PDA

View Full Version : CALNRA: AB 357 (CCW) Hearing Tuesday, Jan 12


mikehaas
01-05-2010, 2:28 PM
NRA Members' Councils of California
http://calnra.com/skin/mclogoclr2.gif (http://calnra.com)
CALNRA: AB 357 (CCW) Hearing Tuesday, Jan 12
01/05/2010 2:30 PM - PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

AB 357 (CONCEALED FIREARMS LICENSE) (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=ab357) (Knight) will will be heard in Assembly Public Safety on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010. Please contact the members of the Assembly Public Safety committee and urge support for the bill.

ONE-CLICK links and other contact tools as well as the bill abstract is available here:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=ab357

For the latest info on this and other California legislative issues, please visit:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml

bwiese
01-05-2010, 2:31 PM
The drill begins!

xounlistedxox
01-05-2010, 2:37 PM
Are we allowed to contact them in more than one method? I've sent an email. Can we call them etc...?

bigcalidave
01-05-2010, 2:44 PM
Public Safety Committee already? Awesome!

yellowfin
01-05-2010, 2:46 PM
Is it too much to not expect a sham hearing like last time, where it doesn't matter what our side says if the sheriff's union is there and the committee goes with their BS like we're not even there?

kf6tac
01-05-2010, 2:47 PM
Are we allowed to contact them in more than one method? I've sent an email. Can we call them etc...?

As far as I know, you can spam them through however many methods you please.

jdberger
01-05-2010, 3:02 PM
OK - we've done the drill for bills we wanted squashed - let's see how proactive we can be.

freedomtools
01-05-2010, 3:16 PM
FYI from http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=57 your California State Assembly
Committee on Public Safety

Tom Ammiano - Chair

Dem-13 (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Curt Hagman - Vice Chair

Rep-60 (916) 319-2060 Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Juan Arambula

Ind-31 (916) 319-2031 Assemblymember.Arambula@assembly.ca.gov

Warren T. Furutani

Dem-55 (916) 319-2055 Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov

Danny D. Gilmore

Rep-30 (916) 319-2030 Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Jerry Hill

Dem-19 (916) 319-2019 Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Fiona Ma

Dem-12 (916) 319-2012 Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov

Window_Seat
01-05-2010, 3:34 PM
Who's going? I'm going if conditions permit (possibly on crutches), and I'll be off work. Would it be overkill if one went while on crutches? How to dress is imperative to discuss here, eg. suit/tie, or dress slacks & collar shirt? Presentation strategies as well should be discussed as well, no? I'll be putting mine together.

Erik.

ddestruel
01-05-2010, 4:06 PM
suit and tie, or at least collard shirt & tie with clean jeans or slacks. mock turtlenecks can fly too.

Purple K
01-05-2010, 4:29 PM
Is the public allowed to speak at the hearing?

grammaton76
01-05-2010, 5:02 PM
I just sent in a one-click, stressing my desire for the removal of one avenue of police corruption.

Some useful talking points:

1. The present system encourages police corruption and can mask racially motivated issuance policies.
2. The present system discriminates against those without money and fame.
3. This will save the state money by pre-empting lawsuits against CCW issuance policies.

I would personally suggest against the following points:
1. It's our second amendment right!
2. God told me I should carry my gun!
3. We're gonna open carry until you pass this bill!

user01394
01-05-2010, 6:01 PM
If this passes on the 12th would it basically make CA a shall issue state?

If so and it does pass would the requirement be state wide or still have county restrictions?

KaTooM
01-05-2010, 6:16 PM
One-click done! I have also donated to the Calguns foundation, the NRA, and the Republican committee.

Ted Nugent for Governor!

Window_Seat
01-05-2010, 7:56 PM
If this passes on the 12th would it basically make CA a shall issue state?

If so and it does pass would the requirement be state wide or still have county restrictions?

It has several different phases to go through until actual law. First the PS Committee, then the Assembly floor, then whatever Senate Committee, then the full Senate, then the Governor's desk, then signage. If he doesn't sign, then it goes back, or is dead. We'll be lucky if it gets out of the Assembly PS committee. Otherwise, it's not as simple as it would be if we had more pro-2A lawmakers, and even then, it would be far from simple. From all I have read, we haven't got much in the way of a prayer until we have a Sykes victory, but we have to keep going at it with all the motivation we have to put forth.

Here is a better explanation of the Legislative Process (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html).

Erik.

xounlistedxox
01-05-2010, 8:19 PM
Yeah it's a tough road ahead, but that means we need to continue support for the cause and get as many people on board as possible. I know as soon as I pay off my credit card debt I plan on donating to the calguns foundation and also plan on supporting the cause by making calls, sending emails, sending snail mail etc. If we don't continue like this then they will continue to take away our rights as Americans until we have no rights at all. There are a lot more anti gunners in the ranks than pro gunners it seems and has always seemed.

AVgunGUY
01-05-2010, 9:35 PM
e-mails sent to everyone...

user01394
01-05-2010, 9:36 PM
It has several different phases to go through until actual law. First the PS Committee, then the Assembly floor, then whatever Senate Committee, then the full Senate, then the Governor's desk, then signage. If he doesn't sign, then it goes back, or is dead. We'll be lucky if it gets out of the Assembly PS committee. Otherwise, it's not as simple as it would be if we had more pro-2A lawmakers, and even then, it would be far from simple. From all I have read, we haven't got much in the way of a prayer until we have a Sykes victory, but we have to keep going at it with all the motivation we have to put forth.

Here is a better explanation of the Legislative Process (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html).

Erik.


Dude that's brutal, we need to get a different gov in place before if/when it gets there. Thank you for the good information.

ricochet
01-05-2010, 9:47 PM
Did the 1 click and used the "contact me" on the 2 people for my district (Assembly Member Jim Beall, Jr. & Senator Elaine Alquist).

Requiem
01-05-2010, 9:49 PM
Emails sent!

obeygiant
01-05-2010, 9:55 PM
Got the word out to the following forums:


XD-Talk (http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/political-view/140492-calnra-ab-357-ccw-hearing-tuesday-jan-12-a.html)
ARFCOM (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=391857)
Beltfedshooters (http://www.beltfedshooters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6650)
OCDO (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/36209.html)
Saiga-12 (http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showtopic=48889)
Pirate4x4 (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=851532)

xounlistedxox
01-05-2010, 10:50 PM
I hope those other forums are based out of CA. I've found from personal experience that people on other forums outside of CA don't really care about CA's gun rights problems and actually in a sense blame us for allowing the laws to get this out of control. For this reason alone calguns is the only forum I put time and effort into. I asked all other forums to cancel my membership. Fellow calgunners/Californians know the amount of garbage that we have to go through and truly care about that situation, so I am here for the duration.

obeygiant
01-05-2010, 11:08 PM
I hope those other forums are based out of CA. I've found from personal experience that people on other forums outside of CA don't really care about CA's gun rights problems and actually in a sense blame us for allowing the laws to get this out of control. For this reason alone calguns is the only forum I put time and effort into. I asked all other forums to cancel my membership. Fellow calgunners/Californians know the amount of garbage that we have to go through and truly care about that situation, so I am here for the duration.

I disagree as my experience has been much more on the positive side. There is quite a bit of anti-california sentiment out there but what they do understand is the potential of the saying:

"as California goes so does the rest of the nation"

and that does give them pause. When Mike Haas put up the Repeal AB962 (http://www.calnra.com/petition/) online petition I posted that to the same forums as well and the response was
"how can we help?" or " can we sign the petition if we live out of state?". I even had several people contact me about where they could donate money to, to help the RKBA fight in California. Whether they hate us or love us they are definitely watching and are concerned with the direction our state is going.

bballwizard05
01-05-2010, 11:24 PM
emails sent

ugimports
01-05-2010, 11:34 PM
Does anyone have any links to Pro CCW stats? I want to include them as informational links in my message and encourage others to also.

Also, does anyone know of any sights that keep track of Pro CCW outcome stories? E.g. something like in American Rifleman where they have the section about how gun owners saved a life or rape victim because a CCW licensee was present?

jdberger
01-05-2010, 11:42 PM
I hope those other forums are based out of CA. I've found from personal experience that people on other forums outside of CA don't really care about CA's gun rights problems and actually in a sense blame us for allowing the laws to get this out of control. For this reason alone calguns is the only forum I put time and effort into. I asked all other forums to cancel my membership. Fellow calgunners/Californians know the amount of garbage that we have to go through and truly care about that situation, so I am here for the duration.

I'm gonna disagree, too.

I've found lots of support on the other forums. By crossposting, we also get quite a few non-Californians visiting this forum.

ugimports
01-05-2010, 11:51 PM
http://www.carryconcealed.net/news

This link is pretty good if you want to include some information in your email.

tango-52
01-06-2010, 6:27 AM
It has several different phases to go through until actual law. First the PS Committee, then the Assembly floor, then whatever Senate Committee, then the full Senate, then the Governor's desk, then signage. If he doesn't sign, then it goes back, or is dead. We'll be lucky if it gets out of the Assembly PS committee. Otherwise, it's not as simple as it would be if we had more pro-2A lawmakers, and even then, it would be far from simple. From all I have read, we haven't got much in the way of a prayer until we have a Sykes victory, but we have to keep going at it with all the motivation we have to put forth.

Here is a better explanation of the Legislative Process (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html).

Erik.

One correction: If the Governor does not sign it, it also becomes law. The only thing that requires the Governor's signature is a veto.

Dangerpin
01-06-2010, 10:34 AM
Emails sent this morning.

vladbutsky
01-06-2010, 11:04 AM
The official assembly site shows following list:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=57

Tom Ammiano - Chair Dem-13 (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov
Curt Hagman - Vice Chair Rep-60 (916) 319-2060 Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov
Warren T. Furutani Dem-55 (916) 319-2055 Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov
Danny D. Gilmore Rep-30 (916) 319-2030 Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov
Jerry Hill Dem-19 (916) 319-2019 Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov
Fiona Ma Dem-12 (916) 319-2012 Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov
Nancy Skinner Dem-14 (916) 319-2014 Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

... but NRA email lists slightly different list:
Jose Solorio (D-69) - Chair (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov
Curt Hagman (R-60) - Vice Chair (916) 319-2060 Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov
Warren T. Furutani (D-55) (916) 319-2055 Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov
Danny D. Gilmore (R-30) (916) 319-2030 Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov
Jerry Hill (D-19) (916) 319-2019 Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov
Fiona Ma (D-12) (916) 319-2012 Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov
Nancy Skinner (D-14) (916) 319-2014 Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Which list is correct?

tac
01-06-2010, 11:06 AM
Going to fire out an email as well.

hotwls13
01-06-2010, 12:18 PM
Got this in a reply today:

"Thank you for contacting my office to express your support for AB357 which would give Californian’s a license to carry a concealed firearm without having to establish “good cause.” This law would extend the license availability to the majority of California’s law abiding citizens.

I support this bill and strongly support our Constitutional right to bear arms. As a Vice-Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, I was the only Assemblyman to support this legislation when it was presented to us last year. As AB 357 is reconsidered this session, I will urge my colleagues to send this bill to the floor so that California’s citizens can exercise their right to protect themselves and their families.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

Assemblyman Curt Hagman
District 60"

xxdabroxx
01-06-2010, 1:01 PM
i got it too. seems like almost an auto response.

hotwls13
01-06-2010, 1:16 PM
i got it too. seems like almost an auto response.

Yeah, but better than the other auto-responses I got. ;)

copperhead
01-06-2010, 2:27 PM
I'm all over it.

capo689
01-06-2010, 3:33 PM
I got a bunch or BS from most of the people I emailed, stuff about how they were concerned but would have to get back to me. Then I got this:

Thank you for contacting my office to express your support for AB357 which would give Californian’s a license to carry a concealed firearm without having to establish “good cause.” This law would extend the license availability to the majority of California’s law abiding citizens.

I support this bill and strongly support our Constitutional right to bear arms. As a Vice-Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, I was the only Assemblyman to support this legislation when it was presented to us last year. As AB 357 is reconsidered this session, I will urge my colleagues to send this bill to the floor so that California’s citizens can exercise their right to protect themselves and their families.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

Assemblyman Curt Hagman
District 60

capo689
01-06-2010, 3:34 PM
sorry repost... didn't see page 4 of comments... of well.. YAY Hagman!

speeedracerr
01-06-2010, 4:17 PM
Hi Fellow Calguns.net Members,

Look what I received today after emailing all those CA Assemblymembers to support AB357:

"Thank you for contacting my office to express your support for AB357 which would give Californian’s a license to carry a concealed firearm without having to establish “good cause.” This law would extend the license availability to the majority of California’s law abiding citizens.



I support this bill and strongly support our Constitutional right to bear arms. As a Vice-Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, I was the only Assemblyman to support this legislation when it was presented to us last year. As AB 357 is reconsidered this session, I will urge my colleagues to send this bill to the floor so that California’s citizens can exercise their right to protect themselves and their families.



Thank you for giving me this opportunity to serve you.



Sincerely,



Assemblyman Curt Hagman
District 60"

2nd and 3rd and.... YAY!!! For Assembly Hagman!

speeedracerr
01-06-2010, 4:26 PM
Looks like we all received the same email! LOL... Anyway, regardless its just good to know we have someone in the State Capitol listening to us and on our side. :punk:

Window_Seat
01-06-2010, 5:16 PM
One correction: If the Governor does not sign it, it also becomes law. The only thing that requires the Governor's signature is a veto.

Thanks for the correction, it's good to have the right info. Anyone who is able to attend should do so if it's possible. We need to "flood" the committee hearing room if it's possible.

(Edited to add) I am driving up there from Newark, and I have a temp DP placard (ankle injury, and possible crutches). Premium parking if available.

Erik.

coop44
01-06-2010, 5:46 PM
Who's going? I'm going if conditions permit (possibly on crutches), and I'll be off work. Would it be overkill if one went while on crutches? How to dress is imperative to discuss here, eg. suit/tie, or dress slacks & collar shirt? Presentation strategies as well should be discussed as well, no? I'll be putting mine together.

Erik.

count me in too. I'll be coming from elk grove. Will there be a place we can meet to enter as a group? though I do not wish to present (foul mouthed old vet) I would like to hear what others have in mind.

Of course I will wear a suit,
actually have my hair cut, and willing to put my old stockbroker personna forward.:eek:

CCWFacts
01-06-2010, 9:22 PM
I will certainly write letters to every member of the committee, as I did last year.

But does this actually have any chance of getting out of committee?

PDN
01-06-2010, 9:59 PM
I can offer carpool options for up to 5 more.
From Placerville, racing down Hwy 50, right smack into the greatest disgrace of a Government in Modern History, the California Legislature.

caoboy
01-07-2010, 1:08 AM
I'm wishing for some good luck! We are going to need it with 5 dems on the committee.

Biscuitbreath
01-07-2010, 8:15 AM
I've emailed all members of the committee...verbage below (for use by others, if desired), acquired from another poster with permission.

Dear Assemblymember Ammiano,

My name is Robert Ryder, and I am a life-long resident of Stockton, California. My wife, daughter, sister-in-law, and myself are registered nurses (health professionals) who are like-minded with regard to AB357.

I am writing to encourage you to support AB357 titled “An act to amend Section 12050 of the Penal Code, relating to firearms.” This bill would remove the unnecessary, unfair and subjective requirement of showing “good cause” when applying for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

The current requirement of showing “good cause” is unnecessary because the law already provides that the applicant must be “of good moral character” and “is not prohibited from possessing firearms”. Both of these criteria allow the chief law enforcement officer to investigate the applicant and screen out those individuals who cannot be trusted to use their freedom responsibly. The requirement of showing “good cause” does nothing to reduce crime or increase public safety. Out of 48 states that allow concealed carry, 37 do not have such unnecessary restrictions. These “Shall Issue” states have some of the lowest crime rates in the country. According to the FBI, Right to Carry states had 24% less violent crime in 2007 than other states. AB357 would eliminate this unnecessary requirement and allow law enforcement to focus resources on keeping communities safe.

Furthermore, the requirement is unfair because it places the burden of proof upon law-abiding citizens to show that they have a special need to exercise a fundamental right of self-defense, which has been recognized for centuries. Despite the fact that the California Constitution acknowledges the rights of defense of life, protection of property, and pursuit of safety in its Section I, many officials do not consider such self-defense sufficient as “good cause”. This means that people who may live in high-crime areas are unfairly deprived of the right to defend themselves away from their homes unless they have been personally attacked or threatened, in which case it is often too late. Yet statistics show that many attacks can be prevented when victims are armed. The US Justice Department found that 34% of felons were scared away by armed victims and another 40% avoided attacking altogether because they feared that the victim might be armed. AB357 would promote public safety by ensuring that the right of self-defense was equally available to all law-abiding citizens.

Finally, the subjective nature of the current law disadvantages those who reside in counties or cities where the chief law enforcement officer has unusually restrictive views about what constitutes “good cause”. This places law enforcement in an unfortunate, adversarial relationship with those who are generally their strongest supporters. Furthermore, many crimes are prevented by holders of concealed carry licenses, often without a shot being fired, which greatly reduces the burden on law enforcement. AB357 would benefit both law enforcement and law-abiding citizens by removing the subjective, time-consuming process of reviewing “good cause statements” and restoring a co-operative relationship among those who are natural allies.

Historically, anti-concealed carry laws were enacted because everyone was presumed to have the right to carry weapons openly and only criminals were thought to have a need to conceal guns. However, we no longer live in the Wild West and many now realize the advantage of having a population where the criminals do not know who is armed. John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime has definitively shown that crime rates go down dramatically when “Shall Issue” laws are passed. Please join Assemblyman Steve Knight in supporting AB357 and making California a “Shall Issue” state.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Robert Ryder
xxx xxxxxxxxxxx Dr.
Stockton, Ca 95207
209-xxx-xxxx
xxxxxxxxx@comcast.net

BerkeleyGunOwner
01-07-2010, 10:46 AM
count me in too. I'll be coming from elk grove. Will there be a place we can meet to enter as a group? though I do not wish to present (foul mouthed old vet) I would like to hear what others have in mind.

Of course I will wear a suit,
actually have my hair cut, and willing to put my old stockbroker personna forward.:eek:


Hey -


I plan to go as well...I'll be coming from emeryville and can pick up 3 in the East Bay/on the way from East Bay to Sacramento.


PM me if you want to join in the carpool...I promise to clean my car!


- jenny

JagerTroop
01-07-2010, 12:05 PM
emails sent

keneva
01-07-2010, 3:24 PM
Does anyone have the address and time for this meeting?

Requiem
01-07-2010, 3:40 PM
glad to hear one is definitely for it:

Thank you for contacting my office to express your support for AB357 which would give Californian’s a license to carry a concealed firearm without having to establish “good cause.” This law would extend the license availability to the majority of California’s law abiding citizens.



I support this bill and strongly support our Constitutional right to bear arms. As a Vice-Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, I was the only Assemblyman to support this legislation when it was presented to us last year. As AB 357 is reconsidered this session, I will urge my colleagues to send this bill to the floor so that California’s citizens can exercise their right to protect themselves and their families.



Thank you for giving me this opportunity to serve you.



Sincerely,



Assemblyman Curt Hagman
District 60

CCWFacts
01-07-2010, 6:44 PM
Here is all the contact information:

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0013
Tel: (916) 319-2013
Fax: (916) 319-2113

Curt Hagman
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2060, 916-319-2160 fax
(Curt is a strong supporter; send him a "thank you" letter)

Warren T. Furutani
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0055
(916) 319-2055
(916) 319-2155 Fax

Danny D. Gilmore
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2030
916-319-2130 fax

Jerry Hill
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
Tel: (916) 319-2019
Fax: (916) 319-2119

Nancy Skinner
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
Tel: (916) 319-2014
Fax: (916) 319-2114

KylaGWolf
01-07-2010, 7:25 PM
Will call tomorrow.

Bearclaw
01-08-2010, 10:28 AM
Just e-mailed all the committee members for this bill!

Peaceful John
01-08-2010, 10:38 AM
Like Bearclaw, I emailed all of 'em.

Racefiend
01-08-2010, 1:32 PM
Nice letter. However, I would advise you, and anyone else, that if you include data in your correspondence, that you include a link to it's source. These guys are pretty busy and are not going to go digging around for some data you provided them. Provide the link so it is more likely they will check out the stats/study/etc to see for themselves. The are not going to take your word for the validity of your data. And this does not include links to NRA or other pro gun sources.

I've emailed all members of the committee...verbage below (for use by others, if desired), acquired from another poster with permission.

Dear Assemblymember Ammiano,

....

Out of 48 states that allow concealed carry, 37 do not have such unnecessary restrictions. These “Shall Issue” states have some of the lowest crime rates in the country. According to the FBI, Right to Carry states had 24% less violent crime in 2007 than other states. AB357 would eliminate this unnecessary requirement and allow law enforcement to focus resources on keeping communities safe.

...

The US Justice Department found that 34% of felons were scared away by armed victims and another 40% avoided attacking altogether because they feared that the victim might be armed. AB357 would promote public safety by ensuring that the right of self-defense was equally available to all law-abiding citizens.

....

Historically, anti-concealed carry laws were enacted because everyone was presumed to have the right to carry weapons openly and only criminals were thought to have a need to conceal guns. However, we no longer live in the Wild West and many now realize the advantage of having a population where the criminals do not know who is armed. John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime has definitively shown that crime rates go down dramatically when “Shall Issue” laws are passed. Please join Assemblyman Steve Knight in supporting AB357 and making California a “Shall Issue” state.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Robert Ryder
xxx xxxxxxxxxxx Dr.
Stockton, Ca 95207
209-xxx-xxxx
xxxxxxxxx@comcast.net

Midtown Gunner
01-08-2010, 4:12 PM
Nice letter sent to each of them.

IrishPirate
01-08-2010, 4:25 PM
just emailed them all.......hope it helps

bigcalidave
01-09-2010, 2:35 AM
All day monday, all day monday, call these people !!! Just like the push with 962, let's get on the phones!!!

Window_Seat
01-09-2010, 3:17 PM
It's 3 days away, and we should know what time the meeting will be held. If noone knows, let's find out first thing Monday AM by calling the Assembly Public Safety number: (916) 319-3744

If that doesn't work;
Steve Knight: (661) 267-7636

Erik.

Librarian
01-09-2010, 3:29 PM
It's 3 days away, and we should know what time the meeting will be held. If noone knows, let's find out first thing Monday AM by calling the Assembly Public Safety number: (916) 319-3744

If that doesn't work;
Steve Knight: (661) 267-7636

Erik.

The committee meets at a standard time and place: 9 am, room 126 in the Capitol.

From the Assembly Daily File (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/whatsnew/dailyfile_list.asp)

Ammiano. Bay Area Rapid Transit District: Office of Citizen Complaints.
Swanson. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.

REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS
BILLS HEARD IN SIGN–IN ORDER
Furutani. Sex offenders: monitoring and housing.
Portantino. Sexual assault crimes.
Torres. Sex offenders: restrictions.
Ammiano. Death penalty.
Salas. Criminal procedure: veterans.
Nava. Crimes.
Audra Strickland. Vehicles: private parking facilities.
Solorio. Prisoners: prison education programs.
Block. Reentry.
Hill. Controlled Substances.
Lieu. Code enforcement officers.

FOR VOTE ONLY
Knight. Firearms: license to carry concealed firearm.
Miller. Driving under the influence (DUI): refusal to submit to chemical tests.
Niello. Gifts for voting.
Anderson. Vehicles: driving under the influence (DUI): undocumented drivers.
Yee. Sentencing.
(Stupid copy/paste collected all the bill numbers at the top, and I don't feel like pasting them all in)

bigcalidave
01-09-2010, 4:25 PM
Crap, that miller bill ab 614 that they are voting on as well, that one will impose mandatory jail time for refusing a search (chemical test at dui stop).... Ugh. There is NO innocent before proven guilty with these guys!

Tell them to vote NO on AB 614...

hollabillz
01-09-2010, 7:17 PM
Tried

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

------Original Message------
From: Me
To: Curt Hagman
Subject: AB357
Sent: Apr 23, 2009 1:26 PM

Thanks for your support on AB357. :)


That was right after the last vote... He's definitely on our (the peoples) side on this issue. I recall the other republican abstaining from voting. :( Good luck to liberty :o

BadIndianSwamp
01-09-2010, 7:24 PM
Dear trusted Assembly Members,

Please support our right to defend ourselves and our children against the predatory criminals of our society.

If people were able to carry self defense weapons:

1) Columbine does not happen the way that it did, and most of the students would be alive today. Far fewer destroyed families. BECAUSE someone would have been able to defend that classroom!!

2) Virginia Tech does not happen the way that it did, and most of the students would be alive today. Far fewer destroyed families. BECAUSE someone would have been able to defend that classroom!!

3) Ft Hood does not happen the way that it did, and those soldiers would ALL be alive today. This was a gun free zone and law abiding citizens (US soldiers) were not able to defend themselves.


The second amendment of the Unites States constitution does not give us the right to defend ourselves. We are born with the right to defend ourselves. The second amendment very clearly assures us that the United States government will never interfere with that right.

Please support AB357.

Sincerely,
BadIndianSwamp(insert real name)
(insert real address), CA

player1
01-09-2010, 7:38 PM
Dear Assemblymen and members of the Public Safety Committee,

With the current economic situation forcing many police departments across the state to lay off hundreds of police officers, it has become apparent that the time has come for lawful citizens to obtain the ability to obtain a Carry Concealed Permit as a "shall-issue", so that all of us law-abiding citizens may protect our families and communities from criminals that take advantage of the "may-issue" clause in the Carry Concealed Weapons law currently in California to further perpetrate harm toward innocent families and children. So thus, I respectfully ask of all of you to please put aside your particular emotions regarding the issue of gun control, and to please pass AB357 so that a deterrent to crime still remains in place, especially in a time of economic upheaval such as currently taking place. Sincerly, player1.


-If anyone wants to copy this letter and send it in, please feel free to pass it around and send the letter. I'll be happy to help towards passing of AB 357.

yellowfin
01-09-2010, 10:49 PM
I'd say keep it more to the point and say either you pass it or you're costing the state millions in legal fees and we get it anyway.

ricochet
01-09-2010, 10:57 PM
Here's what I came up with ...

Contrary to what "gun-paranoid" people would say, this will not turn our streets into the wild west. The bad guys do not have the ability to successfully apply for this permit but the responsible, law-abiding citizen can.

A qualified, responsible and legal gun owner will now have the ability to defend him or her self if the need should arise. Anyone securing this permit is well aware of the responsibilities and consequences that go with it (existing laws and common sense)

The reality is that bad guys don't need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Unfortunately this is true, but there is a saying:
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away ...

Please support this common sense legislation.

Thank you for using your valuable time to read this.

dando
01-10-2010, 4:31 PM
The one click links don't seem to work for me...

I use google for all my email needs. Anyone else have this problem?

I finally just gave up and found the email addresses and did it all manually, but I think this should be looked into. Someone else may try it and just give up Without finding another way to send it off.

bigcalidave
01-10-2010, 5:10 PM
It works fine for me, through gmail. Setup your browser so that gmail is your email service.

Window_Seat
01-11-2010, 11:40 AM
I'm still going, and will be there at 0900 (if I don't oversleep)...:cool::cool:

Erik.

oepirate
01-11-2010, 11:58 AM
I was planning to go also, but was wondering if there is a group plan to go or shall we all get there on our own at 9:00am?

keneva
01-11-2010, 1:07 PM
AB 357 hearing is at 9:00 A.M.
1200 "N" Street, Rm 126
Sacramento, CA.

I called the Public Saftey Committee @ 916-319-3744 to get the above info. The lady told me that there are 15 other bills in front of it and that there would not be any public comment on AB 357 that this meeting is just for the vote. She said that she didn't know what time this would go to the vote. I'm still going. They need to see our support.

Noel
01-12-2010, 9:37 AM
I was going to go to this but have one hell of a cold… Will one of you ducks update us when ya get back… Thank sniff sniff :sweatdrop:

n2k
01-12-2010, 9:49 AM
Audio Link (http://192.234.214.75/ASM-126)

AB 357 hearing is at 9:00 A.M.
1200 "N" Street, Rm 126
Sacramento, CA.

I called the Public Saftey Committee @ 916-319-3744 to get the above info. The lady told me that there are 15 other bills in front of it and that there would not be any public comment on AB 357 that this meeting is just for the vote. She said that she didn't know what time this would go to the vote. I'm still going. They need to see our support.

Window_Seat
01-12-2010, 10:05 AM
This pot bill is going to likely be a slam dunk, and I'm for it, but I wish that this Legislature would understand that a number of us passionate about this cause also support many other things that the Legislature is for. At any rate, I can't go either, sick, have to be on crutches today, surgery Thursday, etc. I'm listening though.:mad:

Erik.

Window_Seat
01-12-2010, 10:13 AM
Looks like I'm wrong about the pot bill being a slam dunk...:eek: The pot bill is "out". I counted 4 yeah, and 3 nays, but I might have counted wrong.

Erik.

jdberger
01-12-2010, 10:45 AM
Listening to audio....

bruss01
01-12-2010, 11:23 AM
Nice letter. However, I would advise you, and anyone else, that if you include data in your correspondence, that you include a link to it's source. These guys are pretty busy and are not going to go digging around for some data you provided them. Provide the link so it is more likely they will check out the stats/study/etc to see for themselves. The are not going to take your word for the validity of your data. And this does not include links to NRA or other pro gun sources.

Hardee-har-har.

Some staff member is going to read just enough of the letter to figure out if you are pro or con, and whether the e-mail is generated by a spam-bot (if they get 300 copies of essentially identical e-mails they assume spam). Then they put a hash mark in a tally they are compiling. The assemblyman only ever sees the tally. So go ahead if it satisfies your creative urges, but don't be thinking the assembly member will actually ever see your e-mail... they won't.

Jmac0585
01-12-2010, 11:45 AM
Looks like I'm wrong about the pot bill being a slam dunk...:eek: The pot bill is "out". I counted 4 yeah, and 3 nays, but I might have counted wrong.

Erik.

Marijuana = good
Guns = bad

How this goes may push me to run for the assembly. Really.

n2k
01-12-2010, 11:51 AM
Looks like six more to go....

shooting4life
01-12-2010, 12:14 PM
I hate waiting

jdberger
01-12-2010, 12:15 PM
Recessed til 2:30

1BigPea
01-12-2010, 12:34 PM
Recessed til 2:30

Man, I can't hear this at work.

Thanks for the update.

tiki
01-12-2010, 2:13 PM
Marijuana = good
Guns = bad


I wasn't able to listen, still at work. Did AB390 get passed to the next committee?

tmncali
01-12-2010, 2:19 PM
coming to order, scoot closer to the mic.

SoCalshooter68
01-12-2010, 2:21 PM
Read the pot bill passed and is on to the next step, but don't know about AB357

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/assembly-committee-oks-bill-to-legalize-marijuana.html

jdberger
01-12-2010, 2:27 PM
And we're back in 3...2...1...

http://www.pdxpicnic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/sausage.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/LIFPOD/6064648.jpg

Santa Cruz Armory
01-12-2010, 2:28 PM
I'm hopeful, but realistic. The political hacks that currently run this state are no friends to the 2nd. We have a loooong road filled with litigation ahead of us.

xxdabroxx
01-12-2010, 2:35 PM
Anyone have working audio?

jdberger
01-12-2010, 2:37 PM
Audio just came in.

Lone_Gunman
01-12-2010, 2:38 PM
yup. I got it just now. They're on AB 1244. IDK where our bill is in this line up

Lone_Gunman
01-12-2010, 2:42 PM
I'm hopeful, but realistic. The political hacks that currently run this state are no friends to the 2nd. We have a loooong road filled with litigation ahead of us.

I would be surprised as all hell if this bill goes anywhere. I feel like we will have to force all our wins in court. I have no faith in the clown in Sac.

tiki
01-12-2010, 2:45 PM
They're on AB 1244.

Yawn

tmncali
01-12-2010, 2:49 PM
vietnam experience? Not a war?

4thSeal
01-12-2010, 2:54 PM
how does a person in radiology deal with PTSD and AIDS? :/

Lone_Gunman
01-12-2010, 2:57 PM
how does a person in radiology deal with PTSD and AIDS? :/

Maybe he has both? :o

tiki
01-12-2010, 2:58 PM
For those listening, who is the little Star Wars sounding character I keep hearing?

obeygiant
01-12-2010, 3:00 PM
They are now on:
A.B. No. 505 Furutani. Sex offenders: monitoring and housing.

tmncali
01-12-2010, 3:00 PM
AB 505, now

obeygiant
01-12-2010, 3:06 PM
they just said that they need to be out of the room by 4pm so they need to keep the speeches short as their are other items that need to be heard.

tmncali
01-12-2010, 3:07 PM
AB 505:
If they are going to be a problem, why release them?

jdberger
01-12-2010, 3:08 PM
It aggravates me to no end to hear "disrespect" used as a verb.

4thSeal
01-12-2010, 3:10 PM
*** kiss ... taking the couragous step to close this loophole ... lol

the_donald_
01-12-2010, 3:10 PM
They stated there's a 16:00 cut-off for their time in the room & have asked all to be brief in their statements. Hopefully this doesn't impair their ability to hear AB357.

Side note, they are no longer airing it on TV, where this morning's session was on local access.

tiki
01-12-2010, 3:16 PM
Wow, imagine that! A law that makes people feel safer but doesn't actually make them safer! Where have I heard that before?

I love the one that got up and said "i'm don't support or oppose, but (after a bunch of nothing) I urge you to oppose this".
Oh, really? You are middle ground but you urge to oppose it? NICE!

jdberger
01-12-2010, 3:27 PM
on A.B. No. 1239 Solorio. Prisoners: prison education programs.

tmncali
01-12-2010, 3:28 PM
free education for criminals, but I have to pay for it?

4thSeal
01-12-2010, 3:30 PM
I am here as a union rep so my peeps don't loose their jobs...

the_donald_
01-12-2010, 3:30 PM
On Topic:
AB1239

C.Strong
01-12-2010, 3:30 PM
AB 357 also will help educate prisoners, in addition to lowering the over all prison population, lower correction facility costs and help motivate prisoners to get an education so they can get a real job.

armygunsmith
01-12-2010, 3:32 PM
I don't think that any criminals are getting their masters degree while in prison. Learning a trade or getting some kind of hands on training couldn't hurt.

jdberger
01-12-2010, 3:34 PM
We're at the "cliche" portion of the program.

"Teachers save lives"....ad nauseum.....

steelrain82
01-12-2010, 3:34 PM
hey hey hey...those prisoners are earning their law degrees in the joint. they probably know more loopholes and laws than the politicians.

tmncali
01-12-2010, 3:35 PM
hurry it up

Jmac0585
01-12-2010, 3:37 PM
Buncha blowhards... hurry up.

rstbkt69
01-12-2010, 3:39 PM
HMMMM............teachers from the prisons. vote for this so I can keep my job. thank you for your good work!!!!! Thank you good bye.

shooting4life
01-12-2010, 3:39 PM
All the criminals that get out should be placed in positions at buck knives because they have already learned how to make great shanks

jdberger
01-12-2010, 3:40 PM
Ammiano really moved that along.....pretty diplomatically, too.

Window_Seat
01-12-2010, 3:40 PM
I lost the feed.

Erik.

the_donald_
01-12-2010, 3:41 PM
On topic:
AB1017

@ this rate I'm reluctant to believe they will even hear anything on AB357 today

jdberger
01-12-2010, 3:41 PM
You're missing nothing.....another unfunded mandate coming up....

tiki
01-12-2010, 3:41 PM
Blah blah blah blah blah

g_1972
01-12-2010, 3:42 PM
They are on AB 558 still. This is very slow going....

jdberger
01-12-2010, 3:42 PM
Just curious, is there a "California Coalition FOR Sexual Assault"?

evan69
01-12-2010, 3:43 PM
They haven't heard it yet?

cineski
01-12-2010, 3:43 PM
Can this realistically happen today?

g_1972
01-12-2010, 3:43 PM
If they issued guns to women, then LA wouldn't need Rape Test Kits any longer would they??? heahahahaha...esp 10,000 unused rape kits....maybe they should issue .357 instead....but hen the SEIU members would be out of jobs int he prison and then god forbid, the'd have to get a job in the public school districts... omg!

Jmac0585
01-12-2010, 3:43 PM
Or the rape-victim-to-be could draw their firearm, and kill the rapist...

Lone_Gunman
01-12-2010, 3:43 PM
Blah Blah Blah Blah. apparently how we house sex offenders and educate prisoners is more important than CCW.

thedrickel
01-12-2010, 3:44 PM
For those listening, who is the little Star Wars sounding character I keep hearing?

Hahaha . . . that is Ammiano.

Window_Seat
01-12-2010, 3:44 PM
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0d9GbTq5RE0qU/610x.jpg
The hurry up no huddle

wildhawker
01-12-2010, 3:45 PM
Just curious, is there a "California Coalition FOR Sexual Assault"?

These folks might know.

http://tmreports.com/images/ball-gag-dude.jpg

Bruce3
01-12-2010, 3:45 PM
If they issued guns to women, then LA wouldn't need Rape Test Kits any longer would they??? heahahahaha...esp 10,000 unused rape kits....maybe they should issue .357 instead....but hen the SEIU members would be out of jobs int he prison and then god forbid, the'd have to get a job in the public school districts... omg!

the question would be if they would charge women for the body bags :p

Jmac0585
01-12-2010, 3:46 PM
Here We go...

tmncali
01-12-2010, 3:46 PM
now?

steelrain82
01-12-2010, 3:46 PM
no the body bags would probably go unused

thedrickel
01-12-2010, 3:46 PM
"I recommend a 'no'"! What a DICK! Failed, only 1 yes vote.

Lone_Gunman
01-12-2010, 3:46 PM
Vote only??? WTF???

Lone_Gunman
01-12-2010, 3:47 PM
Down in flames. No surprise.

jdberger
01-12-2010, 3:47 PM
here we go

No ammiano

aye hagman



fails...

f*ckers.

tmncali
01-12-2010, 3:47 PM
down in flames

Jmac0585
01-12-2010, 3:47 PM
Gilmore? A... RINO
Where it belongs? Really?

Chach
01-12-2010, 3:47 PM
4 - 1 didn't pass

Bizcuits
01-12-2010, 3:47 PM
Vote only??? WTF???

Are you surprised? I mean seriously this is California.

the_donald_
01-12-2010, 3:47 PM
AB357 finally,
ammiano no
hagman ay
furtani no
gilmore no vote
hillmore
Skinner no

Didn't get Hillmore

Spelling might be off on the names

g_1972
01-12-2010, 3:47 PM
4:1 no against it seems. Hmmm...

Biography of Tom Ammiano

http://www.dybbuk.com/ammiano/biography.htm

there some funny stuff in that! lol!

tmncali
01-12-2010, 3:47 PM
Who would have thought?

Window_Seat
01-12-2010, 3:47 PM
Its on, Ammiano recommends no, it looses, fails.

Lateralus
01-12-2010, 3:48 PM
Son of a B****.

Bruce3
01-12-2010, 3:48 PM
wow it was over before it even started..

wildhawker
01-12-2010, 3:49 PM
Gilmore- another one of those Republicans sure to protect and defend our rights... er, wait...

xxdabroxx
01-12-2010, 3:49 PM
Son of a B****.

This. :mad:

armygunsmith
01-12-2010, 3:49 PM
WTF? I missed it. Someone talked to me for a second, an i missed it.

wildhawker
01-12-2010, 3:49 PM
wow it was over before it even started..

Did we expect otherwise?

Window_Seat
01-12-2010, 3:49 PM
It's no surprise, I'm not too disappointed here, so we'll have to wait for Sykes. Let's put this thing to rest, and put our focus on the up & coming cases because I'm still optimistic.

Erik.

Lone_Gunman
01-12-2010, 3:50 PM
Soooooo... CCW of a weapon that is registered to you is a misdemeanor right? Would conviction cause loss of firearm rights?

rstbkt69
01-12-2010, 3:50 PM
Well you couldn't have any educated convicted sex offenders living on the states dime across the street from schools in hotels smoking pot and having a gun could we.

thedrickel
01-12-2010, 3:50 PM
WTF? I missed it. Someone talked to me for a second, an i missed it.

It was over in the blink of an eye.

g_1972
01-12-2010, 3:50 PM
Now I recall this guy:
wiki::


Schwarzenegger acrostic memo

In October 2009 Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Governor of California appeared at a Democratic Party fundraiser at San Francisco's Fairmont Hotel. Though the governor was a prominent member of the Republican party he had been invited by the organizers. Many in the room thought the governor’s appearance was, as Ammiano described it, a "cheap publicity stunt." When former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown introduced Schwarzenegger, Ammiano shouted "You lie!" in a copy-cat of Representative Joe Wilson's remarks during President Barack Obama's congressional address a month earlier. Ammiano walked out stating that Schwarzenegger could "kiss my gay ***."

Four days after the fundraiser, Schwarzenegger vetoed a Assembly Bill 1176 authored by Ammiano that had cleared the State Senate 40-0 and the Assembly 78-0.[6][7][8] Ammiano was sent a memo from Schwarzenegger explaining the veto. The letter, in the form of an acrostic, contained the cryptic message "I F*ck You" spelled out using the first letter of each line along the left margin.[9] The memo was widely reported on and seen as both generally offensive and retaliatory. Some news media also noted the odds that spelling out "I F*ck You" in the memo being just a coincidence was quite unlikely. Using combinatorics to also account for "well-placed blank lines in-between the I and F*CK and the F*CK and YOU", a mathematician estimated the odds being nearly one in two billion the occurence could happen unintentionally.[10]

C.Strong
01-12-2010, 3:51 PM
Why is it that there were no comments allowed and no intro for AB 357?

Window_Seat
01-12-2010, 3:52 PM
They don't have to, and they won't if they can get away with it.

Erik.

obeygiant
01-12-2010, 3:53 PM
Farging Sons of Bastages :cuss:

evan69
01-12-2010, 3:55 PM
what happened?

taloft
01-12-2010, 3:56 PM
It's like listening to a pack of muppets. That voice is annoying to say the least. What a Prima donna. He should be repeatedly slapped by his constituency, and his constituency should be slapped for electing him into power.

armygunsmith
01-12-2010, 3:56 PM
So, what are we looking forward to now? Someone mentioned Sykes? How long? (Not "2 weeks" i hope)

IrishPirate
01-12-2010, 4:03 PM
:eek: :kest: :banghead: :censored:

mossy
01-12-2010, 4:34 PM
no surprize here never expected this to pass, ccw in cali is a pipe dream right now.

bigcalidave
01-12-2010, 4:46 PM
I can't seem to find the results, did someone listening remember if AB 614 passed public safety?

HondaMasterTech
01-12-2010, 4:53 PM
Predictable.

Crusader Matt
01-12-2010, 5:00 PM
:eek:

Its not surprising, but still very disappointing.

Noel
01-12-2010, 5:02 PM
Wow… I think my rights have been infringed upon one more time by the uneducated government of this lovely state… I truly love this state, born and raised here… Why do we have to have such ignorance in our government… Maybe they think were all stupid enough to mistake a gun for a taser…

grammaton76
01-12-2010, 5:15 PM
Ok, so they voted no.

Does that mean this is it for the bill this year, or does it mean that they voted no this time and it's back for amendment, etc?

tophatjones
01-12-2010, 5:38 PM
Just sent a thank you email to Hagman with the reassurance he'll have my vote in the future. Sent an email voicing my disappointment to the others. I made it clear they will never have my votes.

FastFinger
01-12-2010, 6:19 PM
Sent an email voicing my disappointment to the others. I made it clear they will never have my votes.


And when they're done partying, maybe they'll listen to it...

http://i47.tinypic.com/rqx347.jpg

(apologies to the wildhawkers for altering their Valentine's Day picture)

Bearclaw
01-12-2010, 6:23 PM
I must be psycic...because I knew this wouldn't pass! Still very disappointed though.

Quemtimebo
01-12-2010, 6:42 PM
How many more Californians are going to needlessly die or have their lives shattered between now and incorporation? It makes me sick. This state will end up shall-issue one way or the other. This decision to postpone the inevitable and play big d*mn hero will cost the state more than the lost revenue from permit fees. Still can't shake the image of my friend in the ICU after 8 hours of surgery to repair the damage done by a cowardly gangbanger who knew full well that her 5', 120lb victim had no way to fight back. :(

Hopi
01-12-2010, 6:45 PM
And when they're done partying, maybe they'll listen to it...

not quoted

(apologies to the wildhawkers for altering their Valentine's Day picture)

Stop that. Do it now. :p

sirnonz
01-12-2010, 6:45 PM
sucks but i didn't have high hopes of it passing

keneva
01-12-2010, 7:09 PM
We were there. Very interesting process. Bummer it didn't go our way. We need to change the assembly people and get members that believe the way we do. Not sure how to do that. Voters in certain areas apparently are brain dead? Gotta keep trying.

fuzdaddy
01-12-2010, 7:35 PM
We need to change the assembly people and get members that believe the way we do. Not sure how to do that. Voters in certain areas apparently are brain dead? Gotta keep trying.

We can't do that with the screwed up way this state's districts are strategically set up. We could all leave, let the criminals kill the anti-gunners and then come back and take over. :)

wildhawker
01-12-2010, 8:51 PM
And when they're done partying, maybe they'll listen to it...

not quoted

(apologies to the wildhawkers for altering their Valentine's Day picture)

I thought that when we traded pics it was a private deal... :chris:

Grakken
01-12-2010, 9:07 PM
LMAO! Seriously guys and gals? AB962 passed. 357 had a 100/100 fail rate.

USAFTS
01-12-2010, 9:22 PM
Our "Leaders" in the SAFETY Committee just voted NO on my ability to exercise my natural...Individual...Constitutionally Guaranteed RIGHT to keep and bear arms. AND THEN... They advanced...Voted YES...on the legalization of marijuana. MIND ALTERING DRUGS are SAFER than a law-abiding citizen with a handgun. I am inch from packing up and moving to Texas. AMAZING!

Bruce
01-13-2010, 1:03 AM
Nothing will change until we run those liberal/socialists out of the legislature. It is time to make the incumbents the outcumbents. ALL of them!

N6ATF
01-13-2010, 1:45 AM
Our "Leaders" in the SAFETY Committee just voted NO on my ability to exercise my natural...Individual...Constitutionally Guaranteed RIGHT to keep and bear arms. AND THEN... They advanced...Voted YES...on the legalization of marijuana. MIND ALTERING DRUGS are SAFER than a law-abiding citizen with a handgun. I am inch from packing up and moving to Texas. AMAZING!

Remember, this is the backwards state. In any other state, it would be appropriately titled the Assembly Public Danger Committee. It has a long track record of doing everything it can to get innocent people killed, raped, and maimed.

If there was a Government Transparency Committee, they'd probably...
have every meeting in international waters on a randomly chartered vessel as to avoid bugging, media, and any public oversight whatsoever,
make sure they are paid 10 times the standard salary, then hire goons off the books to burgle and destroy evidence in every state and local government office,
put hits out on John and Ken, and every other person daring to challenge the criminals in government,

and so on...

bwiese
01-13-2010, 3:09 AM
It took Texas many years to get rational CCW going.

This is California. We'll keep pushing - plus thru the courts.
They want us to give up.
We won't.

RWxtremist
01-13-2010, 7:12 AM
Where is the surprise? A panel of 5 Dems and 2 Republicans (only one of which is for gun rights), this vote went exactly as expected. Bruce has it right... make all incumbents OUTcumbents.

Pot over law abiding citizens. Go figure.

Jmac0585
01-13-2010, 7:41 AM
The one thing that defeats this: A sheriff, a judge or a police chief like the
Sheriff of Mariposa county from what I am told. A guy that loves the idea of
CCW, and in a position to issue them. That almost makes the issue irrelevant.

rivraton
01-13-2010, 7:59 AM
The one thing that defeats this: A sheriff, a judge or a police chief like the
Sheriff of Mariposa county from what I am told. A guy that loves the idea of
CCW, and in a position to issue them. That almost makes the issue irrelevant.

Fresno county sheriff as well, unfotunately I don't live in either county.:rolleyes:

Aegis
01-13-2010, 8:06 AM
This vote was expected. The hack politicians that voted no, once again violated the constitutional rights of millions of California residents.

Now that this vote is over, the legislature can go back to its incompetent ways and continue to run this state into ground.

bodger
01-13-2010, 8:41 AM
Anyone who had one shred of optimism that this would pass qualifies as a living brain donor.

Corbin Dallas
01-13-2010, 10:34 AM
Down in flames. No surprise.

Disappointing but expected.

Roadrunner
01-13-2010, 11:06 AM
You know, there is a method to their madness. If they continue to make it illegal for the average law abiding person to carry a firearm, but make pot legal, it serves at least four possibilities that I can think of.

1. It keeps most everyone in this state dependent on the government for safety, even though we know we aren't safe under government control.

2. It makes pot smokers brain dead so that they don't think about the control over them.

3. They collect taxes on the dope that keeps people brain dead.

4. If enough people are sufficiently brain dead and are susceptible to the government telling them what to do, the legislators can make whatever laws they want and no one will give a crap because they are high on dope.

So you see, it makes sense when you consider the despots running the state.

On a positive note, if enough liberals are high and unable to function when it comes time to vote, maybe we can kick these bastards out and regain control. If they legalize pot so they can tax it, I would suggest getting every liberal you know enough dope to keep them away from the ballot box so we can win.

Hunt
01-13-2010, 12:01 PM
Is it too much to not expect a sham hearing like last time, where it doesn't matter what our side says if the sheriff's union is there and the committee goes with their BS like we're not even there?

this is the Supremecy of the Priviledged Class Doctrine, it's fully explained in all the Gov't schools. --Obey

If they legalize pot so they can tax it, I would suggest getting every liberal you know enough dope to keep them away from the ballot box so we can win.
Pot and Pizza parties on election day. I guess if we are thinking about how to use dope for social engineering you gotta wonder how the tryants are thinking of using dope for social engineering creepy thought.

Corbin Dallas
01-13-2010, 12:46 PM
Hey, I'm all for legalizing pot even though I don't care for the stuff.

The amount of tax revenue collected on this item would be a major benefit to this state.

Then add in the following benefits:

Gangs/Coyotes no longer make $$$$$$ for pot sales or smuggling
Mexican drug lords go broke (coke n hash are not as popular)
Less drug related crime at the border
DUI's will include pot (someone will invent a pot detector)
Doritos and Dominoes sales will skyrocket

And a HOST of others.

People say "Pot leads to violence and harder drugs"

I say "BS, ever see someone completely BLASTED on pot? they are as placid as a dead fish".

Harder drugs you say? What for? When you can legally smoke out for $5, why spend $20 on something else???

Quemtimebo
01-13-2010, 1:26 PM
Anyone who had one shred of optimism that this would pass qualifies as a living brain donor.

Why on earth would you want the brain of a stupid person? :P Seriously, though, I must admit that I had a shred of hope of it getting through public safety. These people had an opportunity to come away looking reasonable to their constituency, but instead they chose to win the hearts and minds of californians with bread (pot) and circuses. Epic fail.

grammaton76
01-13-2010, 1:50 PM
Personally, I half expected it to get kicked back for changes or something and to be in play a while longer. Just enough to let some of the folks say "we tried".

Pixs
01-13-2010, 2:20 PM
Howdy Folks,
I wonder if it is possible to get your attention long enough to ask you to stick to the subject at hand, the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment. Please stop applying irrelevant labels that only serve to be divisive. What the hell makes you think that pot smoking liberal democrats don’t own guns or have an interest in the preservation of the Bill of Rights? Be positive and welcome help from all segments of our society.
Best wishes to all,
Pixs

Aegis
01-13-2010, 6:05 PM
Howdy Folks,
I wonder if it is possible to get your attention long enough to ask you to stick to the subject at hand, the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment. Please stop applying irrelevant labels that only serve to be divisive. What the hell makes you think that pot smoking liberal democrats don’t own guns or have an interest in the preservation of the Bill of Rights? Be positive and welcome help from all segments of our society.
Best wishes to all,
Pixs

In general liberal Democrats are trying to destroy the 2A. There are a few Republicans that are not much better when it comes to the 2A, but Republicans generally support the 2A rights of the American people. The biggest opponents of the 2A are usually liberal Democrats. Just take a look at the voting records on a federal and state level.

The problem with many liberal Democrats is that they have a selective interpretation of the constitution. How many left-wing groups and politicians still refuse to recognize the 2A as an individual right, even after Heller. When Schumer, Feinstein or Pelosi claim they want to preserve the constitution, they are lying.

bodger
01-13-2010, 6:41 PM
Howdy Folks,
I wonder if it is possible to get your attention long enough to ask you to stick to the subject at hand, the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment. Please stop applying irrelevant labels that only serve to be divisive. What the hell makes you think that pot smoking liberal democrats don’t own guns or have an interest in the preservation of the Bill of Rights? Be positive and welcome help from all segments of our society.
Best wishes to all,
Pixs


So, how long have you been a pot smoking liberal Democrat gun owner anyway?

Just kidding. :D:D

dustoff31
01-13-2010, 7:44 PM
Howdy Folks,
I wonder if it is possible to get your attention long enough to ask you to stick to the subject at hand, the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment. Please stop applying irrelevant labels that only serve to be divisive. What the hell makes you think that pot smoking liberal democrats don’t own guns or have an interest in the preservation of the Bill of Rights? Be positive and welcome help from all segments of our society.
Best wishes to all,
Pixs

So how is "welcoming support" from perjurers and prohibited possessors helping law abiding gun owners?

N6ATF
01-14-2010, 1:20 AM
The amount of tax revenue collected on this item would be a major benefit to this state.

Nope. The criminal legislature will intentionally overestimate the amount of revenue it would bring, just like every other tax increase or tax creation, use that false prediction to increase state spending 500% over the actual revenue, well in advance of the first penny ever making it to the treasury, and we'd still be royally frakked.

Corbin Dallas
01-14-2010, 8:06 AM
Nope. The criminal legislature will intentionally overestimate the amount of revenue it would bring, just like every other tax increase or tax creation, use that false prediction to increase state spending 500% over the actual revenue, well in advance of the first penny ever making it to the treasury, and we'd still be royally frakked.

Really? I wonder if this was the same arguement during prohibition?


Right now this state gets exactly 0% of tax revenue from the sale of marijuana.

IF (and it's a big one) MJ is legalized and companies begin to make marijuana cigarettes / blunts / etc, the state will impose a tax on each pack sold.

How many packs of marijuana cigarettes do you think will sell the first year???

Exactly...

Currently this state gets an estimated $122M in taxes from cigarette sales. Consider the notion that one could tax marijuana at a higher rate over cigarettes and it would still be less expensive than what they are spending right now.

EDIT: I was WAY off on my estimates of tax revenue.

There would be a $50 per ounce tax on the retail sale and production of marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older that would raise nearly $1.4 billion in annual revenue, according to the California Board of Equalization.

source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_14175497?nclick_check=1


Sorry to be slightly off topic, but my whole point of this is the lopsided-ness of our government.

Point of fact:

1) State is broke
2) Politics are broken

Resolution:

a) Shall issue CCW = Legal means of self defense and potentially less crime.
b) Legalized marijuana = tax revenue and definately less crime from illegal drug sales.

End game:

a) State is in a better financial position
b) Less drug related crime in this state
c) Potentially less violent crime in this state

Pixs
01-14-2010, 2:41 PM
In general liberal Democrats are trying to destroy the 2A. There are a few Republicans that are not much better when it comes to the 2A, but Republicans generally support the 2A rights of the American people. The biggest opponents of the 2A are usually liberal Democrats. Just take a look at the voting records on a federal and state level.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Evil lurks on both sides of the isle. Maybe it should be "anti gun politicians" that could better be described as paranoid media grabbers.

The problem with many liberal Democrats is that they have a selective interpretation of the constitution. How many left-wing groups and politicians still refuse to recognize the 2A as an individual right, even after Heller. When Schumer, Feinstein or Pelosi claim they want to preserve the constitution, they are lying.

Off hand right now, I can only think of the current governor of CA.

So, how long have you been a pot smoking liberal Democrat gun owner anyway?

Just kidding. :D:D

Why do you ask, are you looking to score?
Also just kidding. I would really like to see all victimless crimes legalized, especially having fun with a pistol or rifle.

So how is "welcoming support" from perjurers and prohibited possessors helping law abiding gun owners?

I see that you understand exactly how to be divisive. Many people have been banned from gun ownership that should not have been, they may not have had the right legal representation or it just could be that the folks at the DOJ of CA still believe that medical marijuana is still not legal.

Once again, the point is to get the anti Bill of Rights folks to see weapons ownership as not being a threat when rational, calm, law abiding, people exercise their right to own, use, and carry them. It really is hard to listen to a person that you perceive to be a raving lunatic. I'm not saying that you are but that people on the outside looking in see this. I don't believe anyone on this board is a threat to the public safety, just saying show them that you don't fly off the handle and can see their issues and would like the opportunity to prove them wrong.
Best to all,

Pixs

Pixs
01-14-2010, 3:11 PM
Post #201 By Corbin Dallas

Thank you!

I saw a news special about Mendocino County a few months ago and IIRC, 60% of the population was involved in growing and distributing marijuana. The new gun in the county (Sheriff) went on a campaign to stop it. At the time of the report (I think it was 60 Minutes) the general consensus of all most everyone in the county was something like "what, are you insane", the county's economy would collapse. I'm not sure if he was asked to leave or get fired. Anyone out there know about this?

It was also pointed out that the biggest problem was illegal Mexican gang members were trying to set up farms on public lands in the back country. Unlike locals, they shoot first and don't ask questions. In the general public's mind, the two issues are tied together because of a hand full of illegal aliens (refuse to call them immigrants).

Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the state of CA folks.

Best to all

Pixs

CSDGuy
01-14-2010, 3:25 PM
Last I checked, marijuana is still a Schedule I drug... The state of California can't change that.

Cokebottle
01-14-2010, 4:07 PM
Pixs going on "ignore" list until he uses a font that doesn't make my head hurt trying to read it.

N6ATF
01-15-2010, 12:39 AM
a) State is in a better financial position

This is what I question. Marijuana tax revenue may start coming in, but you can be damn sure the legislature will make a disproportionate increase in spending. So the state will not be in a better financial position, it will still be so far in the red it can never get out.

Cokebottle
01-15-2010, 12:50 AM
This is what I question. Marijuana tax revenue may start coming in, but you can be damn sure the legislature will make a disproportionate increase in spending. So the state will not be in a better financial position, it will still be so far in the red it can never get out.
Bingo.

It's like giving a homeless guy $5.
It's not going to help him out of his predicament... it's only going to finance his next binge.

The "beast" needs to be starved and forced to cut back.
Arnold has grown the size of the government by 80% over when he took over.

USAFTS
01-16-2010, 3:24 PM
"Legalized marijuana = tax revenue and definately less crime from illegal drug sales."

Seems to me (and many others, according to various resources available on line) that a legal, unobstructed trade of marijuana will afford the cartels to make considerably more pot money that will assist in the financing of their other drug and crime-related activities. Wouldn't this help the over-all drug and crime-rate go up?

Any input?

curtisfong
01-16-2010, 4:18 PM
No. That isn't how the economics of eliminating a black market works.

Corbin Dallas
01-16-2010, 4:37 PM
"Legalized marijuana = tax revenue and definately less crime from illegal drug sales."

Seems to me (and many others, according to various resources available on line) that a legal, unobstructed trade of marijuana will afford the cartels to make considerably more pot money that will assist in the financing of their other drug and crime-related activities. Wouldn't this help the over-all drug and crime-rate go up?

Any input?

How does that work when the $50 bag now sells for $2?

The only reason it sells for $50 is because it's illegal.

Think back to the days of prohibition and moonshine.

Prohibition ended and so did the money.

Corbin Dallas
01-16-2010, 4:39 PM
This is what I question. Marijuana tax revenue may start coming in, but you can be damn sure the legislature will make a disproportionate increase in spending. So the state will not be in a better financial position, it will still be so far in the red it can never get out.

I conceed. But this is something WE as voters can fix.

When our legislature continues to spend us into oblivion, we need to vote them out.

Would you spend more money if you got more money?

Noel
01-16-2010, 5:07 PM
Back in 68 I was arrested for 43 marijuana seeds on the floor of a car that I was just a passenger of… Not that I wasn’t high, but really! … Bad timing! That little number cost me $2300.00 and 2-½ years probation…

I don’t smoke pot any more, so it doesn’t make a lot difference to me personally, but economically, I think if they’re going to legalize it, then we should let our own farmers grow it… That way everybody can make some money off the weak society of potheads…

Speaking of making money off a weak society, boy are we going to mess with the official’s heads in Nevada…

mblat
01-16-2010, 5:44 PM
"Legalized marijuana = tax revenue and definately less crime from illegal drug sales."

Seems to me (and many others, according to various resources available on line) that a legal, unobstructed trade of marijuana will afford the cartels to make considerably more pot money that will assist in the financing of their other drug and crime-related activities. Wouldn't this help the over-all drug and crime-rate go up?

Any input?

And how much of alcohol trade cartels control? Close to zero? How come?

How much gambling cartels control in the State in Nevada? Nobody knows, but probably VERY low number. How come?

Of cause it is very simple. Mafia/cartels can't compete with corporations when it comes with production and distribution of legal and socially accepted product. Phillip Morris will be selling cheaper, safer more attractively packaged MJ than cartels could ever hope to deliver to an end user.

This is what I question. Marijuana tax revenue may start coming in, but you can be damn sure the legislature will make a disproportionate increase in spending. So the state will not be in a better financial position, it will still be so far in the red it can never get out.

Probably. So? Let's outlaw car sales because those bring very high amounts of sales tax to the State treasury?

N6ATF
01-16-2010, 10:35 PM
Would you spend more money if you got more money?

Not if I were $999 trillion dollars* in debt.

*or whatever.

So? Let's outlaw car sales because those bring very high amounts of sales tax to the State treasury?

Outlaw taxes, and make outlaws of anyone who imposes them.

jdberger
01-19-2010, 10:53 AM
Not that I want to kick this thread back on topic or anything.....:rolleyes:

But the antis are dancing in celebration of their victory....

From our friends at Freedom States Alliance:

CA: Gun Lobby Loses Big Concealed Weapons Bill (AB 357): Assemblyman Steve Knight’s Dangerous Bill Shot Down. (http://www.freedomstatesalliance.org/)

Which actually links to this article:

Knight's concealed gun bill shot down

SACRAMENTO • Assemblyman Steve Knight’s measure to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits was voted down Tuesday in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.


Assembly Bill 357 would have ensured law-abiding citizens are treated fairly when applying for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. There are 58 counties and even more local law enforcement agencies throughout California that each have separate interpretations of who they believe can lawfully carry a concealed weapon.


Over 38 states stipulate that local law enforcement “shall issue” a permit if failsafe conditions are met, and what they have found is a reduction in violent crimes. It’s hard to dispute that criminals will avoid a conflict if they are unsure whether their victim is armed, according to a Knight press release. After Florida changed its laws in 1987 the state’s violent crime rate has gone down 30 percent.


But in California applicants must demonstrate “good cause,” which allows agencies to subjectively deny most, if not all, CCW permits, according to a Knight news release. California has one of the most stringent prerequisites to gain permission to carry a weapon for self defense, he said, including an extensive background check, firearm training, and in some cases face-to-face interviews.


“This is a fairness issue — when all the requirements are met for a CCW the local jurisdiction should honor our Constitution,” said Knight, R-Palmdale. "The arbitrary system of issuing conceal carry permits needs to be changed, and I will not give up on this issue."

To subscribe to the Daily Press in print or online, call (760) 241-7755 or click here.

the_donald_
01-19-2010, 11:12 AM
It still amazes me that even with so much logic/common sense/statistical proof, that this fight is still being lost.

Pixs
01-19-2010, 1:57 PM
Howdy Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
So? Let's outlaw car sales because those bring very high amounts of sales tax to the State treasury? end"

Great idea, look at all the deaths that cars cause. Poor innocent drunks and impatient people out there among the other victims of cars are dieing daily. Morons don't kill, it's their cars!

Best to all,

Pixs:D

USAFTS
01-19-2010, 8:05 PM
How does that work when the $50 bag now sells for $2?

The only reason it sells for $50 is because it's illegal.

Think back to the days of prohibition and moonshine.

Prohibition ended and so did the money.

We have been spanked for being off topic so I stop with this post.

Do you think the bad-guys are going to sell their pot for $50? Do you think the bad guys are going to send along the taxable portion of their sales to the government? That is about as likely as the bad guys buying their guns at gun shops and then not committing crimes. The newly legal and "socially acceptable" cash crop will just be much easier for the bad guys to grow, transport and sell for similar prices that people are used to paying. The hard core pot-heads will grow their own and probably get greedy thinking they can sell it too. Maybe there will be so much weed on the street the price will fall to nothing, but I'd venture to say that we will experience an entirely new wave of crime that is directly related to this legal drug... Not to mention the message that it sends our kids. It's just a bad idea.

OK....Down from my soap-box. :-)

7x57
01-20-2010, 7:02 PM
It still amazes me that even with so much logic/common sense/statistical proof, that this fight is still being lost.

Nah. Even in pro-gun states it takes multiple attempts to pass. In CA, we have to keep hammering away. That's what the anti-gunners did. Some of the bills were introduced over and over again for decades before they happened to get lucky. What happens if we start betting where on snake eyes you pay me and on any other number nothing happens? That's the game we were playing since, well, longer than I've been alive.

7x57

Cokebottle
01-20-2010, 7:44 PM
That's the problem with the anti's... and drivers licenses for illegals, etc....

Other than political credibility, there is no such thing as a "loss" in politics... only a victory or lack of victory that may ultimately become victory.
You can reintroduce a bill or ballot measure every session if you'd like. Worst case, you don't get the signatures for the ballot or it's killed in committee.
That's why we need to work through the courts to solidify our rights on current Constitutional bases... and in the courts, there certainly IS a win or loss.