PDA

View Full Version : AB1663 fails (bill to repeal AB962 Ammo bill)


Glock22Fan
03-23-2010, 1:24 PM
Don't think this is a dupe.



Thank you very much for your support of my legislation, AB 1663 which would have repealed AB 962.

Unfortunately this bill failed to pass the Public Safety Committee on March 23rd. The votes were as follows:

-Chair Assemblyman Tom Ammiano – NO
-Vice-Chair Assemblyman Curt Hagman – AYE
-Assemblyman Jim Beall, Jr. – NO
-Assemblyman Danny Gilmore – AYE
-Assemblyman Jerry Hill – NO
-Assemblyman Anthony Portantino – ABS
-Assemblymember Nancy Skinner – NO

I, along with leadership members of the NRA, presented solid testimony and numerous reasons why AB 962 punishes both responsible businesses and law-abiding gun owners. Bill Ortiz, Vice President of Turner’s Outdoorsman, gave excellent testimony on the harms AB 962 and his assistance was much appreciated. Thanks to your efforts, we presented over 76,000 letters from people like you from all over California who supported AB 1663.

Unfortunately, the majority party blocked this common sense legislation from even reaching the Assembly Floor for a vote.

Though this was obviously not the desired outcome, I truly appreciate all of your support. It is citizens like you that will help lead the way to a better California. I will not give up the fight to protect our basic rights and I hope you will also continue this cause. Thank you.

It is an honor to serve you.

Assemblyman Curt Hagman
District 60

Window_Seat
03-23-2010, 1:25 PM
It doesn't surprise me, yet I'm disappointed. We need to do this in the courts, and I'm VERY optimistic that we can. Stay focused and motivated, and don't let this discourage any of us.

Erik.

para38super
03-23-2010, 1:28 PM
WTF!!!

wildhawker
03-23-2010, 1:30 PM
A disappointing, but not unexpected, reminder that even with tremendous grassroots support, 99% of advancing our rights will happen in Federal court.

ZirconJohn
03-23-2010, 1:34 PM
Typical CubaFornia... par for the course:mad:

bwiese
03-23-2010, 1:35 PM
OK, so on to Plan B. ;)

This drill was nevertheless helpful for future efforts. Some legislator is gonna think "Aw no, not this crap again" and either
kill something or modify it in our favor.

Desert Dude
03-23-2010, 1:44 PM
OK, so on to Plan B. ;)




How about sharing plan B with us. I know I'll help fight, but I want to know all about it real quick.

woodsman
03-23-2010, 1:47 PM
Ugh! Yes, expected but hope springs eternal.

Exposed
03-23-2010, 1:51 PM
Not happy!!!! :mad:

wildhawker
03-23-2010, 1:53 PM
How about sharing plan B with us. I know I'll help fight, but I want to know all about it real quick.

It's been discussed at length before.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3197663&postcount=35

All,

The regulation of internet delivery of ammunition as drafted in AB-962 is preeempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.

AB-962 Regulates The Routes and Services of Common Carriers

AB-962 creates a misdemeanor in a proposed Penal Code §12318 for not following the appropriate steps for “delivery . . .of handgun ammunition”. The bill goes on to state that deliveries may “only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the deliverer . . . being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee.” However, the bill exempts law enforcement agencies, sworn police officers, ammunition manufacture/importers, “handgun ammunition vendors” as defined in the statute, and certain firearms collectors. As such, common carriers will now have to make modifications to their rates and services in an attempt to ascertain whether delivering a package marked ORM-D to any given address is allowed, or is punishable as a crime.

This requirement on a common carrier’s service is particularly difficult for carriers where a retail establishment meets the definition of a “handgun ammunition vendor” under the act but is not otherwise a Federal Firearms Licensee. These retailers are exempted from the non-delivery requirement but there is no documentation proving that such a recipient is exempt. Many “big box” retailers in California sell ammunition but do not sell firearms .

Even if an alternate narrower statutory construction is followed, on the face of the proposed law, common carriers would have to attempt to obtain evidence of identity to comply with proposed Penal Code §12318(a), which is clearly a state law that has a substantial impact on a carrier’s service.

Regulation of the Routes or Services of Common Carriers is Federally Preempted

Federal preemption of the routes, rates, or services of common motor carriers is found in 49 U. S. C. §14501(c)(1):

(1) General rule. Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier (other than a carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier covered by section 41713 (b)(4)) or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.

Additional Federal preemption for common carriers was enacted in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”) and was codified in 49 U.S.C. § 41713:

§ 41713. Preemption of authority over prices, routes, and service

(a) Definition. In this section, “State” means a State, the District of Columbia, and a territory or possession of the United States.

(b) Preemption.
(1) Except as provided in this subsection, a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart.

(4) Transportation by air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier.—
(A) General rule.— Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement).


The Supreme Court Unanimously Ruled That Laws That Regulate Delivery By Common Carriers Are Preempted

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a Maine statute that placed limitations on the delivery of cigarettes was preempted by the FAAAA. That statute is very similar to the restrictions on delivery found in AB-962 .

In Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 128 S. Ct. 989 (2008) the court found that a requirement for shippers to choose a special shipment method and that a carrier would be deemed to have knowledge that shipment had prohibited tobacco products in it were both preempted by Federal Law. Maine attempted to defend the regulation by claiming that there was a public health exception to the FAAAA. The court replied to that argument as follows:

Maine’s inability to find significant support for some kind of “public health” exception is not surprising. “Public health” does not define itself. Many products create “public health” risks of differing kind and degree. To accept Maine’s justification in respect to a rule regulating services would legitimate rules regulating routes or rates for similar public health reasons. And to allow Maine directly to regulate carrier services would permit other States to do the same. Given the number of States through which carriers travel, the number of products, the variety of potential adverse public health effects, the many different kinds of regulatory rules potentially available, and the difficulty of finding a legal criterion for separating permissible from impermissible public-health-oriented regulations, Congress is unlikely to have intended an implicit general “public health” exception broad enough to cover even the shipments at issue here.
(Id. at 997.)

There is not an equivalent “public safety” exception to the FAAAA to allow AB-962 either.

AB-962, as written, is preempted by the FAAAA.

We have already done initial planning regarding plaintiffs and counsel for this case. We have time as the law does not take effect until February of 2011.

-Gene

Bruce
03-23-2010, 1:55 PM
Not surprising. We need to rid the legislature of the incumbents. All of them.

BluNorthern
03-23-2010, 2:07 PM
This guy is the Chair of the Public Safety Committee?!?
February 24, 2009|By Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sacramento — California would become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana for recreational use under a bill introduced Monday by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco.
The proposal would regulate marijuana like alcohol, with people over 21 years old allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess cannabis - all of which is barred by federal law.

Aegis
03-23-2010, 2:09 PM
Trying to do anything through the legislature is pointless. One can call, e-mail and fax these members non-stop, especially those in the majority, and it is a waste of time. The CA legislature is not going to pass any law that is pro-2A.

Getting our 2A rights back will have to be done through the courts.

BigDogatPlay
03-23-2010, 2:14 PM
Typical daily business inside the Capitol..... oh well.

Time to litigate. Donation being queued.

Corbin Dallas
03-23-2010, 2:30 PM
Trying to do anything through the legislature is pointless. One can call, e-mail and fax these members non-stop, especially those in the majority, and it is a waste of time. The CA legislature is not going to pass any law that is pro-2A.

Getting our 2A rights back will have to be done through the courts.

Or multiple acts of GOD.

HowardW56
03-23-2010, 2:31 PM
As I expected

Hogxtz
03-23-2010, 2:36 PM
Not listening to the "people" and bending our rights seems to be the norm these days for progressive's in goverment.

Mike61982
03-23-2010, 2:52 PM
Well when the rates of ammo go up and we can't afford it... WHat are we going to do. WAIT!! I know call on the government to protect us... California is a Joke, The gun laws are a joke, and any anti gun representive is a joke. We the people need to stand and take back California again!!!

AEC1
03-23-2010, 2:55 PM
Who does this suprise?

BigJim_610
03-23-2010, 2:57 PM
My .02.

I will never vote for our current governor again for anything.

I will never watch one of his movies.

I will try hard to continue to call him what he is in my view a RINO.

I will not forget that he signed this into law.

wildhawker
03-23-2010, 3:04 PM
Well when the rates of ammo go up and we can't afford it... WHat are we going to do. WAIT!! I know call on the government to protect us... California is a Joke, The gun laws are a joke, and any anti gun representive is a joke. We the people need to stand and take back California again!!!

We already are (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/79-what-has-cgf-done-for-me-lately). Where have you been? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=183) ;)

choprzrul
03-23-2010, 3:16 PM
The CA senate has 40 members, 15 republican and 25 democratic. Swinging 8 of those democratic senators to republican would change the balance of the chamber. Now, if the 8 most vulnerable can be identified, Calguns could take responsibility for defeating 1 of those 8. Other statewide organizations could each take 1 of the remaining 7. Imagine the full force of Calguns.net behind electing a pro-gun candidate in 1 senate district currently held by an anti-gunn'r. I'm sure that we can find 7 other organizations in this state that would like to see the balance of the state senate changed. Each organization would adopt a seat and see to it that full weight is brought to bear.

RRangel
03-23-2010, 3:52 PM
OK, so on to Plan B. ;)

This drill was nevertheless helpful for future efforts. Some legislator is gonna think "Aw no, not this crap again" and either
kill something or modify it in our favor.

Yep, that's what the gun banners have done. Though I think our side has more active grassroots supporters. They never stop so why should we? They do have an advantage in that they share an ideology with the anti-gun establishment and media. Still it took them many years to get the laws they wanted passed. Laws that we eventually need to have burned to ashes. People need to understand that if we're playing for keeps we need to be consistent.

SideWinder11
03-23-2010, 4:10 PM
[F New Roman]Don't think this is a dupe.[/FONT]

I got the same email. Very Disappointing!

Apocalypsenerd
03-23-2010, 4:26 PM
The CA senate has 40 members, 15 republican and 25 democratic. Swinging 8 of those democratic senators to republican would change the balance of the chamber. Now, if the 8 most vulnerable can be identified, Calguns could take responsibility for defeating 1 of those 8. Other statewide organizations could each take 1 of the remaining 7. Imagine the full force of Calguns.net behind electing a pro-gun candidate in 1 senate district currently held by an anti-gunn'r. I'm sure that we can find 7 other organizations in this state that would like to see the balance of the state senate changed. Each organization would adopt a seat and see to it that full weight is brought to bear.

This is a good idea.

Lateralus
03-23-2010, 4:33 PM
I was there at the meeting this morning with H. Paul Payne and Hagman/Counsel, and even provided quick vocal support in favor of AB1663 as did the other FIVE to actually show up.

Talking to the NRA lawyers was a blast. This isn't the end folks; trust me when I say these guys know what they're doing.

AB962 takes place on January 1, 2011. Or it would, if it wasn't for the meddling kids! AB1663 didn't fail, it just didn't pass.

RRangel
03-23-2010, 4:41 PM
I was there at the meeting this morning with H. Paul Payne and Hagman/Counsel, and even provided quick vocal support in favor of AB1663 as did the other FIVE to actually show up.

Talking to the NRA lawyers was a blast. This isn't the end folks; trust me when I say these guys know what they're doing.

AB962 takes place on January 1, 2011. Or it would, if it wasn't for the meddling kids! AB1663 didn't fail, it just didn't pass.

Yes, it's definitely not over. The good fight is only beginning. The gun banners better run for cover. Thanks for making it to the capitol.

Lateralus
03-23-2010, 4:56 PM
Yes, it's definitely not over. The good fight is only beginning. The gun banners better run for cover. Thanks for making it to the capitol.

It was my pleasure. I even got to see DeLeon and Kathy Lynch. Know thy enemy, right?

ca1903
03-23-2010, 5:02 PM
This guy is the Chair of the Public Safety Committee?!?
February 24, 2009|By Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sacramento — California would become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana for recreational use under a bill introduced Monday by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco.
The proposal would regulate marijuana like alcohol, with people over 21 years old allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess cannabis - all of which is barred by federal law.

I still remember the opium war in the 1840s between China and GB; China lost and was forced to allow GB to sell opium legally in China.

I don't want marijuana or any drug in my community. PERIOD.

This guy Ammiano is a drug dealer or what? At least he is an idiot in my book hurting the fundamental value of US. Recreation use of drug?

ca1903
03-23-2010, 5:03 PM
I got the email from Hagman too. A disappointment, but never give up.

Roadrunner
03-23-2010, 5:15 PM
I was more surprised that the bill was introduced, than the fact that it didn't make it out of committee.

Since Gene has indicated that the law is illegal, I guess they need to be sued and have the law nullified.

stag6.8
03-23-2010, 5:24 PM
This crap will have to fought Post-Incorporation going though the courts just like Gene and Bill indicated. June is on its way!!!!!! The fight is long from over!!!!!!!!

Lateralus
03-23-2010, 6:39 PM
This crap will have to fought Post-Incorporation going though the courts just like Gene and Bill indicated. June is on its way!!!!!! The fight is long from over!!!!!!!!

No, it will be much quicker than that:):chris:

microwaveguy
03-23-2010, 6:52 PM
The line from Galaxy Quest comes to mind

Never Give up , Never Surrender !

June and SCOTUS will bring new meaning to the Second Amendment :)

wildhawker
03-23-2010, 7:05 PM
The forthcoming AB962 challenge will not be, and does not need to be, based on a 2A claim.

ErikTheRed
03-23-2010, 7:10 PM
It was my pleasure. I even got to see DeLeon and Kathy Lynch. Know thy enemy, right?

I wanted to trip that whole gaggle on their way out the door.... oh whooops? Did I do that? Pardon me.

I was excersizing SERIOUS control while DeLoen and his cohorts were at the mic, trying my damndest not to pull a Joe Wilson. You all should be proud of me that I kept it together. ;) Next time though, I know to bring a barf bag. (DeLeon brought one, too...... he kept looking at it and calling it "Kathy" for some reason.)

Very disappointing turn-out of gunnies. Veeeeeeery disappointing. But I got to meet a few key players and a couple of forum members and put faces to names. That part was well worth the trip. Oh yeah, and the whole "proactively defending my rights" thing was pretty cool too.

Roadrunner
03-23-2010, 7:53 PM
Just wondering, did anyone get a picture of the 77,000 letters that were wheeled into the committee chambers?

mossy
03-23-2010, 8:08 PM
It doesn't surprise me. on to plan b i guess

N6ATF
03-23-2010, 8:44 PM
Who does this suprise?

I'm surprised it got a second aye.

wildhawker
03-23-2010, 9:09 PM
I'm surprised it got a second aye.

Agreed; I wasn't expecting Gilmore to vote with Hagman.

smallshot13
03-23-2010, 9:23 PM
Plan B pursues overturning portions of AB 962, those portions that deal with out of state actions, namely the most onerous 12318. It may still leave the portions dealing retail display and sales of ammunition (and reloading components) within the state. Ironically, if any CA retailers were behind the bill, they will get stuck with the major fallout, significant reduction to near elimination of sales and lots of paperwork and record keeping. Of course, California will lose out on sales taxes, as originally predicted. So what needs to happen to kick plan B into operation?

AEC1
03-23-2010, 10:03 PM
I still remember the opium war in the 1840s between China and GB; China lost and was forced to allow GB to sell opium legally in China.

I don't want marijuana or any drug in my community. PERIOD.

This guy Ammiano is a drug dealer or what? At least he is an idiot in my book hurting the fundamental value of US. Recreation use of drug?

you remember the 1840's you are OLD

CABilly
03-23-2010, 10:15 PM
ABS = absent, or abstained?

ErikTheRed
03-23-2010, 10:45 PM
Just wondering, did anyone get a picture of the 77,000 letters that were wheeled into the committee chambers?

Indeed we did, right in front good ol' Arnie's office. ;) Hopefully someone will post it, I didn't have my camera with me.

HondaMasterTech
03-23-2010, 11:00 PM
Trying to educate the ignorant is impossible.

barthel
03-23-2010, 11:04 PM
ABS is "Abstain" CABilly.

I got the same e-mail everyone else did today. It made me physically angry. I am SO sick of these people who supposedly "represent" us yet refuse to listen to us. They all seem to fall under that lefty/liberal curse of "We know what's best for you".

"Liberals are like a Slinky. Not good for much, but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs." - Anonymous

N6ATF
03-23-2010, 11:09 PM
Trying to educate the ignorant traitors who vote for criminal safety above public safety is impossible a waste of time.

Fixed.

ErikTheRed
03-23-2010, 11:36 PM
They all seem to fall under that lefty/liberal curse of "We know what's best for you".


Yep, this Ammiano fella is "all about safety for the people of California", and his cute little pinko speech following the arguements for/against AB1663 this morning was full of this supposed "concern" to justify his 'no' vote. So, apparently, this man believes that AB962, which will do nothing to keep ammo out of the hands of criminals and gang-bangers, is sound safety policy. LEST WE NOT FORGET, this is the same man who recently introduced legislation to legalize for recreational use in California a controlled substance, marijuana. So according to Ammiano, a senselessly restrictive do-nothing ammo law represents "safety" while the legalization of mind-altering and debilitating drugs for everyday use poses no public safety risk whatsoever.

And this, folks, is your "representative" government in action.

ca1903
03-24-2010, 9:38 AM
Yep, this Ammiano fella is "all about safety for the people of California", and his cute little pinko speech following the arguements for/against AB1663 this morning was full of this supposed "concern" to justify his 'no' vote. So, apparently, this man believes that AB962, which will do nothing to keep ammo out of the hands of criminals and gang-bangers, is sound safety policy. LEST WE NOT FORGET, this is the same man who recently introduced legislation to legalize for recreational use in California a controlled substance, marijuana. So according to Ammiano, a senselessly restrictive do-nothing ammo law represents "safety" while the legalization of mind-altering and debilitating drugs for everyday use poses no public safety risk whatsoever.

And this, folks, is your "representative" government in action.

I just watched the CNN video of the violence in Juarez, Mexico caused by the drug cartel. Where is the drug shipped to? no doubt, to us, US. Who is the market? drug user. Who caused the violence in Juarez? the market or the merchant (including drug trafficker)?

And legalizing the "recreation" use of Marijuana is better for the security of our community? I see why gun must be banned so that the drug trafficker can have an easier way invading into peaceful community.

Sam Won
03-24-2010, 10:22 AM
Let us be certain to not forget those names that voted against the bill when they come up for re-election. I tried to e-mail Nancy Skinner seeking her support on this bill and never even got the courtesy of a response. Alternately, I did get a positive and encouraging response from those that voted in favor of the bill. I suppose that she simply didn't have the courage to voice her already-formed opinion as was the same with Ammiano, Beall and Hill.

Dr Pete
03-24-2010, 12:02 PM
Simply put, it's all about the money. They want to legalize pot and tax it. Lots of $$ there. We are small money compared to the drug taxes they can collect.
Yes, they haven't listened to us for a long time.

This November will be interesting, I wonder if any of the Sheeple are actually engaging their brains with whats going on in our country?

barthel
03-24-2010, 4:52 PM
This November will be interesting, I wonder if any of the Sheeple are actually engaging their brains with whats going on in our country?

Unfortunately, they won't. They haven't up to this point, why would anything change now? It's not like the masses are getting any smarter.

That's why it's our job! Thomas Jefferson wrote "Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day."

daveinwoodland
03-24-2010, 5:58 PM
I often will reflect on the average common sense of many of our elected leaders and continually am drawn to the conclusion that so many have none.

Some do, but from what I have seen many more do not. Why is it that the commonality among those that do not cannot fathom the common sense to know that law abiding citizens are just that.

And the ones that are not couldn't give a rat's you know what to any law on the books that relates to weapons and ammo. The fight's not over but I'll grant you it's been eternally frustrating to people with logical thought.

1859sharps
03-24-2010, 6:24 PM
Trying to do anything through the legislature is pointless. One can call, e-mail and fax these members non-stop, especially those in the majority, and it is a waste of time. The CA legislature is not going to pass any law that is pro-2A.

Getting our 2A rights back will have to be done through the courts.

I disagree. there was a time the gun banners felt the same way. If you don't try, you will never know if it would have worked or not. Persistence pays of.

There is always the next session, as well as other options that can be pursued now.

Twystd1
03-24-2010, 11:36 PM
Brandon, Thanks for all that you do.

Twystd1

Mute
03-25-2010, 8:23 AM
Not surprised. Nevertheless it was worth the effort. The antis have been throwing crap up on the walls for decades trying to see what will stick. We need to do the same and wear them down.

krazykracker
03-25-2010, 8:40 AM
Well it's time to start voting with my feet. I need to get out of this state.

bomb_on_bus
03-25-2010, 9:13 AM
Too bad we cant use the arguement that CA is going to spend millions of dollars implementing this bill, millions more enforcing the bill, while loosing even more millions from loss of tax revenue. Not that being several billion dollars in the hole has anything to do with it either................. way to go CA!

bomb_on_bus
03-25-2010, 9:15 AM
Well it's time to start voting with my feet. I need to get out of this state.


That exodus has been going on for quite some time and to the tune of 100,000 people a year. although something tells me there are more entering across the southern boarder.