View Full Version : Realistically what are the chances of AB357 passing?

04-14-2009, 5:57 AM
Good or not so good? Frankly I am surprised it has gone this far in KA...

04-14-2009, 5:58 AM
unfortunately I don't think it'll pass.

M. D. Van Norman
04-14-2009, 6:28 AM
New legislation from Sacramento or voluntary compliance by our chief law-enforcement officers are the only ways to avoid the post-incorporation right-to-carry lawsuits. If the Legislature really cares about the stateís finances, it will fix the problem before the courts force the issue.

04-14-2009, 6:37 AM
If the Legislature really cares about the stateís finances

That would be a no then?

04-14-2009, 6:39 AM
Look at the membership of the PS Committee (very anti gun). I probably has about a 1-3% chance of making it out of committee this time. It has opened people eyes and will make it easier next time. Government is a very incremental process, so keep on the authors of these bills to reintroduce them every session. Eventually they will either see the light or be forced to change by the courts....

04-14-2009, 6:41 AM
what are the chances of AB357 passing?

Slim to none

04-14-2009, 6:47 AM
Just keep calling them!!!!

It aint over til its over.

04-14-2009, 6:56 AM
Yeah, maybe not so good this time, but it sure feels good that it was introduced and it feels good knowing that, INMO, it will be back again and again until it passes..its only matter of time. The trends are moving in the right direction and Heller and the upcoming litigation that will result from Heller will most likely be a dreadnaught that cant be stopped..
(insert evil laugh!)

Seriously, there are good reasons for optomism here...even in CA....

04-14-2009, 7:26 AM
This is Kalifornia......have they reported snowballs in Hell?


(No offense)

04-14-2009, 9:20 AM
what are the chances of AB357 passing?

Slim to none

And Slim just left town.

04-14-2009, 9:39 AM
That's one of the questions that requires having a vote in committee before any predictions are very good.

If history is our guide, it's true that one should expect Ds to vote against it, and Rs to vote for it; if that were to happen, 357 would fail, since Ds outnumber Rs in the Legislature as a whole and on every committee.

Sometimes it doesn't work that way. I want to wait and see.

M. D. Van Norman
04-14-2009, 9:44 AM
That would be a no then?

Exactly, but Iím hoping for change. After all, it was the Democrats who said we could have guns and butter.

04-14-2009, 9:44 AM
This is Kalifornia......have they reported snowballs in Hell?


(No offense)Actually Hell, MI has snow all the time. It's a little late in the year now, though.

04-14-2009, 11:54 PM
Good or not so good? Frankly I am surprised it has gone this far in KA...

This FAR? It hasn't really went anywhere yet, has it?

04-15-2009, 12:00 AM
When it was first announced and everyone was out emailing and calling like crazy a few people posted their responses they got from the committee members. Several members had positive opinions on AB357.

I'm a little more optimistic on its chances. Right now the state and cities need money. CCW's are a form of income they can create without putting any money up front "the programs for issuing them are already there".

I think it'll pass the safety committee, but will be shot down on the floor.

04-15-2009, 2:33 AM
I don't think it will pass, but what I hope will happen is that we can start to do is expand the public debate from just gun rights to equal rights.

One thing we will have here is a public record and that is important.

There will be lawsuits regarding CCW, right now there are equal protection issues, and when Nordyke brings incorporation, all hell will break loose.

The state has had a bad history over the last 2 decades.

In 1998 they changed the law to limit where you could get CCW permits because former sheriff Lou Blanas didn't like Isleton Chief Gene Byrd issuing CCW permits to Sacramento county residents.

Well, former sheriff Lou Blanas is dealing with Federal corruption charges, many of which relate to his CCW permit issuance policies.

In 1998 they also created a state standardized form and training standards, AB 2022, that was a good bill. Unfortunately DOJ under Bill Lockyer pulled a real fast one to make a end run around CBS vs Block.

CBS vs Block made ccw permits, especially the "good cause" statements public record.

The newly created forms allowed the sheriffs to hide the good cause statements because they were placed under investigator notes which are shielded from a public records act request.

AB2022 also required that all permits issued and all denied applications be forwarded to Sacramento DOJ.

A few years back Jim March hit DOJ with a PRA from hell which they were non compliant. Basically he wanted all the CCW permits and denials from DOJ, then he was going to ask for the same information from various agencies and then cross reference them.

DOJ pulled a fast one and got a so called bill AB1044 pushed throught the legislature. AB1044 allowed DOJ to destroy those records so that only the issuing agencies would have them.

This is just some of the goodies, but the nutshell is the state has been worked with sheriffs to allow equal rights violations.

A no vote on this bill is a continuation of this policy.

The original CCW law was racist, but now it has evolved into something far worse, CCW permits are efffectively a "defacto title of Nobility".

The arguement that the "May Issue, Good Cause" system is needed for public safety has no basis in fact. It is a "Smoke Screen" to hide what the CCW permit really has become, a "defacto title of Nobilty" because in many parts of the state, the only people who seem to have "good cause" are those that are "politically connected".

Alan Gura had a simple comment about 2nd amendment litigation: He smiled and said lots of work for lawyers:43:

I will work on a preparred statement that I hope I can hand if I can't talk, hopefully I can do both.

My preparred statement will be edited, I want to make it an easy read.

When the lawsuits hit, this day will be one that will come back to haunt anyone who voted no.


04-15-2009, 7:28 PM
Is it that hard for the Democrats in Sacramento to understand that California is one of the few states that is not shall issue. They seem to think that AB 357 is some unique and unusual concept. Why can't the Democrats who are against AB357 make a phone call to their sensible Democratic counterparts in other states in an effort to learn that shall issue CCW is a positive.

My theory is that many of the Democratic politicians in California are so incompetent and irrational, that they think their "nanny state" mentality as it relates to guns is correct. It is not. These same "enlightened" politicians turned this once great state into a laughing stock that is on the verge of bankruptcy. Too bad these politicians don't have the wisdom to understand the truth and facts.

04-15-2009, 8:40 PM
^ They're paid to act like they don't.

The question is how many times this will have to be run through. Lots of states took 4 or 5 tries, one took 10 or 12 if I recall correctly.

04-15-2009, 11:54 PM
That would be a no then?

LOL +1:thumbsup:

04-16-2009, 12:01 AM
100% :thumbsup: