PDA

View Full Version : AB962 Ammo Sales Bill-Suspense File of Senate Appropriations Comm!!*07/23/09 UPDATE*


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Para45
04-22-2009, 5:21 PM
****UPDATE 07-23-09****

AB962 has been moved to the Senate Appropriations Suspense file. This means it is "stuck" in that committee at least until after the summer recess. They return August 17th. Please continue to contact the offices of the committee members and urge a NO vote on AB 962.


****UPDATE 07-22-09****

>>NRA-ILA UPDATE<<

AB962 Could be Heard as Early as Thursday, July 23 in Sacramento. Please Contact the Senate Appropriations Committee Today!
On Monday, July 20 the Senate Appropriations Committee canceled its meeting, delaying a vote on Assembly Bill 962. It is very possible that AB962 could be taken up at its next meeting, which is currently scheduled for Thursday, July 23. It is important that you continue to contact the committee members in opposition to this bill!!!

Well not too surprisingly, AB962 passed the SPSC and is now headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee and just one step closer to law. Let's keep hammering on the members below and urge them to oppose this ridiculous and costly bill that puts even more restrictions on Californians' already limited gun rights!!!


SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:

State Senator Christine Kehoe (D-39), Chair
(916) 651-4039
Senator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Dave Cox (R-1), Vice-Chair
(916) 651-4001
Senator.Cox@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Ellen Corbett (D-10)
(916) 651-4010
Senator.Corbett@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Jeff Denham (R-12)
(916) 651-4012
Senator.Denham@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-7)
(916) 651-4007
Senator.DeSaulnier@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9)
(916) 651-4009
Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3)
(916) 651-4003
Senator.Leno@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Jenny Oropeza (D-28)
(916) 651-4028
Senator.Oropeza@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator George Runner (R-17)
(916) 651-4017
Senator.Runner@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Mimi Walters (R-33)
(916) 651-4033
Senator.Walters@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Lois Wolk (D-5)
(916) 651-4005
Senator.Wolk@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Mark Wyland (R-38)
(916) 651-4038
Senator.Wyland@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Leland Yee (D-8)
(916) 651-4008
Senator.Yee@SENATE.CA.GOV[/COLOR]


****UPDATE 06-29-09****

According to the NRA-ILA updates, the Senate Public Safety Committee Hearing on AB 962 has now been pushed back until July 7th - more time to contact the members!!

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2009&summary=ab962



****UPDATE 06-12-09****

Alright guys this ridiculous bill has passed the Assembly and moved to the Senate for a vote - not good news at all and we've got work to do!! It only passed by ONE (1) vote so that tells you how possible it is to defeat this thing!! Here's the latest documentation - PLEASE contact your representatives and let them know where you stand!!


Find out who your representatives are - contacting the senators below ASAP is the most important thing right now since this is headed there for a vote next:


SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3) – Chair
(916) 651-4003
Senator.Leno@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37) - Vice-Chair
(916) 651-4037
Senator.Benoit@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22)
(916) 651-4022
Senator.Cedillo@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9)
(916) 651-4009
Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Robert Huff (R-29)
(916) 651-4029
Senator.Huff@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
(916) 651-4006
Senator.Steinberg@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25)
(916) 651-4025
Senator.Wright@SENATE.CA.GOV


Even more contact info:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html


Latest Bill Info:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_vote_20090603_0614PM_asm_floor.html


Here's all the contact info you need thanks to obeygiant & unusedusername:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2620347&postcount=552




****UPDATE 05-29-09****

Vote on Two Anti-Gun Bills Could Come Next Week!
Please Contact Your State Legislators Today!
Yesterday, the Assembly Committee on Appropriations passed Assembly Bill 962.

Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), 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. AB962 now heads to the Assembly floor for consideration.

The bill could be voted on as early as next week so it is imperative that you make your voices heard loudly. Please contact your State Assemblymember TODAY and respectfully urge them to oppose AB962. Contact information for your state legislators can be found here: http://www.capwiz.com/nra/state/main/?state=CA&view=myofficials.

Here's a form letter courtesy of Turner's: http://www.turners.com/siteimages/ab962letter.pdf


****UPDATE 05-06-09****

Ammunition Sales Restrictions One Step Closer to Defeat
Assembly Committee on Appropriations Places AB962 into the Suspense File

Today, Assembly Bill 962 was placed in the suspense file by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), 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.

While this development is a solid step towards defeating AB962, the bill still poses a threat. Please continue checking your email and www.NRAILA.org for updates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure it's been posted already, but worth informing yourself about-- http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090226_introduced.html

From NRA-ILA:


Ammunition Sales Restrictions Moving Forward in California

Yesterday, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety considered two bills of great concern to California’s law-abiding gun owners.

Assembly Bill 962 was passed and now heads to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations where it awaits a hearing. Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), 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 contact the members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to oppose AB962. Contact information for the committee can be found below.

Smokin
04-22-2009, 5:25 PM
I just called EVERYONE on that list. Took a bit longer than 776 but most of the assembly members havent even heard of the bill. This means that not enough of us are calling. GET ON THE PHONES NOW! Get faxing and get writing!

MontClaire
04-22-2009, 5:26 PM
what I did...but I think it fell on the deaf answering service ears.

Smokin
04-22-2009, 5:30 PM
I had a much better response on this bill than when I talked to the public safety people on 776. Most were interested in my opinion and even asked me to elaborate. A few even had conversations with me. Make our voice heard. Start dialing and clogging the phone lines!

Para45
04-22-2009, 5:33 PM
.......Make our voice heard. Start dialing and clogging the phone lines!
+1 :thumbsup:

Gator Monroe
04-22-2009, 5:34 PM
Will call Jim Nielson tommorow !:thumbsup:

BOFH
04-22-2009, 5:37 PM
I sent a pretty good email to everyone listed...will call tomorrow AM when I have a bit more free time. I know I am preaching to the choir here, but damn...this is such a stupid bill for so many reasons. I would have a bit more respect for people like Assembly Member Kevin De Leon if they would just come out and admit that the real reason for bills like this is to make gun ownership too expensive and too much of a PITA instead of trying to claim it will do anything to curb gun related crimes. On a related note...how many of the anti-gun types have dismissed their armed guards? Oh...none ;-)

dlefdal
04-22-2009, 5:40 PM
I just called. The secretary told me that in Sacramento, they have already implemented this rule and it has helped solve over 180 crimes due to fingerprinting.

Is this true? Can anyone provide further info on this? She couldn't. You know, after about 10 years of law enforcement, I find this hard to believe.

RomanDad
04-22-2009, 5:41 PM
Let me be the first to say it, as I've waited a long time to say this with regard to a gun law....


UNCONSTITUTIONAL

BOFH
04-22-2009, 5:44 PM
Let me be the first to say it, as I've waited a long time to say this with regard to a gun law....


UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Damn right.

Librarian
04-22-2009, 5:47 PM
Please do call - but remember that De Leon is both the sponsor of the bill AND Chair of this committee.

And let's try this: FAX a simple message to the Committee itself -
Name, address, and
"Please count me as a member of the public opposed to AB 962"

Committee Fax: 916-319-2181

Nanook
04-22-2009, 5:53 PM
Don't forget to also fax a brief letter to the committee's fax line:
916.319.2181.

Nothing like hard copy. ;)

[EDIT] Haha. In the 2 minutes it took to call and ask, ya trumped me.

Lazy-8
04-22-2009, 5:54 PM
Emails sent. I am going to phone calls if I can later this week.

Para45
04-22-2009, 5:56 PM
Yeah this is just beyond the ridiculous nature of the already existing worthless gun laws here in California - if only the Founding Fathers could witness what's happening in this state/country today...

Bizcuits
04-22-2009, 6:02 PM
I'll send my letters when I get back from hoarding more ammo from walmart.

Crusader
04-22-2009, 6:08 PM
I just called the entire list. Honestly, despite whatever reservations people have about the NRA, I'm extremely thankful I got this email from them.

Librarian
04-22-2009, 6:18 PM
I just called. The secretary told me that in Sacramento, they have already implemented this rule and it has helped solve over 180 crimes due to fingerprinting.

Is this true? Can anyone provide further info on this? She couldn't. You know, after about 10 years of law enforcement, I find this hard to believe.

I doubt it has anything to do with fingerprinting.

See this Sacramento Bee article (http://www.sacbee.com/292/story/1152631.html) from last August:The ordinance, passed in July 2007, requires city gun dealers to enter information on those who purchase ammunition into a Web site.

The city Police Department tracks the sales through that Web site and cross-checks the list with the names of city residents who are prohibited from possessing firearms, including felons and drug dealers. If police find those people with guns, they are arrested and the guns are seized.

A sidebar says Anyone who purchases ammunition in the city of Sacramento must provide identification and a thumbprint. A by-the-numbers look at the law's effect:

56 – Guns seized from residents not allowed to own them.

53 – Felony charges filed as a result of the seizures.

800 – The number of rounds of ammunition confiscated.

100 – Marijuana plants confiscated during the raids.

30 – Doses of Ecstasy seized.

3 – Stolen firearms recovered.

5968
04-22-2009, 7:13 PM
I will make some phone calls tomorrow.

sreiter
04-22-2009, 7:25 PM
I just called. The secretary told me that in Sacramento, they have already implemented this rule and it has helped solve over 180 crimes due to fingerprinting.

Is this true? Can anyone provide further info on this? She couldn't. You know, after about 10 years of law enforcement, I find this hard to believe.

thats what the guy testified to . said out the the 180 = 154 felony convictions

theidoits kept talking "if it were state wide, then they couldnt go to the next city,bkah blah)

it was countered with "well some gang banger will have their clean G/F buy it for them. "

sreiter
04-22-2009, 7:26 PM
the state law provides only for a paper trail not computer - the same law that failed in 1964

CAL.BAR
04-22-2009, 7:43 PM
Let me be the first to say it, as I've waited a long time to say this with regard to a gun law....


UNCONSTITUTIONAL

No - it's not - they would claim it's a "reasonable regulation" on ammo (and thus firearms) and does not actually ban either weapons or ammo.

Don't start throwing around the unconstitutional stuff too soon

Swiss
04-22-2009, 7:56 PM
thats what the guy testified to . said out the the 180 = 154 felony convictions

theidoits kept talking "if it were state wide, then they couldnt go to the next city,bkah blah)

it was countered with "well some gang banger will have their clean G/F buy it for them. "

Not to mention that the gangbanger doesn't need or buy ammo nearly as much as the lawful gun owners who need to buy in bulk (read mail order and internet) so they can keep their skills up.

Anyone have a simple parallel argument for this? Like "let's fingerprint and ID everyone buying gasoline to get the dangerous unlawful drivers off the road!".

97F1504RAD
04-22-2009, 8:00 PM
I emailed everyone on the list.

Swiss
04-22-2009, 9:14 PM
Another question for those a lot smarter than I:

Eliminating mail and internet order would make ammunition difficult to find (especially in less common calibers) and would make owning/using a firearm considerably more expensive.

Q: Is there some sort of legal argument that prohibits lawmakers from enacting laws that so adversely affect a single group? This is aside from the fact that we're practicing a Consitutional right. Given our laws against smokers I'm guessing they can do what they want, but I figured I'd still ask the question.

KylaGWolf
04-22-2009, 9:38 PM
Swiss nope no law that goes against a single group unless you could prove it to be discrimination although I am not sure if the anti-discrimination laws would apply to making gun ownership too expensive. The anti gun people will use the argument that guns ownership is a privilege and not a right per se. Then again the anti gun nuts will argue that no one should have a gun because guns kill. I so hated that argument when it came out and I was just a kid back then.

1BigPea
04-22-2009, 9:51 PM
Faxes, emails sent, will make calls tomorrow AM.

This Bill needs to die!

DDT
04-22-2009, 9:55 PM
The anti gun people will use the argument that guns ownership is a privilege and not a right per se.

This will not fly in the courts anymore. If Heller and Nordyke mean ANYTHING they mean that gun ownership is a right.

Smokin
04-23-2009, 9:27 AM
Why is this on the 2nd page? This is probably the most important pending item we have up for vote in the PRK. Can someone make this a sticky?

soundwave
04-23-2009, 10:02 AM
Just did my fax letter to the committee. Sending e-mails shortly.

This does need to be stickied!

timmyb21
04-23-2009, 10:50 AM
Fax sent. Kill this bill!

surfinguru
04-23-2009, 11:01 AM
Anyone have a good boilerplate response to this besides just saying "I'm against it"? I don't want to send anything that's going to hurt us...

glockman19
04-23-2009, 11:03 AM
This in and of itself violates the interstate commerce clause and is unconstitutional. Not to mention Heller, 2A, and Nordyke's incorporation.

Even if this bill gets voted on there is NO WAY any Gov. would sign this after the AG reads and gives his opinion, not to mention the cost of the program in addition to the magazine regestration and other laws now moot with the 2A's incorporation.

It's a game to see what they can sneek by.

Keep up the calls, letters and e-mails. It's a group effort. I'm sorry very little has been said in the press, news...I hope Sunday's paper includes some unbias reporting.

Another question for those a lot smarter than I:

Eliminating mail and internet order would make ammunition difficult to find (especially in less common calibers) and would make owning/using a firearm considerably more expensive.

Q: Is there some sort of legal argument that prohibits lawmakers from enacting laws that so adversely affect a single group? This is aside from the fact that we're practicing a Consitutional right. Given our laws against smokers I'm guessing they can do what they want, but I figured I'd still ask the question.

m0topilot
04-23-2009, 11:19 AM
Here you go, I just sent this in. You can copy and paste the text below. Just edit the <TAGS>. I just got a bunch of canned responses, all the same. I'm planning on faxing this in tonight when I get home.

Here is the list of emails:

Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Price@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov

Dear Assembly member,

My name is <YOUR NAME> and I live in Assembly District <YOUR DISTRICT>. I am emailing
to voice my opposition to AB962.

This bill before you is a punishment on law abiding citizens and legal residents.
It does nothing to reduce crime. The gang-bangers are already aware of this bill
and are planning to buy out of state. And get this, they are looking into
reloading - they are not that dumb. There is a reason why they are called
criminals - they break the law. We have laws in place already that ban the use
of a gun for felons and violent misdemeanors. I'm sure most of gang members fall
into that category.

I understand that Kevin De Leon is trying to help his constituents, but this bill
punishes the rest of Californians. Why should people in Redding and Shasta (or other
parts of the state) be subjected to this bill?. They don't experience the same
problems Los Angeles has.

It's a fact that gun control doesn't reduce crime, it increases crime http://www.gunfacts.info/
Limiting the sell of ammunition only stops people who already abide by the law from buying
ammunition for sport and practice. The NRA and all it's members priority number
one is safety. It is preached and practice everywhere I shoot. I meet so many
nice people whenever I go to the range. I implore you to visit your local
range and talk with your constituents - you'll find many great people.

AB962 is a useless law - it's a punishment on American values and one of the
founding principles that started this great country.

Please, there are other avenues that we can explore to reduce crime - some not
so popular, but that are already law. Remember this: "An armed society is a polite
one".

All the best,

<YOUR NAME>
<YOUR CITY>, CA
Assembly District <YOUR DISTRICT>

rysmithjr
04-23-2009, 12:21 PM
The gang-bangers are already aware of this bill
and are planning to buy out of state. And get this, they are looking into
reloading - they are not that dumb. There is a reason why they are called
criminals - they break the law. We have laws in place already that ban the use
of a gun for felons and violent misdemeanors. I'm sure most of gang members fall
into that category.

Seriously? Making up information does not help the cause.

m0topilot
04-23-2009, 12:31 PM
Yes seriously, and what information am I making up? Please be specific.

I am going to assume your speaking towards the reloading part. I have heard someone at the range who is an acquaintance with gang members and that is what he said.

Also the point is that there are ways around the ridiculous bill that they are proposing. I'm not making anything up. And what's to stop them from reloading other than a 4th grade education?

soundwave
04-23-2009, 12:34 PM
I understand that Kevin De Leon is trying to help his constituents, but this bill
punishes the rest of Californians. Why should people in Redding and Shasta (or other
parts of the state) be subjected to this bill?. They don't experience the same
problems Los Angeles has.



I recommend cutting this part out as well. We have to fight this all or nothing, and this excerpt suggests the bill would help in areas with strong gang presence.

We can't be selective with our opposition. We need to oppose this as Californians for Californians.

madmike
04-23-2009, 12:49 PM
I don't think they will bother to read what you write, just mark you down as a yes or no. I just sent them this:

Dear Assembly member,

My name is madmike and I live in Santa Rosa, Sonoma County. I am emailing to voice my opposition to AB962.
Please oppose this bill, it is an extreme waste of taxpayer money and would be ineffective at it's stated purpose.

Sincerely,
madmike.

rysmithjr
04-23-2009, 12:49 PM
Yes seriously, and what information am I making up? Please be specific.

I am going to assume your speaking towards the reloading part. I have heard someone at the range who is an acquaintance with gang members and that is what he said.

Also the point is that there are ways around the ridiculous bill that they are proposing. I'm not making anything up. And what's to stop them from reloading other than a 4th grade education?

You sound like you have taken surveys and have talked to gang-members about it, and that "they" have a plan in place. A carpool to Nevada to buy ammo! Reloading stations set up in the garage! Hearing it from a friend who says he talked to a gang member is not even close to valid. I heard from my uncle that Obama is an alien, doesn't make it true and would make me look like a nutjob if I tried to use it to fight a piece of proposed legislation.

m0topilot
04-23-2009, 12:56 PM
Soundwave, i disagree not because I wrote it. I read my statements over and over again. AB692 was written specifically for Kevin De Leon constituents - why should the rest California have to bear the burden of his legislation. Combine this statement with my other text it's clear that my arguement is that this bill won't help combat crime at all.

I agree we need to fight this bill for all Californians - definitely.

m0topilot
04-23-2009, 1:06 PM
rysmithjr, have you seen any of the documentaries that are on National Geographic? Have you seen how complicated the gangs are? Have you seen how well organized they are? What's to stop them - non of what I'm saying is impossible. I'm only pointing there are ways around this bill, I just forgot to mention the girlfriend without a criminal record... And no I didn't visit my local barrio holms and take a survey from the local vatos.

And why is Obama sealing his birth certificate? Does he have something to hide?

madmike, very good point, mileage does vary.

m0topilot
04-23-2009, 1:16 PM
At any rate... I threw my two cents in it. You can use it or not...

I hope this bill gets shot down like the clay birds that I'm shooting at Prado later today.

Untamed1972
04-23-2009, 1:35 PM
Would this bill mean I can't buy ammo at the gunshow for my brother anymore since he works weekends and can rarely go to the show to buy it himself?

JDay
04-23-2009, 1:43 PM
No - it's not - they would claim it's a "reasonable regulation" on ammo (and thus firearms) and does not actually ban either weapons or ammo.

Don't start throwing around the unconstitutional stuff too soon

Wouldn't banning mail order purchases of ammo impact inter-state commerce? Sounds like this may be in violation of federal law.

surfinguru
04-23-2009, 1:46 PM
One more question, should these be individual emails, or should I just send my response as one email to all the assemblymembers?

p7m8jg
04-23-2009, 1:47 PM
I just called. The secretary told me that in Sacramento, they have already implemented this rule and it has helped solve over 180 crimes due to fingerprinting.

Is this true? Can anyone provide further info on this? She couldn't. You know, after about 10 years of law enforcement, I find this hard to believe.

I don't believe it.....for years showing a driver's license and writing it down for ammo sales never solved a single crime, can't imagine it's happened now...

m0topilot
04-23-2009, 1:57 PM
surfinguru, I sent it in one email.

StudioDison
04-23-2009, 2:22 PM
Emails sent
The short version.

surfinguru
04-23-2009, 2:25 PM
surfinguru, I sent it in one email.

10-4. Sent the short version via one email. Would it be wise to send this more than once?

rysmithjr
04-23-2009, 2:38 PM
Here you go, I just sent this in. You can copy and paste the text below. [...]

My name is <YOUR NAME> and I live in Assembly District <YOUR DISTRICT>. I am emailing
to voice my opposition to AB692.


Watch your cut & paste's folks, the bill in question is AB 962. Please resend your emails & faxes if you entered 692.

rysmithjr
04-23-2009, 2:43 PM
I just called DeLeon's office in Sacramento and as soon as I said I wanted to registered opposition to a current bill, the guy said "962?" so there seems to be some chatter about this. Let's keep it up.

rysmithjr
04-23-2009, 2:46 PM
10-4. Sent the short version via one email. Would it be wise to send this more than once?

I have logged a few calls, emails and web form submissions to De Leon's office about it. If anyone ever says "you've already contacted us about this" I'll point out how many times De Leon keeps submitting versions of the same Bill so I'm just following his lead.

domokun
04-23-2009, 3:21 PM
Wouldn't banning mail order purchases of ammo impact inter-state commerce? Sounds like this may be in violation of federal law.

No, because it just means you'll have to buy your ammo from a licensed dealer who can legally obtain it from out of state and across state lines at movie theater popcorn prices. It also means you can't sell 51+ rounds of your ammo to your buddy that's shooting with you when he/she runs out of ammo at the range. Lastly, it means the range office will have to become a licensed ammunition dealer and follow all the requirements that come with being a CA license ammunition dealer in order to sell ammo to their customers.

If this passes, I foresee that most ranges will stop selling ammo and the already sky high prices for ammunition and reloading components in the state will proceed quickly on another sharp upward thrust in prices and stay there. It's not a good thing for us or anyone trying to get into a lifestyle that exercises their 2A rights.

m0topilot
04-23-2009, 3:29 PM
Watch your cut & paste's folks, the bill in question is AB 962. Please resend your emails & faxes if you entered 692.

Thanks for catching that, I went ahead and updated what I posted and resent my emails. Going to hit them with faxes tonight and leave voicemails.

spencerhut
04-23-2009, 3:54 PM
I oppose AB962. Not that it will matter if it passes anyway since it is unconstitutional and will be quickly defeated in court. But hey, it will waste more of my taxpayer money when the state is forced to defend it in court. And that is what it seems we pay you people for, wasting our money on worthless feel good do nothing laws.

turbosbox
04-23-2009, 4:35 PM
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a45/district.aspx

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a45/

I don't think the voicing concerns alone will make the changes needed. He might understand better how folks feel, if they spent the time campaigning for the opposition to get him out of office. That would be FAR more effective than a fax or email to him saying you disagree.

Beelzy
04-23-2009, 4:37 PM
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a45/district.aspx

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a45/

I don't think the voicing concerns alone will make the changes needed. He might understand better how folks feel, if they spent the time campaigning for the opposition to get him out of office. That would be FAR more effective than a fax or email to him saying you disagree.

Now that is "thinking outside of the box" :thumbsup::cool:

Forever-A-Soldier
04-23-2009, 5:14 PM
Another unenforceable law... :rolleyes:

I'll contact my reps and support defeating it, but even if it passes, well... let the LEOs waste their time tracking how many times I go to the range with my kids to teach them how to shoot and how many rounds of ammunition I give them to shoot at their targets. :30:

F.A.S. Out

Swiss
04-23-2009, 5:24 PM
Another unenforceable law... :rolleyes:

I'll contact my reps and support defeating it, but even if it passes, well... let the LEOs waste their time tracking how many times I go to the range with my kids to teach them how to shoot and how many rounds of ammunition I give them to shoot at their targets. :30:

F.A.S. Out

Maybe you shouldn't take them along while you buy your ammo; they might start thinking you're a criminal when you have to provide your name, address, and fingerprints. And make sure you wipe the ink from your fingers before you give them the box.

Land of the Free indeed.

m0topilot
04-23-2009, 8:06 PM
So on my way over to Prado, I sat on the 91 and hopped onto my iphone and literally clicked on each number and dialed each person the list except Trlakson (D-11). I'll call him tomorrow. It's way more effective to call than to email.

This are some of the responses that I got in opposition (no vote)
Jim Nielsen (R-72)
Micheal Duvall (R-72)
Dian Harkey (R-73)
Jeff Miller (R-71)
Audra Strickland (R-37)

With the others I was told that they were putting my name on the opposition list.

Jose Solorio's representative said that the bill just became a two year bill - whatever that means. The rep also said that they wouldn't vote on it until next year. So I guess the bill would be on hold for the time being. But don't take my word for it... Keep it up guys and gals - Call them if you haven't.

As a bonus, I got to see Kim Rhode shoot skeet and man she was nailing every shot! But I digress.

Assemblymember Kevin de Leon (D-45) - Chair
(916) 319-2045
Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2) - Vice Chair
(916) 319-2002
Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-13)
(916) 319-2013
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Charles M. Calderon (D-58)
(916) 319-2058
Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Mike Davis (D-48)
(916) 319-2048
Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Michael D. Duvall (R-72)
(916) 319-2072
Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes (D-39)
(916) 319-2039
Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Isadore Hall, III (D-52)
(916) 319-2052
Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Diane L. Harkey (R-73)
(916) 319-2073
Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-9)
(916) 319-2009
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71)
(916) 319-2071
Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-46)
(916) 319-2046
Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Curren D. Price, Jr. (D-51)
(916) 319-2051
Assemblymember.Price@assembly.ca.gov

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

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

Assemblymember Audra Strickland (R-37)
(916) 319-2037
Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Tom Torlakson (D-11)
(916) 319-2011
Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov

Swiss
04-23-2009, 8:12 PM
Another unenforceable law... :rolleyes:

I'll contact my reps and support defeating it, but even if it passes, well... let the LEOs waste their time tracking how many times I go to the range with my kids to teach them how to shoot and how many rounds of ammunition I give them to shoot at their targets. :30:

F.A.S. Out

Oh, forgot to mention, transfers to family members are exempt.

tacobueno
04-23-2009, 9:13 PM
I sent emails to each one and a fax.

Here is all of the emails with commas seperating them incase you dont have time to send to each one an email and want to do an all at once email:

edit: nevermind already done

obeygiant
04-24-2009, 12:08 AM
Short version sent as well to all addresses that were provided.

obeygiant
04-24-2009, 12:21 AM
For what it's worth, it looks like they all want you to go to their website and fill out a form or include your home address and phone number.

AUDRA STRICKLAND

Dear Friend:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office. The volume of emails I receive is such that I am only able to personally respond to those who reside in my district and who include a physical mailing address. If you have already done so, please expect a reply from my office in a timely manner.

I want to assure you, however, that your thoughts and concerns are very important to me.

If you need immediate assistance, or if you have a scheduling request, please write to my district office at 2659 Townsgate Road, Suite 236, Westlake Village, CA 91361, or call (805) 230-9167.

As always, it is an honor to serve you in the State Assembly.

Sincerely,
AUDRA STRICKLAND
Assemblywoman, 37th District

John A. Perez

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for expressing your views to me regarding this issue.

This automatic response is to confirm that I have received your email. Please be assured that all opinions on legislation and issues affecting the 46th Assembly District and the State of California are recorded and relayed directly to me. Unless a response is specifically requested, however, the volume of emails I receive prevents me from responding directly to each letter. Should your email be of a time-sensitive nature, I strongly recommend that you also call my district office at (213) 620-4646.

It is a professional courtesy as well as a long-standing tradition of the California State Legislature that every elected office holders have the opportunity to serve his or her own constituency. Therefore, I ask that you include your full name and address in the body of your message to ensure that the proper elected official receives your email. If you do not live in the 46th Assembly District, which covers portions of the City of Los Angeles, the cities of Huntington Park, Maywood, and Vernon, and unincorporated areas including East Los Angeles and Florence – Graham, you can locate the name and contact information of your state legislator online. To do this, visit the California State Assembly’s web page at www.assembly.ca.gov, click "Find My District," and provide the requested information.

I would also to take this opportunity to recommend that you visit my website at http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a46/. The website is under construction and will contain a multitude of information regarding my legislative record and personal history as well as extensive links to other resources you may find useful. It is my hope that the website can answer as many of my constituents’ questions as possible, and I encourage and welcome emailed suggestions pertaining to the site. If you are looking for the text, analysis, status or vote breakdown of any state bill, I suggest you visit the State Legislative Counsel’s website at www.leginfo.ca.gov. This site is available, free-of-charge, to the general public and allows visitors to quickly obtain legislative information regarding bills past and present.

Once again, thank you for contacting me on this matter.

Sincerely,
John A. Perez

ASSEMBLYMEMBER, 46th District
Phone - Capitol Office: (916) 319-2046
Phone - District Office: (213) 620-4646

Michael D. Duvall

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your taking the time to contact my office. Due to the large volume of electronic communication that my office receives, I am not able to respond to each e-mail that is sent. To manage the large amount of e-mails efficiently we request that you provide your comments via my public website, which can be accessed by clicking here. Please select the 'Contact' button on the left side and complete the form. Your comments or requests will get forwarded to the appropriate staff member.

If you require immediate assistance, please contact my District Office at (714) 672-4734 or my Capitol Office at (916) 319-2072. Your direct input helps me to better serve the needs of the 72nd Assembly District.

If you have a scheduling inquiry, you can email Kelley.Jimenez@asm.ca.gov for District Events and Gino.Folchi@asm.ca.gov for Capitol Events.

Again, thank you for your communication.

Assemblymember Michael D. Duvall
72nd Assembly District

Isadore Hall, III

Thank you for your email. While my email account is monitored daily, due to the high number of emails received, priority is given to constituents. Please be sure to include your name and address so we may be able to send a written response to your inquiry.

Thank you again for sharing your views. If you would like information about my legislative proposals, please visit my website at www.assembly.ca.gov/hall.

Sincerely,
Isadore Hall, III

Assemblymember, 52nd District

Mike Davis

Thank you for your email.

My constituent e-mail address receives an abundance of emails each month. While it is not always possible to respond to each message personally, please be assured that all messages are read and taken under consideration.

If you would like to voice your concerns regarding a particular bill or issue, or if you would like my office to respond to your email; please visit my website at http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a48/ and use the "E-Mail Assemblymember Mike Davis" web link form.

If you are unsure in which Assembly District you reside, you may go to http://www.assembly.ca.gov and click on "Find My District".

If you would like to schedule an appointment or invite me to an event, please telephone Amy Nam in my District office at (213) 744-2111. You may also fax your request to my Capitol Office (916) 319-2148 or my District Office (213) 744-2122.

If you are seeking assistance resolving an issue with a governmental agency, please call my District Office at (213) 744-2111.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you

Sincerely,
Mike Davis

Assemblyman, 48th District

KEVIN DE LEÓN

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your taking the time to contact my office. Due to the large volume of electronic communication that my office receives, I am not able to respond to each e-mail that is sent. To manage the large amount of e-mails efficiently we request that you provide your comments via my public website at http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a45/ , please select the "Contact Us" tab on the right and complete the form. If appropriate, my staff will be in touch with you shortly to respond to your inquiry or suggestion. If you require immediate assistance, please contact my District Office at (323) 225-4545 or my Capitol Office at (916) 319-2045. Your direct input helps me to better serve the needs of the 45th Assembly District.

Again, thank you for your communication.

Sincerely,
KEVIN DE LEÓN
ASSEMBLY ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER
Forty-Fifth Assembly District

Jim Nielsen

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your taking the time to contact my office. Due to the large volume of electronic communication that my office receives, I am not able to personally respond to each e-mail that is sent.

To manage the large amount of e-mails efficiently we request that you provide your comments via my public website at Assemblyman Nielsen or please fill out the contact form here.

If appropriate, my staff will be in touch with you promptly to respond to your inquiry or suggestion. If you require immediate assistance, please contact my District Office at (530) 223-6300 or my Capitol Office at (916) 319-2002. Your direct input helps me to better serve the needs of the 2nd Assembly District.

Again, thank you for your communication.

Sincerely,
Jim Nielsen

Assemblyman, Second District

m0topilot
04-24-2009, 8:34 AM
I got better responses when I called...

surfinguru
04-24-2009, 8:34 AM
Yeah, I got all the same canned responses. Will follow up throughout the day.

simple schoolboy
04-24-2009, 10:37 AM
Didn't this pass comittee? Is this going to the floor soon?

ChuckBooty
04-24-2009, 11:17 AM
How much are P.O. Boxes in Quartzsite, AZ?

Geeze...this is out of control! Faxes will be sent on Monday!

m0topilot
04-24-2009, 12:12 PM
Guys, call if you can... You'll get a better response and they will add you to the opposition list as your talking with their aides.

Email is a waste of time as I and others have found out and submitting on their website is not as efficient.

WebMoskal
04-24-2009, 2:55 PM
Just finished with calls, interesting that everybody with "D" can't say what is the position for it or against

Xerxes
04-24-2009, 9:30 PM
Let me be the first to say it, as I've waited a long time to say this with regard to a gun law....


UNCONSTITUTIONAL


Actual I don't think so.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No where does it say the right to keep and bear loaded arms with a loaded backup clip of ammunition.

The various gun grabbing organizations attack on the 2A have adapted several strategies and one of them was to attack the ability for free thinking men to buy ammunition.

I have seen in there attack plan literature that they believed such an attack would stand up in court even if the Supreme court upheld the right to keep and bear arms (which they did).

We also have the Feds at the direction of he executive branch slowing down the approval of the importation of further ammunition imports. It is just as effective as an outright ban and has added to the mass panic hysteria buying where honest men have to mortgage the house, rent out the wife, and sell some of the kids to be able to afford enough ammunition for a day at the range.

You might own lots of firearms and not fear a ban on further sales of assault rifles or such but banning the ammunition makes that assault rifle nothing more than a lead balloon.

The really sad thing is the gun grabbers are in cahoots with the lone American Manufacture in pushing for a permanent ban for the importation of ammunition (might explain why they bought everyone out and made a monopoly). I expect, just like the German Jew who turned in his communist neighbor to the Nazi's that they are clueless that they will the the next victim of this terrorist attack against free man.

guntntteacher
04-26-2009, 7:13 PM
Faxed and emailed. all canned responses including a fax back

rysmithjr
04-27-2009, 12:31 AM
We also have the Feds at the direction of he executive branch slowing down the approval of the importation of further ammunition imports.
[...]
The really sad thing is the gun grabbers are in cahoots with the lone American Manufacture in pushing for a permanent ban for the importation of ammunition (might explain why they bought everyone out and made a monopoly).

Any citations for this, or is it just delusional FUD?

gunsmith
04-27-2009, 2:08 AM
I'll call in two weeks

fleegman
04-27-2009, 3:42 AM
Just a simple question; How far do you have to push ordinary law-abiding citizens until they simply say "No more, I will not comply with your frivolous and arbitrary laws"? I think we're getting to that point.

ChuckBooty
04-27-2009, 6:14 AM
Just a simple question; How far do you have to push ordinary law-abiding citizens until they simply say "No more, I will not comply with your frivolous and arbitrary laws"? I think we're getting to that point.

I think I'm already there.

spencerhut
04-27-2009, 6:37 AM
I think I'm already there.

Ditto

rumble phish
04-27-2009, 7:44 AM
I don't know if it has been posted already, but while i was in Bass Pro Shops in Manteca yesterday (I believe the only one in Cali) one of the employees working the gun counter asked me to sign a petition against this assembly bill. If any of you patronize Bass Pro make sure you ask to sign their petition. After signing it i asked if this was something that the company management approved. The guy said "I don't know and I don't care. If they don't lie it they can fire me!" Amen, brother!! I guess it was put together by the entire gun department.

Way to go BPS!

mrkubota
04-27-2009, 8:00 AM
Another question for those a lot smarter than I:

Eliminating mail and internet order would make ammunition difficult to find (especially in less common calibers) and would make owning/using a firearm considerably more expensive.

Q: Is there some sort of legal argument that prohibits lawmakers from enacting laws that so adversely affect a single group? This is aside from the fact that we're practicing a Consitutional right. Given our laws against smokers I'm guessing they can do what they want, but I figured I'd still ask the question.


Yep, it'll put me out-of-business in CA, as I *only* make specialty ammunition for mail order customers.

Gator Monroe
04-27-2009, 8:08 AM
How far do the Democrats have to push Firearms owning Democrats till they vote GOP just to keep the bad anti- taste outta their mouths ...

domokun
04-27-2009, 10:49 AM
Just a simple question; How far do you have to push ordinary law-abiding citizens until they simply say "No more, I will not comply with your frivolous and arbitrary laws"? I think we're getting to that point.

Until you've made them all felons and put them behind bars or have killed them off? :TFH:

soundwave
04-28-2009, 10:34 AM
btt

Texas Boy
04-28-2009, 5:05 PM
Just sent a fax to the committee and will wait for the strategic time to call. Can't believe one this isn't a sticky. As stupid as this law is, it appears to have momentum due to the positive press on arrests in the Sac area.

Here are some arguments to counter the "good press" on this law:

1. Criminals will use straw buyers or drive across state lines
2. Criminals don't need that much ammo anyway...they could easily make a single ammo purchase (via #1) and have enough ammo for years.
3. Implementation and enforcement will be expensive.
4. Legal challenges are sure to arise in the wake of Nordyke and Heller. This will cost the state even more money.

Comments on the above welcome. Also please keep us posted on when and who we should call/fax, etc.

rumble phish
04-28-2009, 5:59 PM
SOMEONE MAKE THIS A STICKY!!!!

Para45
04-28-2009, 10:48 PM
BTT

TheBundo
04-28-2009, 11:47 PM
This is so insane, I can't believe it. Say you have a friend who digs an old 22 out to come and join you for a day of plinking. He hasn't been into his old 22 for years, and has no ammo. There is none at Wally World, but you tell him you have a few boxes of 550 rounds, you'll give him one, that should last all day easily.

You are now a criminal................

domokun
04-29-2009, 12:31 AM
This is so insane, I can't believe it. Say you have a friend who digs an old 22 out to come and join you for a day of plinking. He hasn't been into his old 22 for years, and has no ammo. There is none at Wally World, but you tell him you have a few boxes of 550 rounds, you'll give him one, that should last all day easily.

You are now a criminal................

No at that point is where you conveniently lose track of where you put the brick of 550 rounds and your friend discovers it laying around and uses it. :TFH:

BigBamBoo
04-29-2009, 8:53 AM
Just a simple question; How far do you have to push ordinary law-abiding citizens until they simply say "No more, I will not comply with your frivolous and arbitrary laws"? I think we're getting to that point.

To play the Devil's advocate here....when will people stop voting for politicians who tell them.."vote for me and I will give you another stimulus check and pay your mortgage"?

Most people will go along with it....they are afraid of being arrested...they are afraid of being in jail. I hear ya....what about me you ask? Been there...done it...16 months behind bars...yep...I was once a convicted felon. I now have all my gun rights restored. But I have the unique point of view of having been on both sides of the law.

I would love to see a TRUE leader of the 2nd to emerge and save this country....but until people are willing to truly put themselves in harms way to stand up for what the believe in....then we are screwed. And from the looks of it...most people just want something for free.....health care, money,etc. And they will give up most of their freedoms for it.

Just like with most laws that are past....they have the attitude that since they do not break the law it does not effect them. I know a few folks who are just hunters and do not care about AR's,etc., and say to me all they time....I don't care if they ban AW's...as long as they let me keep my deer gun or shotgun. And that is the problem right there....not very much unity among gun owners and very little organization.

Again....I hope things will get better....I do not believe they will though. Good luck to us all.

Peace,Stan

glock_this
04-29-2009, 9:14 AM
Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Price@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov

emails sent....

soundwave
04-29-2009, 8:57 PM
btt

XD 40
04-29-2009, 10:38 PM
I just called. The secretary told me that in Sacramento, they have already implemented this rule and it has helped solve over 180 crimes due to fingerprinting.

Is this true? Can anyone provide further info on this? She couldn't. You know, after about 10 years of law enforcement, I find this hard to believe.

I picked up ammo at Big5 last weekend and I had to provide a fingerprint. They said it's only in the city of Sacramento, I had to run over to the Elk Grove store because they didn't have all I wanted and there wasn't a requirement.

I can't see how they solved 180 crimes, all they do is write down your info and take a fingerprint in a binder. I'll bet they just caught 180 people the were on the no-no list of not allowed to purchase ammo or firearms.

Texas Boy
04-30-2009, 11:53 AM
Could someone please explain why there isn't a single AB962 thread stickied? Is this thing really dead and we just don't know it? Maybe this isn't a threat and I'm just too dumb to realize it, but to me this looks like one of the more serious anti 2A pieces of legislation still advancing through the state assembly.

Bill, Genne, somebody, please explain why there isn't a bigger call to action on this one?

Sam1
04-30-2009, 12:07 PM
oh noooooo, now I'm going to start buying ammo by the pallet before this passes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

st.clouds
04-30-2009, 12:28 PM
Definitely deserves more attention. This could easily set a very bad precedent with limitting the no. of ammo and internet purchases.

It's dumb, and will affect lawful people more than criminals.

You can still easily go to the internet and buy ammo, and unless they start opening each and every package on the way here, there's no way to enforce this. Even if they do the legality is very questionable.

If you're intent on committing a crime, the unlikely chance that your package may be inspected and reported would hardly be a deterrent. The reverse just isn't true, when you've a lawful job, you can't afford a criminal history on the record.

Besides 50 ammo/month is very restrictive as you'd use at least that much for a day in the range and leaves little for emergency purposes.

So what can and is being done about this incredible stupidity? Or the idiot that came up with the idea?

elenius
04-30-2009, 12:35 PM
You can still easily go to the internet and buy ammo, and unless they start opening each and every package on the way here, there's no way to enforce this. Even if they do the legality is very questionable.


Yes, but who is going to ship here illegally?

Librarian
04-30-2009, 7:14 PM
Could someone please explain why there isn't a single AB962 thread stickied? Is this thing really dead and we just don't know it? Maybe this isn't a threat and I'm just too dumb to realize it, but to me this looks like one of the more serious anti 2A pieces of legislation still advancing through the state assembly.

Bill, Genne, somebody, please explain why there isn't a bigger call to action on this one?

Basically because DeLeon is chair of Appropriations in the Assembly, and there's very little chance to stop it before it gets to the Senate.

But you're right - it's serious.

cousinkix1953
04-30-2009, 11:06 PM
Not to mention that the gangbanger doesn't need or buy ammo nearly as much as the lawful gun owners who need to buy in bulk (read mail order and internet) so they can keep their skills up.

Anyone have a simple parallel argument for this? Like "let's fingerprint and ID everyone buying gasoline to get the dangerous unlawful drivers off the road!".
You do NOT need a drivers license or an insurance card to purchase a car. The dealers do NOT run background checks on customers, to avoid selling a dangerous machine to convicted DUI suspects still on probation. You can buy them in the classified sections no questions asked either. Lets close this loophole too.

Drunk drivers kill more people than guns; but we do nothing to discourage these reckless people from getting behind the wheel again.

They'll file lawsuits against gun makers, who don't sell firearms directly to the public. They don't do the same for company owned car dealerships, who care only about making money. Too bad if they sell one to a drunken driver and somebody gets killed.

How in the hell does this manage to escape the attention of our corrupt rulers and their nanny state?

Noboundaries
04-30-2009, 11:47 PM
Here's the latest on the bill. It has passed the Committee on Public Safety and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_vote_20090421_000002_asm_comm.html

UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: AB 962
AUTHOR: De Leon
TOPIC: Ammunition.
DATE: 04/21/2009
LOCATION: ASM. A18PUB. S.
MOTION: Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
(AYES 5. NOES 2.) (PASS)


AYES
****

Solorio Furutani Hill Ma
Skinner


NOES
****

Hagman Gilmore


ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING

2009_gunner
04-30-2009, 11:55 PM
The socialists might as well pass this bill while we still have some friendly judges on the benches, because in 20 years, things could be much worse. Then there would be no way to get this overturned, and we wouldn't have good court precedent. So I say, let them play all their cards now.

With the 2nd A. now incorporated, if this passed, hopefully we would get an immediate injunction, and then get it totally slapped down. Could be fun, and help bring even more people into the pro 2nd A movement. Sort of analogous to "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"

Can'thavenuthingood
05-01-2009, 7:46 AM
Well at least my Rep, Gilmore, voted against it.

Vick

1BigPea
05-01-2009, 1:59 PM
Update from NRA Action Alert-


Assembly Bill 962 is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations on Wednesday, April 6.


Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), 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 contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations TODAY and respectfully urge them to oppose AB962. Contact information for the committee can be found below.

Assemblymember Kevin de Leon (D-45) - Chair

(916) 319-2045

Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2) - Vice Chair

(916) 319-2002

Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-13)

(916) 319-2013

Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Charles M. Calderon (D-58)

(916) 319-2058

Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Mike Davis (D-48)

(916) 319-2048

Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Michael D. Duvall (R-72)

(916) 319-2072

Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes (D-39)

(916) 319-2039

Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Isadore Hall, III (D-52)

(916) 319-2052

Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Diane L. Harkey (R-73)
(916) 319-2073

Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-9)

(916) 319-2009

Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71)

(916) 319-2071

Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-46)

(916) 319-2046

Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Curren D. Price, Jr. (D-51)

(916) 319-2051

Assemblymember.Price@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-14)

(916) 319-2014

Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-69)

(916) 319-2069

Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Audra Strickland (R-37)

(916) 319-2037

Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Tom Torlakson (D-11)

(916) 319-2011

Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov

TripleT
05-01-2009, 3:05 PM
Called 'em all as soon as I got the email from the NRA-ILA. Takes about 5-10 minutes from my cell, no long distance. If you haven't called before, it's easier than falling off a rock. You tell them "Please tell the congress(man/woman) I'm opposed to AB962" They may or may not ask for your name and zip code or town.

Couple more things, I'll engage the staff person, if they'll talk. One dem admitted the calls were " a jillion to zero, all opposed " so nice job by those that are calling. Also, the republicans said something like " congressman/woman is opposed and you have his / her vote but please call the dems " I also had one dem staffer ask "where did I hear about ab962, because he has been swamped with calls" my reply was, "all true supporters of our Constitution are aware of legislation that tries to circumvent it's purpose and we share information through organizations like the NRA, Calguns.net, etc." I told him there were "too many groups to list". He seemed to be a bit amazed and somewhat put off by it. In other words, GOOD JOB ! Keep up the good work. You have until Wednesday to make your voice heard !

1BigPea
05-01-2009, 4:01 PM
I just went through the list again and made all of the calls, but only to the Dems.

Earlier at lunch I went into a spare office and called everyone from my cell phone. Every Republican on the list strongly opposes AB962, but they did say we need to blow up the lines of the D's.


So keep calling the D's and dont stop...they need to know where we stand!

Para45
05-01-2009, 6:33 PM
****UPDATE****

Assembly Bill 962 is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations on Wednesday, May 6.

****UPDATE****

cousinkix1953
05-01-2009, 10:22 PM
The Democratic Party has never been tough on crime. They refuse to call ICE, when the police arrest illegal aliens for posession of firearms, despite this being a federal offense. They aren't even trying to trace Lovelle Mixon's banned SKS carbine and prosecuting the punks, who sold firearms to a convicted felon. Most of them wouldn't have the guts to execute a terrorist like Osama bin Laden given the opportunity to do so

They only know how to abuse the rights of law abiding citizens; when a criminal uses a firearm. The ones in Kalifornia didn't bother to read the confessions of a Colorado man, who did several years in prison; because he sold a Tech 9 Skorpion, to Dylan Klebold, whose parents were card carrying members of HCI. Somebody paid the price for being associated with the Columbine massacre; but I don't recall anybody going to jail, for arming the nutcases who went postal in Kalifornia...

soundwave
05-04-2009, 10:35 AM
This is being reviewed Wednesday. If you haven't contacted the listed reps, please do so now!!!

TripleT
05-04-2009, 11:21 AM
This is being reviewed Wednesday. If you haven't contacted the listed reps, please do so now!!!

I would like to add that even if you have already called, it wouldn't hurt to call again. This is one of the bad ones... IMHO

spyderco monkey
05-04-2009, 12:33 PM
Another satisfying moment of democracy. Feels good to make the call, everyone should take the 8 minutes or so to do it.

soundwave
05-04-2009, 11:11 PM
bump

Mauser87
05-05-2009, 10:26 AM
I am going to give a persuasive speech against AB962 in my speech class. This is one of the last bills I want made into law. My goal is to convince my classmates to contact their reps and tell them to oppose the bill. Any advice how I could persuade non gun owners to do this? Any help would be appreciated.

soundwave
05-05-2009, 10:46 AM
I am going to give a persuasive speech against AB962 in my speech class. This is one of the last bills I want made into law. My goal is to convince my classmates to contact their reps and tell them to oppose the bill. Any advice how I could persuade non gun owners to do this? Any help would be appreciated.

Compare it to something the masses can relate to.

For instance - driving a car. Automobile accidents kill millions every year right? So the Government is proposing a bill that would limit recreational driving (i.e. everywhere accept work and the store) to 20 miles a month. How would most feel about that?

The idea is to let them feel that sense of theft of their basic rights.

OTHER QUICK STARTER IDEAS:
- Obesity causing death in the US - so Gov Limits calorie intake.
- Television causing children to read less - Gov Limits Network programming.


All of these proposed laws would be enforced with jail sentencing and fines, just as AB 962 would be.

Hope this points you int he right direction. Great to hear what you are doing!

Mauser87
05-05-2009, 11:48 AM
Thanks for the advice soundwave, I especially like the driving example. I'll try and do something like that. It will defiantly help them relate to the subject, and hopefully they will see how little sense this bill makes.

soundwave
05-05-2009, 11:56 AM
Thanks for the advice soundwave, I especially like the driving example. I'll try and do something like that. It will defiantly help them relate to the subject, and hopefully they will see how little sense this bill makes.

I just actually wrote something a little more in depth on my blog. Just click on my signature blog link if you want to take a look.

Good luck at your presentation, let us know how it goes over.

Swiss
05-05-2009, 12:43 PM
I called them and told them all that I'm a Democrat in strong opposition to this bill. The Republicans seemed to enjoy this support and I just hope the Democrats made a note of it as well.

Mauser87
05-05-2009, 12:46 PM
I just read it, I really like it. I read your AB1078 bill to my girlfriend not telling her it was fake. It definitely got her attention. If it is ok with you I would like to use it as kind of an introduction/attention getter in my speech. I will cite you.

doc1buc
05-05-2009, 1:13 PM
Just got done calling all the Dems on the list, only one of the receptionist's took down my information, 3 said they would note my opposition, and the rest just said thanks. Hopefully the later have already resigned to vote down this crap-tastic bill but I don't know. Felt like I was talking to the Gestapo or something :ack2:

soundwave
05-05-2009, 2:48 PM
I just read it, I really like it. I read your AB1078 bill to my girlfriend not telling her it was fake. It definitely got her attention. If it is ok with you I would like to use it as kind of an introduction/attention getter in my speech. I will cite you.

Absolutely. Go for it! :thumbsup:

rysmithjr
05-05-2009, 6:51 PM
My first reply from an Assemblyperson:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding our mutual gun rights in California. First, let me be clear - I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I do not support AB 962 and will oppose it in Appropriations Committee.

I believe AB 962 puts more limitations on the rights of legal gun owners. This bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or dangerous people living in our communities. Limiting the transfer or sale of ammunition to 50 rounds per month, the equivalent of one box of handgun ammunition, will have a devastating impact on legal firearms retailers. Average sales volumes regularly exceed the proposed limit, which would subject the majority of firearms business owners to a new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations regarding licensure, storage and sale procedures. This would force many small businesses that rely on ammunition sales as their primary revenue to incur additional costs in order to comply with the provisions of AB 962. As one may guess, such costs would definitely be passed along to the consumer. This burdensome and unnecessary regulation would drive a sizable number of retailers out of business altogether.

Further, AB 962 would hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to transfer ownership of ammunition between private parties such as family members by requiring individuals to be licensed by the Department of Justice if the 50-round thresholds are exceeded.

This outrageous proposal adds yet another layer of red tape where appropriate regulation already exists and infringes further upon individual freedoms of every California citizens’ Right to Bear Arms.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to make your voice heard – I stand with you on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff at (949) 347-7301 if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,

DIANE L. HARKEY
Assemblywoman, 73rd District

obeygiant
05-05-2009, 8:02 PM
My first reply from an Assemblyperson:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding our mutual gun rights in California. First, let me be clear - I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I do not support AB 962 and will oppose it in Appropriations Committee.

I believe AB 962 puts more limitations on the rights of legal gun owners. This bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or dangerous people living in our communities. Limiting the transfer or sale of ammunition to 50 rounds per month, the equivalent of one box of handgun ammunition, will have a devastating impact on legal firearms retailers. Average sales volumes regularly exceed the proposed limit, which would subject the majority of firearms business owners to a new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations regarding licensure, storage and sale procedures. This would force many small businesses that rely on ammunition sales as their primary revenue to incur additional costs in order to comply with the provisions of AB 962. As one may guess, such costs would definitely be passed along to the consumer. This burdensome and unnecessary regulation would drive a sizable number of retailers out of business altogether.

Further, AB 962 would hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to transfer ownership of ammunition between private parties such as family members by requiring individuals to be licensed by the Department of Justice if the 50-round thresholds are exceeded.

This outrageous proposal adds yet another layer of red tape where appropriate regulation already exists and infringes further upon individual freedoms of every California citizens’ Right to Bear Arms.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to make your voice heard – I stand with you on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff at (949) 347-7301 if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,

DIANE L. HARKEY
Assemblywoman, 73rd District

Just Got a similar reply from her as well.

obeygiant
05-05-2009, 8:39 PM
For anyone that's interested here's a list of contacts i started compiling.

How to Contact City,County,State and Federal Government (http://www.4shared.com/file/101774432/87845e2b/How_to_Contact-city-county-state-govt-r10.html)

Tillers_Rule
05-05-2009, 9:10 PM
I looked up my Representative and AB962 isn't even listed under her legislation. Not sure what that means, anyone? Lori Saldana (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a76/Legislation/default.aspx)

obeygiant
05-05-2009, 9:18 PM
I looked up my Representative and AB962 isn't even listed under her legislation. Not sure what that means, anyone? Lori Saldana (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a76/Legislation/default.aspx)

I noticed that as well for mine. I wonder if they only list legislation that they had a hand in putting together.

Tillers_Rule
05-05-2009, 9:48 PM
I just texted my friend who works in the Capitol. She said only the bills presented by that legislator are on his or her page. If you can't find a record of them voting, it means they abstained or were absent when voting occured.

But, I looked up the Assembly Bill Updates and didn't see the bill even listed here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/updates/May5,2009/asm_May.5.2009.html

obeygiant
05-05-2009, 10:28 PM
I just texted my friend who works in the Capitol. She said only the bills presented by that legislator are on his or her page. If you can't find a record of them voting, it means they abstained or were absent when voting occured.

But, I looked up the Assembly Bill Updates and didn't see the bill even listed here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/updates/May5,2009/asm_May.5.2009.html


If you go to this link (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html)
and type in the bill # you can find the latest status on it.

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 962
AUTHOR(S) : De Leon (Coauthor: Bonnie Lowenthal).
TOPIC : Ammunition.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM

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

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/22/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR.
Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 21).
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 05/06/2009

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 11106 and 12316 of, to add
Sections 12317 and 12318 to, to add Article 3.5
(commencing with Section 12060) to Chapter 1 of, to add
a heading for Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section
12316) to, and to repeal the heading of Chapter 2.6
(commencing with Section 12320) of, Title 2 of Part 4 of
the Penal Code, relating to ammunition.

1BigPea
05-06-2009, 9:48 AM
BTT

Swiss
05-06-2009, 10:17 AM
What's the sign in order for AB962? I'm trying to listen to the committee hearing online but would like SOME idea of when it will be heard.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/committee_hearings/defaulttext.asp

soundwave
05-06-2009, 10:26 AM
What's the sign in order for AB962? I'm trying to listen to the committee hearing online but would like SOME idea of when it will be heard.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/committee_hearings/defaulttext.asp


Nevermind, found it!

Swiss
05-06-2009, 11:41 AM
Committee adjourned...oh well, I missed it.

soundwave
05-06-2009, 11:47 AM
Committee adjourned...oh well, I missed it.

Me too! I listened since about 10:30 and didn't hear it brought up. de Leon presented 2 bills at the very end, neither of which were 962.

Guess well have to wait until it is updated on their website.

Librarian
05-06-2009, 12:37 PM
Just heard - since the author didn't bring it up, it wasn't heard, so it goes on the suspense file.

Has until May 29 to get out of committee.

soundwave
05-06-2009, 12:40 PM
Just heard - since the author didn't bring it up, it wasn't heard, so it goes on the suspense file.

Has until May 29 to get out of committee.

Would you say that is a good thing? Seems so to me. Even more time for us to make calls and send letters yeah?

Librarian
05-06-2009, 12:47 PM
Would you say that is a good thing? Seems so to me. Even more time for us to make calls and send letters yeah?

Definitely good.

With the author being the Committee chair, I expected this one to fly through.

Maybe the Committee decided to do actual state business rather than humor one person's misguided crusade?

But it can come back any Wednesday, so yes, contact the committee - especially if you have not yet done so; more names, more opposition!

Swiss
05-06-2009, 1:02 PM
Or is it simply a ploy to reduce the number of presenters who are in opposition to the bill? If they keep postponing it only the local lobbyists will show up to speak, and even then maybe just a handful. I don't know jack about this process but this kind of tactic wouldn't surprise me.

Librarian
05-06-2009, 1:34 PM
Or is it simply a ploy to reduce the number of presenters who are in opposition to the bill? If they keep postponing it only the local lobbyists will show up to speak, and even then maybe just a handful. I don't know jack about this process but this kind of tactic wouldn't surprise me.

There might be something to that, but really very few people would have an opportunity to speak from the floor - all the yakking time is ordinarily taken up by committee members and folks they invite specifically. According to the list (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/committee_hearings/defaulttext.asp), the committee was expecting to hear as many as about 170 bills today. That's obviously way more than they really planned to consider, but in a 4-hour window you can spend a whole 5 minutes per bill and get to just 48 of them.

soundwave
05-06-2009, 3:50 PM
Gotta keep this alive!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v454/krelin3/Calguns/962_3.jpg

rumble phish
05-06-2009, 5:45 PM
I heard on the radio this afternoon that it passed and was moving on through. Can anyone confirm this?

Swiss
05-06-2009, 5:52 PM
Nope, as Librarian posted, it's in the suspense file. Here's the NRA-ILA update that was just sent out:

Today, Assembly Bill 962 was placed in the suspense file by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), 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.

While this development is a solid step towards defeating AB962, the bill still poses a threat. Please continue checking your email and www.NRAILA.org for updates.

hill billy
05-06-2009, 6:15 PM
Hoooray. Now if we could just get DeLeon to fall in front of a bus.

obeygiant
05-06-2009, 6:36 PM
Nope, as Librarian posted, it's in the suspense file. Here's the NRA-ILA update that was just sent out:

Today, Assembly Bill 962 was placed in the suspense file by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), 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.

While this development is a solid step towards defeating AB962, the bill still poses a threat. Please continue checking your email and www.NRAILA.org for updates.

This is good news! If any of you following this thread have not already contacted them please do so.

goober
05-06-2009, 6:42 PM
I noticed that as well for mine. I wonder if they only list legislation that they had a hand in putting together.

I looked up my Representative and AB962 isn't even listed under her legislation. Not sure what that means, anyone? Lori Saldana (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a76/Legislation/default.aspx)

AB962 is not out of committee yet. the entire Assembly doesn't vote on it until that happens. it is now stalled in the Appropriations Committee as it has been placed in the suspense file.

Para45
05-06-2009, 6:47 PM
Nope, as Librarian posted, it's in the suspense file. Here's the NRA-ILA update that was just sent out:

Today, Assembly Bill 962 was placed in the suspense file by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), 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.

While this development is a solid step towards defeating AB962, the bill still poses a threat. Please continue checking your email and www.NRAILA.org for updates.


Beat me to it!! Good news though for sure - let's keep on it!! :thumbsup:

Sabot
05-06-2009, 9:57 PM
Hoooray. Now if we could just get DeLeon to fall in front of a bus.

Accident...

Mauser87
05-07-2009, 9:56 AM
So I gave a speech about this today in my speech class. It surprised me that almost half of my class where gun owners or shooters. Although not a single one of them had heard about AB962. There where a lot of shocked and worried faces as I described what the bill would do. I gave everyone the contact information for the people in the appropriations committee. I'm sure that most of the gun owners in my class will be contacting the assembly members.

I guess this goes to show though that we need to spread the word more to our fellow gun owners about what is actually happening.

And thanks again to soundwave for the help.

1BigPea
05-07-2009, 9:59 AM
So I gave a speech about this today in my speech class. It surprised me that almost half of my class where gun owners or shooters. Although not a single one of them had heard about AB962. There where a lot of shocked and worried faces as I described what the bill would do. I gave everyone the contact information for the people in the appropriations committee. I'm sure that most of the gun owners in my class will be contacting the assembly members.

I guess this goes to show though that we need to spread the word more to our fellow gun owners about what is actually happening.

And thanks again to soundwave for the help.


Nice! Did you tell them about Calguns too? :thumbsup:

Bruce
05-07-2009, 4:56 PM
So I gave a speech about this today in my speech class. It surprised me that almost half of my class where gun owners or shooters. Although not a single one of them had heard about AB962. There where a lot of shocked and worried faces as I described what the bill would do. I gave everyone the contact information for the people in the appropriations committee. I'm sure that most of the gun owners in my class will be contacting the assembly members.

I guess this goes to show though that we need to spread the word more to our fellow gun owners about what is actually happening.

And thanks again to soundwave for the help.

Not surprising. The MSM doesn't cover gun bills until nothing can be done to stop them; ie approved and signed. There are still people who don't know about the "Safe Gun List", the 10 day waiting period, or think the AWB outlawed machineguns.

Sleepy1988
05-07-2009, 6:45 PM
So I gave a speech about this today in my speech class. It surprised me that almost half of my class where gun owners or shooters. Although not a single one of them had heard about AB962. There where a lot of shocked and worried faces as I described what the bill would do. I gave everyone the contact information for the people in the appropriations committee. I'm sure that most of the gun owners in my class will be contacting the assembly members.

I guess this goes to show though that we need to spread the word more to our fellow gun owners about what is actually happening.

And thanks again to soundwave for the help.


This would seem to indicate that we could have much more power if only we could make more gun owners of the assaults on our rights and get them active in opposing those assaults. I know that's been said before, but I just found this interesting as it's a tangible example of that.

Texas Boy
05-07-2009, 7:34 PM
Just came back from Reed's Indoor Range and they had a petition on the counter to oppose AB962! I of course immediately signed it and thanked the guy at the counter for putting the petition out. His take was AB962 would make it almost impossible for them to do business - which I told him was the exact point. BTW - he didn't know about the recent lawsuits filed by the Calguns foundation challenging the roster and the CCW policy. He was very excited to hear and said he'd check it out.

Two thumbs up for Reed's making sure the local gun owning public is informed and taking an activist stance to protect our rights!

soundwave
05-07-2009, 11:13 PM
So I gave a speech about this today in my speech class. It surprised me that almost half of my class where gun owners or shooters. Although not a single one of them had heard about AB962. There where a lot of shocked and worried faces as I described what the bill would do. I gave everyone the contact information for the people in the appropriations committee. I'm sure that most of the gun owners in my class will be contacting the assembly members.

I guess this goes to show though that we need to spread the word more to our fellow gun owners about what is actually happening.

And thanks again to soundwave for the help.

That's great news! Glad it went over so well. :thumbsup:

ArticleTheFourth
05-07-2009, 11:26 PM
So I gave a speech about this today in my speech class. It surprised me that almost half of my class where gun owners or shooters. Although not a single one of them had heard about AB962. There where a lot of shocked and worried faces as I described what the bill would do. I gave everyone the contact information for the people in the appropriations committee. I'm sure that most of the gun owners in my class will be contacting the assembly members.

I guess this goes to show though that we need to spread the word more to our fellow gun owners about what is actually happening.

And thanks again to soundwave for the help.

Which college are you attending where half the class were gun owners! That's where I'd like to send my son.
:thumbsup:

TheBundo
05-07-2009, 11:36 PM
Just came back from Reed's Indoor Range and they had a petition on the counter to oppose AB962! I of course immediately signed it and thanked the guy at the counter for putting the petition out. His take was AB962 would make it almost impossible for them to do business - which I told him was the exact point. BTW - he didn't know about the recent lawsuits filed by the Calguns foundation challenging the roster and the CCW policy. He was very excited to hear and said he'd check it out.

Two thumbs up for Reed's making sure the local gun owning public is informed and taking an activist stance to protect our rights!

What in the bill would make it hard for target ranges to do business? I never heard that before.

Mauser87
05-08-2009, 1:18 AM
Which college are you attending where half the class were gun owners! That's where I'd like to send my son.
:thumbsup:

Las Positas, its a community collage in Livermore in the east bay. I got to say though I was really surprised, I thought it would be just one or two.

Sorry 1BigPea, I did not think to mention Calguns, although I should have.

guntntteacher
05-09-2009, 9:22 PM
My first reply from an Assemblyperson:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding our mutual gun rights in California. First, let me be clear - I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I do not support AB 962 and will oppose it in Appropriations Committee.

I believe AB 962 puts more limitations on the rights of legal gun owners. This bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or dangerous people living in our communities. Limiting the transfer or sale of ammunition to 50 rounds per month, the equivalent of one box of handgun ammunition, will have a devastating impact on legal firearms retailers. Average sales volumes regularly exceed the proposed limit, which would subject the majority of firearms business owners to a new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations regarding licensure, storage and sale procedures. This would force many small businesses that rely on ammunition sales as their primary revenue to incur additional costs in order to comply with the provisions of AB 962. As one may guess, such costs would definitely be passed along to the consumer. This burdensome and unnecessary regulation would drive a sizable number of retailers out of business altogether.

Further, AB 962 would hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to transfer ownership of ammunition between private parties such as family members by requiring individuals to be licensed by the Department of Justice if the 50-round thresholds are exceeded.

This outrageous proposal adds yet another layer of red tape where appropriate regulation already exists and infringes further upon individual freedoms of every California citizens’ Right to Bear Arms.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to make your voice heard – I stand with you on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff at (949) 347-7301 if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,

DIANE L. HARKEY
Assemblywoman, 73rd District


That is the same respons I recieved. Oh and the only response form the emails, letters, and faxes I have sent.

Texas Boy
05-11-2009, 4:02 PM
What in the bill would make it hard for target ranges to do business? I never heard that before.

Actually, I thought the bill might help gun stores and indoor ranges as only they could sell ammo. But I wasn't going to argue with the guy at Reed's - if he was against it and thought it bad for his store then great! Maybe he didn't understand the bill or maybe he thought the added paperwork and burden on customers would have a chilling effect on business.

ArticleTheFourth
05-12-2009, 10:17 AM
Originally Posted by rysmithjr View Post
My first reply from an Assemblyperson:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding our mutual gun rights in California. First, let me be clear - I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I do not support AB 962 and will oppose it in Appropriations Committee.

I believe AB 962 puts more limitations on the rights of legal gun owners. This bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or dangerous people living in our communities. Limiting the transfer or sale of ammunition to 50 rounds per month, the equivalent of one box of handgun ammunition, will have a devastating impact on legal firearms retailers. Average sales volumes regularly exceed the proposed limit, which would subject the majority of firearms business owners to a new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations regarding licensure, storage and sale procedures. This would force many small businesses that rely on ammunition sales as their primary revenue to incur additional costs in order to comply with the provisions of AB 962. As one may guess, such costs would definitely be passed along to the consumer. This burdensome and unnecessary regulation would drive a sizable number of retailers out of business altogether.

Further, AB 962 would hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to transfer ownership of ammunition between private parties such as family members by requiring individuals to be licensed by the Department of Justice if the 50-round thresholds are exceeded.

This outrageous proposal adds yet another layer of red tape where appropriate regulation already exists and infringes further upon individual freedoms of every California citizens’ Right to Bear Arms.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to make your voice heard – I stand with you on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff at (949) 347-7301 if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,

DIANE L. HARKEY
Assemblywoman, 73rd District

That is the same respons I recieved. Oh and the only response form the emails, letters, and faxes I have sent.

I got the same response from Harkey; she was the only one responding that stated a position at all and was against the bill. :thumbsup: The other half dozen or so responses were just standard fluff statements given no matter what the bill or issue may have been the topic. :( I'm glad the author has shelved the bill, for now at least. :)

AB962 Shelved, The San Bernardino Sun: http://www.sbsun.com/sports/ci_12323443
:o

Swiss
05-12-2009, 1:04 PM
I got the same response from Harkey; she was the only one responding that stated a position at all and was against the bill. :thumbsup: The other half dozen or so responses were just standard fluff statements given no matter what the bill or issue may have been the topic. :( I'm glad the author has shelved the bill, for now at least. :)

AB962 Shelved, The San Bernardino Sun: http://www.sbsun.com/sports/ci_12323443
:o

I don't think Ms. Harkey has all her facts right. IIRC, AB962 does not limit the sale of ammunition by firearms retailers (assuming they become approved "handgun ammunition vendors") and they can still sell the stuff by the case as long you, the buyer, submit your ID and fingerprint.

Also, intra-familial transfers are not regulated by AB962.

I'm glad she wrote this response but someone should point out these errors before someone like DeLeon uses it against her.

Thanks for the link to the news article!

rumble phish
05-12-2009, 1:26 PM
Great news (for now) and great link! Thanks!

If you read further down, the writer also wrote abou the lawsuit that Calguns has brought against the state re: the roster. Thanks for that Ivan!! :)


What bugs me abou tthe article is that it was buried in the "Sports" section. This isn't about sports and it isn't about "hunting". This is about our soverign right to defend ourselves.

Mauser87
05-12-2009, 1:34 PM
I don't think Ms. Harkey has all her facts right. IIRC, AB962 does not limit the sale of ammunition by firearms retailers (assuming they become approved "handgun ammunition vendors") and they can still sell the stuff by the case as long you, the buyer, submit your ID and fingerprint.

Also, intra-familial transfers are not regulated by AB962.

I'm glad she wrote this response but someone should point out these errors before someone like DeLeon uses it against her.

Thanks for the link to the news article!

Yea it bugged me that she had that wrong. I am glad that she opposing it though! Whether or not she completely understands it.

It does effect transfers between family members, I think. I'm trying to figure it out reading the actual bill, but it is really complicated. To me it just looks like it exempts transfers between immediate family members from having to keep the information on file.

Librarian
05-12-2009, 2:21 PM
Yea it bugged me that she had that wrong. I am glad that she opposing it though! Whether or not she completely understands it.

It does effect transfers between family members, I think. I'm trying to figure it out reading the actual bill, but it is really complicated. To me it just looks like it exempts transfers between immediate family members from having to keep the information on file.

Should someone write Ms Harkey, please be extremely polite and respectful. We would not want to be in the position of 'not taking "yes" for an answer'.

As to family members, the bill would add this to PC
12061. (a) Commencing July 1, 2010, no person shall sell or otherwise transfer ownership of more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless the person is licensed by the department as a licensed handgun ammunition vendor in accordance with Section 12062.

(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to or affect any of the following:
...
(5) Sales or other transfers of ownership of handgun ammunition between immediate family members, spouses, or registered domestic partners.

Swiss
05-12-2009, 10:26 PM
I nominate Librarian to drop her a quick, respectful note. Do I hear a second?

TheBundo
05-12-2009, 10:32 PM
Great news (for now) and great link! Thanks!

If you read further down, the writer also wrote abou the lawsuit that Calguns has brought against the state re: the roster. Thanks for that Ivan!! :)


What bugs me abou tthe article is that it was buried in the "Sports" section. This isn't about sports and it isn't about "hunting". This is about our soverign right to defend ourselves.

True, but at least they didn't put it in the "Murder" section :eek:

goober
05-12-2009, 11:11 PM
I nominate Librarian to drop her a quick, respectful note. Do I hear a second?
i second this, if called for, and recommend that everyone else NOT contact her regarding this matter...
if she needs clarification on a fact or two its better to hear it from a couple of us than a whole slew..
she's obviously on our side and doesn't deserve to be flooded with strident correction emails...

Mauser87
05-13-2009, 1:01 AM
Thanks Librarian, for the clarification about the ammo transfers between family.

I agree that some one should contact her. I am not sure what to tell her though, so I agree with goober_0 and Swiss.

ArticleTheFourth
05-13-2009, 1:04 PM
i second this, if called for, and recommend that everyone else NOT contact her regarding this matter...
if she needs clarification on a fact or two its better to hear it from a couple of us than a whole slew..
she's obviously on our side and doesn't deserve to be flooded with strident correction emails...

I second it again and agree with the sentiments stated by goober_0

obeygiant
05-17-2009, 12:25 AM
Just received this response (http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9733/mduvallletter.jpg) today from Assemblymen Michael Duvall regarding the email I sent on AB962.

goober
05-18-2009, 9:49 PM
Just received this response (http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9733/mduvallletter.jpg) today from Assemblymen Michael Duvall regarding the email I sent on AB962.
good for him! :thumbsup:

soundwave
05-18-2009, 9:58 PM
Just received this response (http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9733/mduvallletter.jpg) today from Assemblymen Michael Duvall regarding the email I sent on AB962.

Excellent! Hard to argue with his reasoning.

cyrus
05-22-2009, 1:39 PM
aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggg.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4904

1BigPea
05-22-2009, 1:43 PM
Here we go again...

With all the problems facing CA right now you'd think this would be dead by now!!! :mad:

Legasat
05-22-2009, 1:58 PM
Two Anti-Gun Bills Scheduled for Consideration on Thursday, May 28

Assembly Bill 962 and Senate Bill 585 are scheduled to be considered on Thursday, May 28.

AB962, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), is in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. 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.

SB585 is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Introduced by State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), SB585 would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace. In short, SB585 is a stepping-stone to banning gun shows on all publicly-owned property in California.

Please contact the members of the Assembly and Senate Appropriations Committees and respectfully urge them to oppose AB962 and SB585. Contact information for the committees can be found below.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS:

Assemblymember Kevin de Leon (D-45) - Chair

(916) 319-2045

Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2) - Vice Chair

(916) 319-2002

Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-13)

(916) 319-2013

Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Charles M. Calderon (D-58)

(916) 319-2058

Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Mike Davis (D-48)

(916) 319-2048

Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Michael D. Duvall (R-72)

(916) 319-2072

Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes (D-39)

(916) 319-2039

Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Isadore Hall, III (D-52)

(916) 319-2052

Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Diane L. Harkey (R-73)
(916) 319-2073

Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-9)

(916) 319-2009

Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71)

(916) 319-2071

Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-46)

(916) 319-2046

Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Curren D. Price, Jr. (D-51)

(916) 319-2051

Assemblymember.Price@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-14)

(916) 319-2014

Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-69)

(916) 319-2069

Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Audra Strickland (R-37)

(916) 319-2037

Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov



Assemblymember Tom Torlakson (D-11)

(916) 319-2011
Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:

State Senator Christine Kehoe (D-39), Chair
(916) 651-4039

State Senator Dave Cox (R-1), Vice-Chair
(916) 651-4001

State Senator Ellen Corbett (D-10)
(916) 651-4010

State Senator Jeff Denham (R-12)
(916) 651-4012

State Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-7)
(916) 651-4007

State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9)
(916) 651-4009

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3)
(916) 651-4003
senator.leno@senate.ca.gov

State Senator Jenny Oropeza (D-28)
(916) 651-4028

State Senator George Runner (R-17)
(916) 651-4017

State Senator Mimi Walters (R-33)
(916) 651-4033

State Senator Lois Wolk (D-5)
(916) 651-4005

State Senator Mark Wyland (R-38)
(916) 651-4038

State Senator Leland Yee (D-8)
(916) 651-4008

curtisfong
05-22-2009, 2:16 PM
please, somebody sticky this :(

i emailed and called last time around. sending same emails *again* out tonite.

I will call next week again.

cyrus
05-22-2009, 2:17 PM
Yes it on again. Start calling, emailing, and get friends to do the same or we will never see ammo prices go down...

CalNRA
05-22-2009, 2:22 PM
call and pound the Dems' phone lines. The GOPs have all pledged to vote no and were telling us to devote our time on the Dems.

CalNRA
05-22-2009, 2:38 PM
btw Jones's staff just told me he is no longer on the appropriations committee.

obeygiant
05-22-2009, 4:09 PM
call and pound the Dems' phone lines. The GOPs have all pledged to vote no and were telling us to devote our time on the Dems.

Thank you for the update so that we can focus our efforts.

Librarian
05-22-2009, 5:01 PM
Current Assembly Appropriations membership here (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=43):

Kevin de Leon - Chair Dem-45 (916) 319-2045 Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov

Jim Nielsen - Vice Chair Rep-2 (916) 319-2002 Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov

Tom Ammiano Dem-13 (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Charles M. Calderon Dem-58 (916) 319-2058 Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov

Mike Davis Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov

Michael D. Duvall Rep-72 (916) 319-2072 Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov

Felipe Fuentes Dem-39 (916) 319-2039 Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov

Isadore Hall III Dem-52 (916) 319-2052 Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov

Diane L. Harkey Rep-73 916) 319-2073 Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov

Jeff Miller Rep-71 (916) 319-2071 Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov

John A. Pérez Dem-46 (916) 319-2046 Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov

Curren D. Price Jr. Dem-51 (916) 319-2051 Assemblymember.Price@assembly.ca.gov

Nancy Skinner Dem-14 (916) 319-2014 Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Jose Solorio Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov

Audra Strickland Rep-37 (916) 319-2037 Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov

Tom Torlakson Dem-11 (916) 319-2011 Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov

FAX NUMBERS for Ds

Ammiano Fax: (916) 319-2113
Calderon Fax: (916) 319-2158
Davis Fax: (916) 319-2148
de Leon Fax: (916) 319-2145 (not that he's listening - he's the author)
Fuentes Fax: (916) 319-2139
Hall Fax: (916) 319-2152
Perez Fax: (916) 319-214
Price Fax: (916) 319-2151
Skinner Fax: (916) 319-2114
Solorio Fax: (916) 319-2169
Torlakson Fax: (916) 319-2111

Note the pattern is 916-319-21 + district number

obeygiant
05-22-2009, 8:55 PM
Here's a comma separated list of emails for you to copy and paste into your email.

Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov,Assemblymemb er.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Ammiano@ assembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.c a.gov,Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov,Assembl ymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.fuen tes@assembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.c a.gov,Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov,Assemb lymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Joh n.Perez@assembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Price@assem bly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov,Assemblymem ber.strickland@assembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Torl akson@assembly.ca.gov

Cool Gun Wife
05-22-2009, 8:58 PM
We need to fill the committee's voicemail boxes and email service this long weekend. Since this is the appropriations committee, it is a good idea to include why this is a bad bill in the current state economic crisis. We did a similar communication blitz last month when it was heard in committee the first time. By the Monday following the weekend activities, the Assembly aides who actually answer the phones were annoyed - early! Let's do it again.

Some on the committee bounce back your email, but they still have to look at the subject line - and they do.

Cool Gun Wife
05-22-2009, 9:00 PM
Also, Harkey is on our side, so if you have the time, you might want to send her an encouraging comment.

obeygiant
05-22-2009, 9:09 PM
We need to fill the committee's voicemail boxes and email service this long weekend. Since this is the appropriations committee, it is a good idea to include why this is a bad bill in the current state economic crisis. We did a similar communication blitz last month when it was heard in committee the first time. By the Monday following the weekend activities, the Assembly aides who actually answer the phones were annoyed - early! Let's do it again.

Some on the committee bounce back your email, but they still have to look at the subject line - and they do.

Assemblyman Michael Duvall pretty much covered it in his response to my original email. This would make a good basis for a form letter.

Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to AB 962, a bill that would require increased regulation to ammunition sales and record keeping. I appreciate you taking the time to inform me of your views. Furthermore, I agree.

Each year that the Legislature considers new proposals to regulate gun rights, I stand in strong opposition. I have yet to hear anything to make me reconsider this stance. Specifically, AB 962 will do more harm than good and will end up costing the state more money that it does not have. The required issuance of vendor licenses for sales in some circumstances will result in a fee of up to $50, and given the current financial situation we are facing, I fail to see how this proposal makes any sense. Further, previous legislation similar to AB 962 proved to be not only costly, but a complete failure. After 18 years of implementation, the Federal Government discarded the 1968 Gun Control Act after it became apparent that the program had no real use in crime fighting.

In addition to costing gun-owners and providing no additional security to our community, AB962 will be a detriment to our already struggling business community. The increased regulations and restrictions will force many to close down. I strongly believe the legislature should be using its influence protecting the vulnerable small businesses that are operating in an already hostile economic climate. This legislation will not serve to fight crime, and instead will place a burden on law-abiding business and gun owners within our state. Rest assured, I will vote "no" when it comes before me.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to communicate with constituents and greatly value your opinion. Please continue to keep me apprised of your views and feel ft'ee to contact me with any other state-related issues or concerns.

obeygiant
05-22-2009, 9:10 PM
Also, Harkey is on our side, so if you have the time, you might want to send her an encouraging comment.

Agreed. Duvall could use our encouragement and thanks as well.

obeygiant
05-22-2009, 9:33 PM
Anyone heard any news on SB585 (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4904) or contacted the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee? See the links below, it appears to have been put on the suspense file.

SB585 is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Introduced by State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), SB585 would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace. In short, SB585 is a stepping-stone to banning gun shows on all publicly-owned property in California.


STAFF COMMENTS: (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_585_cfa_20090427_105657_sen_comm.html)

Votes (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_585_vote_20090427_000001_sen_comm.html)

Librarian
05-22-2009, 11:59 PM
Anyone heard any news on SB585 (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4904) or contacted the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee? See the links below, it appears to have been put on the suspense file.



STAFF COMMENTS: (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_585_cfa_20090427_105657_sen_comm.html)

Votes (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_585_vote_20090427_000001_sen_comm.html)

It -was- on suspense, but it's back on the hearing schedule (http://www.senate.ca.gov/htbin/testbin/agenda?INET_FTP:[SEN.COMMITTEE.STANDING.APPROP]schedule.htm) for Thursday the 28th.

Current membership:
Senator Christine Kehoe (Chair) D
Phone: (916) 651-4039
Fax: (916) 327-2188

Senator Dave Cox (Vice-Chair) R
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Fax: (916) 324-2680

Senator Ellen Corbett D
Phone: (916) 651-4010
Fax: (916) 327-2433

Senator Jeff Denham R (I think)
Phone: (916) 651-4012
Fax: (916) 445-0773

Senator Mark DeSaulnier D
Phone: (916) 651-4007
Fax: (916) 445-2527

Senator Loni Hancock D
Phone: (916) 651-4009
Fax: (916) 327-1997

Senator Mark Leno D
Phone: (916) 651-4003
Fax: (916) 445-4722

Senator Jenny Oropeza D
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 323-6056

Senator George Runner R
Phone: (916) 651-4017
Fax: (916) 445-4662

Senator Mimi Walters R
Phone: (916) 651-4033
Fax: (916) 445-9754

Senator Lois Wolk D
Phone: (916) 651-4005
Fax: (916) 323-2304

Senator Mark Wyland R
Phone: (916) 651-4038
Fax: (916) 446-7382

Senator Leland Yee D
Phone: (916) 651-4008
Fax: (916) 327-2186

obeygiant
05-23-2009, 12:02 AM
It -was- on suspense, but it's back on the hearing schedule (http://www.senate.ca.gov/htbin/testbin/agenda?INET_FTP:[SEN.COMMITTEE.STANDING.APPROP]schedule.htm) for Thursday the 28th.


Thank you for clarifying it. Here's the comma separated list of email addresses for the Senators to help everyone get started on writing them.

senator.leno@senate.ca.gov,senator.Kehoe@senate.ca .gov,senator.Cox@senate.ca.gov,senator.Corbett@sen ate.ca.gov,senator.Denham@senate.ca.gov,senator.De Saulnier@senate.ca.gov,senator.Hancock@senate.ca.g ov,senator.Oropeza@senate.ca.gov,senator.Runner@se nate.ca.gov,senator.Walters@senate.ca.gov,senator. Wolk@senate.ca.gov,senator.Wyland@senate.ca.gov,se nator.Yee@senate.ca.gov,senator.Walters@senate.ca. gov

Blackhawk556
05-25-2009, 1:30 AM
so it's back right?
I guess the lefties are mad because of what was slipped in the credit card bill last week

rumblebee
05-25-2009, 1:20 PM
My email has been sent...Thanks for the string\list...very ez! :thumbsup:

Thank you for clarifying it. Here's the comma separated list of email addresses for the Senators to help everyone get started on writing them.

senator.leno@senate.ca.gov,senator.Kehoe@senate.ca .gov,senator.Cox@senate.ca.gov,senator.Corbett@sen ate.ca.gov,senator.Denham@senate.ca.gov,senator.De Saulnier@senate.ca.gov,senator.Hancock@senate.ca.g ov,senator.Oropeza@senate.ca.gov,senator.Runner@se nate.ca.gov,senator.Walters@senate.ca.gov,senator. Wolk@senate.ca.gov,senator.Wyland@senate.ca.gov,se nator.Yee@senate.ca.gov,senator.Walters@senate.ca. gov

GreyMinotaur
05-25-2009, 9:30 PM
My email hasd been sent...Thanks for the string\list...very ez! :thumbsup:

Instead of copying all the email addresses, I used the One-Click service on Calgun's website. Seems to work well. I received a bunch of form responses shortly after using One-Click.

rumblebee
05-25-2009, 10:57 PM
I rcv'd the same canned emails back from some of the email list. As long as we're all sending emails on this, does not matter if copy or one click.....just do it!!! :thumbsup::walkman:

Instead of copying all the email addresses, I used the One-Click service on Calgun's website. Seems to work well. I received a bunch of form responses shortly after using One-Click.

GreyMinotaur
05-27-2009, 7:36 PM
I rcv'd the same canned emails back from some of the email list. As long as we're all sending emails on this, does not matter if copy or one click.....just do it!!! :thumbsup::walkman:

I know. I just want to spend the minimal time possible because it does not matter what I say. They will keep trying to pass that bill. Also, because they do not read the emails anyway I keep it short and sweet. For example, "Please vote no on AB 962 (Ammo Registration and Restriction Bill). Thank you."

I suspect that the assembly representatives refer to their aides on the pile of emails, letters, and phone calls of people for and against the bill, then decide to vote the majority opinion. Of course, I'll continue to add to the pile of nays.

ArticleTheFourth
05-29-2009, 10:58 AM
Anybody know what happened at the hearing on AB 962 yesterday? I can't find anything regarding the hearing on CRPA or ILA. :confused:

1BigPea
05-29-2009, 11:00 AM
Anybody know what happened at the hearing on AB 962 yesterday? I can't find anything regarding the hearing on CRPA or ILA. :confused:


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=188120

Para45
05-30-2009, 12:27 AM
BTT - UPDATE!!

goober
05-30-2009, 9:26 AM
UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: AB 962
AUTHOR: De Leon
TOPIC: Ammunition.
DATE: 05/28/2009
LOCATION: ASM. APPR.
MOTION: Do pass as amended.
(AYES 12. NOES 5.) (PASS)


AYES
****

De Leon Ammiano Charles Calderon Davis
Fuentes Hall John A. Perez Price
Skinner Solorio Torlakson Krekorian


NOES
****

Nielsen Duvall Harkey Miller
Audra Strickland


ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************


Note that list of Appropriations Committee members previously posted by Librarian (which many CalGunners used for sending emails and such) is for the SENATE Appropriations Committee, not the Assembly one. It was for use in sending emails about SB585, NOT AB962. I hope not too many folks sent emails or calls to that list regarding AB962. Nothing worse than wasted effort. Perhaps it may be better to keep different bills in separate threads from now on.

zoid52
05-30-2009, 9:31 AM
With all the budget mess in cali these IDIOTS are wasting our tax dollars with this CRAP?

lowriderryda
05-30-2009, 8:29 PM
So will these law pass?

Crusader
05-30-2009, 9:35 PM
You have got to be ****ing kidding.

Librarian
05-30-2009, 10:03 PM
So will these law pass?

That's what we're working to defeat - they'll certainly pass if we DON'T oppose them, but whether they'll pass if we do is not known.

Librarian
05-30-2009, 10:12 PM
Note that list of Appropriations Committee members previously posted by Librarian (which many CalGunners used for sending emails and such) is for the SENATE Appropriations Committee, not the Assembly one. It was for use in sending emails about SB585, NOT AB962. I hope not too many folks sent emails or calls to that list regarding AB962. Nothing worse than wasted effort. Perhaps it may be better to keep different bills in separate threads from now on.
1 of each, actually, properly labeled.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2521812&postcount=181 has the Senate list, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2520061&postcount=174 has the Assembly list.

They're easily separable - all the Assembly emails start with 'Assemblymember.' :)

high_revs
06-02-2009, 4:36 PM
After some comments and gut-feel that emails aren't really read, I faxed our oppposition instead. Thank you fax servers where I can do this w/in outlook!!!

drgonzo
06-03-2009, 1:50 PM
I actually spoke with my assemblyman today and he indicated to me that this was to be voted on today!?!? Btw, I asked earlier if this needed a 2/3rds or a majority... it's the latter.


CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 962
AUTHOR(S) : De Leon (Coauthor: Bonnie Lowenthal).
TOPIC : Ammunition.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 06/01/2009


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

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 06/02/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : Read second time. To third reading.
FILE : ASM THIRD READING
FILE DATE : 06/03/2009
ITEM : 70

COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 05/28/2009
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 12 Noes: 05 PASS

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 11106 and 12316 of, to add
Sections 12317 and 12318 to, to add Article 3.5
(commencing with Section 12060) to Chapter 1 of, to add
a heading for Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section
12316) to, and to repeal the heading of Chapter 2.6
(commencing with Section 12320) of, Title 2 of Part 4
of, the Penal Code, relating to ammunition.

You can check the status here: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

TheCilician
06-03-2009, 2:12 PM
EVERYONE DO THIS GODDAMNIT IT OR ELSE WE ARE CATTLE !!!!!!


I've been calling for a week now at my lunch breaks and on ...

rumblebee
06-03-2009, 3:47 PM
No retreat! :thumbsup:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Assembly Bill 962, which would limit the sale of handgun ammunition. I appreciate having the opportunity to respond to this issue.



Assembly Bill 962 would not be cost effective in terms of crime control and would create a hardship for retailers, especially smaller ones, and customers. Criminals have many ways of obtaining ammunition. This bill would not serve as any kind of crime deterrent, but would create another large and bureaucratic registration program that would be very costly and inefficient for law abiding citizens.


Assembly Bill 962 is just another bill that attacks lawful gun owners instead of stopping the criminals that commit gun violence. It is for this and other reasons that I oppose Assembly Bill 962.

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to respond to your concerns.


Sincerely,

JEFF DENHAM

Senator, 12th District

drgonzo
06-03-2009, 6:33 PM
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but this bill passed the Assembly today 42 - 20. It will probably pass the State Senate as well... only Schwarzenegger can stop it now.

PatriotnMore
06-03-2009, 7:03 PM
F*&kn state, I swear, there are the most jacked up bunch of s*7tbirds running/ruining and voting in this State as I could ever imagine in my worst nightmare. It's always one step forward, two steps back.

Texas Boy
06-03-2009, 7:09 PM
Don't give up people! This passed the assembly by only 2 votes! Just a single vote would have made it a tie, and 2 votes would have soundly defeated it! This means there is hope in the senate. Don't let off the pressure - make those calls, send faxes, do what ever you can to let your state senator know how you feel about this bill. We can still stop this - but we need your help. NOW!

remington
06-03-2009, 7:46 PM
When does it go to the Senate?

rumblebee
06-03-2009, 8:15 PM
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

seriously...this is scary

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but this bill passed the Assembly today 42 - 20. It will probably pass the State Senate as well... only Schwarzenegger can stop it now.

st.clouds
06-03-2009, 10:43 PM
Wait, I seem to be getting discrepancies here. Did the bill pass the assembly by a margin of 22 or by a margin of 2!?

tuna quesadilla
06-03-2009, 11:02 PM
If this is as big as I think it is, why the heck isn't this thread plastered all over every forum of the Calguns website? We're talking about BANNING mail-order ammo and limiting us to 50 rounds per month? Let's get this some publicity and get more people writing their legislators... I'm sure half of the Calguns population doesn't even know this whole AB962 thing is happening because they never go into the 2nd Amendment forum!

MikeinnLA
06-03-2009, 11:03 PM
I'd like to hear from the anti-hoarders about how ammo will get cheap again. Care to reconsider that now?

Mike

goober
06-03-2009, 11:08 PM
Wait, I seem to be getting discrepancies here. Did the bill pass the assembly by a margin of 22 or by a margin of 2!?
a majority (41/80) was required for it to pass, so it got actually got just 1 more vote than it had to (which sux).
from www.assembly.ca.gov (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/BILLSLEGISLATURE/glossary.asp?alist=M&Valid=0&Target=1):
Majority Vote
A vote of more than half of the legislative body considering a measure. The full Assembly requires a majority vote of 41 and the full Senate requires 21, based on their memberships of 80 and 40 respectively.
at the risk of waking a sleeping dog from another thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2576297#post2576297), one would say:
THE ASSEMBLY PASSED AB962
(even though 20 Assemblymembers voted against it ;)
(sorry kermit315, couldn't resist :D )
joking aside, this is a bad thing. we need to fight this in the senate now. write your senators!

torsf
06-03-2009, 11:09 PM
If this is as big as I think it is, why the heck isn't this thread plastered all over every forum of the Calguns website? We're talking about BANNING mail-order ammo and limiting us to 50 rounds per month? Let's get this some publicity and get more people writing their legislators... I'm sure half of the Calguns population doesn't even know this whole AB962 thing is happening because they never go into the 2nd Amendment forum!

Not sure if this has already been asked... would this ban CMP ammo as well?

Librarian
06-03-2009, 11:15 PM
Not sure if this has already been asked... would this ban CMP ammo as well?

As written, it appears to do that.

As to when it goes to the Senate, tomorrow - but they won't assign it to committee until next week, because the Senate is in its own paroxysm of floor votes to send things to the Assembly.

Para45
06-03-2009, 11:19 PM
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but this bill passed the Assembly today 42 - 20. It will probably pass the State Senate as well... only Schwarzenegger can stop it now.

I don't see any info regarding that vote today - I checked the daily agenda (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/todevnt.html) and it was nowhere to be found - please provide a link to more info/confirmation. Thanks in advance.

RRangel
06-03-2009, 11:37 PM
Make sure your let your reps know to oppose this bill. Don't let up on these people.

st.clouds
06-03-2009, 11:42 PM
If this is as big as I think it is, why the heck isn't this thread plastered all over every forum of the Calguns website? We're talking about BANNING mail-order ammo and limiting us to 50 rounds per month? Let's get this some publicity and get more people writing their legislators... I'm sure half of the Calguns population doesn't even know this whole AB962 thing is happening because they never go into the 2nd Amendment forum!


I thought we're not limited to 50 rounds, as long as 1 of the transferee has the "ammunition vendor" license. Of course the problem is keeping track and renewing the license is a bureaucratic nightmare, and will torment an otherwise law abiding person to the brink of insanity.

Getting your choice of +p or +p+ ammunition will become pretty hard too, I would imagine.

remington
06-04-2009, 12:07 AM
St. Clouds, you are correct. I think that why the attention on this has wained. We can still buy as much as we want, only from an ammo vendor and all the BS that goes with it. But the cost of this program is not being talked about it and the "supply" issue we are having will get utterly impossible. Essenntially, target shooting will be to expensive and a "waste" of precious ammo.

avidone
06-04-2009, 12:24 AM
Is the NRA helping us out here on this one?

st.clouds
06-04-2009, 12:28 AM
St. Clouds, you are correct. I think that why the attention on this has wained. We can still buy as much as we want, only from an ammo vendor and all the BS that goes with it. But the cost of this program is not being talked about it and the "supply" issue we are having will get utterly impossible. Essenntially, target shooting will be to expensive and a "waste" of precious ammo.

True, but that's assuming you can get ammo off the shelves. I dunno about you, even the practice plinking rounds are gone in about 2 hrs at the local store after shipment.

At that I didn't see much handgun ammo except for 9mm fmj plinking rounds and .357 jhp. I couldn't find any .45 acp or 40 s&w. That's just in 2 hrs after they got their shipment.

Honestly, I had to resort to online vendors to get my preferred loads (on the hotter side)

Having this bill passed will make it that much easier for subsequent ammo bans, for, say JHPs, FMJs or +P loads. They'll also run your fingerprint, have you fill out paperworks, each time you make your purchase and you'll need to pay about $50 on top. Given the hassles of purchasing the ammo, it'll DEFINITELY encourage everybody to HOARD, because if you've money and some brain, you would wanna make as few trip as possible to the ammo vendor! Yes, you can still buy your ammo, but only if you could find one.

On the other hand, I doubt this will stop very many criminal as they can easily scoop up spent brass from any local range (esp. outdoor ones), load it themselves and sell them to the black market. If nothing else, Vegas is only 2 hrs away and who's gonna stop them from bringing the rounds back to CA?

This bill makes no sense, punish law abiding citizens, creates bureaucratic mess, costs a lot and does not reduce crime in any significant way. In short, this is a folly.

Texas Boy
06-04-2009, 12:29 AM
Don't forget that you won't be able to purchase ammunition over the internet - so good deals on bulk ammo will be gone. You can purchase as much as your local authorized and government sanctioned ammunition dealer will let you. Of course, that ammunition will be more expensive to pay for the increased overhead he now has to support, and your name, DL #, and thumb prints will accompany a document to Sacramento every time you exercise your right to purchase ammo. Gee, George seems to purchase a lot of ammo, I wonder if he is reselling illegally? Better get a warrant and raid his place....

Also consider this - while as far as I'm aware, the law only applies to hand gun ammunition (not rifle ammunition or reloading supplies), most vendors will err on the safe side and refuse shipment of any ammunition related items to California. Obtaining powder, projectiles, or rile ammunition over the internet will likely become near impossible.

Swiss
06-04-2009, 12:36 AM
I believe the $50 is the annual fee for the Ammunition Vendor License. HOWEVER, the AVL also requires that you have a business license in your city, which could be hundreds of dollars annually.


They'll also run your fingerprint, have you fill out paperworks, each time you make your purchase and you'll need to pay about $50 on top of the ammo cost. Given the hassles of purchasing the ammo, it'll DEFINITELY encourage everybody to HOARD, because anybody with money and some brain would wanna make as few trip as possible to the ammo vendor!

natasha69
06-04-2009, 12:52 AM
we should have this thread restarted, with a summary at the top, a good title, sticky it, and what we all need to do listed down below so we can start putting the pressure on now to get this bill killed.

Steveo8
06-04-2009, 4:57 AM
This has advanced to the Senate!!!

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 962
AUTHOR(S) : De Leon (Coauthor: Bonnie Lowenthal).
TOPIC : Ammunition.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 06/01/2009


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

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 06/03/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : Read third time, passed, and to Senate.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 05/28/2009
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 12 Noes: 05 PASS

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 11106 and 12316 of, to add
Sections 12317 and 12318 to, to add Article 3.5
(commencing with Section 12060) to Chapter 1 of, to add
a heading for Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section
12316) to, and to repeal the heading of Chapter 2.6
(commencing with Section 12320) of, Title 2 of Part 4
of, the Penal Code, relating to ammunition.

cbn620
06-04-2009, 5:17 AM
Is there any way I can find out who voted for this in the Assembly? I'd greatly like to know if my representative voted for this, as if they did they will receive no future support from me.

navyinrwanda
06-04-2009, 6:40 AM
Is there any way I can find out who voted for this in the Assembly? I'd greatly like to know if my representative voted for this, as if they did they will receive no future support from me.
Sure — right here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_vote_20090603_0614PM_asm_floor.html).

goober
06-04-2009, 7:50 AM
UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: AB 962
AUTHOR: De Leon
TOPIC: Ammunition.
DATE: 06/03/2009
LOCATION: ASM. FLOOR
MOTION: AB 962 DE LEON Assembly Third Reading
(AYES 42. NOES 31.) (PASS)


AYES
****

Ammiano Beall Blumenfield Brownley
Buchanan Charles Calderon Carter Coto
Davis De La Torre De Leon Eng
Evans Feuer Fong Furutani
Hall Hayashi Hernandez Hill
Huffman Jones Krekorian Lieu
Bonnie Lowenthal Ma Mendoza Monning
Nava John A. Perez Portantino Price
Ruskin Salas Saldana Skinner
Solorio Swanson Torlakson Torres
Torrico Bass


NOES
****

Adams Anderson Arambula Bill Berryhill
Tom Berryhill Blakeslee Conway Cook
DeVore Duvall Emmerson Fletcher
Fuller Gaines Garrick Gilmore
Hagman Harkey Huber Jeffries
Knight Logue Miller Nestande
Niello Nielsen Silva Smyth
Audra Strickland Tran Villines


ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************

Block Caballero Chesbro Fuentes
Galgiani V. Manuel Perez Yamada

PatriotnMore
06-04-2009, 8:07 AM
Every district elected Republican voted no http://arc.asm.ca.gov/?p=members
I just sent my Rep a big thank you, and asked him to use whatever influence he may have in getting the Governor to not sign this bill, as I have no confidence in our Senate.

Foulball
06-04-2009, 8:43 AM
Just sent my letter off to Lou Correa (D). Lot of good that will do. Also thanked Assembly Member Duval for keeping up the good work.

Swiss
06-04-2009, 9:03 AM
Here's my laundry list of problems with AB.962. I'll be sending this to ALL Senators with a cover note. I'll also condense it for publication in a local politics blog and as a Letter to the Editor in the local paper.

Feel free to use this as you wish. You may want to turn the questions into statements. If anyone has a line item they'd like to add please speak up.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************

Problems with AB.962:

*Efficacy:*

1. How does this bill prevent the lawful sale of ammunition to a felon’s associates (ex:girlfriend, friends, family members, etc.)? I've seen this happen in person as felons are already prohibited from purchasing or possessing ammunition.
2. If we can’t keep guns out of the hands of felons, how can we expect to succeed with ammunition? Don’t you see that this will immediately create a black market for ammunition? The same channels used to obtain illegal firearms will also traffic in ammunition. Plus, the still relative ease with which ammunition may be purchased could be a lucrative side business for non-felons.
3. How effective - this year - is the Sacramento program upon which this bill is based? As soon as the felons get it figured out they’ll stop making purchases themselves and turn to other methods.
4. Why isn’t there a sunset clause if/when the failure of this law becomes evident?
5. What will stop felons from heading over state lines to purchase ammunition? Nevada and other states will never implement a similar law.
6. If local PD is monitoring local sales, what will happen if a felon makes the purchase in the next city? Is local PD expected to monitor all purchasers at the point of sale? Did anyone ever bother to ask CA police departments how they would implement their task?

*Government Intrusion:*

1. Lawful gun owners are being treated like criminals (submit thumbprint, name, address, phone) in order to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, while the real felons will find plenty of ways to avoid this law and the oversight. This is an invasion of privacy by a process grounded in mistrust. Imagine if we were to require that all protesters submit ID and thumbprints prior to exercising their right to free speech. Or if we required that gas stations collect the same data so that uninsured or unlicensed drivers can't continue driving and injure others.
2. What safeguards are there against government and retailer misuse of the information collected?
3. Why are you not requiring a warrant for police department monitoring? And how is this any different than domestic spying?

*Cost:*

1. What will it cost the local PD to monitor ammunition sales? Continuous monitoring would be required in order to catch felons, but that will place an enormous load on the resources of urban departments. More than likely, the police will not bother checking the purchaser logs once the felons become aware and use other methods to obtain ammunition. That will bring PD costs down but the law is by then an abject failure.
2. The estimated costs to the DOJ began at ridiculously low levels and are now impossibly low. If there are say 5,000 ammuniton vendors in the state, how could a $50 annual fee possibly pay for an entirely new DOJ department? Our state is almost bankrupt yet our legislators are proposing a law that is destined to fail, will cost the state millions, and infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens.

*Practical issues:*

1. Many firearms require specific ammunition. Retail outlets will never carry anything close to the full spectrum offered by internet or mail order sales. What are the owners of those firearms supposed to do? By banning all but face-to-face sales, this law is effectively preventing them from exercising their 2nd Amendment right.
2. Felons/gang members typically don’t practice shooting and require very little ammunition to do their deadly work. Lawful gun owners typically practice frequently and therefore purchase ammunition in bulk. This law strikes at the wrong people and subjects lawful gun owners to price gouging by local vendors. Ammunition retailers are no longer common in our state and the lack of competition will make it easy for a business to inflate prices far beyond those in other states.
3. The 50 round transfer limit is ridiculously low. It's not uncommon to swap several boxes of 100 rounds each with friends for various reasons.
4. If the vendor sells to a person they should "have reasonably known is a prohibited person" they can be fined up to $1000 or spend a year in jail or both. What is this requiring of vendors and what kind of effect do you think that will have on sales?

************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************

TripleT
06-04-2009, 9:17 AM
Nice job Swiss...

I think you covered all the points including a couple I had not thought of.

Thanks for permission to use your list.

PatriotnMore
06-04-2009, 9:20 AM
Well done. Unfortunately, it seems we are dealing with party line politics, as one can see based on the vote in the assembly.

Our representatives are demonstrating a lack of common sense when they support this type of legislation, and a lack of individual concern when it comes to our Constitutional rights. Yes I can see where ammo may be a gray area, but clearly they are more concerned using that, then supporting the rights as implied in the Constitution.

My God, every part of the gun required to operate it, needed to be clearly addressed in the Constitution, to get beyond the constant barrage of legal challenges. If our forefathers ever thought in their wildest dreams that these types of attacks were going to be allowed in our legal system, I am sure they would have been far more careful in the wording they used.

Here's my laundry list of problems with AB.962. I'll be sending this to ALL Senators with a cover note. I'll also condense it for publication in a local politics blog and as a Letter to the Editor in the local paper.

Feel free to use this as you wish. You may want to turn the questions into statements. If anyone has a line item they'd like to add please speak up.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************

Problems with AB.962:

*Efficacy:*

1. How does this bill prevent the lawful sale of ammunition to a felon’s associates (ex:girlfriend, friends, family members, etc.)? I've seen this happen in person as felons are already prohibited from purchasing or possessing ammunition.
2. If we can’t keep guns out of the hands of felons, how can we expect to succeed with ammunition? Don’t you see that this will immediately create a black market for ammunition? The same channels used to obtain illegal firearms will also traffic in ammunition. Plus, the still relative ease with which ammunition may be purchased could be a lucrative side business for non-felons.
3. How effective - this year - is the Sacramento program upon which this bill is based? As soon as the felons get it figured out they’ll stop making purchases themselves and turn to other methods.
4. Why isn’t there a sunset clause if/when the failure of this law becomes evident?
5. What will stop felons from heading over state lines to purchase ammunition? Nevada and other states will never implement a similar law.
6. If local PD is monitoring local sales, what will happen if a felon makes the purchase in the next city? Is local PD expected to monitor all purchasers at the point of sale? Did anyone ever bother to ask CA police departments how they would implement their task?

*Government Intrusion:*

1. Lawful gun owners are being treated like criminals (submit thumbprint, name, address, phone) in order to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, while the real felons will find plenty of ways to avoid this law and the oversight. This is an invasion of privacy by a process grounded in mistrust. Imagine if we were to require that all protesters submit ID and thumbprints prior to exercising their right to free speech. Or if we required that gas stations collect the same data so that uninsured or unlicensed drivers can't continue driving and injure others.
2. What safeguards are there against government and retailer misuse of the information collected?
3. Why are you not requiring a warrant for police department monitoring? And how is this any different than domestic spying?

*Cost:*

1. What will it cost the local PD to monitor ammunition sales? Continuous monitoring would be required in order to catch felons, but that will place an enormous load on the resources of urban departments. More than likely, the police will not bother checking the purchaser logs once the felons become aware and use other methods to obtain ammunition. That will bring PD costs down but the law is by then an abject failure.
2. The estimated costs to the DOJ began at ridiculously low levels and are now impossibly low. If there are say 5,000 ammuniton vendors in the state, how could a $50 annual fee possibly pay for an entirely new DOJ department? Our state is almost bankrupt yet our legislators are proposing a law that is destined to fail, will cost the state millions, and infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens.

*Practical issues:*

1. Many firearms require specific ammunition. Retail outlets will never carry anything close to the full spectrum offered by internet or mail order sales. What are the owners of those firearms supposed to do? By banning all but face-to-face sales, this law is effectively preventing them from exercising their 2nd Amendment right.
2. Felons/gang members typically don’t practice shooting and require very little ammunition to do their deadly work. Lawful gun owners typically practice frequently and therefore purchase ammunition in bulk. This law strikes at the wrong people and subjects lawful gun owners to price gouging by local vendors. Ammunition retailers are no longer common in our state and the lack of competition will make it easy for a business to inflate prices far beyond those in other states.
3. The 50 round transfer limit is ridiculously low. It's not uncommon to swap several boxes of 100 rounds each with friends for various reasons.
4. If the vendor sells to a person they should "have reasonably known is a prohibited person" they can be fined up to $1000 or spend a year in jail or both. What is this requiring of vendors and what kind of effect do you think that will have on sales?

************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************

st.clouds
06-04-2009, 9:31 AM
Nice sumary Swiss! You covered much of the objection around the bill. :thumbsup:

Every district elected Republican voted no http://arc.asm.ca.gov/?p=members
I just sent my Rep a big thank you, and asked him to use whatever influence he may have in getting the Governor to not sign this bill, as I have no confidence in our Senate.

Congratulation to all those who voted for the dems! I sure hope you enjoy having big bro take care of you. :)

st.clouds
06-04-2009, 9:31 AM
Double post - sorry...

Foulball
06-04-2009, 9:33 AM
I used the severe drop off of sales tax revenue if this law goes into effect in my letter.

Gator Monroe
06-04-2009, 9:33 AM
Well done. Unfortunately, it seems we are dealing with party line politics, as one can see based on the vote in the assembly.

Our representatives are demonstrating a lack of common sense when they support this type of legislation, and a lack of individual concern when it comes to our Constitutional rights. Yes I can see where ammo may be a gray area, but clearly they are more concerned using that, then supporting the rights as implied in the Constitution.

My God, every part of the gun required to operate it, needed to be clearly addressed in the Constitution, to get beyond the constant barrage of legal challenges. If our forefathers ever thought in their wildest dreams that these types of attacks were going to be allowed in our legal system, I am sure they would have been far more careful in the wording they used.

Party Line politics of 2A should be in the forefront of 2A posts & threads here at CGN !

demnogis
06-04-2009, 9:47 AM
I'm glad my rep voted against.

This is disgusting. Where do we check who our senate reps are?

Gator Monroe
06-04-2009, 9:51 AM
I'm glad my rep voted against.

This is disgusting. Where do we check who our senate reps are?

The only check you need to do is in a GOP state Reps or State Senator or US congresspersons or US senators box when you vote (This has made it obvious that THE Democrats are the Anti-Party in California ...

curtisfong
06-04-2009, 9:51 AM
Don't forget that you won't be able to purchase ammunition over the internet - so good deals on bulk ammo will be gone.

Are you sure this is true? A reading of the bill would indicate that it prevents sellers *in* the state from selling via mail order. It doesn't say anything about the buyer being prohibited from buying from out of state sellers via mail order. I could be wrong, of course, but i dont want mail order ammunition places outside of CA looking at this AB962 discussion and having yet another (invalid) excuse to not sell to me.

goober
06-04-2009, 9:52 AM
I'm glad my rep voted against.

This is disgusting. Where do we check who our senate reps are?

NRA (http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/) has a good tool for doing this, as well as sending emails

There is also a comparable one on the CGN Homepage (http://www.calguns.net/)

Gator Monroe
06-04-2009, 9:54 AM
Will none of the posters here touch on fact that 99% of the votes for this were by Our state Democrats ?:confused:

soundwave
06-04-2009, 9:56 AM
Will none of the posters here touch on fact that 99% of the votes for this were by Our state Democrats ?:confused:

I think that is common knowledge.

goober
06-04-2009, 9:56 AM
Will none of the posters here touch on fact that 99% of the votes for this were by Our state Democrats ?:confused:

didja miss this one?

Every district elected Republican voted no http://arc.asm.ca.gov/?p=members
I just sent my Rep a big thank you, and asked him to use whatever influence he may have in getting the Governor to not sign this bill, as I have no confidence in our Senate.

Gator Monroe
06-04-2009, 10:09 AM
didja miss this one?

I meant after you , dont quibble , stick with the premise that the Dems in this state are almost completely Anti and posters here have got to realize this (If 2A matters in this state to them ...

highpowermatch
06-04-2009, 10:30 AM
Are you sure this is true? A reading of the bill would indicate that it prevents sellers *in* the state from selling via mail order. It doesn't say anything about the buyer being prohibited from buying from out of state sellers via mail order. I could be wrong, of course, but i dont want mail order ammunition places outside of CA looking at this AB962 discussion and having yet another (invalid) excuse to sell to me.

Even if its not true the sellers in other states will catch wind and not sell out of fear. :TFH:

soundwave
06-04-2009, 10:34 AM
I meant after you , dont quibble , stick with the premise that the Dems in this state are almost completely Anti and posters here have got to realize this (If 2A matters in this state to them ...

OK, now that we have established that the CA Dems are anti-2A, let's keep working on them.

punisheryayarea
06-04-2009, 10:34 AM
This makes me fill like there is no honor left for our American Constitution at all......

punisheryayarea
06-04-2009, 10:36 AM
Everyone should but http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2581524&posted=1#post2581524 in there sig line so everyone on Cal Gun's see it

Librarian
06-04-2009, 10:43 AM
Are you sure this is true? A reading of the bill would indicate that it prevents sellers *in* the state from selling via mail order. It doesn't say anything about the buyer being prohibited from buying from out of state sellers via mail order. I could be wrong, of course, but i dont want mail order ammunition places outside of CA looking at this AB962 discussion and having yet another (invalid) excuse to sell to me.

I believe this part of the bill Section 12318 is
added to the Penal Code, to read:
12318. (a) Commencing July 1, 2010, the sale or other transfer of
ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face
transaction with the seller or transferor being provided bona fide
evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee. A
violation of this section is a misdemeanor. affects internet sales.

goober
06-04-2009, 10:45 AM
I meant after you , dont quibble , stick with the premise that the Dems in this state are almost completely Anti and posters here have got to realize this (If 2A matters in this state to them ...

i wasn't quibbling, i merely answered your question.
agreed, the Democrat legislators in this state are markedly more Anti than the Republicans.
now that we've pointed that out multiple times, let's work on fighting against this and other bills both current and future, that we do not want to become laws.

and BTW the post i quoted in my response to your question was not my own.

motorhead
06-04-2009, 10:57 AM
MORE anti? i think more time needs to be devoted to purging ca of the stain of the democratic party. the current economic c/f should mark the end of many political careers.

natasha69
06-04-2009, 11:00 AM
1- I travel with 1000 rds to Nevada to go shooting. I decide not to. I come back to CA.

2- I drive to NV and buy 1000 rounds.

How can LFE tell the difference between the two? Is number two even illegal based on this bill?

I see this bill having some enforceability problems. Esp since ammo is not illegal doesn't this deal with interstate commerce?

An ammo store in incline village in lake tahoe might be a profitable investment.

One last question. Does the bill prevent reloading?

Gator Monroe
06-04-2009, 11:10 AM
i wasn't quibbling, i merely answered your question.
agreed, the Democrat legislators in this state are markedly more Anti than the Republicans.
now that we've pointed that out multiple times, let's work on fighting against this and other bills both current and future, that we do not want to become laws.

and BTW the post i quoted in my response to your question was not my own.
"More Anti" +1 99% of the votes were dems , were they not ? sheesh "more anti" this has to be addressed at CGN before the midterms .