22-2009, 4:45 PM
Actually, I would vote for that because it would effect a necessary and positive change. Revenge would be an added bonus.
San Francisco is even more RADICAL. You could probably disarm your police and sheriff's department's entirely at the ballot box. They'll be unarmed just like most of their friends in the UK. Chris Daly would love it. An army of nutcases riot in the streets, even when your LEOs kill and armed criminal, who opened fire on them in the first place. I can still see those burning patrol cars on the 10 O'clock news.

Those illegal alien gang bangers would over run your sanctuary city, if the Governator didn't send in his CHP officers who carry those scary black COLT AR-15 assault rifles...

hollabillz
04-23-2009, 12:31 PM
The status has changed to:

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/21/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : In committee: Set second hearing. Failed passage.
Reconsideration granted.

Don't know what that means. Maybe it'll last a little longer? :(:(s

cousinkix1953
04-24-2009, 2:05 AM
It isn't dead as a doornail. Some members might reconsider bringing it up again later down the road...