PDA

View Full Version : Update on AB962 from the NRA


Legasat
04-14-2009, 12:08 PM
Update on Pending Assault on Ammunition Sales in California

Please Continue to Contact the Members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety!

Assembly Bill 962, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), has been pulled from the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. The bill still could be heard next week, however.

AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

Please continue to contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and respectfully urge them to oppose AB962. Contact information can be found below.

Assembly Member Jose Solorio (D-69) - Chair
(916) 319-2069
Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Curt Hagman (R-60) - Vice Chair
(916) 319-2060
Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Warren T. Furutani (D-55)
(916) 319-2055
Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Danny D. Gilmore (R-30)
(916) 319-2030
Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-19)
(916) 319-2019
Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D-12)
(916) 319-2012
Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)
(916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Vanguard
04-14-2009, 12:13 PM
I wrote to all of the assembly people with the following email...

"AB962 infringes on the rights of every law abiding American to privacy and the 2nd Amendment. I respectfully request that you oppose this bill.

Thank you,

10fcp
04-14-2009, 5:34 PM
Thanks Vanguard. I also recieved the email from NRA and gave them all a piece of my mind. If we all flood their emails with opposition to these rediculous bills they would probably give up on putting this crap out there.

glockman19
04-14-2009, 5:44 PM
BTW for those NOT fimilar with this bill it is the same one Kevin deLeon has submitted for the third session in a row. First is was AB2062, Next session it was AB 362, this time around it is called 962.

The Assembly member is the only one sponsorong the bill. He can not get a co-sponsor. It is in violation of the rules of the Assembly & Senate to bring forthe the same legislation in back to back sessions unless sponsored by another member. This is NOT.

I think that someone should contact the Rules and Ethics Committee and lodge a complaint as the acts of this member continually violate the California Constitution.

I called all members of the committee. Asked them one question and left one comment: Q 1) Does the member support the legislation? C 1) The legislation not only violates Committee and Assembily rules it also viloates the interstate commerce clause and the 14th amendment even if you substitute the word bullets & ammunition with Widgets. Also that Gov. Arnie vetoed it the last time around. The only other Assembly member to bring forth similar legislation? Mark Ridley-Thomas the loser LA City Councilman who was termed out in the Assembly.

Keep up the good fight for our rights.

Librarian
04-14-2009, 6:09 PM
The Assembly member is the only one sponsorong the bill. He can not get a co-sponsor. It is in violation of the rules of the Assembly & Senate to bring for the the same legislation in back to back sessions unless sponsored by another member. This is NOT.


Is this exactly the way it works? I think that's correct for a bill in 2009-2010, where a bill introduced in 2009 should not be re-introduced as substantially the same thing in 2010.

It should be OK to introduce a bill one time (362) in 2007-2008, then introduce it again (962) in 2009-2010. I think.

The prior bill, 362, was actually in a different session (2007-2008). Which just moves the problem back to the previous session, with 2062 and 362, so apparently the Assembly has no real interest in its own rules.

Quelle surprise.

dadoody
04-14-2009, 9:07 PM
Hmm. What's the best way to deal with this?

jacques
04-14-2009, 9:45 PM
Hmm. What's the best way to deal with this?

Start reloading?:thumbsup:

Call and write letters/E-mails.

KylaGWolf
04-14-2009, 10:03 PM
I honestly don't think this bill is going to make it very far. They have tried similar things before and it was shot down in the courts. But still going to contact the members of this committee anyways to let them know of my displeasure.

dadoody
04-14-2009, 11:21 PM
I honestly don't think this bill is going to make it very far. They have tried similar things before and it was shot down in the courts. But still going to contact the members of this committee anyways to let them know of my displeasure.

That's wise. Whenever we let down our guard, the politicians, and our braindead old hippy voters start passing stupid things.

It's why we can't have nice things. The French have safe and reliable nuclear power. The French. This is the friggin' USA. wtf is wrong with this country right now?!

Bizcuits
04-14-2009, 11:32 PM
Sent emails to all of em, see below.


----
Dear Assembly Members,

As a working and voting California resident, I ask that you please oppose AB962. This bill acts as nothing more then a direct hassle for hunters and sportsmen such as myself.

Thank You,

NorthCountySC
04-15-2009, 11:48 AM
Update on Pending Assault on Ammunition Sales in California

Please Continue to Contact the Members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety!

Assembly Bill 962, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), has been pulled from the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. The bill still could be heard next week, however.

AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

Please continue to contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and respectfully urge them to oppose AB962. Contact information can be found below.

Assembly Member Jose Solorio (D-69) - Chair
(916) 319-2069
Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Curt Hagman (R-60) - Vice Chair
(916) 319-2060
Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Warren T. Furutani (D-55)
(916) 319-2055
Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Danny D. Gilmore (R-30)
(916) 319-2030
Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-19)
(916) 319-2019
Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D-12)
(916) 319-2012
Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)
(916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

I was able to call all the reps and talk to their clerks.
here is what i found:

1. Jose Solorio - Not sure
2. Curt Hagman - Opposed
3. Warren T. Furutani - Waiting instruction from constituency (New Rep)
4. Danny D. Gilmore - Opposed
5. Jerry Hill - Waiting instruction (New Rep)
6. Fiona Ma- Waiting instruction
7. Nancy Skinner- Clerk refused to disclose ***

Convo with Clerk:

Mike: My name is Mike Hansen and I would like to know Rep. Skinner's stance on AB962...
Clerk: I cannot disclose that information, it is private until the day of the hearing.
Mike: Excuse me? I believe we live in a republic..
Clerk: Im sorry, where are you calling from?
Mike: The population that elects the reps, such as Skinner, into office ever couple years.
Clerk: **hangs up phone**

I will be emailing the rep about their staffer tonight.

10fcp
04-15-2009, 5:48 PM
If they can ban online ammo sales what makes you think they won't go after component sales. If I had to buy all my components locally I wouldn't be able to afford half the **** I have. They try to make big progress with little steps forward. We need to stop tham at even the littlest of things.

KWA-S
04-15-2009, 6:11 PM
Convo with Clerk:

Mike: My name is Mike Hansen and I would like to know Rep. Skinner's stance on AB962...
Clerk: I cannot disclose that information, it is private until the day of the hearing.
Mike: Excuse me? I believe we live in a republic..
Clerk: Im sorry, where are you calling from?
Mike: The population that elects the reps, such as Skinner, into office ever couple years.
Clerk: **hangs up phone**

I will be emailing the rep about their staffer tonight.

I raged when I read that. Skinner, I believe, also shut down her phones when we started calling about AB357. I got to calling late, and ever time I called her office (within their hours of operation) I got the machine. :mad:

Librarian
04-17-2009, 8:27 PM
Bump.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_962&sess=0910&house=B&author=de_leon
This bill would establish a program administered by the Department
of Justice for licensing handgun ammunition vendors, as specified.

The bill would establish a database maintained by the department
to serve as a registry of handgun ammunition vendors.

This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2010, unless
specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50
rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless he or she is
registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined. The bill would
also require these vendors to obtain a background clearance for
those employees who would handle ammunition in the course and scope
of their employment.

The bill would require the Department of Justice
to maintain a registry of registered handgun ammunition vendors, as
specified.

Violation of these provisions, as specified, would be a
misdemeanor.


This is scheduled to be heard the same day as AB 357, next Tuesday 4/21.

It needs some loving attention, not so much because we can stop it here, but because we sure can't stop it in Appropriations (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=43) - DeLeon is that committee's Chair. (Skinner and Solario from Public Safety are also on Appropriations)

freakshow10mm
04-19-2009, 3:17 PM
If this passes I guess it will be just like gun transfers.

Customers ordering ammo to be shipped to their dealer. Dealer charging an ammo transfer fee. Is there going to be a 10 day wait for ammo too?

Just when you think you've heard it all...

ProlificARProspect
04-19-2009, 3:33 PM
This Guy is behind every Ridiculous anti-gun, anti-law following gun owner laws in the works. He has been elected since 2006 and He has done a poor job in keeping guns from felons, but a great job in attacking the 2nd amendment right to own and bear arms from ordinary Citizens.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj8/ProlificARProspect/photo001.jpg
From his website http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a45/photo.aspx
Press Conference Introducing AB 362, February 15, 2007. (Left to Right, LA Mayor Villaraigosa, City councilman Jack Weiss, LA County Sheriff Baca (with machine Gun), Chief Bratton, and Kevin de León.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj8/ProlificARProspect/photo010.jpg

We need to get these people out the capital, No on AB962.

RRangel
04-19-2009, 3:47 PM
Lets just say that incorporation happens. Should DeLeon's bill become law it will eventually be ruled illegal. What is bad is the loathsome aristocrats in the pictures above surely know that it's out of line. These people are elitists plain and simple and they don't deserve public office. Make sure you put some extra effort into opposing this bill.

Swiss
04-20-2009, 9:38 PM
Long email sent to the Committee via the CA NRA One-Click tool (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab962&year=2009) (that thing sure is handy)

Phil3
04-22-2009, 6:25 PM
I am all for killing AB962, and making my voice heard in Sacramento, but what are you guys using as reasons against it? The news is reporting that the onerous ammunition regulations are helping in criminal enforcement. Be assured I absolutely HATE this bill, but I want to present an effective argument why it is a bad idea, and not just whine about how inconvenient and costly it is to me. Not to make a pun, but give me the best ammo to include in my faxes and e-mails.

- Phil

jhillas
05-01-2009, 7:43 AM
I don't know why I just now heard about this.
It passed the committee and is now going to the full house?

All I can say is write your representative, and buy, buy, buy.

Librarian
05-01-2009, 11:41 AM
I don't know why I just now heard about this.
It passed the committee and is now going to the full house?

All I can say is write your representative, and buy, buy, buy.
Passed Public Safety, on to the Appropriations Committee (hearing May 6) - since the author of the bill is the chair of Appropriations, it will most probably go to the full Assembly.

2009_gunner
05-01-2009, 12:10 PM
Looks like it passed the assembly last time: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=103432 and http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2062_bill_20080807_history.html

but I'm not sure why it didn't go any further. So it will probably pass the assembly again.

Librarian
05-04-2009, 10:15 PM
So, I faxed the Committee a note opposing 962, pointing out

it would take at least 4 FTE computer people to handle this app
it would take new hardware, especially disk space
it would take a new database license (or several)
with probably 5,000 FFLs and other places that sell ammo, it would take at least 5 staff to inspect each seller once per year (if each could do 4 per day, unlikely)
And each one of those places would need access to the application - hardware, software, network bandwidth costs
My guess? About a million $$ per year, as a floor.

And we would get nothing for it. Criminals will just have people without criminal records do their buys, or they'll get their ammunition from the same illegal channels from which they get their guns.

Of course, those are the overt reasons the Committee is supposed to consider. If they were to do that, they'd reject the bill and all would be in order.

Since I expect they'll vote to pass the bill anyway - none of this is news, after all, we told the Leg about all this last time - one then becomes free to speculate on what actually motivates the votes for the bill.

My speculation is -- their motivations are nothing any of them would be proud to discuss.