PDA

View Full Version : Referendum AB962?


Werewolf1021
10-26-2009, 7:47 PM
Just got this letter from my senator.

Dear Gun Owner,
The Legislature should punish lawbreakers who use guns illegally, not punish law-abiding citizens who use them legally and responsibly.

This year, the Governor signed a measure, SB 175, to eliminate some red tape legal firearms owners go through to have their guns repaired. He also vetoed SB 41 which would have only created more bureaucratic red tape for legal gun purchases.

Unfortunately, the Governor did sign a measure, AB 962, which bans internet sales of ammunition and creates additional hurdles for legal gun owners to purchase ammunition.

While I strongly opposed this measure, it won majority approval of the Legislature. Consequently, it is unlikely the Legislature would appeal this law. However, the state Constitution gives voters the right to reject any law passed by the Legislature through the referendum process. If you feel strongly about stopping this law from taking effect, you may wish to consider this option.

I have consistently opposed legislation that restricts the right to own a firearm or limits an individual’s ability to protect themselves or their family, and I will continue to do so. Please continue to count on me to vote in favor of legislation that protects your 2nd Amendment rights and to oppose any measure that would threaten your Constitutional right to bear arms.


Sincerely,

Senator Dave Cogdill

What is the referendum process? Never heard of it before. Would it be a viable option or a waste of time since we already have planned legal action?

Seesm
10-26-2009, 7:57 PM
Anything that MAY help is a godo thing yes no maybe?

bwiese
10-26-2009, 8:09 PM
CA referendum on gun law details = BAD IDEA.

ke6guj
10-26-2009, 8:15 PM
IIRC, the referendum process is that you submit the entire bill to the voters to see if they want to void the law. Same process as any other referendum. The trick is that you have to print the entire bill that they passed on the signature sheets, including all the code that didn't change. So, what happened when they tried to do a SB23 overturn is that they had to print tons of PC, and only had room for like one or two sigs on the page.

bodger
10-26-2009, 8:52 PM
So I can see why it's a bad idea. A referundum that requires a majority vote to repeal AB962?

Not going to happen in this state.

Better luck with the interstate commerce angle. Of course, the way courts move, who knows how long that will take before we see the results.

Cokebottle
10-26-2009, 8:56 PM
So I can see why it's a bad idea. A referundum that requires a majority vote to repeal AB962?

Not going to happen in this state.
Oh, it might (especially if you can get it into an off-year election), but if the majority upholds it, it will make it much more difficult for our PACs to get another bill negating it pushed through Sacramento.

It's a bit risky.

gregorylucas
10-26-2009, 9:30 PM
It seems to me that the majority of voters in California don't make very good decision's at the ballot box. I doubt very seriously they would vote to repeal AB962 and the courts have the final say in any case.

-Greg

HondaMasterTech
10-26-2009, 9:49 PM
I would probably let the 2nd amendment win in a court of law, not at the hands of the public. ( that sounds wrong, don't it? )

locosway
10-26-2009, 9:51 PM
It depends how this is proposed to the people. Selling the idea is everything, no matter how the PC reads. There are a lot of conservative areas in CA that could get signatures to overturn such a law. The problem is the time involved.

jdberger
10-26-2009, 9:54 PM
Referendum (ae?) are seriously expensive - especially for this next election.

Read "paid signature gatherers".

Roadrunner
10-26-2009, 10:46 PM
The problem is Urbania. Too many people in California buy into the hogwash that politicians have given them, and too many are just too damn lazy to actually do research to see if what those Sacramento liars tell them is true. If a referendum was put out there, you would have to have a huge education campaign about guns before that, and that would be impractical unless every NRA trainer and gun enthusiast was willing to put aside some time to educate the ignorant about guns and gun safety and offer the training for F R E E.

Doug L
10-27-2009, 9:14 AM
What is the referendum process?

We would circulate petitions to collect signatures. After we get the minimum number, then the issue would be put on the next available ballot as a Proposition to be voted on.

Just got this letter from my [state] senator.

"...the state Constitution gives voters the right to reject any law passed by the Legislature through the referendum process..."

Sincerely,

Senator Dave Cogdill

...Would it be a viable option or a waste of time since we already have planned legal action?

Since there is already legal action in process, it's probably too early to start the signature gathering.
If the legal avenue fails, then we would have to pursue this option.

7x57
10-27-2009, 9:55 AM
When this came up in Joel Friedman's presence, he said that Wayne LaPierre once asked him about running a referendum in California. Joel told him that the tribes had spent something like a million dollars to get casino gaming on the ballot, and asked Wayne if he was ready to put up a million dollars for a ballot initiative that might very very easily lose.

Since we haven't had such a thing, apparently the answer was no. :D

For all the reasons already discussed on the thread, national NRA just could not justify the cost considering the chances and considering the risks involved. On the risks, think about this: if we ran an initiative and lost, what would be the effect in Sacramento? Every single time an anti-gun bill came up in committee, the point would be argued over and over again that the voters had rejected the pro-gun lobby. The results would be used to support every anti-gun bill California gun-banners can devise (whether even vaguely relevant or not). For that we'd pay a million dollars that could instead go toward legal fees, lobbying Sacramento, and other activities with higher payoff and less risk?

For that matter, with that money we could probably offer free handgun training to every woman in every women's shelter in California for a good long time.

7x57

Doug L
10-27-2009, 10:10 AM
When this came up in Joel Friedman's presence...

You describe what we should not do.

In my humble opinion, it's more productive to focus on what we should do.

So, what should we do???

7x57
10-27-2009, 10:51 AM
You describe what we should not do.


To be precise, I discussed ballot initiatives as the OP requested.


In my humble opinion, it's more productive to focus on what we should do.


In my humble opinion it would be more polite to actually address the OP's question instead of using his thread to discuss a different topic.


So, what should we do???

See many, many other good threads in this forum. It's half the discussion here.

7x57

Scotty
10-27-2009, 12:13 PM
If someone does decide to go this route, it should be written like the gay marriage law where half the people voted yes thinking they were supporting gay marriage when in fact they were voting against it.

tiki
10-27-2009, 12:55 PM
What is the referendum process? Never heard of it before. Would it be a viable option or a waste of time since we already have planned legal action?

Sounds like the Prop 8 fight. You know, the one where a court decided that a segment of the population should enjoy the same rights as the rest of the population without interference from the state or the church? Then, a large church from out of state bankrolled a publicity campaign to sway the opinions of the population into voting those rights away, despite what the court said.

I'm not gay, but the whole prop8 thing pisses me off because the courts decided that people should have equal rights and the voters decided not, and it was all bankrolled by the Mormon church. So, now you want to hand the decision on your firearms rights to the same group of people to decide? Yeah, I can see the tv ads now. No thanks. I'll take my chances with the courts.

locosway
10-27-2009, 1:04 PM
Sounds like the Prop 8 fight. You know, the one where a court decided that a segment of the population should enjoy the same rights as the rest of the population without interference from the state or the church? Then, a large church from out of state bankrolled a publicity campaign to sway the opinions of the population into voting those rights away, despite what the court said.

I'm not gay, but the whole prop8 thing pisses me off because the courts decided that people should have equal rights and the voters decided not, and it was all bankrolled by the Mormon church. So, now you want to hand the decision on your firearms rights to the same group of people to decide? Yeah, I can see the tv ads now. No thanks. I'll take my chances with the courts.

Marriage, to me, is a religious event. I do see some need for accepting a marriage at the state or federal level, but they should accept any two people who like to marry. A person is a person, and their religious views or personal views should not affect their rights.

Back the the OP. Like I said, if one were to "sell" this right, it could go over well. Everything in life is about how it's proposed. With the right pitch, anything is possible... Just look at the White House.

KylaGWolf
10-28-2009, 10:57 AM
Sounds like the Prop 8 fight. You know, the one where a court decided that a segment of the population should enjoy the same rights as the rest of the population without interference from the state or the church? Then, a large church from out of state bankrolled a publicity campaign to sway the opinions of the population into voting those rights away, despite what the court said.

I'm not gay, but the whole prop8 thing pisses me off because the courts decided that people should have equal rights and the voters decided not, and it was all bankrolled by the Mormon church. So, now you want to hand the decision on your firearms rights to the same group of people to decide? Yeah, I can see the tv ads now. No thanks. I'll take my chances with the courts.

Prop 8 was a bit more than JUST the mormon church. But that is beside the point. I have to agree a referendum would be a really bad idea. I think that is part of why it was suggested the legislator knows that if it came down to the voters voting for it the anti gun would have massive ads to damage any good that would come out of the referendum and we would lose and badly and it would give the anti gun all the power in making even more bad laws for this state.

dantodd
10-28-2009, 11:08 AM
Sounds like the Prop 8 fight. You know, the one where a court decided that a segment of the population should enjoy the same rights as the rest of the population without interference from the state or the church? Then, a large church from out of state bankrolled a publicity campaign to sway the opinions of the population into voting those rights away, despite what the court said.

I'm not gay, but the whole prop8 thing pisses me off because the courts decided that people should have equal rights and the voters decided not, and it was all bankrolled by the Mormon church. So, now you want to hand the decision on your firearms rights to the same group of people to decide? Yeah, I can see the tv ads now. No thanks. I'll take my chances with the courts.

The courts cannot "overrule the constitution" you and I may or may not like the laws as they stand but to want the courts to simply decide they don't like a law is a VERY VERY BAD place to be. Since Prop. 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution the California courts were in a complete box. However; if the federal legislature decides to take up the issue their laws would have supremacy. Prop 8 is also likely challengable as is under the 14th amendment, but that would be a federal suit and not a state suit. I have not been following he prop 8 issue and don't know if such a challenge is in the works or if they are taking a different approach, strategically waiting for an opportune time like CGF et. al. are with Open Carry.