PDA

View Full Version : 3 Pro-gun Bills - Please call the Members of the Assembly committee


jltapia
04-02-2010, 1:19 PM
Three Pro-Gun Bills to be Considered on Tuesday, April 6!
Please Contact the Members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety Today!



On Tuesday, April 6, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will consider three pro-gun bills.

Assembly Bill 2053, sponsored by Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71), would clarify the current statutes for law enforcement to issue a concealed firearms license. Under AB2053, the “good cause” stipulation would apply to self-defense, defending the life of another, or preventing crime in which a human life is threatened.

Assembly Bill 2115, introduced by Assemblymember Steve Knight (R-36), would alter California ’s concealed carry statutes by eliminating the “good cause” requirement for veterans.

Assembly Bill 2152, simply put, would exempt honorably discharged members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, Air National Guard, and active reserve components of the United States from the handgun safety certificate requirements to purchase a handgun. AB2152 is sponsored by Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2).

Please contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety TODAY and respectfully urge them to support AB2053, AB2115, and AB2152. Contact information can be found below.

Assembly Member Tom Ammiano (D-13) - Chair
(916) 319-2013
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Curt Hagman (R-60) - Vice Chair
(916) 319-2060
Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Danny D. Gilmore (R-30)
(916) 319-2030
Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-19)
(916) 319-2019
Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)
(916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jim Beall, Jr. (D-24)
(916) 319-2024
Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Anthony Portantino (D-44)
(916) 319-2044
Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov



Taken from an e-mail received from the NRA-ILA

Gray Peterson
04-02-2010, 1:34 PM
Three Pro-Gun Bills to be Considered on Tuesday, April 6!
Please Contact the Members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety Today!



On Tuesday, April 6, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will consider three pro-gun bills.

Assembly Bill 2053, sponsored by Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71), would clarify the current statutes for law enforcement to issue a concealed firearms license. Under AB2053, the “good cause” stipulation would apply to self-defense, defending the life of another, or preventing crime in which a human life is threatened.

Assembly Bill 2115, introduced by Assemblymember Steve Knight (R-36), would alter California ’s concealed carry statutes by eliminating the “good cause” requirement for veterans.

Assembly Bill 2152, simply put, would exempt honorably discharged members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, Air National Guard, and active reserve components of the United States from the handgun safety certificate requirements to purchase a handgun. AB2152 is sponsored by Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2).

Please contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety TODAY and respectfully urge them to support AB2053, AB2115, and AB2152. Contact information can be found below.

Assembly Member Tom Ammiano (D-13) - Chair
(916) 319-2013
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Curt Hagman (R-60) - Vice Chair
(916) 319-2060
Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Danny D. Gilmore (R-30)
(916) 319-2030
Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-19)
(916) 319-2019
Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)
(916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jim Beall, Jr. (D-24)
(916) 319-2024
Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Anthony Portantino (D-44)
(916) 319-2044
Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov



Taken from an e-mail received from the NRA-ILA

Too bad HB2115 is not pro-gun.

CHS
04-02-2010, 1:59 PM
Why can't they just exempt everyone from these silly requirements? Why are veterans so special?

ke6guj
04-02-2010, 3:00 PM
Why can't they just exempt everyone from these silly requirements? Why are veterans so special?yah.

are there equal opportunity violations wth that? For instance, due to medical issues, some people are unable to join the military to earn that exemption.

Roadrunner
04-02-2010, 3:09 PM
I am a veteran and I agree, veterans, people who have never served in the military, police, anyone who is not a violent criminal offender should be allowed to get a CCW.

Gray Peterson
04-02-2010, 3:15 PM
yah.

are there equal opportunity violations wth that? For instance, due to medical issues, some people are unable to join the military to earn that exemption.

Not just medical issues, but those who are known to be openly gay or lesbian are also excluded too. This bill is ridiculous and an equal protection violation.

C.W.M.V.
04-02-2010, 3:27 PM
Im a veteran and I support it. By singing up for the armed forces you have pretty much volunteered to die for your country. Most don't, by a large margin, but you have volunteered to go do the dirty work that is necessary to keep this country safe that 90% of the rest of the country isn't willing to do, and in doing that work you may very well die.

So ya there's the "well you knew what you were getting into when you volunteered" argument, but that is exactly my point. All veterans knew that they may die in the service of something infinitely greater than themselves and did it anyway.
All veterans gave of themselves, so ya a little recognition is appropriate.

bwiese
04-02-2010, 3:27 PM
Not just medical issues, but those who are known to be openly gay or lesbian are also excluded too. This bill is ridiculous and an equal protection violation.

So maybe we pass it as an attack :)

C.W.M.V.
04-02-2010, 3:32 PM
Why can't they just exempt everyone from these silly requirements? Why are veterans so special?

:shock:

Because 234 years of freedom wasn't earned by computer jockeys and armchair soldiers who never served. It was earned by those veterans who were willing to fight and die so that people can live in ignorant bliss about what it really takes to keep our freedoms.
Soldiers, law enforcement, and veterans are the most special people in our society.

M198
04-02-2010, 3:39 PM
:shock:

Because 234 years of freedom wasn't earned by computer jockeys and armchair soldiers who never served. It was earned by those veterans who were willing to fight and die so that people can live in ignorant bliss about what it really takes to keep our freedoms.
Soldiers, law enforcement, and veterans are the most special people in our society.

Thanks, now I feel special. That being said, it is a violation of the principal of equal protection if not a legal violation.

CHS
04-02-2010, 3:41 PM
Because 234 years of freedom wasn't earned by computer jockeys and armchair soldiers who never served. It was earned by those veterans who were willing to fight and die so that people can live in ignorant bliss about what it really takes to keep our freedoms.
Soldiers, law enforcement, and veterans are the most special people in our society.

So then are we all created equally or not?

What about someone who is openly gay and WANTS to join the military, but is prevented from doing so? Why must they get an HSC?

The Constitution either means something and we're all created and treated equally, or it's only useful as toilet paper.

Which one is it?

IGOTDIRT4U
04-02-2010, 3:44 PM
Uh, guys, you already got your answer in the form of a hint...

So maybe we pass it as an attack :)

audiophil2
04-02-2010, 3:51 PM
Uh, guys, you already got your answer in the form of a hint...

It's funny. The first thing that came across my mind was to pass this bill as a huge wedge in opening the door for shall issue. Then I read the responses and saw why things only get worse.

C.W.M.V.
04-02-2010, 3:55 PM
So then are we all created equally or not?

What about someone who is openly gay and WANTS to join the military, but is prevented from doing so? Why must they get an HSC?

The Constitution either means something and we're all created and treated equally, or it's only useful as toilet paper.

Which one is it?

We are looking at this from two different perspectives. I see where your point comes from but I don't agree.

This argument might as well expand to the GI bill or the Comp claims that most vets get.
"I wanted to join the Army, but I wasn't allowed, so I should get the GI bill too" Or "I wanted to join the Marines, but couldn't, so in light of the wounds I could have received I should get some compensation"

I'm not saying anything should be equal here-it shouldn't.
People who do for others (Vets/Cops/Etc...) deserve special considerations, perks for doing what others wouldn't. IE I personally don't have to pay for metered parking spaces because of my purple heart license plate.

Equality is all nice, but If we really want to make it equal why not make it mandatory conscription, 2 years of service, than everyone can get a CCW upon honorable discharge.:D

Window_Seat
04-02-2010, 4:17 PM
My Grandfather served in WW1, and I've always been EXTREMELY PROUD. He was the hardest working man I have ever known in my entire life, and he fought, sacrificed, starved & worked to the death just to make it so we could enjoy OUR FREEDOMS. He did these things for his children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. and all of those who wish to enjoy the freedoms that are rightful to us. This isn't about who is "special" and who isn't.

When I thank a service man or woman, I am not just thanking them to make it look good, I am thanking them with the images in my mind of what they as well as what my GF did, and are currently doing so we can continue engaging in this cause.

To support anything that says "They can, but we can't" is going against what they died for, and are currently fighting for to maintain, and it is completely against the intentions of the Framers.

The best thing we can do to honor our Veterans is to continue waging war for the same freedoms as The Framers intended for all of us whose right it is to enjoy.

Now I need to go for a walk.

Erik.

BigJoe
04-02-2010, 4:41 PM
wow, i can't believe the equality thing came out regarding that.

"why are veterans special?"

huh, well i signed up to do something that i have broke my back and had a heart procedure doing, i'm away from my wife and two kids for about 80 percent of the year and probably put more rounds down range in a year then most of you will in your entire lifetime. I think i have earned the right to carry a pistol and/or waive a piddly litte safety course. but thats just my .02. god i love internet toughguys, get off your butt and stand for something, i'm sorry if you had a pre existing condition that didn't allow you to serve, sucks to be you, but don't take away from the people who do. wow i need to go calm down.

Nodda Duma
04-02-2010, 4:43 PM
A GI bill is not a right Constitutionally guaranteed to ALL. The right to keep and bear arms is.

Don't confuse priviledges with rights.

-Jason

Just-in
04-02-2010, 4:59 PM
I agree with the HSC. You have adequate handgun safety training and hell save 25.00 it's the least the state could do.

CHS
04-02-2010, 5:06 PM
We are looking at this from two different perspectives. I see where your point comes from but I don't agree.


Fine.

Then please articulate to me exactly why it is that veterans should be treated better regarding needing good cause and holding a valid HSC for handgun carrying or purchasing?

Why is a lifelong shooter less qualified to purchase a handgun than someone who got a couple weeks of rifle training during a boot camp?

Why will we apply the bill of rights less equally to people that didn't serve?

Are they rights or privileges now?

CHS
04-02-2010, 5:09 PM
huh, well i signed up to do something that i have broke my back and had a heart procedure doing, i'm away from my wife and two kids for about 80 percent of the year and probably put more rounds down range in a year then most of you will in your entire lifetime. I think i have earned the right to carry a pistol and/or waive a piddly litte safety course. but thats just my .02. god i love internet toughguys, get off your butt and stand for something, i'm sorry if you had a pre existing condition that didn't allow you to serve, sucks to be you, but don't take away from the people who do. wow i need to go calm down.

You were born with that right. You didn't "earn" it by volunteering for the military.

Read the Constitution some time.

HondaMasterTech
04-02-2010, 5:44 PM
Im a veteran and I support it. By singing up for the armed forces you have pretty much volunteered to die for your country. Most don't, by a large margin, but you have volunteered to go do the dirty work that is necessary to keep this country safe that 90% of the rest of the country isn't willing to do, and in doing that work you may very well die.

So ya there's the "well you knew what you were getting into when you volunteered" argument, but that is exactly my point. All veterans knew that they may die in the service of something infinitely greater than themselves and did it anyway.
All veterans gave of themselves, so ya a little recognition is appropriate.

Your post is insulting.

HondaMasterTech
04-02-2010, 5:49 PM
:shock:

Because 234 years of freedom wasn't earned by computer jockeys and armchair soldiers who never served. It was earned by those veterans who were willing to fight and die so that people can live in ignorant bliss about what it really takes to keep our freedoms.
Soldiers, law enforcement, and veterans are the most special people in our society.

You have just demonstrated your ignorance and not yet proven the ignorance of others. Would you like to try again?

nicki
04-02-2010, 6:11 PM
Before we roast Assemblyman Knight, please remember he tried to get a shall issue bil through the assembly last year, ab357.

Our legislature is hostile and the chance of any of those bills passing is slim.

johnthomas
04-02-2010, 6:26 PM
:shock:

Because 234 years of freedom wasn't earned by computer jockeys and armchair soldiers who never served. It was earned by those veterans who were willing to fight and die so that people can live in ignorant bliss about what it really takes to keep our freedoms.
Soldiers, law enforcement, and veterans are the most special people in our society. I accept your post as a compliment. Thank you.
What about the law abiding citizen that works every day, pays taxes for the Soldiers and Police to be the best in the world? As a veteran, I still consider the oath I took many years ago to still be in effect.
And to that end, I believe the second amendment pertains to all law abiding citizens. They have as much right and reason to protect themselves from the scum as soldiers, vets and police.
Our war for freedom from England was won, due in part by citizen soldiers. Farmers, accountants and every other tradesmen of that era. They didn't take an oath, they did as many would do today, defend our country.

BigJoe
04-02-2010, 7:14 PM
i agree every person who can legally buy a pistol should be able to carry it but lets take it in steps and i think to carry a pistol every person who wants a CCW should have to take a course and prove they can shoot it. Cuz when joe schmore gets scared and wants to pull his 45 and start blazing away with all his adrenaline goin i'd kinda like him to at least get in and around the thing/person he's shooting at especially if i'm anywhere on that street. we aren't going to get our retarded gun laws changed overnight but a step in the right direction is cool.

and i'm FIRMLY for people to have to take a safety course/ quiz whatever before buying a pistol because a pretty large percentage of this country have NEVER been around a gun much less recieved any type of gun safety instruction. now ALL military members get such training... weird so a waive of that I am fully for.

obeygiant
04-02-2010, 7:27 PM
Fine.

Then please articulate to me exactly why it is that veterans should be treated better regarding needing good cause and holding a valid HSC for handgun carrying or purchasing?

gene and gray have already alluded to why this is a good thing, see below:

Alan Gura: Your honor, the State of California has offered self defense as a good reason for issuance only to veterans of the armed forces. There is no reason under the 14th amendment's equal protection clause to have this occur. Self defense is for everyone, not just those who served in the armed forces.

Sykes should take care of this foolishness.

Though I understand why people might think Vets shouldn't get a special classification, I simply ask you to read between the lines about why such a bill passing would be very good for everyone.

Those opposed can pass it or be anti vet. :43:

-Gene
that pretty much settles the issue for me.

misterjake
04-02-2010, 7:34 PM
Do ALL members of the military receive pistol training? I thought all receive rifle training but not all receive rifle and pistol training.

If not all receive pistol training then shouldn't vets also have to train for the same CCW course? What if a vet served 20 years prior and their handgun skills are not up to par? If you make exceptions it's only opening a can of worms. If you did receive pistol training then the mandatory CCW course will be a breeze. :)


i agree every person who can legally buy a pistol should be able to carry it but lets take it in steps and i think to carry a pistol every person who wants a CCW should have to take a course and prove they can shoot it. Cuz when joe schmore gets scared and wants to pull his 45 and start blazing away with all his adrenaline goin i'd kinda like him to at least get in and around the thing/person he's shooting at especially if i'm anywhere on that street. we aren't going to get our retarded gun laws changed overnight but a step in the right direction is cool.

and i'm FIRMLY for people to have to take a safety course/ quiz whatever before buying a pistol because a pretty large percentage of this country have NEVER been around a gun much less recieved any type of gun safety instruction. now ALL military members get such training... weird so a waive of that I am fully for.

BigJoe
04-02-2010, 7:43 PM
we all shot pistols in bootcamp. even stateside, on ships, whatever all people carry pistols in the service at one time or another. I understand what your saying. I actually have taken the safety course, i've taken the CCW course, i have no problem doin so and i still can't get a CCW in cali cuz evidently the safety of my family and myself isn't a good enough reason to carry a gun.

LCU1670
04-02-2010, 7:53 PM
Do ALL members of the military receive pistol training? I thought all receive rifle training but not all receive rifle and pistol training.

If not all receive pistol training then shouldn't vets also have to train for the same CCW course? What if a vet served 20 years prior and their handgun skills are not up to par? If you make exceptions it's only opening a can of worms. If you did receive pistol training then the mandatory CCW course will be a breeze. :)

Every Branch is different. I had to qualify with my rifle and handgun every 6 months (for 26 1/2 years). Not to mention when I had to carry every day. My wife was in for 19 yrs, but only had to qualify every year with a rifle ( when she wasnt carring every day). But if you are/were in the military, you really learned weapons safety (or paid the consequences)!!

Its nice that these bills are up and I hope they pass, maybe opening the door for EVERYONE. But, I want California as a Shall Issue state! My wife and I supported and defended the constitution, and that constitution states you too have a right, whether you were in the military or not.

This issue shouldn't divide us, or pit one group against another, there is only one real issue: SHALL ISSUE not May Issue in California.

Call_me_Tom
04-02-2010, 7:59 PM
CWMV I'm with you.

One thing I've noticed about CGN is that they can become a mob real quick. It's the reason why members here alginate themselves from LEO's so often.

I see that it wasn't very hard for the politicians to divide the CGN members. It's too bad that folks are too narrow minded to see that if these bills pass it will open the door to many for rights & freedoms for everyone.

Seesm
04-02-2010, 9:18 PM
I am a veteran and I agree, veterans, people who have never served in the military, police, anyone who is not a violent criminal offender should be allowed to get a CCW.

Here here...

Im a veteran and I support it. By singing up for the armed forces you have pretty much volunteered to die for your country. Most don't, by a large margin, but you have volunteered to go do the dirty work that is necessary to keep this country safe that 90% of the rest of the country isn't willing to do, and in doing that work you may very well die.

So ya there's the "well you knew what you were getting into when you volunteered" argument, but that is exactly my point. All veterans knew that they may die in the service of something infinitely greater than themselves and did it anyway.
All veterans gave of themselves, so ya a little recognition is appropriate.

No I fully agree with you that you gave of yourself and I really REALLY think most in the military are incredable people and I admire them as well but we all (if legally able to own a gun) should be able to get a CCW. (shall issue)

I bet violence drops 10 fold... No bad guy wants any resistance from us.

misterjake
04-02-2010, 11:28 PM
Well I've never served but I did attend a Marine Educaters Workshop 2 years ago in Camp Pendleton. It's a program for teachers to get a quick view of what a young marine will go through during the week. Well, we got to spend a couple hours in the shooting simulaters and I scored expert marksman in the pistol range, I even raised some eyebrows from a major. Can I get an exemption? :) some young marines got up to try to see what they could do, they didn't do too well, poor guys.

dwa
04-03-2010, 8:18 AM
I support it for the same reason i get a discount at apple bees.

Roadrunner
04-03-2010, 8:39 AM
We are looking at this from two different perspectives. I see where your point comes from but I don't agree.

This argument might as well expand to the GI bill or the Comp claims that most vets get.
"I wanted to join the Army, but I wasn't allowed, so I should get the GI bill too" Or "I wanted to join the Marines, but couldn't, so in light of the wounds I could have received I should get some compensation"

I'm not saying anything should be equal here-it shouldn't.
People who do for others (Vets/Cops/Etc...) deserve special considerations, perks for doing what others wouldn't. IE I personally don't have to pay for metered parking spaces because of my purple heart license plate.

Equality is all nice, but If we really want to make it equal why not make it mandatory conscription, 2 years of service, than everyone can get a CCW upon honorable discharge.:D

Your argument is seriously flawed. You can't compare any law that extends or restricts the second amendment, to employment benefits like the GI bill. Like any employment position, people are or are not qualified to do the job. If these bills gave special privileges to rocket scientists and you weren't qualified, I'm sure you would think that's unfair. The same goes here. We served because we felt compelled to protect and defend the Constitution that guarantees everyone's rights. Selecting one group of people over another is simply a divide and conquer tactic that I will not support. As law abiding Americans, we all have to stand together and protect everyone's rights. That means police, military veterans, active duty military, and people who have never served are in this together. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the second amendment to everyone that's not a violent criminal.

Gray Peterson
04-03-2010, 3:06 PM
gene and gray have already alluded to why this is a good thing, see below:




that pretty much settles the issue for me.

I'll confess as the original "bomb thrower" against the bill in this thread that I didn't think through the potential implications until Bill and Gene showed me the potential use of it.

Go ahead and pass this bill please, with sugar on top.

-Gray

obeygiant
04-03-2010, 3:34 PM
Go ahead and pass this bill please, with sugar on top.

-Gray

:iagree: :43:

Werewolf1021
04-03-2010, 8:49 PM
It's called incrementalism ;)

Look at it this way. Cali legislature has made it clear they WONT pass shall issue for everyone as seen by Knight's previous attempts. This bill is different though. Who wants to be labeled anti-veteran by refusing to vote for this? Letting the public know that those who are against it are anti-vet (through ads and such) would really hurt those people in the elections.

You don't walk up to a girl in a bar and ask her if she's into anal.

postal
04-03-2010, 11:31 PM
Vets (honorable) used to not need an HSC. I havent bought a handgun in quite a while, but the ones I did buy, my DD214 exempted me. Then for some reason it changed. Had to be "retired" mil for exemption. Apparently this bill is to change the law back to what it was around 1999-2000.


I get a discount at Applebees? Is that for active duty or vets too? mmmmmmmmm...... RIBLETS!

Postal!

dwa
04-04-2010, 8:50 AM
Vets (honorable) used to not need an HSC. I havent bought a handgun in quite a while, but the ones I did buy, my DD214 exempted me. Then for some reason it changed. Had to be "retired" mil for exemption. Apparently this bill is to change the law back to what it was around 1999-2000.


I get a discount at Applebees? Is that for active duty or vets too? mmmmmmmmm...... RIBLETS!

Postal!

they bring it up now and again and some days they have free stuff

cbn620
04-04-2010, 12:22 PM
:shock:

Because 234 years of freedom wasn't earned by computer jockeys and armchair soldiers who never served. It was earned by those veterans who were willing to fight and die so that people can live in ignorant bliss about what it really takes to keep our freedoms.
Soldiers, law enforcement, and veterans are the most special people in our society.

If you care about our 234 years of freedom and the blood that has been spilled to defend it, I'd say you should definitely care about this in terms of potentially violating equal protection under the law which is one of the freedoms you speak of. If this were a mere benefit I'd have no problem with saying yes, military personnel do a dirty, but highly important job and deserve to get some perks for it. But this deals with equal protection under the law and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and places the rights of a select few above the rights of everyone else.

Gray Peterson
04-04-2010, 4:56 PM
This debate is nice and everything, but I think we should get this passed purely to open a further argument against this law in Sykes.

-Gray

KylaGWolf
04-04-2010, 10:41 PM
Im a veteran and I support it. By singing up for the armed forces you have pretty much volunteered to die for your country. Most don't, by a large margin, but you have volunteered to go do the dirty work that is necessary to keep this country safe that 90% of the rest of the country isn't willing to do, and in doing that work you may very well die.

So ya there's the "well you knew what you were getting into when you volunteered" argument, but that is exactly my point. All veterans knew that they may die in the service of something infinitely greater than themselves and did it anyway.
All veterans gave of themselves, so ya a little recognition is appropriate.

No offense but they willingly made the choice to serve in many cases. Now while I appreciate that fact doesn't mean that they are any more special than anyone else on this earth. And before you get all cranky with me most of my family have served in the military. My brother came home in a wheelchair thanks to Vietnam. My father was shot in the knee in Korea. I had another brother serve during the first Gulf War and dealt with a lot of stuff because of that. I appreciate everything they have done. Now keeping that in mind even if I had wanted to join the military I never would have made it through the physical because by the time I was 18 both my knees were trashed. Many people that are non military put their lives on the line every day in this country as well...so are they any less special?

Glock-matic
04-05-2010, 3:16 PM
It is funny how many people see LEOs as an elite class who deserves special consideration with the carrying of fire arms; and at the same time get up in arms about former military. This bill is designed to be a stepping stone, it is a political sacred cow, few politicians outside of California would dare to badmouth vetrans.

As a former vet, I will say that I never expected special treatment; but, I always said thank you.

fairfaxjim
04-05-2010, 3:29 PM
Stupid and superfilous legislation is not our friend! We do not need any more new firearm legislation - they are already way beyond comprehension for anyone, including supreme court justices. What we need is repeal of a whol bunch of existing firearms laws. Way simpler and quicker. Pretty soon you will have to be a left handed, disabled veteran, certified normal, born at night gay/lesbian/transgender or bi-sexual with no cause whatsoever to get a CCW. Doesn't fly for me.

Paladin
04-05-2010, 3:37 PM
I just called all those cmte members' Sacto offices. Takes less than 15 min. Free when using cellphone.

Roadrunner
04-05-2010, 4:50 PM
It is funny how many people see LEOs as an elite class who deserves special consideration with the carrying of fire arms; and at the same time get up in arms about former military. This bill is designed to be a stepping stone, it is a political sacred cow, few politicians outside of California would dare to badmouth vetrans.

As a former vet, I will say that I never expected special treatment; but, I always said thank you.

I don't consider either one to be an "elite class". Not one person or category of people should be denied the ability to exercise their rights.

HondaMasterTech
04-05-2010, 6:31 PM
:shock:

Because 234 years of freedom wasn't earned by computer jockeys and armchair soldiers who never served. It was earned by those veterans who were willing to fight and die so that people can live in ignorant bliss about what it really takes to keep our freedoms.
Soldiers, law enforcement, and veterans are the most special people in our society.

I have respect for the hard work of all Americans regardless of their actual service. What I have a problem with are the remarks of this individual.

obeygiant
04-05-2010, 7:25 PM
This debate is nice and everything, but I think we should get this passed purely to open a further argument against this law in Sykes.

-Gray

:iagree: /thread

Dr.Lou
04-05-2010, 9:45 PM
I am a veteran and I agree, veterans, people who have never served in the military, police, anyone who is not a violent criminal offender should be allowed to get a CCW.


Police are already exempt from that goofy training. CA should be a "shall issue" state, and the 2A is good cause!!

oif03vet
04-06-2010, 8:54 AM
I called them all on Thursday. Anyone know when this will be voted on today?

oif03vet
04-06-2010, 10:52 AM
I have been searching the state websites and havent found any updates. The last update I was able to find was from yesterday.

johnthomas
04-06-2010, 11:29 AM
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp

It says their out of session until 4/8 9:30.

oif03vet
04-06-2010, 11:33 AM
I guess they took today off. Must be nice.

johnthomas
04-06-2010, 11:41 AM
They are the ruling class, the elite, the royalty, the privileged, better than anyone else, the protected, just ask them. They can do whatever they want. They make the laws for us to live by, and we put them in that position?
At some point, when they have time, they will vote.

Combo
04-06-2010, 1:40 PM
Just received this


From: Assemblymember Hagman [mailto:Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov]
Sent: Tue 4/6/2010 2:15 PM



Thank you for contacting me to express your support for three important pro-second amendment bills (AB 2053, AB 2152, AB 2115) that were presented before the Public Safety Committee on April 6th, 2010.



Unfortunately, each bill failed to pass. The votes were as follows:



AB 2053: This bill would define "good cause,” when applying for a CCW permit, to include self defense, defending the life of another, or preventing crime in which human life is threatened


- 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 – NOT VOTING

- Assemblymember Nancy Skinner – NO




AB 2152: This bill would except honorably discharged members of the United States Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Air National Guard, and the active reserve components of the United States, from the handgun safety certificate requirements.


- 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 – NOT VOTING

- Assemblymember Nancy Skinner – NO




AB 2115: This bill would provide that if a person seeking a CCW license is a veteran, than no good cause would need to be shown.

- 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 – NOT VOTING

- Assemblymember Nancy Skinner – NO



Though these were not the desired outcomes, I would like to extend my thank you to all of you that continue to support our Constitutional right to bear arms. Please continue to contact your representatives about these issues and spread the word to your friends and neighbors so they too can stay informed. 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

tacticalcity
04-06-2010, 1:44 PM
I like the "Assembly Bill 2152" big time. Time to make some phone calls. Let's hope this passes! The idea that those who served their country honorably, are not trusted to responsibly own and carry firearms has always bothered me, even before I served. Don't get me wrong, I think ordinary law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry as well. I just find the fact that we do not trust those who served our nation with honor particularly disgraceful.

Scott Connors
04-06-2010, 1:53 PM
Why can't they just exempt everyone from these silly requirements? Why are veterans so special?

If you want to know why vets are special, I suggest that you read Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers (and do not mention the f---ed up piece of crap Hollywood perpetrated under its name.)

Anyway, think of this as the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. First it's out of state and retired LEOs, then veterans, and then--who knows? "Heute Veteran, zum morgan die Welt!"

tacticalcity
04-06-2010, 2:07 PM
"Why are veterans so special?"

Seriously? You don't think there is something special about that accomplishment?

Are you a kid or something? That just does not seem like a question a grown adult would need to ask.

I am not saying that ordinary law abiding citizens should not be trusted with a CCW. I am saying the fact that veterans are indeed special should be obvious and the fact that it is an intolerable injustice that our government does not trust them should be equally obvious.

These people volunteered to put themselves in harms way (whether or not that ended up happening is irrelevant) and served their country with honor. Many if not most of them carried a firearm while in the service of their duties, often times on foreign soil where their behavior with firearm could have had a major impact on foreign relations. The fact that our government would have the nerve not to trust such men and women with a firearm here in the states, even after they proved their trust worthiness beyond a shadow of a doubt is disgraceful.

Nothing pisses me off more than showing disrespect to a Vet. It causes me to completely loose my cool.

It scares the hell out me that there are people out there with so little regard for our Veterans.

KALIDAWG8996
04-06-2010, 2:22 PM
+1 to Tactical City! Veterans loose certain rights and give up alot that only throughout their careers however long it may be. I don't think veterans are "special" but, they are a breed apart from the rest of the community. It's bad enough that many veterans, especially Army and Marines, are well trained with weapon use responsibly in the use of force continumm and levels of force only to be told that they need hand gun safety training like a n00b. It really is sad....and a smack in the face to those vets that have not only served but, have given more so of themselves than generations past.

This state really does not provide veterans with much unless they are seriously disabled and has to be combat related. Many are comming back jobless and thankless. The least this state could do is give them back some sense of responsibility by using the knowledge and experience they have to be a deterent for all these criminals being let loose.

CHS
04-06-2010, 2:28 PM
Seriously? You don't think there is something special about that accomplishment?

Are you a kid or something? That just does not seem like a question a grown adult would need to ask.


Veterans are special and deserve respect in many different ways.

However, they are no more special than anyone else when it comes to equal application of rights and the laws of our country.

If a veteran or non-veteran gets to be more "special" under the constitution than other people, well then they are no longer Rights, are they? Now they're just privileges based on occupation.

Should reporters, artists and photographers be granted extra special treatment under the 1st amendment?

When it comes to the RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms, no one should be treated as more "special" than anyone else.

So yes, I ask why the hell veterans are so special in this regard?

tacticalcity
04-06-2010, 2:52 PM
I think you missed my point. I commenting on the disrespectful way the statement phrased. There is a pretty obvious amount of disdain in it toward Veterans (or at least I thought so), which I found upsetting. The question could have been phrased in a way that did not suggest that there was "nothing special" about veterans.

While I agree that all states should be shall issue, I find it especially arrogant to say honorably discharged veterans of all people cannot be trusted with a CCW. There is a weird kind of irony to it. We trust a 17 year old not to start World War III by firing on the East German guard on the other side of the Berlin wall during the cold war, but won't trust that same man at 57 with a CCW now that he is retired from the military? What about his retirement after a life time of honorable service suddenly makes him so untrustworthy? That is a concept even somebody who dislikes the idea of ever owning a gun can wrapped his head around.

I was not making an argument for elite class or any of that nonsense. Just saying show some respect. Rephrase the statement in a way that is not disrespectful yet still makes your point, which I assume was: all law abiding citizens should be trusted with a CCW so why focus on veterans? Phrased that way...even a hard *** like myself would have nothing to gripe about.

I think a lot of people here are completely missing the point of these bills, and not just my complaint about the way our friend phrased his statement. It is not about forming an elite class of gun owner. It is about pointing out to the general public the absurdity of our gun laws in a way they can understand. The average citizen can see that it is absurd to say that even though a soldier responsibly carried a firearm for 20+ years, now that he is retiring we don't trust him to be responsible with a firearm any more. That is something somebody in the middle of the road, who does not want to own a gun himself, can wrap his head around. This is the perfect opportunity to start to get the general public on our side for a change. It does not completely change their minds about gun ownership, or make our laws 100% fair, but it does take a step in the right direction while having the added benefit of honoring those who served our country with honor (which is always a good idea).

You have to do these things step by step. Right now the anti-gun movement has average Americans thinking we gun owners are the crazy ones for even wanting to own a gun. That did not happen over night and will not be changed overnight. We have to seek out areas where the absurdity of our current gun laws is so obvious, even a culture heavily ingrained with anti-gun sentiment will be able to recognize the unfairness of the current law and want to do something about it. That is no easy task.

These bills are an excellent attempt to do just that. These bills expose a huge and obvious hypocrisy in the current laws, and a flaw in the anti-gun position that has the potential of really resonating with the general public. If the government does not trust veterans who served the country honorably with the right to carry a gun, then who exactly do they trust? The average American can see the flaw in the government's logic. They can see the unfairness of it, and unlike many other countries, Americans still expect life to be fair. So while the general public may not be ready to trust every single average citizen out there with a concealed carry permit, surely they are willing to trust an honorably discharged veteran, right? If not, why not? That one step in our pro-gun direction gives us something to build upon. A baby step that leads to a bigger step. Eventually the anti-gun position sounds crazy to average citizen, and not just gun owners like ourselves.

If you are an all or nothing idealist, and only support bills that call for an all out repeal of anti-gun laws, you will never get anything accomplished. You have to change people's general opinion of gun ownership and gun owners first. That does not happen overnight. If you are a pragmatist, and support anything and everything that chips away at both the current anti-gun laws and current anti-gun sentiment of the general population, you will eventually not only change the way gun ownership is viewed in this country, but regain the freedoms promised to you by our forefathers.

Just something to consider.

Sgt Raven
04-06-2010, 9:40 PM
I think you missed my point. I commenting on the disrespectful way the statement phrased. There is a pretty obvious amount of disdain in it toward Veterans (or at least I thought so), which I found upsetting. The question could have been phrased in a way that did not suggest that there was "nothing special" about veterans.

While I agree that all states should be shall issue, I find it especially arrogant to say honorably discharged veterans of all people cannot be trusted with a CCW. There is a weird kind of irony to it. We trust a 17 year old not to start World War III by firing on the East German guard on the other side of the Berlin wall during the cold war, but won't trust that same man at 57 with a CCW now that he is retired from the military? What about his retirement after a life time of honorable service suddenly makes him so untrustworthy? That is a concept even somebody who dislikes the idea of ever owning a gun can wrapped his head around.

I was not making an argument for elite class or any of that nonsense. Just saying show some respect. Rephrase the statement in a way that is not disrespectful yet still makes your point, which I assume was: all law abiding citizens should be trusted with a CCW so why focus on veterans? Phrased that way...even a hard *** like myself would have nothing to gripe about.

I think a lot of people here are completely missing the point of these bills, and not just my complaint about the way our friend phrased his statement. It is not about forming an elite class of gun owner. It is about pointing out to the general public the absurdity of our gun laws in a way they can understand. The average citizen can see that it is absurd to say that even though a soldier responsibly carried a firearm for 20+ years, now that he is retiring we don't trust him to be responsible with a firearm any more. That is something somebody in the middle of the road, who does not want to own a gun himself, can wrap his head around. This is the perfect opportunity to start to get the general public on our side for a change. It does not completely change their minds about gun ownership, or make our laws 100% fair, but it does take a step in the right direction while having the added benefit of honoring those who served our country with honor (which is always a good idea).

You have to do these things step by step. Right now the anti-gun movement has average Americans thinking we gun owners are the crazy ones for even wanting to own a gun. That did not happen over night and will not be changed overnight. We have to seek out areas where the absurdity of our current gun laws is so obvious, even a culture heavily ingrained with anti-gun sentiment will be able to recognize the unfairness of the current law and want to do something about it. That is no easy task.

These bills are an excellent attempt to do just that. These bills expose a huge and obvious hypocrisy in the current laws, and a flaw in the anti-gun position that has the potential of really resonating with the general public. If the government does not trust veterans who served the country honorably with the right to carry a gun, then who exactly do they trust? The average American can see the flaw in the government's logic. They can see the unfairness of it, and unlike many other countries, Americans still expect life to be fair. So while the general public may not be ready to trust every single average citizen out there with a concealed carry permit, surely they are willing to trust an honorably discharged veteran, right? If not, why not? That one step in our pro-gun direction gives us something to build upon. A baby step that leads to a bigger step. Eventually the anti-gun position sounds crazy to average citizen, and not just gun owners like ourselves.

If you are an all or nothing idealist, and only support bills that call for an all out repeal of anti-gun laws, you will never get anything accomplished. You have to change people's general opinion of gun ownership and gun owners first. That does not happen overnight. If you are a pragmatist, and support anything and everything that chips away at both the current anti-gun laws and current anti-gun sentiment of the general population, you will eventually not only change the way gun ownership is viewed in this country, but regain the freedoms promised to you by our forefathers.

Just something to consider.

Great post, especially the bolded.

Jason_2111
04-06-2010, 10:42 PM
You take an oath when you join the military.

When you leave active duty, that oath does not go away.

Werewolf1021
04-06-2010, 10:47 PM
If you want to know why vets are special, I suggest that you read Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers (and do not mention the f---ed up piece of crap Hollywood perpetrated under its name.)

Anyway, think of this as the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. First it's out of state and retired LEOs, then veterans, and then--who knows? "Heute Veteran, zum morgan die Welt!"

Love that novel. Paul Verhoeven screwed the movie up so badly I'm surprised that the Heinlein estate didn't sue.

Apparently they all failed. Shows how much hoplophobia these idiots have if they are willing to risk scorn for not supporting Veterans.

HondaMasterTech
04-06-2010, 11:02 PM
I think the pride of some people is making them miss the general point.

Government doesn't need to trust anyone to respect the Second Amendment.

Nobody needs to have done something special to deserve the rights protected in the Second Amendment.

Assuming that you have a special privilege, have earned more of that right or for any other reason believe that you are more deserving of the Second Amendment is selfish.

Then, for some, taking it to the next level and insulting anyone who did not serve in the military is ridiculous.

This is not a thread anyone should be proud of.

tenpercentfirearms
04-07-2010, 5:45 AM
It really is this simple: we are slippery sloping back towards our rights. So sure I don't think veterans have anymore of a right to keep and bear arms than I do. However, if it is easier for them to get a CCW, why in the hell not? We do not live in a perfect black and white world. If veterans can't get a CCW any easier, I still can't get a CCW any easier. Just because my day is ruined, doesn't mean we can't let them get something out of it.

So today we get veterans in there. It is a step. Once that is successful, then we move on to the next category we think is special. Maybe hunters? Anyone with a hunting license shall have just cause. All business owners. Anyone who lives in a rural area. Anyone who feels they need to defend themselves.

The point is we keep taking things back. So although I don't think veterans should get special treatment, I would encourage them to help us chip away at our chains of bondage. Today veterans, tomorrow everyone else!