PDA

View Full Version : Smart guns bill pulled!


elenius
04-23-2009, 9:24 AM
Just got this update from the NRA. Another anti-gun bill pulled! (The high cap mag registration bill was also pulled). What's going on here?


Author Pulls “Smart Guns” Bill from Committee Schedule
Please Continue Checking Your Email and www.NRAILA.org for Updates

Senate Bill 697 was scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, April 28 in the Senate Public Safety Committee. Yesterday, SB697 was pulled from the committee schedule at the request of the sponsor, State Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-7).

SB697 would prohibit the sale of handguns other than "owner-authorized (or ‘smart’) handguns" -- that is, handguns with a permanent, programmable biometric feature that renders the firearm useless unless activated by the authorized user. No proven, viable handgun of this type has ever been developed. The bill would require the California Attorney General to report to the Governor and Legislature on the availability of owner-authorized handguns; once the Attorney General finds that these guns are available, only “owner-authorized” handguns could be approved for sale in California.

While this development is a solid step towards defeating SB697, the bill still poses a threat. Please continue checking your email and www.NRAILA.org for updates.

SwissFluCase
04-23-2009, 9:27 AM
Wow! This is good news.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

1BigPea
04-23-2009, 9:29 AM
Great news, was happy to see that NRA Alert just now in my email.

Untamed1972
04-23-2009, 9:33 AM
Just got this update from the NRA. Another anti-gun bill pulled! (The high cap mag registration bill was also pulled). What's going on here?

You mean they're starting to realize that it's stupid to make laws requiring the sale of use of things that don't exist yet?

Hey...I know how to cut polution and dependence on foreign oil....just pass a law requiring everyone to travel by means of a Star Trek transporter beam! Oh yeah....that doesn't exist either. Silly me!

Law makers need to remember that the purpose of laws was to provide for an orderly society and means to deal with the disorderly in an orderly and hopefully fair manner. The purpose of laws was never meant to be social engineering.

I think it's time to make the legislature a part time job. We have enough laws, we don't need anymore, and these people are just sitting around and thinking crap up to justify their existence. Cutting their jobs down to 4 months a year with cutting their pay by 2/3 would save the state alotta money!

elenius
04-23-2009, 9:35 AM
You mean they're starting to realize that it's stupid to make laws requiring the sale of use of things that don't exist yet?


I wouldn't give them that much credit. They could just be regrouping, strategizing, waiting for the best time to sneak this through, whatever...

socal2310
04-23-2009, 9:40 AM
I agree with Frank Herbert's improvement upon Lord Acton's axiom of: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; great men are almost always bad men."

Herbert said that it was not the power that corrupted, but the love and desire for power that corrupted. The solution: give power only to those disinclined to accept it, and under circumstances that make them reluctant to exercise it (perhaps liability for the consequences of the exercise of that power).

Ryan

SwissFluCase
04-23-2009, 9:40 AM
I think it's time to make the legislature a part time job. We have enough laws, we don't need anymore, and these people are just sitting around and thinking crap up to justify their existence. Cutting their jobs down to 4 months a year with cutting their pay by 2/3 would save the state alotta money!

At this point I'm willing to give them a raise and pay them NOT to show up to work. Still cost effective.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Untamed1972
04-23-2009, 9:42 AM
At this point I'm willing to give them a raise and pay them NOT to show up to work. Still cost effective.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

That would work too! :thumbsup:

b.faust
04-23-2009, 9:59 AM
Maybe enough pro 2a people called, faxed and mailed them and they got the message.

Most anti-gun people I know are great on the cafe or bar soap box, but when it comes to supporting something that's not currently 'hip' or isn't a flash mob or group excuse to skip work and storm around San Francisco they're not really proactive.

I know I sent a faxes and made calls politely expressing my unhappiness with these bills, and how I would prefer they spent this money elsewhere.

....
Hey I guy can dream that's what happened right?
:)

B.

fairfaxjim
04-23-2009, 10:22 AM
I think this has more to do with political timing than any "seeing of the light". Ellen Tauscher has accepted the post of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the LaBamba administration. Mark DeSaulnier seems to think that he is heir apparent to her vacant seat, and probably doesn't want this in the forefront at this time. Also if he is no longer in the CA Senate, then this leaves this issue open for someone else to hang on his/her liberal resume.

BTF/PTM
04-23-2009, 11:17 AM
Anyone else think that a bill promoting future products is supported by a potential manufacturer of said future product much the same way the microstamped ammunition bill was set up?

It actually sounds really absurd to me to envision the argument for this bill in court. "Your Honor, we'd like to ban something that doesn't exist...yes, that's right, Sir, it's something we feel may be invented in the near future."