View Full Version : 996 was vetoed

10-07-2005, 9:20 PM
So, Ahnold vetoed one of the many anti-gun bills. Eventually he signed other 2 bills (not pro-gun), which really didn't seem that meaningful. He did veto the most important one though. Thats good to hear.

10-07-2005, 9:33 PM
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 996 without my signature.
This bill is unnecessary because there has been no documentation of a problem with the theft of ammunition from retail establishments. In addition, I have just signed SB 48 by Senator Scott into law which will ensure those underage will no longer be purchasing ammunition.
Requiring retail ammunition sellers to store any handgun ammunition offered for sale in a
manner inaccessible to the purchaser would impose more regulation in California without a corresponding benefit to public safety. It is not clear how requiring store employees to
obtain and hand customers ammunition instead of letting customers choose their own ammunition will curb crimes committed with firearms.
For these reasons I am unable to sign this bill.
Arnold Schwarzenegger

10-07-2005, 11:03 PM
Yea he vetoed some and signed some. Looks
about even to me..I don't know >

10-07-2005, 11:51 PM
According to nramembercouncils he signed SB 269 which is a little good. (I couldn't find this info on the gov or leg sites, buty they might be slow and nra has it as 9/07, prolly a typo of 10/07)
This adds an exemption to the unsafe handgun law, single shots with " barrel and 10 1/2" overall are going to be OK.
Unfortunately, the better provisions were amended out. It was originally only 3" barrel and also would have allowed all finishes and other cosmetic differnces to fit under the same model.

10-08-2005, 9:14 AM
Great that 996 was vetoed. 269 would have been great if it kept the cosmetic changes clause... oh well.

10-09-2005, 2:11 AM
I've read the description of SB48 three times, which Ahnold signed though the NRA opposed it, and I still can't grasp what the hell it does... can anyone explain this?

Description: Existing law makes it an offense for any person, corporation, or dealer to sell ammunition or reloaded ammunition to a person, knowing that person to be under 18 years of age, or to sell ammunition or reloaded ammunition designed and intended for use in a handgun to a person, knowing that person to be under 21 years of age. Existing law also establishes an affirmative defense to the offense if, among other things, the seller relied upon bona fide evidence of majority and identity, as defined.

This bill would remove the element of "knowing the person to be under the age" of 18 or 21 years of age, as applicable, from the definition of the offense. The bill would require reasonable reliance upon bona fide evidence of majority and identity, as defined, in order for the affirmative defense to apply.

The bill would allow ammunition vendors to sell ammunition or reloaded ammunition that can be used in both a rifle and a handgun to persons at least 18 years of age but less than 21 years of age if the vendor reasonably believes the ammunition is being acquired for use in a rifle and not a handgun.

10-09-2005, 10:51 AM
Hmmm it looks at bit tricky at first. It says it removes the "knowing the person to be under the age" which in other words means that they would have to prove they are over the age of 18 for rifle ammo or 21 for handgun ammo in order to buy ammo. It would seem difficult to establish if some "knew" that person was 18 if they used a fake id. Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but isn't this bill actually defining the law better? The last paragraph in your description tells it all. It would allow vendors to sell.. you know.

Old Fud
10-09-2005, 10:40 PM
Just reading what Esskay quoted, I would say the original law said the dealer was a bad guy if he sold ammunition to an underage person only if he KNEW the buyer was underage. Ignorance protected him from violating the law.

The change was to put the shoe on the other foot. Now it's illegal to sell to an underage person -- PERIOD. It has become the obligation of the seller to KNOW the buyer is OVER the age limit.

I'm not a lawyer.
My mother was a school teacher. She hammered me pretty hard on being able to read the English language and knowing what a sentence said. Bless America's School teachers, huh?


Old Fud
10-10-2005, 6:29 AM
Was 996 Vetoed???

KeepAndBearArms.com posted this Last night (the 9th) for today's usual coverage:


" NRA-ILA, Friday October 07,2005
Please Continue to Contact California Governor Schwarzenegger in Opposition of AB 996!

Friday, October 07, 2005

Assembly Bill 996, authored by Assemblymember Ridley-Thomas (D - Los Angeles), is now on the Governor’s desk. AB 996 would require all retailers to display and sell ammunition in a manner that is only accessible by an employee, not the purchaser. Any violation of this measure would result in a misdemeanor.

Please contact Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office and ask him to oppose this onerous legislation further restricting your rights!

The Governor has until October 9 to sign or veto this legislation, so your immediate action is needed! "

Are we wrong, or didn't NRA get the memo?