PDA

View Full Version : AMMO BILL- AB962-IS IN SUSPENSE FILE!


tomcat11
07-23-2009, 6:50 PM
:43: With no comment from finance?

JBird33
07-23-2009, 6:53 PM
:43: With no comment from finance?

I heard like 1 comment from that guy across 15 bills or so. Doesn't sound like he is very useful to me.

tomcat11
07-23-2009, 6:58 PM
I heard like 1 comment from that guy across 15 bills or so. Doesn't sound like he is very useful to me.


They are almost all in denial. He must be another patsy.

KylaGWolf
07-23-2009, 7:40 PM
Yeah he said no comment but the same department the guy worked for said to say against this bill which leads me to think party line is involved. And they just shelved it not killed it so the fight is still on.

bwiese
07-23-2009, 7:53 PM
The fight is still on because the dead can end up walking but This Is Good News.

Your calls & emails and faxes are working!!!

PLEASE KEEP CALLING AND EMAILING AND FAXING.

http://www.calnra.com

KylaGWolf
07-23-2009, 8:18 PM
Bill yeah I have said this is a damn zombie legislation. And I agree turn up the heat on the calls and faxes!

bulgron
07-23-2009, 8:23 PM
Assuming we can kill it for this year, how can we keep it from coming back next year? Last year De Leon re-introduced it in defiance of all the rules.

BOFH
07-23-2009, 8:28 PM
Assuming we can kill it for this year, how can we keep it from coming back next year? Last year De Leon re-introduced it in defiance of all the rules.

Thats the real issue right there...how many times can De Leon re-introduce this in violation of the rules before someone calls him on it? Why have rules if they are not followed...and that is especially true when it comes from someone that helps create new rules.

Librarian
07-23-2009, 8:49 PM
Assuming we can kill it for this year, how can we keep it from coming back next year? Last year De Leon re-introduced it in defiance of all the rules.


362 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_362&sess=0708&house=B&author=de_leon) was at the beginning of 07 (first year of 07-08 session)
2062 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2062&sess=0708&house=B&author=de_leon) was introduced in 08.

Senate rules. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/rules/senate_rules.html)

Assembly rules (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/rules/assembly_rules.html)

He did introduce it twice, once in 07, once in 08 - that's supposed to be a rules violation, but I can't find exactly which rule.

Introducing the same bill in different sessions - 07-08, then 09-10 - is OK (if stupid).

Ah - here it is: 54(c) of the Joint Rules (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/rules/joint_rules.html): (c) A member may not author a bill during a session that would have
substantially the same effect as a bill he or she previously introduced during
that session.

This restriction does not apply in cases where the previously
introduced bill was vetoed by the Governor or its provisions were "chaptered
out" by a later chaptered bill pursuant to Section 9605 of the Government Code.


An objection based on this restriction may be raised only while the bill is
being considered by the house in which it is introduced. The objection shall be
referred to the Committee on Rules of the house for a determination. The bill
shall remain on the Daily File or with a committee, as the case may be, until a
determination is made. If, upon consideration of the objection, the Committee
on Rules determines that the bill objected to would have substantially the same
effect as another bill previously introduced during the session by the author,
the bill objected to shall be stricken from the Daily File or returned to the
desk by the committee, as the case may be, and may not be acted upon during the
remainder of the session.

If the Committee on Rules determines that the bill
objected to would not have substantially the same effect as a bill previously
introduced during the session by the author, the bill may thereafter be acted
upon by the committee or the house, as the case may be. The Committee on Rules
may obtain assistance as it may desire from the Legislative Counsel as to the
similarity of a bill or amendments to a prior bill.


This joint rule may be suspended by approval of the Committee on
Rules and three-fourths vote of the membership of the house.


ETA Just looked again at the 2007 and 2008 bills. Now, I would say each had "substantially the same effect", but it's done in slightly different ways, changing different parts of PC. A fig leaf for Kevin. Sleazy. But, apparently, superficially different enough.

badhabit90
07-23-2009, 9:47 PM
oh jeez and they expect us to abide by laws and rules.........??? we do, but when we break them, we get punished, when they break them, they dont wanna talk about it now, just put it on a shelf for later....

tiko
07-23-2009, 9:55 PM
Who can vote him out? What district?

M198
07-23-2009, 11:24 PM
Maybe it's due to the fact that the first bill was introduced to apply to ALL ammo. The subsequent bill only applied restrictions to handgun ammunition?

motorhead
07-24-2009, 12:04 AM
don't be surprised when it rises to walk amongst the living after 8/17. notice de leon waived argument but argued his other bill. that, in itself stinks. all the voting seeemed to be along party lines.

1BigPea
07-24-2009, 9:14 AM
We still need to keep fighting this...

soundwave
07-24-2009, 9:51 AM
We still need to keep fighting this...

+1 Kick em when their down.

1BigPea
07-24-2009, 9:56 AM
Don't stop the calls, faxes, letters, etc stop just because it's in suspense that could look bad. If we all keep up the strong push all the more reason to keep it there and let it die, we are probably getting on there nerves a bit! I hope.

peepshowal
07-24-2009, 11:04 AM
Who can vote him out? What district?

45th Assembly District:

Angelino Heights, Atwater Village, Chinatown, Cypress Park, City Terrace, Echo Park, El Sereno, Elysian Valley, Glassell Park, Highland Park, Historic Filipinotown, Hollywood, Ramona Gardens, Silverlake, Temple-Beverly & Thai Town

tube_ee
07-24-2009, 1:56 PM
An objection based on this restriction may be raised only while the bill is being considered by the house in which it is introduced.

A smart parliamentarian could easily construe this to mean that the objection cannot be raised in committee, but only on the floor.

--Shannon

H Paul Payne
07-24-2009, 1:58 PM
Thats the real issue right there...how many times can De Leon re-introduce this in violation of the rules before someone calls him on it? Why have rules if they are not followed...and that is especially true when it comes from someone that helps create new rules.

NO!!! The REAL ISSUE is that they would love us to keep worrying about "the rules" instead of opposing their legislative schemes!

Once again, I will state this small, but important, fact about the California State Legislature: "THERE ARE NO RULES, EXCEPT FOR WHATEVER THE PEOPLE IN CONTROL SAY!"

"Both sides" cut deals and use "rule waivers" to do whatever they want, when it is convenient to do so. Our power and effectiveness comes from maintaining our focus on the legislation, not necessarily the legislative process.

Please continue to CONSTANTLY keep-up-the-pressure!

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab962&year=2009 and http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=sb585&year=2009 for now.

Thank you,

Paul

junker87
07-24-2009, 5:00 PM
Assuming we can kill it for this year, how can we keep it from coming back next year? Last year De Leon re-introduced it in defiance of all the rules.

Don't elect Democrats?:43:

Librarian
07-24-2009, 5:04 PM
BTW, Paul - if you or Ed or any of the California NRA contingent had any influence on recent NRAILA email about 962,
THANK YOU!

The subject lines have begun to include the bill number, and the number of duplicate postings of those emails has dropped significantly.

gewgaw
07-24-2009, 5:42 PM
Isn't it sad that the BEST we can look forward to in CA is for a restriction to NOT get passed?

:(

But still, I am grateful. Great work everyone, let's keep it up.

obeygiant
07-24-2009, 8:06 PM
BTW, Paul - if you or Ed or any of the California NRA contingent had any influence on recent NRAILA email about 962,
THANK YOU!

The subject lines have begun to include the bill number, and the number of duplicate postings of those emails has dropped significantly.

I'd 2nd that one as well. Thank you!

bulgron
07-24-2009, 8:30 PM
Isn't it sad that the BEST we can look forward to in CA is for a restriction to NOT get passed?

:(

But still, I am grateful. Great work everyone, let's keep it up.

Well, we did try to get shall issue CCW this year. It never came out of committee, but at least the legislation was introduced.

And then there's the lawsuits slowly grinding through the courts. I'm looking forward to those.

But, seriously, until the California Republican party can find it's own *** with BOTH hands, the lunatic anti-gun Dems have no reason NOT to harass California gun owners.

ontmark
07-25-2009, 7:43 AM
We need to donate money at election times to those who stand hard against any Firearm Bills. I have donated to Senators that are from other then my district. We need to help keep them in office and appreciated. See Below!

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

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

motorhead
07-25-2009, 8:34 AM
with all the budget publicity we have what amounts to the best chance in decades to rid ca of the stain of the democratic party. you could feel the hate as they tried to slip arnold new taxes and fees. we may not have this opportunity again for a long time. we need to finish them off.

mk19
07-25-2009, 9:06 AM
Good news for now, We need to get the FIRE THE LEGISLATION Proposition going so there wont be any De Leons left to bring up these kinds of silly time wasting item back.

Jerkdog
07-25-2009, 12:35 PM
\

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

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

Denham was the only one who responded to my emails on AB962...

ontmark
07-29-2009, 8:06 PM
Dear _______________________:

Thank you for your correspondence expressing opposition to Assembly Bill 962 (DeLeon), which would require, beginning July 1, 2010, that any person who sells or transfers more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month to register as a handgun ammunition vendor.

As introduced, I will most certainly oppose this bill because I believe it creates another layer of burdensome regulations on both businesses and gun owners. Like other gun control regulations, this bill only burdens law abiding gun owners, not criminals, who will continue to purchase guns and ammunition through non-legal means. In fact, a similar program was tried and abandoned in the 1960’s after it was found to have no impact on crime rates.

While the Democrats in the Capitol continue to resist tougher sentencing law that would effectively keep violent felons off the street, they push for stricter gun laws that would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. I believe this is the wrong approach and will continue to fight for right for law abiding citizens to own guns.

AB 962 passed the Assembly floor 42-31 and is now awaiting a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Commitee. Please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind if this bill comes before me in the Senate. You may monitor the progress of this bill at www.sen.ca.gov/runner.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding legislative issues of concern to you. It is an honor to serve you in the California State Senate.

Sincerely,

GEORGE C. RUNNER, JR.
Senator, 17th District


P.S. If you’d to like to receive my newsletter, Runner’s Week in Review, please join my email list at www.sen.ca.gov/runner.

motorhead
07-30-2009, 8:11 AM
i suspect some kind of sneak attack after their summer vacation. it's not dead yet!