PDA

View Full Version : Another AB962 Bill thread with a twist.


badreligion
10-10-2009, 10:21 AM
I have been calling, writing, faxing and E-mailing Arnolds office as well as my state and federal reps about this bill hoping that it will be Vetoed. If it doesn't I was thinking about modifing a few of the Flyers that are circulating here on CalGuns and sending them to every Dealer, Distributor and Manufacture of Ammunition to encourage them to pull a Barrett on the State , the Counties, Cities and Towns in California.

Basically if the Government won't support the freedoms of its Citizens then they don't have to support the State. Don't get me wrong I don't want any harm or wish ill will on the CHP,Sheriffs or Police of this state but I think that if they don't have ammo for themselves then they might stop supporting the government that doesn't support the people.

What does everyone think? Yeah I know that some departments have huge ammunition accounts but I doubt they spend as much as we do.

JagerTroop
10-10-2009, 10:34 AM
Well, your idea is good, but the point is moot. Don't you know that if AB962 passes, criminals won't be able to buy ammo, rendering all of their illegal guns useless? Therefore we will not need police, as there will be no crime to protect us from :D:rolleyes:

jamesob
10-10-2009, 10:35 AM
I have been calling, writing, faxing and E-mailing Arnolds office as well as my state and federal reps about this bill hoping that it will be Vetoed. If it doesn't I was thinking about modifing a few of the Flyers that are circulating here on CalGuns and sending them to every Dealer, Distributor and Manufacture of Ammunition to encourage them to pull a Barrett on the State , the Counties, Cities and Towns in California.

Basically if the Government won't support the freedoms of its Citizens then they don't have to support the State. Don't get me wrong I don't want any harm or wish ill will on the CHP,Sheriffs or Police of this state but I think that if they don't have ammo for themselves then they might stop supporting the government that doesn't support the people.

What does everyone think? Yeah I know that some departments have huge ammunition accounts but I doubt they spend as much as we do.
if passed it should only be fair that police dept's. be under the same law. ammo mfg's. should limit every person, dept., agency within california to 50 rounds a month.

djm315
10-10-2009, 12:00 PM
i agree all should be held the the law ,but i do believe the 50 round language has been removed from the bill

Brianguy
10-10-2009, 12:08 PM
Well, your idea is good, but the point is moot. Don't you know that if AB962 passes, criminals won't be able to buy ammo, rendering all of their illegal guns useless? Therefore we will not need police, as there will be no crime to protect us from :D:rolleyes:

In unrelated news, driveby stabbings have increased 1000%!

wildhawker
10-10-2009, 12:13 PM
Please don't use our flyers for anything other than their intended purpose; if it should come to pass that AB962 becomes law there are a few channels to appropriately work on it. Let's not do anything rash.

Swatter911
10-10-2009, 1:11 PM
Some CLEOs (Baca, Bratton, etc.) did support AB962, many others did not. I wouldn't go lumping all LEAs as somehow complicit in supporting this bill.

RideIcon
10-10-2009, 2:17 PM
Some CLEOs (Baca, Bratton, etc.) did support AB962, many others did not. I wouldn't go lumping all LEAs as somehow complicit in supporting this bill.

he wasn't lumping LEO's into anything...

hes trying to use the manufactures of ammos leverage as the state still needs their goods to their advantage by limiting LEO's ammo consumption as well which should put a pinch on the state, back where it should be...

CnCFunFactory
10-10-2009, 2:42 PM
In unrelated news, driveby stabbings have increased 1000%!

... at UCLA they have anyway.:(

advocatusdiaboli
10-10-2009, 3:11 PM
hes trying to use the manufactures of ammos leverage as the state still needs their goods to their advantage by limiting LEO's ammo consumption as well which should put a pinch on the state, back where it should be...

I get that, but that a pretty oblique strategy. LEO's have broad exemptions and challenging I think would be awfully hard because our military has exemptions as well--so they are excepted practice. Heck, a sworn officer can but an H&K P30 (the successor to the USP and 2000) and it is illegal for me to own one of those since its not on the approved list and therefore dangerous. H&K passed on submitting and appears to not want to bother ever.

IANAL, so I am using common sense here, but I don't think a challenge in that direction would be worth reallocating resources deployed at weaker points in the anti-gun enemy's battle lines. Maybe some of the more sage members can shed a little light on it.

djbooya
10-10-2009, 3:49 PM
if passed it should only be fair that police dept's. be under the same law. ammo mfg's. should limit every person, dept., agency within california to 50 rounds a month.

I thought the 50 rounds per month was just if you were buying from a non-ammo licensed private party? So in theory, if the police depts are under the same law, it would just restrict how much they could buy from non-licensed ammo dealers, correct? So if they purchased all of their ammo from a licensed ammo dealer then the 50 rounds / month isn't an issue at all for them would it be?

Librarian
10-10-2009, 4:06 PM
I thought the 50 rounds per month was just if you were buying from a non-ammo licensed private party? So in theory, if the police depts are under the same law, it would just restrict how much they could buy from non-licensed ammo dealers, correct? So if they purchased all of their ammo from a licensed ammo dealer then the 50 rounds / month isn't an issue at all for them would it be?

All the 50-rounds-per-month stuff was amended out of the bill September 4.

USAFTS
10-10-2009, 5:12 PM
All the 50-rounds-per-month stuff was amended out of the bill September 4.

Yes, the "50 round" language was removed, leaving "Fingerprinting" and "Face-to-face". I would not be surprised if even the face-to-face were removed in order to get the fingerprinting passed. This is and always has been about knowing who has the guns and ammo.

socal2310
10-10-2009, 5:42 PM
= ...it is illegal for me to own one of those since its not on the approved list and therefore dangerous. H&K passed on submitting and appears to not want to bother ever.

Not exactly. It is NOT illegal to OWN a handgun that isn't on the roster. You simply cannot import one (or cause one to be imported) unless you are a LEO. However, there is nothing in the PC that would prohibit a LEO from purchasing such a weapon and then doing a PPT to you. Department policy on the other hand...

Don't worry. The roster has equal protection lawsuit written all over it.

Ryan