PDA

View Full Version : List of who voted for AB352 and contact info


Corky43
05-19-2005, 7:20 AM
I was preparing this list (including e-mail addresses)for people at my range and thought it might be of benefit for some of us "It doesn't effect me" people.

Ron Calderone - 58th Assembly District. Cities of Montebello, Pico Rivera, portions of City of Industry, Downey, La Mirada and Whittier. In addition, he also represents the communities of Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, South San Gabriel, South San Jose Hills, Valinda and portions of East Los Angeles.
Assemblymember.Ron.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov

Berg - 1st Assembly District. The district stretches from the Oregon Border south to include Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, and Trinity Counties as well as parts of Sonoma County.
Assemblymember.berg@assembly.ca.gov

Karen Bass - 47th Assembly District. The 47th AD includes the cities of Los Angeles and Culver City, as well as the communities of Ladera Heights, Baldwin Hills, View Park, Cheviot Hills, Westwood-UCLA and Windsor Hills
No e-mail ?

Judy Chu - 49th Assembly District. Includes Alhambra, El Monte, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino and South El Monte.
assemblymember.chu@asm.ca.gov

Ira Ruskin - 21st Assembly District. Now encompasses all or part of 13 cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, including San Carlos, Redwood City, Atherton, Portola Valley, Woodside, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, the Almaden Valley of San Jose, and Stanford University.
Assemblymember.Ruskin@assembly.ca.gov

Tom Ubberg - 69th Assembly District. Orange County, Umberg represents most of the city of
Santa Ana and portions of Anaheim and Garden Grove.
No e-mail?

Johan Klehs - The 18th Assembly District. Includes San Leandro, Hayward, Dublin, most of Castro Valley and Pleasanton, and a portion of Oakland, as well as the unincorporated areas of Ashland, Cherryland and San Lorenzo.
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a18/mailform.htm

Mark Leno - 13th Assembly District, eastern portion of San Francisco
Assemblymember.Leno@assembly.ca.gov

Joe Nation - 13th Assembly District, North Bay, including Marin County and portions of Sonoma County.
Joe.Nation@asm.ca.gov

De La Torre - 50th Assembly District. The district includes the southeast Los Angeles County area cities of Bell, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Commerce, Cudahy, Downey, Lynwood, South Gate, and the unincorporated communities of Florence-Graham and Walnut Park.
Assemblymember.DeLaTorre@assembly.ca.gov

Mark Ridley-Thomas - 48th Assembly, Los Angeles, Westmont
Assemblymember.ridley-thomas@assembly.ca.gov

Lori Saldana - 76th Assembly District, San Diego
No e-mail address

Leland Yee - 12th Assembly District, which includes San Francisco and the cities of Broadmoor, Colma, and Daly City in San Mateo County
Assemblymember.yee@assembly.ca.gov

jnojr
05-19-2005, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Corky:
Lori Saldana - 76th Assembly District, San Diego
No e-mail address

assemblymember.saldana@assembly.ca.gov

No guarantee that it reaches her, but it doesn't bounce.

schizrade
05-19-2005, 11:51 AM
Sent one out to Leno. The angle to work is $$$ people. This is a huge waste of $$$ and they know it. Everybody I talk to I inform them of the lack of results and the money thrown at these laws.

Stress the $$$ and our broke state!!!

05-19-2005, 8:34 PM
Originally posted by Schizrade:
Sent one out to Leno. The angle to work is $$$ people. This is a huge waste of $$$ and they know it. Everybody I talk to I inform them of the lack of results and the money thrown at these laws.

Stress the $$$ and our broke state!!!

From the Devil's handiwork known as AB352:



FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis:

1)Negligible special fund costs, in the range of $15,000, to DOJ to certify labs and adopt regulations. <span class="ev_code_red"> Costs would be covered by existing revenue from the Dealers Record of Sale Account.</span>

2)Unknown, likely minor, non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs for increased county jail commitments for misdemeanor possession or sale of unsafe handguns, the category of which would expand pursuant to this bill.



I agree with the "angle" (don't get me wrong here), but it doesn't fly with the powers that be. The fact is, as always, the gun-haters just intend to pass the costs down onto us peasant folks.

The better "angle", IMO, is the honest approach that this has nothing to do with public safety/crime reduction and everything to do with limiting our already limited rights and forcing added expenses onto manufacturers, etc. [/preaching to the choir]

schizrade
05-20-2005, 10:54 AM
Yes but you know that it will cost more than they propose. Way more.

Let non-gun people see what they spend on this. They get pissed when they figure out such a useless program continues to get funding while they destroy education even further. Even $15000 can make a difference. That is a techers assistant salary or a new set of books.

jnojr
05-20-2005, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Basura Blanca:
The better "angle", IMO, is the honest approach that this has nothing to do with public safety/crime reduction and everything to do with limiting our already limited rights and forcing added expenses onto manufacturers, etc.

The antis know that. I would say that they don't care, but that's not true... that's what they want.

We need to give them arguments that will give them pause... a money issue that will further burden the states budget is one. Showing how these useless databases will actually hurt law enforcement is another.

stodgman
05-20-2005, 11:52 AM
I am not sure I get the idea here. There are 13 Assembly members listed. I can only assume that these must be the 13 who sit on the Assembly Appropriations Committee who voted over a month ago to pass this bill to the entire Assembly (13-5 vote).

It it the wisest strategy to focus on those who have already voted for this stupid bill? Since this bill is on the floor it might make more sense to send messages to our own Assemby person. Am I missing something here?

05-21-2005, 5:27 PM
Originally posted by Schizrade:
Yes but you know that it will cost more than they propose. Way more.

Perhaps.
Is there any data to back it up though? Seriously (that's not a rhetorical question). If there were a good cite to an incident where a previous gun law grossly exceeded it's original expected cost, than it would be a great way to really drive that point home.

What I meant was, don't forget the other "angles" too. Believe it or not, the fence-sitters (a.k.a. "non-gun people") will listen to reason.
I pointed out the ridiculous taxation scheme proposed under one of the recent "ammo tax bills" to someone who was beyond merely in the fence-sitter league (read: anti-gun), and even they were appalled at the dishonesty behind the premise of the proposed measure.

You'd be surprised (IMO) sometimes what will awaken even those who are not exactly "friendly" to our cause.

05-21-2005, 5:31 PM
Originally posted by jnojr:
The antis know that. I would say that they don't care, but that's not true... that's what they want.

We need to give them arguments that will give them pause... a money issue that will further burden the states budget is one. Showing how these useless databases will actually hurt law enforcement is another.

True. The antis, the one's with unwavering faith in the dogma that they create are a lost cause and know it, however, the general population (the NASCAR dads and the soccer moms) haven't a clue. BUT, this doesn't mean that they don't care. They're only ignorant of the reality.

Interesting point on mucking up the LE databases with information not useful to crime prevention, etc.