PDA

View Full Version : Sad day in public safety commity (AB357 et. al)


sreiter
04-21-2009, 11:17 AM
I was present at several bill hearings, and "testified" at all of them.

AB357 received more no votes then aye's.
Usual BS arguments...OJ could have gotten a CCW, etc.

Ammo Sale registration... More aye votes

Stop open loaded carry permit holders from doing so in area's > 200,000... more aye votes


BTW - the only person who i could tell who was from here was the dude in the pink pistols (sorry, forgot [with all due respect] his/her name)

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 11:21 AM
AB357 received more no votes then aye's.
Usual BS arguments...OJ could have gotten a CCW, etc.



Glad to know that our law-makers have such a deep understanding of the law....like the part that says innocent till proven guilty!

I guess they denied because they view all of us as "yet-to-be-convicted criminals" huh?

Table Rock Arms
04-21-2009, 11:41 AM
Yep. I listened in online. pretty sad. Tell you the truth I'm getting tired of everyone trying to make our lives safer. If OJ being able to buy a gun is the result of me being able to be free and enjoy my life then so be it.

DDT
04-21-2009, 11:45 AM
But he might have shot Nicole and Ronald. Then they'd be dead.

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 11:47 AM
But he might have shot Nicole and Ronald. Then they'd be dead.Or they could have had CCW's and lived.

Table Rock Arms
04-21-2009, 11:52 AM
But he might have shot Nicole and Ronald. Then they'd be dead.

Correct. In fact it would have been a whole different scenario if a gun were involved. Different evidence. It would have made a bunch more noise. They might have even caught the killer.

Notice I said killer and not OJ. OJ was acquitted, and I only know what I saw on TV which we all know is usually BS. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

JDoe
04-21-2009, 11:52 AM
Does anyone have a link to a recording of the audio?

remington
04-21-2009, 11:55 AM
This is very dissappointing, but I am more worried about AB962 right now.

Roadrunner
04-21-2009, 12:01 PM
We really need to encourage Knight to submit this bill again and again. Also we should take note of all of those that voted no and place future dead victims squarely on their shoulders.

Natty Bumppo
04-21-2009, 12:17 PM
The Nordykes linked the 2nd A to the 1st, and because the County did not contest "that gun possession in the context of a gun show may involve certain elements of protected speech" the Court assumed, without deciding, that the "Nordykes possession of guns amounts to speech under the Spence test ("Intent to convey a message combined with great likelihood the message would be understood by those who viewed it").

The Court, referencing Spence, appears to have said that if a law is directly aimed at keep / bear guns, then a court must apply strict scrutiny. If the law impacts keep / bear without being directly aimed at it, then the standard would be intermediate scrutiny.

Friends, a year ago we needed three things: (a) individual right, (b) incorporation, and (c) strict scrutiny. Part (a) was answered by Heller; part (b) by Nordyke, and, it appears, part (c) by Nordyke. It is indeed a glorious time.

The vulnerability appears to be that the Court did not decide that possession of guns in public amounted to speech under Spence. That might be something we could put on our chores list.

A lay reading of Nordyke seems to indicate that open carry may very well be protected under Spence, but that concealed carry may not be. After all, how can "speech" be protected if nobody knows you're talking?

I'd hope somebody with an appropriate legal background would weight in on this ...

valleyguy
04-21-2009, 12:22 PM
Correct. In fact it would have been a whole different scenario if a gun were involved. Different evidence. It would have made a bunch more noise. They might have even caught the killer.

Notice I said killer and not OJ. OJ was acquitted, and I only know what I saw on TV which we all know is usually BS. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

OJ was acquitted in the criminal trial, found guilty in the civil one. He did it. Pretty much anyone with a brain figured that out, except that ignorant and biased jury in the criminal case.

CSDGuy
04-21-2009, 12:26 PM
OJ was acquitted in the criminal trial, found liable in the civil one. He did it. Pretty much anyone with a brain figured that out, except that ignorant and biased jury in the criminal case.
Corrected your statement. The DA didn't do a good enough job in the criminal trial to convince the jurors to convict OJ, likewise, the defense did a good job planting reasonable doubt in their mind, IMHO. Besides, the burden of proof in the civil trial is lower and a unanimous jury decision isn't required.

SoCal50Lover
04-21-2009, 12:34 PM
Amazing how 96% of the adult populus has to pay for the 4% of violent criminals. Funny, If they reversed some of these laws there would be less victims that will eventually become less crimes and so on. Freakin amazing.

Table Rock Arms
04-21-2009, 12:36 PM
OJ was acquitted in the criminal trial, found guilty in the civil one. He did it. Pretty much anyone with a brain figured that out, except that ignorant and biased jury in the criminal case.

I am not saying that OJ is innocent, I am just saying that I don't believe one thing I see on TV.

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 12:42 PM
Yep. I listened in online. pretty sad. Tell you the truth I'm getting tired of everyone trying to make our lives safer. If OJ being able to buy a gun is the result of me being able to be free and enjoy my life then so be it.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

roger that.....if a handful of extra criminals getting their hands on a gun means that I can defend myself against the ones that already have them anyway.....then so be it!!!

kap
04-21-2009, 12:48 PM
Notice I said killer and not OJ. OJ was acquitted, and I only know what I saw on TV which we all know is usually BS. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The whole trial was on TV! I watched it in between college classes every day. The only reason he got off was because they convinced the jury that the blood evidence could have been contaminated. In this day and age where genetic evidence is commonplace in the minds of people O.J. would have been found guilty quite easily. There was no reasonable doubt, just misinformed and confused jurors.

sreiter
04-21-2009, 12:50 PM
Or they could have had CCW's and lived.

GREAT POINT

sreiter
04-21-2009, 12:55 PM
Amazing how 96% of the adult populus has to pay for the 4% of violent criminals. Funny, If they reversed some of these laws there would be less victims that will eventually become less crimes and so on. Freakin amazing.

Yeah, EVERY anti-bill submitted wa preferanced by "GANG VIOLENCE"..something or other,,,

a very astute board member noted the language on the bills said nothing of ID'ing gang bangers, and joe q public would be in violation as well.

Same bull**** with the ammo registration. All this talk about cops looking on-line to audit who bought what,etc, and the member goes.."uh, this bill is paper only, right?".....

No mention at all about how much money would be spent by police to audit all the books. even then. it's totally random, so very easy to slip through the cracks.

the bill failed last time because electronic monitoring is too expensive, so they put through the "cheap, ineffectual" way

freaking idiot council members didnt care....just voted their personal and.or political views......didnt matter that it was proven the sponsors were F.O.S.

Table Rock Arms
04-21-2009, 12:57 PM
The whole trial was on TV! I watched it in between college classes every day. The only reason he got off was because they convinced the jury that the blood evidence could have been contaminated. In this day and age where genetic evidence is commonplace in the minds of people O.J. would have been found guilty quite easily. There was no reasonable doubt, just misinformed and confused jurors.

What your saying is that because the Jury was not watching TV they were uninformed, and that everyone who was watching TV was well informed. Unfortunately the majority of people in america use this logic and thats why most americans are well informed about how dangerous so called assault weapons are and and how 90% of guns in mexico are coming across the border from the US and so on.

SwissFluCase
04-21-2009, 12:58 PM
So they voted down AB357. At least we can say we tried to work with them when we ram CCW or LOC down their throats via the courts. I was expecting this outcome. I was not, however, expecting to be sold out by law enforcement. Quite frankly, I have had enough of their protection racket.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 12:59 PM
Yeah, EVERY anti-bill submitted wa preferanced by "GANG VIOLENCE"..something or other,,,

a very astute board member noted the language on the bills said nothing of ID'ing gang bangers, and joe q public would be in violation as well.

Same bull**** with the ammo registration. All this talk about cops looking on-line etc, the the member goes.."uh, this bill is paper only, right?".....

freaking idiot council members didnt care....just voted their personal and.or political views......didnt matter that it was proven the sponsors were F.O.S.

They all need to be fired for wasting the taxpayers money and time on crap that won't make a difference, especially since most of it is likely to get struck down in the near future anyway. At minimum they should place a hold on ALL proposed/pending gun related legislation till more is known about the effects of Nordyke. Why bother passing bills now that will only get struck down later. Seems like that would look bad for anyone who supports it because it means they're in support or unconstitutional laws.

CAL.BAR
04-21-2009, 1:06 PM
We really need to encourage Knight to submit this bill again and again. Also we should take note of all of those that voted no and place future dead victims squarely on their shoulders.

No - we really need Knight to stop wasting time with this pipe dream and maybe work against SB776 and the other "game ending" bills. And while we're at it, how about going the other way and getting hi caps back into the state? Perhaps straighten out the ridiculously contorted AW laws we are stuck with!

If we can't get the lawmakers to trust us with Hi caps for the guns we already have (and in some cases, have registered) they won't ever allow everyone who wants one to have a concealed weapon.

M. D. Van Norman
04-21-2009, 1:15 PM
This is about what we expected. Now, let’s see how a shall-issue bill fares with lawsuits pending. After that, we may see how such legislation fares with court-ordered licenses starting to flow.

tiki
04-21-2009, 1:19 PM
But he might have shot Nicole and Ronald. Then they'd be dead.

You know what I find ironic?
OJ committed murder with a knife and went free.
He stormed a hotel room and stole memorabilia with a gun and got 15 years.

Roadrunner
04-21-2009, 1:27 PM
No - we really need Knight to stop wasting time with this pipe dream and maybe work against SB776 and the other "game ending" bills. And while we're at it, how about going the other way and getting hi caps back into the state? Perhaps straighten out the ridiculously contorted AW laws we are stuck with!

If we can't get the lawmakers to trust us with Hi caps for the guns we already have (and in some cases, have registered) they won't ever allow everyone who wants one to have a concealed weapon.

Marion Hammer submitted Florida's shall issue bill seven years straight before it passed. Why would we expect anything less to happen here?

MudCamper
04-21-2009, 1:33 PM
Is it true that 668 (extend school zone) also passed committee?

Man what a buzz-kill all this is after yesterday's Nordyke ruling.

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 1:35 PM
If we can't get the lawmakers to trust us with Hi caps for the guns we already have (and in some cases, have registered) they won't ever allow everyone who wants one to have a concealed weapon.

You seriously think this is about trust? :rolleyes::gene: Uh, no. It's about power. It's about let's see how many things gun related we can reduce or make illegal to make life as uncomfortable for law abiding gun owners as possible. The antis have absolutely ZERO intention of letting us get our freedom back contingent upon "good behavior."

Getting CCW will produce more active gun rights interested people and the 2nd Amendment will be a daily life activity instead of an expensive and inconvenient hobby appreciated by a single digit percentage of the population. If we have the numbers by that all other stupid laws like the 10 round mag are toast. No other course of action will produce that result.

knuckled
04-21-2009, 1:44 PM
Does anyone have a link to a recording of the audio?

+1

?

valleyguy
04-21-2009, 2:16 PM
Corrected your statement. The DA didn't do a good enough job in the criminal trial to convince the jurors to convict OJ, likewise, the defense did a good job planting reasonable doubt in their mind, IMHO. Besides, the burden of proof in the civil trial is lower and a unanimous jury decision isn't required.

The DA in the criminal case did a mediocre job, but the jurors apparently didn't have the mental capacity to understand the DNA evidence or the significance of the fact that his blood, her blood, and the other guy's blood were all over the place -- his car, the yard, the clothes, etc. The whole "glove doesn't fit" fiasco was a total farce -- anyone should know that a leather glove, soaked with blood, is going to shrink, and that it is extremely hard to pull on those same gloves over latex gloves on already big hands. And many of the jurors were shown after the fact to have never intended to convict OJ in the first place -- it was jury nullification from the start.

The civil case was a vindication of the evidence in the original trial.

RP1911
04-21-2009, 2:23 PM
I looked up the committee analysis for AB357 and checked the support and oppose lists. Not a single individual opposed it via email, phone/fax or letter as of 4-20-09. On the support side only 469 people took the time to call, email, fax or write.

If it had been 4000 or 40000, they may have (I doubt it) voted differently.

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 2:32 PM
What the heck???? Was that just to the committee as a whole or was that to the individual committee members?

RP1911
04-21-2009, 2:40 PM
I suspect committee. The opposition list:

Ca Assoc. Police Chiefs
Ca State Sherrif's Assoc.
Ca Peace Officer's Assoc.
Ca Brady chaapter
CLAV
and 7 separately listed Sherrifs (county names)

demnogis
04-21-2009, 2:44 PM
I suppose only the committee takes into account support for/against. All those calls and e-mails we made to our individual assembly people meant nothing...

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 2:49 PM
Doh!! Why weren't we told this?!? (In the .01% chance it would have made a difference.) Apparently they didn't get the memo
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w233/venemanuarizonaedu/Heller-Summary.gif

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 3:03 PM
I suspect committee. The opposition list:

Ca Assoc. Police Chiefs
Ca State Sherrif's Assoc.
Ca Peace Officer's Assoc.
Ca Brady chaapter
CLAV
and 7 separately listed Sherrifs (county names)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/funny/vht92r.jpg

Aegis
04-21-2009, 3:15 PM
These politicians that voted no on AB357 are simply traitors and fools. They claim to protect the constitution, but really care less about it unless if furthers their crazy agenda. Even with Heller and incorporation, they still refuse to do the right thing. These politicians in Sacramento have destroyed this state financially and in other ways, yet still have the audacity to show up to work and do even more damage. These people have no honor. If they did, they would resign.

Well LOC or CCW will happen via the courts with or without these idiots in Sacramento.

Where is Jerry Brown in all of this?

Bizcuits
04-21-2009, 3:51 PM
Marion Hammer submitted Florida's shall issue bill seven years straight before it passed. Why would we expect anything less to happen here?

+1

This is nothing but another skirmish in a long war. We need politicians like Knight on our side. I've already written him and will be calling the office asking for his continued support of Shall Issue.

Bizcuits
04-21-2009, 3:54 PM
I looked up the committee analysis for AB357 and checked the support and oppose lists. Not a single individual opposed it via email, phone/fax or letter as of 4-20-09. On the support side only 469 people took the time to call, email, fax or write.

If it had been 4000 or 40000, they may have (I doubt it) voted differently.

Considering just the people here, I'd hope the number in support would be higher. Alas maybe next time more people will step up to show support.

RP1911
04-21-2009, 4:44 PM
With an estimated 36 million population, only 469 people contacted the committee.

And we wonder why AB357 gets canned, we can't get pro gun/2A items passed or the PSC can do whatever they want.

GuyW
04-21-2009, 4:48 PM
Yep - all the CA anti-gunners. Every dues-paying member of those organizations is our POLITICAL enemy. There needs to be organizations started that are conservative but which provide the same benefits to dues-paying members.


Opposition
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign
California Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Legal Community Against Violence
Sheriff, Alameda County
Sheriff, Butte County
Sheriff, Del Norte County
Sheriff, Santa Barbara County
Sheriff, Santa Cruz County
Sheriff, Shasta County
Sheriff, Ventura County
Sheriff's Office, Tuolumne County



....no on AB357 are simply traitors and fools. They claim to protect the constitution, but really care less about it unless if furthers their crazy agenda.

Roadrunner
04-21-2009, 4:55 PM
I am very interested in who supported and who opposed AB357.

Support

American Justice Center
California Association of Firearms Retailers
California Rifle and Pistol Association
Gun Owners of California
Hi-Caliber Investigations
National Rifle Association
Stutchman Forensic Laboratory
469 Private Citizens

Opposition

California Chapters of the Brady Campaign
California Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Legal Community Against Violence
Sheriff, Alameda County
Sheriff, Butte County
Sheriff, Del Norte County
Sheriff, Santa Barbara County
Sheriff, Santa Cruz County
Sheriff, Shasta County
Sheriff, Ventura County
Sheriff's Office, Tuolumne County

What's even more interesting is who isn't on the list that oppose AB357.

AB357 analysis (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_357_cfa_20090420_114146_asm_comm.html)

DDT
04-21-2009, 4:57 PM
I looked up the committee analysis for AB357 and checked the support and oppose lists. Not a single individual opposed it via email, phone/fax or letter as of 4-20-09. On the support side only 469 people took the time to call, email, fax or write.

If it had been 4000 or 40000, they may have (I doubt it) voted differently.

It is unlikely that 4000:0 would have been any more compelling than 400:0.

The ones who matter, the ones who line their pockets, aren't relegated to using official channels.

They didn't bother activating their grass roots folks because they knew this would be a dead issue. That's the reason for the zero.

Mstrty
04-21-2009, 5:05 PM
If you guys dont like the outcome. Get out there and do something about it. Typing away accomplishes NOTHING but personal entertainment, The CalGun turnout today was pathetic. Here in the 2A thread we set a record yesterday, most were aware of this going on today. You would need to be blind to not see AB357 thread right under the Nordyke thread all day yesterday. Sure maybe you feel like it is a lost cause here in California. If that is your view I suggest you take your pistols down to Arnold he is paying $100.00 each. Might as well get something for them before our State take then from you. Merely walking out your front door with you pistol will soon be a felony. So just keep typing and do nothing else and you might FEEL good but you are accomplishing nothing....IMVHO...

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 5:09 PM
An interesting factor in play here is McCain-Feingold. Has anyone investigated any of the opposition parties as to whether or not they violated the law on this in what influence they can make? I know that's the one thing that hamstrings the NRA a lot of the time and makes us have to dance on one side of a line that's got all kinds of booby traps on the other.

I wanted to be there today but my car was broken into last night/early this morning. Disgusting irony that I missed an anti-crime bill hearing due to crime. :mad:

sreiter
04-21-2009, 5:15 PM
If you guys dont like the outcome. Get out there and do something about it. Typing away accomplishes NOTHING but personal entertainment, The CalGun turnout today was pathetic. Here in the 2A thread we set a record yesterday, most were aware of this going on today. You would need to be blind to not see AB357 thread right under the Nordyke thread all day yesterday. Sure maybe you feel like it is a lost cause here in California. If that is your view I suggest you take your pistols down to Arnold he is paying $100.00 each. Might as well get something for them before our State take then from you. Merely walking out your front door with you pistol will soon be a felony. So just keep typing and do nothing else and you might FEEL good but you are accomplishing nothing....IMVHO...

Were you there? I was the [fat] guy in the blue short sleeve shirt who testified on every gun issue up to and including AB357 as a private citizen.

I spoke to assemblyman Knight at length, and he did say HIS fight isnt over. I didnt know he was a "beat" cop.

the one thing that got my ire was one board member spoke for what seemed like 5-10 mins saying he was a cop, he loves steve knight, he supports this, yada yada, then ABSTAINS from voting! WTF????? I guess he thinks no vote is as good as a yes

bulgron
04-21-2009, 5:17 PM
With an estimated 36 million population, only 469 people contacted the committee.

And we wonder why AB357 gets canned, we can't get pro gun/2A items passed or the PSC can do whatever they want.

I'm a little shocked by this number. People didn't even send emails? What happened to all the stories about how the phones were ringing a lot in the offices of the assemblymembers on that committee?

I'm not sure I even believe that 469 number. How was it derived? How good is the quality of the source material?

sreiter
04-21-2009, 5:18 PM
Interesting to note (and perhaps because of heller), the LEOs testifying all said they have no problem with guns in your home or store.

SwissFluCase
04-21-2009, 5:26 PM
Interesting to note (and perhaps because of heller), the LEOs testifying all said they have no problem with guns in your home or store.

This doesn't make me feel better...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Mstrty
04-21-2009, 5:27 PM
Were you there? I was the [fat] guy in the blue short sleeve shirt who testified on every gun issue up to and including AB357 as a private citizen.

Yes I was there. I was the fat guy in black with the orange tie. (Small business owner from Citrus Heights)
I was not venting at you as you were there. I was venting at all the Calgunners that are complaining about the system yet do nothing more than type away at how our rights are being swept up.

Sorry I didnt meet the other Calgunners there but with a handle like "bombmaster" you really dont want to blurt that out in the Capital building with all the Cops in the room.:cool:

dexter9659
04-21-2009, 5:28 PM
Wish I could have been there. I had to settle on writing and calling every rep I could in support of the bill. Upset it didnt go well, but glad I voiced my opinion.

ZRX61
04-21-2009, 5:30 PM
Usual BS arguments...OJ could have gotten a CCW, etc.


Easily mooted with the comment that if his ex wife had been carrying she'd still be alive... I was listening & no one mention of THAT reply.. ;)

Uxi
04-21-2009, 6:02 PM
What's the status on the Federal reciprocity bill?

goober
04-21-2009, 6:04 PM
not to be a curmudgeon, but can we avoid the hijack and keep this discussion about AB357 and the other bills, and CA legislation in general? it really muddies the water to rehash the tired ol' OJ case discussion, and has no relevance here.

back on topic, i'm sorry to hear that 357 was voted down already and very suspicious of the low number reported for folks contacting the committee (but pretty annoyed if it is somehow correct).

as was mentioned, 357 going down is not a total surprise, and persistence may be called for here.

so lets continue to be vocal and contact the appropriate "civil servants" regarding the ammo, anti-cow palace gun show, and "smart gun" bills so that we can shoot them down before they progress any further. and expressing your dis-satisfaction at the defeat of AB357 would be a good thing to do as well.

DO IT!!!!!

RP1911
04-21-2009, 6:13 PM
One way to find out how many actually called is to do a PRAR. I suspect many called the committee members but only 469 contacted the committee itself. You know they will report the lowest number of support.

It is very telling: Those who are anti-gun (Brady etc.) and those who want to protect their fiefdoms.

bulgron
04-21-2009, 6:22 PM
One way to find out how many actually called is to do a PRAR. I suspect many called the committee members but only 469 contacted the committee itself. You know they will report the lowest number of support.

It is very telling: Those who are anti-gun (Brady etc.) and those who want to protect their fiefdoms.

There was a way to call the committee itself? I only had contact information for the individual committee members.

If there's some kind of additional contact we should be looking for, I'd like to know about it. I was under the impression that way more than 469 people were bugging the assembly members. We can't allow fudged numbers to stand!

Swiss
04-21-2009, 7:05 PM
Can anyone tell me what Nancy Skinner said about AB 962? Or any other comments on what was discussed regarding this bill? I called her local office at noon and the aide claimed to not know the Assemblywoman's position on this.

AntiBubba 2.1
04-21-2009, 7:07 PM
Maybe this makes me a terrible person, but I had absolutely no expectations that AB357 would go anywhere. I would have been overjoyed beyond measure if it had simply gotten out of committee. I'm very glad that Knight has taken on this cause, but shall-issue will be settled in a court challenge, not in the legislature. With Nordyke affirming Incorporation of the 2nd that challenge now has a real possibility of success.

RP1911
04-21-2009, 7:14 PM
There was a way to call the committee itself? I only had contact information for the individual committee members.

If there's some kind of additional contact we should be looking for, I'd like to know about it. I was under the impression that way more than 469 people were bugging the assembly members. We can't allow fudged numbers to stand!

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=57

At the very top is the Committee phone and fax numbers.

Then the Committee chair etc.

sreiter
04-21-2009, 7:29 PM
Yes I was there. I was the fat guy in black with the orange tie. (Small business owner from Citrus Heights)
I was not venting at you as you were there. I was venting at all the Calgunners that are complaining about the system yet do nothing more than type away at how our rights are being swept up.

Sorry I didnt meet the other Calgunners there but with a handle like "bombmaster" you really dont want to blurt that out in the Capital building with all the Cops in the room.:cool:

lolo @ bombmaster in the capital...


i was wondering who you were,not thinking you were chiding me, nor was i trying to say "made it, why didnt you"

were you sitting next to me in the front row on one occasional? i remember the black shirt, not the tie...pretty big dude. 40's, grey/brown curly, a little long hair. IIRC a breard(??????)

i also remember someone saying "small bizz owner".... but not who

i have a full sleeve tat left arm

Mstrty
04-21-2009, 7:45 PM
lolo @ bombmaster in the capital...



sorry we didnt formally meet. It wont happen again. and yea bombmaster was in the capital:thumbsup:

now im on a list....

Exiledviking
04-21-2009, 8:42 PM
Sheriff, Santa Barbara County

This burns my ........ :puke:

This politician is a self-proclaimed life-time member of the NRA and believes in the 2nd Amendment.

Liberty1
04-21-2009, 8:45 PM
...

Calm Down
04-21-2009, 8:54 PM
I made it there. I was able to be heard in my opposition to the ammo reg. and was able to state my name in support of AB357. I was the one that had to bring my young daughter to the hearing. She was quiet for 90% of the time; I commend her for that much. I did enjoy the experience and would like to pursue a second career in politics in 17 years, 5 months and 13 days, when I retire from my current career. I lost on both bills today, but i'll keep fighting.

sreiter
04-21-2009, 10:20 PM
Calm - i saw you there. I'm I thought it was great that you attended. I personally thought it added weight because of your profession, and I thought your little girls was a nice touch, whether or not it was intentional (very cute kid BTW)

If there were more people like you, we'd be winning a lot more for our side

KylaGWolf
04-22-2009, 12:02 AM
Actually I think that OJ had a DV conviction which would have made CCW a probably not. Maybe now we can go at it from a use Nordyke fight to get it passed. Unfortunately it won't be anytime soon.

CCWFacts
04-22-2009, 12:17 AM
Actually I think that OJ had a DV conviction which would have made CCW a probably not.

That's my understanding. He plead no contest to a DV charge in 1989. A sheriff could have said that he lacked good character due to that. Today I think some DV convictions would DQ someone from even owning a gun, so I think that now that would be fatal to a CCW app.

This shows, people who are violent, dangerous people have smaller incidents before they move on to bigger incidents, and those smaller incidents can all be taken into consideration for the good character decision.

glockwise2000
04-22-2009, 12:22 AM
We really need to encourage Knight to submit this bill again and again. Also we should take note of all of those that voted no and place future dead victims squarely on their shoulders.

Please post the names who voted NOs. This way we could help who we don't need to vote.

MrSigmaDOT40
04-22-2009, 12:32 AM
OJ was acquitted in the criminal trial, found guilty in the civil one. He did it. Pretty much anyone with a brain figured that out, except that ignorant and biased jury in the criminal case.

Not to thread jack but look up Bill Deer's "The OverLooked Suspect", there are a couple of clips of it on youtube and he has a site. I have the dvd it will make you :eek: to say the least. The killer seems to have been found and the murder weapon, but LAPD and other LE won't re-open the case out of pure embarrassment.

nicki
04-22-2009, 2:55 AM
I expected that the bill would go down, and the Cops gave the Usual BS thing about people carrying guns into bars, into oakland raiders games and that if this bill was passed that the sheriff would have to issue to the town drunk.

What we do have on record is that Ed Worley and myself attacked the current law as violating equal protections.

I read the Cal Constitution art 1 sec7b and followed up that there is no provision saying except for CCW permits.

Due to time limitations(2 minutes), I had to signficantly edit what I could say.

So, does this help us. My answer is yes.

When the lawsuits hit, Steve Knight, Ed Worley and myself could sit down and tell a court how we presented the problems not only to the legislators, but to everyone in that room.

The Law enforcement people who were in that room heard my comments on equal protection. Obviously they will go back and they report what happened.

They know that the current CCW law has equal protection problems and the testimony for AB357 was focused on equal rights.

When the court battles on CCW hit, it will be easier to show that their disregard of our rights is willfull. Every nail helps.

Many people say we need to work with Law Enforcement. Well, based on the answers their reps gave at that hearing the only way we will get CCW is to go to war.

Fortunately, the 9th circuit just made it easier for us.

Nicki

BobB35
04-22-2009, 6:34 AM
nicki - I agree with you. LEOs are not our friends when it comes to CCW. 75% of rank and file (My guess) may support the idea, but 75% of management and the 100% of the unions don't. Who has the clout? What is scary is that some of the people who were against this bill are supposed supports of CCW and 2A.

Did anyone mention the fact that LEO are exempted from protecting anyone? GC 845 and many court cases? So the claims of protecting others are bogus.

This will be an uphill battle and the best way will be to actively pursue this in the courts. Unfortunately the LEO will need to be slapped up side the head in order to get them to do the right thing.

Suspect this will get me chastened for being anti LEO, but hey the truth hurts and eventfully the owners of this board will realize who the real enemy is and it is all economics.

KWA-S
04-22-2009, 6:50 AM
This burns my ........ :puke:

This politician is a self-proclaimed life-time member of the NRA and believes in the 2nd Amendment.

Aha....Brown? Bought his way into the NRA for the A rating and votes, then gave CCW to his friends (.04% issuance). God we need shall issue.

PatriotnMore
04-22-2009, 7:04 AM
Nicki, kudos to you for taking the lead on this with Mr. Knight. To all who showed up, thank you for your time and effort, if I was closer, I would have been there.

As to working with the LEO associations, they will not give up the control, it will need to be fought for, and taken. The fear mongering needs to be addressed, and thoroughly trashed as nonsense.

As professionals in LE, they have access to the FBI reports, and other finding, so to use the arguments they are shoveling down the throats of the uneducated, is paramount to a lie. Furthermore, their pointing to the Raiders game, and fans should be addressed as racist, and profiling.

Everyone knows what arguments the LEO associations are going to use. I feel the time is for education at the committee level, and all levels in between, is the place to start, because the LEO associations will not admit to, or work with the facts.

It's odd how many long time street and retired LEO are for Shall Issue, know the facts and admit they work. Then we have the LEO professional association, who refuse to admit to the facts, and resort to lies to keep us from our rights to self protection out in public.

I feel if we were to assemble the data for our legislators on "Shall Issue" States, along with the arguments and objections which were raised by the LE associations in other States, our law makers will see how old and tired their argument is, and how the reasoning then, which never came to fruition, is a lie being used to instill fear.

Making a kind of standardized "Shall Issue" Bible, based on facts from legitimate sources, which is complete and thorough, would be used uniformly by us and them, such as our "Flow Sheet" could make all the difference.

If we educate them, next time a hearing comes up, we can talk directly to the facts, rather than reasoning, and fear mongering.

It is not the LEO whom need to be educated, it is our legislator, and senators. The reason they believe the LEO is, those associations have had their ear through lobbyist, and the Union.

Education, along with the gains we are making regarding 2A in our courts are going to be the edge in turning votes from No, to Aye, concerning CCW and "Shall Issue".

We need to be working with our "Legal Eagles" on what material to use as education, and on the same page, so it is a united effort and front.

sreiter
04-22-2009, 7:17 AM
Actually I think that OJ had a DV conviction which would have made CCW a probably not. Maybe now we can go at it from a use Nordyke fight to get it passed. Unfortunately it won't be anytime soon.

oj had domestic violence calls against him....he wouldnt have pasted "good moral" muster

sreiter
04-22-2009, 7:20 AM
I expected that the bill would go down, and the Cops gave the Usual BS thing about people carrying guns into bars, into oakland raiders games and that if this bill was passed that the sheriff would have to issue to the town drunk.

What we do have on record is that Ed Worley and myself attacked the current law as violating equal protections.

I read the Cal Constitution art 1 sec7b and followed up that there is no provision saying except for CCW permits.

Due to time limitations(2 minutes), I had to signficantly edit what I could say.

So, does this help us. My answer is yes.

When the lawsuits hit, Steve Knight, Ed Worley and myself could sit down and tell a court how we presented the problems not only to the legislators, but to everyone in that room.

The Law enforcement people who were in that room heard my comments on equal protection. Obviously they will go back and they report what happened.

They know that the current CCW law has equal protection problems and the testimony for AB357 was focused on equal rights.

When the court battles on CCW hit, it will be easier to show that their disregard of our rights is willfull. Every nail helps.

Many people say we need to work with Law Enforcement. Well, based on the answers their reps gave at that hearing the only way we will get CCW is to go to war.

Fortunately, the 9th circuit just made it easier for us.

Nicki

nice meeting you yesterday

Rob_G
04-22-2009, 7:36 AM
Big thanks to all that went!!!

Can this Bill be heard again this year by the committee or is it dead until next year?

Table Rock Arms
04-22-2009, 7:55 AM
oj had domestic violence calls against him....he wouldnt have pasted "good moral" muster

Good moral character or not, I would have to think that under the current system in some county's OJ (before his legal troubles of course) being somewhat famous would have a much better chance of getting a CCW than the rest of us.

Gator Monroe
04-22-2009, 8:19 AM
nicki - I agree with you. LEOs are not our friends when it comes to CCW. 75% of rank and file (My guess) may support the idea, but 75% of management and the 100% of the unions don't. Who has the clout? What is scary is that some of the people who were against this bill are supposed supports of CCW and 2A.

Did anyone mention the fact that LEO are exempted from protecting anyone? GC 845 and many court cases? So the claims of protecting others are bogus.

This will be an uphill battle and the best way will be to actively pursue this in the courts. Unfortunately the LEO will need to be slapped up side the head in order to get them to do the right thing.

Suspect this will get me chastened for being anti LEO, but hey the truth hurts and eventfully the owners of this board will realize who the real enemy is and it is all economics.
Ditto ! When I post how in the long run Leos (Who count) are Anti- I'm called anti-Leo (Go Figure)

postal16
04-22-2009, 8:35 AM
I am not surprised, the commitee is a A list of political anti-gun hacks.

In regards to OJ, he could have easily gotten a CCW in the days before he was tried for decapitating his ex and her BF...afterall he was a celebrity and the LASD and COLA seem to give out CCWs to the "important" people was little resistance...so I call BS on Leno, one-bill Gil and the other hacks who turned down this important bill.

MudCamper
04-22-2009, 10:04 AM
Does anyone have a link to a recording of the audio?

Anyone know if this is available?

DDT
04-22-2009, 10:19 AM
Good moral character or not, I would have to think that under the current system in some county's OJ (before his legal troubles of course) being somewhat famous would have a much better chance of getting a CCW than the rest of us.

That's actually a good question. Did OJ have a CCW? We just took for truth the statement that he could have had one under 357 but did LA give him one anyway? He does fit the profile of one of the anointed ones.

Cru Jones
04-22-2009, 10:30 AM
These must have been first-rate politicians you were dealing with. Their defense was what? That since the current policy disallowed OJ from getting a CCW that this protected people? Oh wait... Uh...

Roadrunner
04-22-2009, 10:52 AM
Please post the names who voted NOs. This way we could help who we don't need to vote.

This is the current bill history (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_357_bill_20090414_history.html) as of this moment.

COMPLETE BILL HISTORY


BILL NUMBER : A.B. No. 357
AUTHOR : Knight
TOPIC : Firearms: license to carry concealed firearm.

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

BILL HISTORY
2009
Apr. 14 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request
of author.
Apr. 14 Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Apr. 13 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
Mar. 9 Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Feb. 20 From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
Feb. 19 Read first time. To print.

Table Rock Arms
04-22-2009, 11:51 AM
That's actually a good question. Did OJ have a CCW? We just took for truth the statement that he could have had one under 357 but did LA give him one anyway? He does fit the profile of one of the anointed ones.

Even if he did not have one, I was just trying to make a point that the anti's use the argument that if we go shall issue then OJ could have been carrying a gun. That argument fails because in the current system he could most likely have gotten a CCW while the rest of us could not.

M. D. Van Norman
04-22-2009, 2:41 PM
Didn’t Sean Penn get a license to carry even after some violent misdemeanor convictions?

“Thank you, you Commie, homo-loving sons of guns.”

hollabillz
04-23-2009, 1:25 PM
Please post the names who voted NOs. This way we could help who we don't need to vote.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_357_vote_20090421_000002_asm_comm.html

Also, 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? :(:(

Untamed1972
04-23-2009, 1:29 PM
Even if he did not have one, I was just trying to make a point that the anti's use the argument that if we go shall issue then OJ could have been carrying a gun. That argument fails because in the current system he could most likely have gotten a CCW while the rest of us could not.

I know prior to the death of Nicole that OJ had been accused of domestic violence towards her. Was he ever charged or convicted on any of those charges?

DDT
04-23-2009, 2:11 PM
Even if he did not have one, I was just trying to make a point that the anti's use the argument that if we go shall issue then OJ could have been carrying a gun. That argument fails because in the current system he could most likely have gotten a CCW while the rest of us could not.

Well, if he DID have a CCW under the current system it makes a powerful rebuttal to the claim made by the antis.

"Well, yes, he could have had a CCW under this new law (with certain caveats) but under the existing, more stringent, law he DID have a CCW. This is because the current system is one of nepotism and favortism where famous people who are a threat CAN geta firearm but the average law-abiding citizen cannot."

If M. D. Van Norman is correct and Sean Penn rec'd a CCW after highly publicized DV issues it would be powerful support in a similar way.

CCWFacts
04-23-2009, 2:24 PM
Good moral character or not, I would have to think that under the current system in some county's OJ (before his legal troubles of course) being somewhat famous would have a much better chance of getting a CCW than the rest of us.

I actually do not think pre-murder OJ could have gotten one, at least not on the current CCW app.

Section 7, question 5 asks, "have you ever been involved in a domestic violence incident?" It's a clear yes-or-no, and a "yes" is a pretty straightforward bad-character indicator.

Furthermore, willfully violating a domestic protection order is disqualifying, according to 12021. I don't know, but I would assume he may have had an order against him.

Finally, 18 USC Chapter 44 § 922 says clearly:

Pursuant to Section 922, any person listed below is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving any firearm, who:


Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or
child of such intimate partner.
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


It says it right there in the app. I think the amendment to § 922 to prohibit anyone with a misdemeanor DV conviction was in 1999, so at the time, OJ would have been qualified, but today, no, he would not be allowed to own a gun, much less have a CCW. But even before that, any sheriff should have DQed him based on the bad character aspects of having a misdemeanor DV conviction.

So all this "OJ could have gotten a CCW" is a load of BS. He probably couldn't have then, and today, someone in the same situation would certainly not be able to, no matter if a sheriff wants to issue it. The DoJ eligibility check would come back "denied" and that would be the end of it.