PDA

View Full Version : AB1934 Passed by a vote of 5 to 2.


Havoc70
04-20-2010, 12:15 PM
I don't have vote specifics yet, but Tom Ammiano had a typical classy closing statement:

"I almost helped author this bill. I cannot imagine a reason why someone would want to carry a gun except to compensate for something, well, you know what."

Saldana showed up in grand fashion wearing a bullet proof vest.

Roadrunner
04-20-2010, 12:22 PM
I can't wait for June.

mej16489
04-20-2010, 12:24 PM
It sounded like 4 - 2 to me on the live audio.

Marxman
04-20-2010, 12:30 PM
Can't say I didn't see this coming from a mile away, but I'll be damned if it doesn't sting just the same.

thebronze
04-20-2010, 12:32 PM
Great job Open Carry folks!

Looks like you're getting what you wanted...

Glock22Fan
04-20-2010, 12:33 PM
I don't have vote specifics yet, but Tom Ammiano had a typical classy closing statement:

"I almost helped author this bill. I cannot imagine a reason why someone would want to carry a gun except to compensate for something, well, you know what."



I want to compensate for the probability, nay certainty, that, unless I am attacked by an angry great-grandmother in a wheelchair, I will almost certainly be unable to prevent any likely attacker from overpowering me owing to my age and physical disability.

I have a nice poster to that effect, but I've never worked out how to post pictures here. (If anyone wants to tell me how, I'll put it up)

Saldana showed up in grand fashion wearing a bullet proof vest.

"Fear of firearms is a sign of sexual immaturity" - Sigmund Freud.

Robidouxs
04-20-2010, 12:38 PM
I am not at all surprised that AB1934 passed. What does Saldana hope to prove with wearing a bullet "resistant" vest?

Draankol
04-20-2010, 12:38 PM
Great job Open Carry folks!

Looks like you're getting what you wanted...

I don't think it is fair to blame the UOC'ers. They are just excercising their rights. Since when did an off-base, corrupt government reaction become justified by people simply excercising their rights?

If they (the government) told us to stop bashing Obama, and we kept on bashing that moron, and they revoked our right to free speech, you'd blame us or blame the government for overstepping their bounds and once again crapping on the constitution?

The problem is not the OUC'ers, it is the asshats in Sacramento.

BigDogatPlay
04-20-2010, 12:45 PM
Since when did an off-base, corrupt government reaction become justified by people simply excercising their rights?

Since the collective "we" elected the fools that walk the halls of the legislature currently.

In fairness, bashing UOC proponents, even slightly, is not a good thing. Regardless of who is "to blame" the larger issue is still this bill, and other anti-gun bills currently on the agenda. We... and I mean all of we from UOCers to Zumbo disciples need to sack up, set aside the BS and get to business on these bills with a united front.

As above... the problem is in Excremento, and it's time to flush it.

kcbrown
04-20-2010, 12:48 PM
Are they doing this in violation of the California constitution? The governor declared a fiscal emergency at the beginning of the year, but I can't tell if a bill addressing it was sent to him or not.

From Article IV, Section 10, paragraph f of the CA constitution:




If, following the enactment of the budget bill for the 2004-05 fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year, the Governor determines that, for that fiscal year, General Fund revenues will decline substantially below the estimate of General Fund revenues upon which the budget bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, was based, or General Fund expenditures will increase substantially above that estimate of General Fund revenues, or both, the Governor may issue a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency and shall thereupon cause the Legislature to assemble in special session for this purpose. The proclamation shall identify the nature of the fiscal emergency and shall be submitted by the Governor to the Legislature, accompanied by proposed legislation to address the fiscal emergency.
If the Legislature fails to pass and send to the Governor a bill or bills to address the fiscal emergency by the 45th day following the issuance of the proclamation, the Legislature may not act on any other bill, nor may the Legislature adjourn for a joint recess, until that bill or those bills have been passed and sent to the Governor.
A bill addressing the fiscal emergency declared pursuant to this section shall contain a statement to that effect.

elenius
04-20-2010, 12:49 PM
So, "passed" means passed out of... what? The public safety committee? And next it's going where?

Marxman
04-20-2010, 12:49 PM
What's with the low blow "compensation" comment? Does this idiot know how many female shooters there are? Elderly people with no other means of defense? Disabled shooters? People like this were never meant to hold public office, and it's sickening to see them desecrating the trust their constituents put in them.

goodlookin1
04-20-2010, 12:52 PM
Well the only good thing about this is that, once McDonald passes, we will truly be able to argue that except in special cases, there is NO freedom to legally bear arms in CA where we choose, which is (will be) in violation of the Constitution. This will no doubt will lead to our God given right to carry loaded (probably by shall-issue or better, loaded carry) WITHOUT "good cause".

But Tom Amiano needs to go like a bad habit.

Legasat
04-20-2010, 12:55 PM
I can't wait for June.

Yes, it cannot come soon enough...

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 12:56 PM
It passed the Public Safety committee. My friend that was present said it was 3 to 2, and he said he even thinks a Democrat crossed the aisle, but isn't sure, the cell phones dropped connection.

Glock22Fan
04-20-2010, 12:57 PM
If this bill passes, I think that it might well strengthen our hand in cases like Sykes.

We've got to be allowed to carry somehow.

thebronze
04-20-2010, 12:58 PM
I don't think it is fair to blame the UOC'ers. They are just excercising their rights. Since when did an off-base, corrupt government reaction become justified by people simply excercising their rights?

If they (the government) told us to stop bashing Obama, and we kept on bashing that moron, and they revoked our right to free speech, you'd blame us or blame the government for overstepping their bounds and once again crapping on the constitution?

The problem is not the OUC'ers, it is the asshats in Sacramento.


I think it is. They've sold out their fellow gun people people just to make their stupid political statement, so they could get their little piece of the pie, instead of waiting, so that we can all get a piece of the pie.

So that we'll ALL have the right to carry in a Constitutional manner.

You see, I live in the REAL world, not a dream world where all our rights are respected/protected by the Government.

P*ss on them.

Robidouxs
04-20-2010, 12:59 PM
Well the only good thing about this is that, once McDonald passes, we will truly be able to argue that except in special cases, there is NO ability to legally bear arms in CA, which is (will be) in violation of the Constitution. This will no doubt will lead to our God given right to carry loaded (probably by shall-issue or better, loaded carry) WITHOUT "good cause".

But Tom Amiano needs to go like a bad habit.

Assuming all goes well, I cannot wait to see the heavy hand of the United States Constitution become known in California. In my graduate classes my fellow classmates have no qualms trampling the Constitution on the grounds that it is not "morally/emotionally correct." I only hope that the coming months, especially in June, result in the people taking further interest in the founding document of our country.

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 1:00 PM
P*ss on them.

Classy.

thebronze
04-20-2010, 1:01 PM
Classy.


What's classy is you guys doing your thing and p*ssing on the rest of us.

You guys brought it on yourselves.

Marxman
04-20-2010, 1:02 PM
P*ss on them.

I work for Mel Brooks!

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 1:07 PM
What's classy is you guys doing your thing and p*ssing on the rest of us.

You guys brought it on yourselves.

You're right. We pushed the buttons at the wrong time. Had I heard the call to stand down from here, I would have. I would have encouraged others to do the same.

So now all I can do is work with CGF to fix the mess, which I am doing by ensuring I contribute at least $50 a month to CGF.

Did we screw the dog? Probably. I've been spending a lot of time thinking about this the past couple of days and I'm going to retract some of my statements and state this instead:

1) Had I been here and heard the request to stand down, I would have and I would have asked others to do so as well.

2) I do harbor some regret for being part of the group that has given us yet another legal challenge. However, at the time I felt like it was a good idea and an opportunity to at least attempt to educate people on the fence about responsible gun ownership.

At least I succeeded in educating people. Heck, last night we had an Open Carry meet in Vallejo at a Round Table pizza restaurant. Invited, by the owner, to patronize his business. About ten of us showed up and I talked to the owner.

He is personally anti-gun, but believes that people have a right to defend themselves. His choice to do so is by compliance, but he at least respects the rights of others enough to put aside his personal feelings and support us.

As an added bonus, he didn't charge us for our food or drinks.

I think the UOC did some good, but I also think some of the more belligerent groups ultimately did more harm and for me, it is guilt by association.

I will, however, work with CGF however needed to enable them to keep up the fight.

You can hate me for being an open carrier, I personally don't give a ****, but at least understand I am standing with CGF even though I am getting flamed to Hell and back.

jb7706
04-20-2010, 1:08 PM
If this bill passes, I think that it might well strengthen our hand in cases like Sykes.

We've got to be allowed to carry somehow.

Perhaps, but now anyone that accidentally breaks concealment for any reason may not only lose their CCW, they may be hung out to dry on open carry charges, no? It could make actually carrying harder. I know, I know concealed means concealed and all that, but we all have brain fades, and no one can control a gust of wind or a broken belt. Stuff happens, and this law could possibly make harmless accidents a crime. I see no upside to this bill, I believe we would get shall issue without it.

Legasat
04-20-2010, 1:21 PM
A committee in the California Legislature passed another stupid anti-gun bill?

:eek: I'm shocked! :eek:

thebronze
04-20-2010, 1:31 PM
You're right. We pushed the buttons at the wrong time. Had I heard the call to stand down from here, I would have. I would have encouraged others to do the same.

So now all I can do is work with CGF to fix the mess, which I am doing by ensuring I contribute at least $50 a month to CGF.

Did we screw the dog? Probably. I've been spending a lot of time thinking about this the past couple of days and I'm going to retract some of my statements and state this instead:

1) Had I been here and heard the request to stand down, I would have and I would have asked others to do so as well.

2) I do harbor some regret for being part of the group that has given us yet another legal challenge. However, at the time I felt like it was a good idea and an opportunity to at least attempt to educate people on the fence about responsible gun ownership.

At least I succeeded in educating people. Heck, last night we had an Open Carry meet in Vallejo at a Round Table pizza restaurant. Invited, by the owner, to patronize his business. About ten of us showed up and I talked to the owner.

He is personally anti-gun, but believes that people have a right to defend themselves. His choice to do so is by compliance, but he at least respects the rights of others enough to put aside his personal feelings and support us.

As an added bonus, he didn't charge us for our food or drinks.

I think the UOC did some good, but I also think some of the more belligerent groups ultimately did more harm and for me, it is guilt by association.

I will, however, work with CGF however needed to enable them to keep up the fight.

You can hate me for being an open carrier, I personally don't give a ****, but at least understand I am standing with CGF even though I am getting flamed to Hell and back.


Havoc, I'll give you props for standing up and admitting that.

No, I don't hate you for being an OC'er. I personally think that OC'ing is silly (from a tactical perspective), but I certainly don't hate you for standing up for what you believe is your Constitutional right.

As has been said, what some do, effects everyone else. We ALL need to remember that.

goodlookin1
04-20-2010, 1:32 PM
Perhaps, but now anyone that accidentally breaks concealment for any reason may not only lose their CCW, they may be hung out to dry on open carry charges, no? It could make actually carrying harder. I know, I know concealed means concealed and all that, but we all have brain fades, and no one can control a gust of wind or a broken belt. Stuff happens, and this law could possibly make harmless accidents a crime. I see no upside to this bill, I believe we would get shall issue without it.

Post McDonald, this shouldn't be a problem as "bearing" arms is not restricted to "only if it's concealed".

radioman
04-20-2010, 1:34 PM
It's not law yet, we can still fight, but not amongst our self's. I don't uoc, a hammer with no handle does not work, but the law says you can, so you do, and for you that do, it comes down to, use it or lose it. I can see your point, as I can see the point of us that are upset with uoc'ers; but we all want the same thing, our rights, the down side is that now we live in natzifornia, the up side is this could play into our hand.

glockman19
04-20-2010, 1:44 PM
If this bill passes, I think that it might well strengthen our hand in cases like Sykes.

We've got to be allowed to carry somehow.

EXACTLY!!!

The Inalieable right to keep and BEAR arms as an individual right can not be infringed so we get CCW on a shall issue basis. I can live with that. It will be one or the other in the end loaded open carry or loaded Concealed carry.

Now as far as reasonable restrictions...I'd say it has already been determined by other states. They issue a recriprical license, or not, and some require a class and proficiency exam, fingerprints and backround check. That seems to be the reasonable restrictions they speak of. Oh yea and they get the make, model and serial number of your carry gun.

I say that once Incorporation is settled states should just add a designation to their state issued drivers license.

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 1:44 PM
Havoc, I'll give you props for standing up and admitting that.

No, I don't hate you for being an OC'er. I personally think that OC'ing is silly (from a tactical perspective), but I certainly don't hate you for standing up for what you believe is your Constitutional right.

As has been said, what some do, effects everyone else. We ALL need to remember that.

Agreed, and yes, OC may be silly from a tactical perspective, LOC slightly less so. I, personally, believe in the visible deterrent (it worked for SAC), but I wouldn't say no to sane CCW laws!

And thanks for the props, it's too easy to keep up the pissing contest, but I'd rather forge alliances. Mended fences and all that.

Ding126
04-20-2010, 1:46 PM
More time & money spent to reverse something that never should of been.

or

Will this force the state to " shall issue " after McDonald?

jb7706
04-20-2010, 1:59 PM
Post McDonald, this shouldn't be a problem as "bearing" arms is not restricted to "only if it's concealed".

I'm not too sure about that. The understanding I have, and it very well could be wrong, is that post McDonald the state will have to allow us to bear arms. They could choose to do CCW only and legally ban OC or vice versa, but they may not outlaw both. We could have had both, but that is very likely water under the bridge at this point.

Think about it for a second. The state will be dragged kicking and screaming to shall issue CCW. The powers that be will be looking for any excuse possible to take as many CCW permits off the street as possible, esp in places like Sac County, San Francisco, LA etc. This bill will be just another club used to beat us down and take away our rights. Being charged with OC may well be enough to have your local LEO yank your permit. Being convicted could well lead to loss of your gun rights. I hope I am wrong on all accounts, but this is CA and we are gun owners. We are a long way from getting the benefit of the doubt in this state.

ripcurlksm
04-20-2010, 2:06 PM
Welcome Havoc

I don't think this will force or influence CCW's and rule out LOC. The court likes to reflect back on the wild west when the 'good' people had their guns on their hips and the 'bad' people concealed them.

Werewolf1021
04-20-2010, 2:06 PM
Yes, I am compensating for something. The loss of claws and sharp teeth as viable defensive tool from genetic selection.:rolleyes:

*insert joke about Ammiano, a prominent LGBT supporter, being fixated on the penis* :p

Besides, Ammiano is a giant tool. Whatever he says has little effect on what I believe. Letting it get to you only raises the blood pressure.

Glock22Fan
04-20-2010, 2:08 PM
I promised a poster, thanks to MilSurp Collector's instructions, here it is.

Thanks too to Tonelar, and anyone else who may belatedly add to my fund of knowledge.

http://i798.photobucket.com/albums/yy267/John_Spencer_1/2nd%20Amendment/gunOwnersAreCompensating.jpg

Marsoc1
04-20-2010, 2:09 PM
yet another sad day in california. Brady Campaign scores us at 79 outta 100, plus this and registering long guns makes like 81 outta 100 to me. Thats 80% of my 2A violated compared to the rest of the country...Grr i need to hit the range to blow off some steam...

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 2:11 PM
Welcome Havoc

Thank you. I'm still glad mostly to be here.

SanPedroShooter
04-20-2010, 2:13 PM
will the govenator sign this piece of ****?

goodlookin1
04-20-2010, 2:14 PM
I dont understand why some feel ashamed of exercising their right to UOC. It's well within the grounds of our Constitution and even legal with CA's restrictive laws! And I REALLY dont understand why anyone here would flame someone else for exercising their rights to carry! Shame on you!

Shall we not exercise our free speech rights in order that they not be taken away? What kind of freedom is it when you fear it might be taken away? Free men dont fear exercising their rights. If you're afraid that your "freedom" to UOC will be taken away, were you really free to UOC in the first place? These are God-given rights that our forefathers said preceded even our own existence! And our country was established with these rights in mind.

Freedom: the state of not being imprisoned, enslaved, or otherwise constrained.

Indeed, those who did not UOC out of fear of losing the perceived "freedom" to do so were constrained by that fear, in which this state has created.....They were truly never free to do it.

Smarter men would have stopped the nonsense that has been going on in this country (indeed, in our own backyard [CA]) LOOOONNG ago. Thomas Jefferson has probably already rolled over in his grave. "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither".

Draankol
04-20-2010, 2:24 PM
What's classy is you guys doing your thing and p*ssing on the rest of us.

You guys brought it on yourselves.

I see where you're coming from. I myself often felt they should have chilled for a while, but I will never assume to tell another American when and where to exercise their rights. That's un-American in my opinion.

There is some merit to the argument that maybe open carrying now was not a good idea, but it is overshadowed by the suggestion of infringing on another’s exercising of their rights.

P*ss on them if you will, and by your comments you do, but I support Americans who exercise their rights at their discretion. I support Gun owners that exercise their rights at their discretion.

artherd
04-20-2010, 2:24 PM
So what is the "no compromises" "rights now" plans now?

Where is the money to fight this going to come from - for that matter what is the legal basis of the argument? (that's going to fly in court.)

I'd really like to hear more of UOC's plan...

Glock22Fan
04-20-2010, 2:26 PM
And I REALLY dont understand why anyone here would flame someone else for exercising their rights to carry! Shame on you!

It wasn't an outright "Thou shalt not carry!"

It was suggested by those in the know, that at this time it was best to let sleeping dogs lie for strategic reasons and not upset the sheep. The thought was that after McDonald (and resulting cases) UOC, and maybe even LOC, could be resumed.

Some people followed this advice and stopped carrying for the time being. Some never heard the advice. But, others said "You are out of your mind. Nobody gets upset when I carry, indeed I'm doing a fine job getting people used to seeing a MWG, and I'm damned well going to continue doing so. You are talking B.S."

It is this last group that are now being told "You were wrong."

Are we hoping to stop this bill, or reverse it in due course? Of course; though it would have been a heck of a lot easier if we hadn't got to this situation. Don't expect us to be happy about it.

Sinestr
04-20-2010, 2:29 PM
will the govenator sign this piece of ****?

You bet ya.

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 2:32 PM
Some people followed this advice and stopped carrying for the time being. Some never heard the advice. But, others said "You are out of your mind. Nobody gets upset when I carry, indeed I'm doing a fine job getting people used to seeing a MWG, and I'm damned well going to continue doing so. You are talking B.S."

It is this last group that are now being told "You were wrong."


Thankfully, I'm not the last group. I'm in the "never heard the advice" group. And of course, those that were in the last group wouldn't tell us in the "never heard" group because, well, they didn't like it.

BluNorthern
04-20-2010, 2:33 PM
will the govenator sign this piece of ****?
If it gets that far, probably, though Ammiano once told Schwarzenegger that he could "kiss my gay ***." Maybe Arnold will hold a grudge. By the way, this Ammiano guy really seems like a class act...this is what passes for a legislator in California! Piss on em' is about right, it's time to change the majority in Sacramento.

Ding126
04-20-2010, 2:37 PM
This crap has been going on since the 80's and the same mentallity still exists...we need a BIG broom to clean house.

Flopper
04-20-2010, 2:47 PM
What's with the low blow "compensation" comment? Does this idiot know how many female shooters there are? Elderly people with no other means of defense? Disabled shooters? People like this were never meant to hold public office, and it's sickening to see them desecrating the trust their constituents put in them.

I have heard ammiano say outrageously crude things that would get any straight man impeached in CA.

He behaves like the world is his stage to act out a real-life "Will & Grace" script.

winnre
04-20-2010, 2:49 PM
Is this going to be on the 6 o'clock news tonight? It'll be interesting to see public reaction.

And since the 2nd amendment is not being recognized then how about if I do not recognize the 13th amendment and go buy a slave?

goodlookin1
04-20-2010, 2:51 PM
It wasn't an outright "Thou shalt not carry!"

It was suggested by those in the know, that at this time it was best to let sleeping dogs lie for strategic reasons and not upset the sheep. The thought was that after McDonald (and resulting cases) UOC, and maybe even LOC, could be resumed.

Some people followed this advice and stopped carrying for the time being. Some never heard the advice. But, others said "You are out of your mind. Nobody gets upset when I carry, indeed I'm doing a fine job getting people used to seeing a MWG, and I'm damned well going to continue doing so. You are talking B.S."

It is this last group that are now being told "You were wrong."

Are we hoping to stop this bill, or reverse it in due course? Of course; though it would have been a heck of a lot easier if we hadn't got to this situation. Don't expect us to be happy about it.

Well I should mention that I have never exercised my right to UOC, so I shouldn't be branded as "one of them".

That being said, I wouldnt care if I was. I would be proud that I exercised my right in the face of tyrannical opposition from the left and, astoundingly, unfriendly banter from "friends". I certainly wouldnt have gone as far to say that everyone....maybe even most....used tact in how they UOC'ed. I'm sure there were plenty of people who were jerks about it: Trying to bust cops for not knowing the law, getting in arguments with protesters, forcing and flaunting their rights just in hopes that it will bring about controversy.....all that is just asking for trouble and does nothing for furthering our cause. But must we trample on the rights of the rest of the sensible, law abiding, well-intentioned citizens who do change opinions to favor pro 2A positions? There may not be exposure to such issues otherwise, other than the garbage that is plastered all over the news about "shooting" this, and "murder" that....

Furthermore, we're talking about CA here.....when is there ever a good time to exercise our gun rights, especially out in the public? It was bound to happen sooner or later, even with McDonald in place.

Dunno, not saying I'm right here.....I just really dont like trodding down our own rights.

k1dude
04-20-2010, 3:06 PM
Can Brown as AG toss out the bill as unconstitutional? If so, he'd basically guarantee the vote of RKBA voters.

Glock22Fan
04-20-2010, 3:29 PM
Dunno, not saying I'm right here.....I just really dont like trodding down our own rights.

There are times when a strategic withdrawal makes military sense. As long as the battle is won at the end of the day.There cannot be a successful senior general who hasn't on some occasion walked away from a hill with the plan of recapturing it at lesser cost some subsequent day.

It really pained the Brits to flee from Dunkirk, it hurt the US forces to surrender the Philippines, but the time wasn't right to fight for either of them. We got them both back though.

Ding126
04-20-2010, 3:37 PM
There are times when a strategic withdrawal makes military sense. As long as the battle is won at the end of the day.There cannot be a successful senior general who hasn't on some occasion walked away from a hill with the plan of recapturing it at lesser cost some subsequent day.

It really pained the Brits to flee from Dunkirk, it hurt the US forces to surrender the Philippines, but the time wasn't right to fight for either of them. We got them both back though.

I like this...

jb7706
04-20-2010, 3:44 PM
There are times when a strategic withdrawal makes military sense. As long as the battle is won at the end of the day.There cannot be a successful senior general who hasn't on some occasion walked away from a hill with the plan of recapturing it at lesser cost some subsequent day.

It really pained the Brits to flee from Dunkirk, it hurt the US forces to surrender the Philippines, but the time wasn't right to fight for either of them. We got them both back though.

Bob Hodges: [to his new partner] There's two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: "Hey pop, let's say we run down there and :censored: one of them cows". The older one says: "No son. Lets walk down and :censored: 'em all".

"Colors" 1988

Dr. Peter Venkman
04-20-2010, 3:45 PM
It really pained the Brits to flee from Dunkirk, it hurt the US forces to surrender the Philippines, but the time wasn't right to fight for either of them. We got them both back though.

Dunkirk was not a strategic withdrawal. It was a military blunder by the Germans due to Hitler letting the Luftwaffe "take care of it" under the reassurance by Goering. Dunkirk was not part of the British play book and it only happened in the first place because they got their asses handed to them by Guderian. Not a good analogy.

J20DB
04-20-2010, 4:00 PM
I don't have vote specifics yet, but Tom Ammiano had a typical classy closing statement:

"I almost helped author this bill. I cannot imagine a reason why someone would want to carry a gun except to compensate for something, well, you know what."

Saldana showed up in grand fashion wearing a bullet proof vest.

Tell that to every woman who has been raped or otherwise been the victim of a violent crime... or to anybody who can't defend themselves physically due to age or disability... or, hell, even to any strong, able-bodied men who have become victims because of armed (or multiple) attackers.

Simply put, I would want to carry a gun because I know that if somebody were to want to make me a victim, they would not fight fair, and I'll be damned if I don't do my best to compensate for that. And I'm a healthy guy! My girlfriend doesn't even have the arm/hand strength to rack the slide on my Glock; she'd be no match for a criminal.

Ammiano's statement is a disgusting display of arrogance and naivety, and it's a shame that we're surrounded by people who would vote a fool like this into office. It must be nice living in that little bubble of his.

And Saldana wearing the bullet-resistant vest... wow, political theater at it's finest. Tell me, has there been a single violent incident yet perpetrated by an otherwise lawful open carrier? What is she trying to say? Anybody who carries a gun with devious intentions is going to do so concealed and loaded; this bill is nothing but that empty, feel-good BS that keeps getting those political hacks re-elected.

AndrewMendez
04-20-2010, 4:04 PM
I don't have vote specifics yet, but Tom Ammiano had a typical classy closing statement:

"I almost helped author this bill. I cannot imagine a reason why someone would want to carry a gun except to compensate for something, well, you know what."

Saldana showed up in grand fashion wearing a bullet proof vest.

This guys has no other argument then attack the size of a man's penis? Is he joking? I wonder if he feels the same way about LEO's? Its email time. This guy is a tool, and the type of person who is ruing our country. Do you have a link to it?

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 4:10 PM
This guys has no other argument then attack the size of a man's penis? Is he joking? I wonder if he feels the same way about LEO's? Its email time. This guy is a tool, and the type of person who is ruing our country. Do you have a link to it?

No link, just what I was told by people in attendance.

trevilli
04-20-2010, 4:32 PM
Dunkirk was not a strategic withdrawal. It was a military blunder by the Germans due to Hitler letting the Luftwaffe "take care of it" under the reassurance by Goering. Dunkirk was not part of the British play book and it only happened in the first place because they got their asses handed to them by Guderian. Not a good analogy.

This assumes that the Nazis were interested in conquering Great Britain; I don't think they were. Hitler's main focus was always the Soviet Union. Primarily based on ideas of race, he held the British people in relatively high regard. If he wanted to invade Great Britain he had plenty of opportunities to do so. I've read some books which suggest that Hitler "let" the British get away because he wanted to remain on somewhat good terms with them. He was hoping that they would capitulate early, and that he could resume "normal" relations with them. But I agree that the British play book didn't include a "tactical Dunkirk Maneuver" :)

DiscoBayJoe
04-20-2010, 4:50 PM
I received this email:


Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to AB 1934 (Saldaña). This legislation, which would make it an offense to carry firearms openly in holsters, was presented before the Public Safety Committee on April 20th, 2010.

Unfortunately, this bill passed the committee. The votes were as follows:

- Chair Assemblyman Tom Ammiano – AYE
- Vice-Chair Assemblyman Curt Hagman – NO
- Assemblyman Jim Beall, Jr. – AYE
- Assemblyman Danny Gilmore – NO
- Assemblyman Jerry Hill – AYE
- Assemblyman Anthony Portantino – NOT VOTING
- Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner – AYE

I urge you to contact your State Assembly and Senate Representatives and urge them to OPPOSE AB 1934 if/when it reaches the floor for a vote. You can determine your representatives by going to www.asm.ca.gov and clicking on “Find My District” in the left hand column.

It is outrageous that legislation such as this is even being considered. We need to focus our efforts on strengthening the economy and creating jobs, not punishing and regulating law abiding citizens.

I would like to extend my thank you to all of you that continue to support our Constitutional right to bear arms. 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.

Sincerely,

Assemblyman Curt Hagman
District 60

Ysoserious
04-20-2010, 5:28 PM
wow.

zoid52
04-20-2010, 7:25 PM
Unfortunately Saladana is my rep in Sacramento. She is a total MORON.

wkd4496
04-20-2010, 9:08 PM
I received this email:

Is it better to write a letter to the capitol office or district office?

DiscoBayJoe
04-20-2010, 9:24 PM
Is it better to write a letter to the capitol office or district office?

I dont know. I sent emails and i'm pleasantly suprised that I had responses from multiple points that indicated they had atleast flagged my input as 'against'.

wppii
04-20-2010, 9:47 PM
..but this isn't about compensating. That might be his reason.

Handguns are a safety device, much like a seat belt and a life jacket. All of them are a tool in the self-defense against the loss of one’s life.

No law abiding citizen ever plans to ever have to use any of them. They plan, equip and behave in a fashion that should preclude the use of any of these devices. However, should circumstances beyond their control require the use of any of these devices to save their life or the life of another, that device needs to be in position to work. In fact, seat belts and life jackets are required by law. Why? Because they reduce the dependence on public services should an unfortunate event occur. Which is precisely the reason that the carrying and proper use of handguns should be required of and taught to all citizens, not restricted from them.

Saldana talked about the "drain" on public services checking on the unloaded status of guns openly carried. It would not be an issue if loaded open carry were not illegal.

Carrying is no more compensating than wearing a seat belt or a life jacket. Maybe wearing a bullet-proof vest is.

wppii
04-20-2010, 9:50 PM
To the author of AB 1934, the committee chair and to my Assembly representative,

Good Morning,

Please have someone look into the "assembly.ca.gov" website's feature for commenting on Assembly bills, it does not seem to be working. I have attempted to comment on a bill you have authored, AB 1934, and keep getting the following message when I click on the "Comment" link:

Bill Comment Error Page
________________________________________
Your comment request could not be completed. The Bill Comment feature is only available for bills that are authored by an Assembly member.
Please check to insure that the author of the bill is currently an Assembly member.
Return to Bill Search page.

In the meantime I would like to register my opposition to this bill. This is a further, unnecessary restriction on law-abiding citizens exercising their rights as affirmed by the second amendment to the U.S. constitution. Carrying weapons, like driving an automobile, is not harmful and should not be intimidating. Carrying weapons, like driving an automobile, allows a person to provide (protection and transportation) for themselves, thereby reducing their dependence on public resources. Doing away with the carrying of weapons because those unfamiliar with them feel intimidated is like taking all cars off the road because some pedestrians feel threatened by passing traffic.

It is the misuse of weapons, like the misuse of automobiles, that should be the subject of legislation, prosecution and incarceration. Please work against this misuse without restricting proper use. Please work to provide weapons education, much like driver training, so that citizens can know the proper use of these tools.

Respectfully,

advocatusdiaboli
04-20-2010, 9:56 PM
While I personally think Open carry is foolish for self defense (never let your opponent know you are armed lest he get the drop on you--he knows you need to load so he just shoots you right off before you can), I would rather oppose this ban than let it pass, camel's nose in the tent-wise, and further restrict our rights. Little good comes of that and it provides more leverage for those who want a statewide ban on all firearms.

That said, letter writing doesn't work--witness the Ammo Purchase Restrictions Bill. A lot of good all that contacting legislators did eh?

I personally will focus my energy on incorporation--we cannot change the PRK so we'll have to override it. IF incorporation fails, then I'll need to move to Arizona to live free.

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 10:00 PM
I am not at all surprised that AB1934 passed. What does Saldana hope to prove with wearing a bullet "resistant" vest?

that she is STUPID and knows it?

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 10:03 PM
What's classy is you guys doing your thing and p*ssing on the rest of us.

You guys brought it on yourselves.

Eh don't put all open carries in the same bucket you will look foolish.

HondaMasterTech
04-20-2010, 10:05 PM
A great portion of our legislative body is unfit for the job. Not because their views differ from mine but because they consistently demonstrate a lack of intelligence.

HondaMasterTech
04-20-2010, 10:08 PM
By the way, in regards to this legislator wearing a bullet resistant vest; Has there ever been a documented case of a legitemate open-carrier aimlessly blasting away in a public and populated place causing injury to an innocent bystander?

I'm trying with great difficulty to justify her perception.

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 10:10 PM
Thankfully, I'm not the last group. I'm in the "never heard the advice" group. And of course, those that were in the last group wouldn't tell us in the "never heard" group because, well, they didn't like it.

Exactly. Havoc I said it earlier and will say it again don't let the rabid anti UOC get you down.

jaq
04-20-2010, 10:10 PM
You're right. We pushed the buttons at the wrong time. Had I heard the call to stand down from here, I would have. I would have encouraged others to do the same.

So now all I can do is work with CGF to fix the mess, which I am doing by ensuring I contribute at least $50 a month to CGF.

Did we screw the dog? Probably. I've been spending a lot of time thinking about this the past couple of days and I'm going to retract some of my statements...

Wow. I just have to say, my hat is off to you :) Thank you for being a man about this and having the courage to say it. I hope that many benefit from your example.

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 10:19 PM
Unfortunately Saladana is my rep in Sacramento. She is a total MORON.

I know the feeling on that one ::sighs::

Jpach
04-20-2010, 10:31 PM
You're right. We pushed the buttons at the wrong time. Had I heard the call to stand down from here, I would have. I would have encouraged others to do the same.

So now all I can do is work with CGF to fix the mess, which I am doing by ensuring I contribute at least $50 a month to CGF.

Did we screw the dog? Probably. I've been spending a lot of time thinking about this the past couple of days and I'm going to retract some of my statements and state this instead:

1) Had I been here and heard the request to stand down, I would have and I would have asked others to do so as well.

2) I do harbor some regret for being part of the group that has given us yet another legal challenge. However, at the time I felt like it was a good idea and an opportunity to at least attempt to educate people on the fence about responsible gun ownership.

At least I succeeded in educating people. Heck, last night we had an Open Carry meet in Vallejo at a Round Table pizza restaurant. Invited, by the owner, to patronize his business. About ten of us showed up and I talked to the owner.

He is personally anti-gun, but believes that people have a right to defend themselves. His choice to do so is by compliance, but he at least respects the rights of others enough to put aside his personal feelings and support us.

As an added bonus, he didn't charge us for our food or drinks.

I think the UOC did some good, but I also think some of the more belligerent groups ultimately did more harm and for me, it is guilt by association.

I will, however, work with CGF however needed to enable them to keep up the fight.

You can hate me for being an open carrier, I personally don't give a ****, but at least understand I am standing with CGF even though I am getting flamed to Hell and back.

Havoc70, that takes some balls to admit. Very good post and good to know that youve been educating people and had a pretty cool and quite surprising experience with an anti-gunner.

Time for CGN to keep kicking ***!

command_liner
04-20-2010, 10:39 PM
Are they doing this in violation of the California constitution? The governor declared a fiscal emergency at the beginning of the year, but I can't tell if a bill addressing it was sent to him or not.

From Article IV, Section 10, paragraph f of the CA constitution:

Yes, the whole Legislature is prohibited from doing the sort of thing done
today.

The Assembly is rogue. I cannot imagine any judge could uphold this
law, or that the AG would not toss it. But then again I am somewhat
rational.

Sleepy1988
04-20-2010, 10:42 PM
I don't have vote specifics yet, but Tom Ammiano had a typical classy closing statement:

"I almost helped author this bill. I cannot imagine a reason why someone would want to carry a gun except to compensate for something, well, you know what."

Saldana showed up in grand fashion wearing a bullet proof vest.

So, does that mean that people like Dianne Feinstein and Don Perata, the fellow elitist ****bags of people like Ammiano are also compensating for something?

This legislation is compensating for the fear of the proles voters that our political aristocracy has.

:mad::rolleyes:

Mike61982
04-20-2010, 10:45 PM
Hey, It's not over yet. It has another committee to go threw so we gotta keep on calling and telling them if they want there jobs they"ll vote no for this. So don't act like it's over. It's not over till it's over damn it!!!

neuron
04-20-2010, 11:07 PM
Perhaps, but now anyone that accidentally breaks concealment for any reason may not only lose their CCW, they may be hung out to dry on open carry charges, no?...

It shouldn't affect licensed CCW. The law has to do with unloaded open carry, and CCW is about loaded concealed carry. If your jacket is blown by the wind and you unintentionally expose your gun, you're generally OK except for the embarassment.

The political reaction to the open carry movement was predictable, but I don't blame the open carry folks for "bringing this on." The bill was not "passed" by the legislature...it just got out of committee. I'm hopeful that it won't actually be voted into law, but we'll see.

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 11:26 PM
Guys here is something to think about. Once they wipe out UOC what makes you think they won't then put so many restrictions on CCW to make it less than useless than what UOC is to some on this board now. Think about that one before you think it is a lock.

Just-in
04-20-2010, 11:33 PM
Guys here is something to think about. Once they wipe out UOC what makes you think they won't then put so many restrictions on CCW to make it less than useless than what UOC is to some on this board now. Think about that one before you think it is a lock.

With the history in this state what is there that points toward reasonably attainable CCW permits for the average law abiding tax paying resident.
Isn't there something in order where we will only be able to purchase 50 rounds a month? I shot more than that through a rental in not even a half hour yesterday...

Alaric
04-20-2010, 11:58 PM
Bob Hodges: [to his new partner] There's two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: "Hey pop, let's say we run down there and :censored: one of them cows". The older one says: "No son. Lets walk down and :censored: 'em all".

"Colors" 1998

You're dating yourself. Colors was released in 1988, not 1998. Good flick. Made me want to become a cop.

With the history in this state what is there that points toward reasonably attainable CCW permits for the average law abiding tax paying resident.

That's right, CCW is not reasonably attainable for most anyone in an urban and/or coastal county in this state. There are, however, some suits in the works to change all that.

Isn't there something in order where we will only be able to purchase 50 rounds a month? I shot more than that through a rental in not even a half hour yesterday...

AB 962 is what you're thinking of, though the round limit was jettisoned on it's way through the legislature. Goes into effect early next year (if it isn't repealed or injunctioned sooner). It will prohibit online/mail order sales, require a thumbprint and jack up prices though.

KylaGWolf
04-21-2010, 12:08 AM
With the history in this state what is there that points toward reasonably attainable CCW permits for the average law abiding tax paying resident.
Isn't there something in order where we will only be able to purchase 50 rounds a month? I shot more than that through a rental in not even a half hour yesterday...

My point. They go after one right after another when it comes to guns in California. Trust me I hate AB962 for reasons of I can't practice nearly as much as I would like if I am limited to how much ammo I can buy in a month. Not to mention why should I have to submit my ID and fingerprint every time I want to buy ammo. I am just nervous of my ID being photocopied and stored in multiple places that may not safeguard that info as closely as I would like. But that is a whole different argument.

JDay
04-21-2010, 2:31 AM
I think it is. They've sold out their fellow gun people people just to make their stupid political statement, so they could get their little piece of the pie, instead of waiting, so that we can all get a piece of the pie.

So that we'll ALL have the right to carry in a Constitutional manner.

You see, I live in the REAL world, not a dream world where all our rights are respected/protected by the Government.

P*ss on them.

If you don't exercise a right you have no right to complain when you lose it.

Joe
04-21-2010, 2:55 AM
If you don't exercise a right you have no right to complain when you lose it.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I've never needed my right to due process or my right to an attorney. And I'd be doing more than complaining if I lost those rights.

tenpercentfirearms
04-21-2010, 6:35 AM
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I've never needed my right to due process or my right to an attorney. And I'd be doing more than complaining if I lost those rights.

I agree on this. Seriously a lame comment.

Oh well, Havoc70's post was good enough for me. It is spilled milk, water under the bridge now. Now we go fight this thing. The new tactic should not be to blame UOCers, but to educate them. This is what happens when you go your own route. In the end, guys like Havoc70 learned an expensive lesson, but what else can you do?

It is time to stop the endless UOC threads. We get it.

tom1850
04-21-2010, 7:41 AM
With the ammunition bill 962 and now this AB1934 it really seems like the walls are closing in on gun owners. If McDonald is a bust then what?

Havoc70
04-21-2010, 7:55 AM
If McDonald is toast, Operation Exit California implements sooner. I've already got recruiters from tech firms in NC, GA and LA calling me at all hours of the day.

Havoc70
04-21-2010, 8:07 AM
IOh well, Havoc70's post was good enough for me. It is spilled milk, water under the bridge now. Now we go fight this thing. The new tactic should not be to blame UOCers, but to educate them. This is what happens when you go your own route. In the end, guys like Havoc70 learned an expensive lesson, but what else can you do?

It is time to stop the endless UOC threads. We get it.

Thanks, Tenpercent. I am still UOC while I can, and still trying to educate. I've even been invited to speak at the Vallejo Rotary (and they want to see me carrying).

I guess I do thing differently, I don't antagonize the police up here, and as a result whenever I call the watch commander to let him know, it's just a "thanks for the heads up, we'll let dispatch know and call us if anyone gives you guys trouble". Yes, the rank and file of VPD are on our side, thanks in large part to us cooperating with them and not viewing them as the enemy.

I don't set up large meets at any place where I haven't discussed it with the management. The exception was the BBQ, but I didn't set that one up, but even then it was done with full cooperation of the various departments in Vallejo.

I am having one final BBQ in June, date TBD, and I suspect that will be the last hurrah, if AB1934 isn't law by then. To me there's always the right way and the wrong way to do something. To me, the right way was engaging with local authorities and business and building relationships.

The wrong way is, well, I think everyone here can cite plenty of examples of the wrong way.

jb7706
04-21-2010, 8:30 AM
Colors was released in 1988, not 1998.

oops. Typo. Fixing it.

GuyW
04-21-2010, 8:50 AM
And Saldana wearing the bullet-resistant vest... wow, political theater at it's finest.

Nah - pathetic political theatre.....and its probably the best that this brain-dead socialist can muster....

...wearing a bullet-proof vest against unloaded guns??
.

Untamed1972
04-21-2010, 9:03 AM
I dont understand why some feel ashamed of exercising their right to UOC. It's well within the grounds of our Constitution and even legal with CA's restrictive laws! And I REALLY dont understand why anyone here would flame someone else for exercising their rights to carry! Shame on you!

Shall we not exercise our free speech rights in order that they not be taken away? What kind of freedom is it when you fear it might be taken away? Free men dont fear exercising their rights. If you're afraid that your "freedom" to UOC will be taken away, were you really free to UOC in the first place? These are God-given rights that our forefathers said preceded even our own existence! And our country was established with these rights in mind.

Freedom: the state of not being imprisoned, enslaved, or otherwise constrained.

Indeed, those who did not UOC out of fear of losing the perceived "freedom" to do so were constrained by that fear, in which this state has created.....They were truly never free to do it.

Smarter men would have stopped the nonsense that has been going on in this country (indeed, in our own backyard [CA]) LOOOONNG ago. Thomas Jefferson has probably already rolled over in his grave. "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither".


+1000 :thumbsup:

This is the best post in this whole thread.

Let's not fall prey to in-fighting. That anti's will always do what they do....they dont need an excuse, so why pretend like anything anyone did is what caused this. The only reason it didn't happen sooner was because the open carry movement didn't get going sooner.

Also dont forget that this just outs more anti's in our state government and makes them better "targets" (pardon the pun) for replacement.

WokMaster1
04-21-2010, 9:03 AM
If McDonald is toast, Operation Exit California implements sooner. I've already got recruiters from tech firms in NC, GA and LA calling me at all hours of the day.

Why leave? The DJ has stopped the music but the party has just begun. Leaving is exactly what they want us to to. How about making all the $50 donation you give to CGF each month work?

Like 10% Wes has said, the milk has been spilled. Now, let US ALL help clean up, sit down & communicate to each other & help CGF put the contingency plan to good use. Stay & help in restoring the rights back to CA.

Havoc70
04-21-2010, 9:06 AM
Why leave? The DJ has stopped the music but the party has just begun. Leaving is exactly what they want us to to. How about making all the $50 donation you give to CGF each month work?

Like 10% Wes has said, the milk has been spilled. Now, let US ALL help clean up, sit down & communicate to each other & help CGF put the contingency plan to good use. Stay & help in restoring the rights back to CA.

Yah, I know that leaving is capitulating. Right now any decision to move has a 1-2 year time horizon. However, even when I do leave, my pledge stands! The primary reason, though, is family related that will eventually require my presence on the east coast.

yelohamr
04-21-2010, 9:12 AM
In regards to AB1934, BFD. It was only approved by the sissies in the committee. The only thing that passed, was gas and I directed it towards Sacramento.
Why do you non-gun users cry before there is actually something to cry about? There is a difference between gun owner and gun user. A gun owner usually just uses it as a paper punch. A gun user is someone that has actually used it for it's intended purpose, not as a fashion statement.

Have any of you actually read the proposed bill? If Saldana ever needed a 5150 hearing, 1934 could be used as evidence against her.
For example: 12037 (g) Subdivision (a) (1) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by any peace officer or any honorably retired peace officer if he or she may carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Section 12027 or a loaded firearm pursuant to Section 12031.

Does she actually think a cop is going to carry an empty gun?

Again in Subdivision (a) (6) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by a licensed hunter while engaged in lawful hunting.

A lot of hunters actually hunt with a handgun. She thinks it O.K. to open carry, but you'll have to get close enough to pistol whip the critter.

For purposes of Section 12023, a firearm shall be deemed to be “loaded” whenever both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person.

If this passes, when my wife and I go for a walk, she will have to carry my pre-ban AR mags.

So continue with your b****ing, moaning, and blaming. If you never exercised your right, why complain about the ones that have and will continue to do so.
No matter what the little piss-ants in Sacramento do, I refuse to change my daily routine for them or any other whiner.

As a suggestion, why not have a sub-forum for OC bashing. That way all of the threads will be in one place instead of tripping over one in one place or another.

hollabillz
04-21-2010, 9:58 AM
In regards to AB1934, BFD. It was only approved by the sissies in the committee. The only thing that passed, was gas and I directed it towards Sacramento.
Why do you non-gun users cry before there is actually something to cry about? There is a difference between gun owner and gun user. A gun owner usually just uses it as a paper punch. A gun user is someone that has actually used it for it's intended purpose, not as a fashion statement.

Have any of you actually read the proposed bill? If Saldana ever needed a 5150 hearing, 1934 could be used as evidence against her.
For example: 12037 (g) Subdivision (a) (1) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by any peace officer or any honorably retired peace officer if he or she may carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Section 12027 or a loaded firearm pursuant to Section 12031.

Does she actually think a cop is going to carry an empty gun?

Again in Subdivision (a) (6) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by a licensed hunter while engaged in lawful hunting.

A lot of hunters actually hunt with a handgun. She thinks it O.K. to open carry, but you'll have to get close enough to pistol whip the critter.

For purposes of Section 12023, a firearm shall be deemed to be “loaded” whenever both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person.

If this passes, when my wife and I go for a walk, she will have to carry my pre-ban AR mags.

So continue with your b****ing, moaning, and blaming. If you never exercised your right, why complain about the ones that have and will continue to do so.
No matter what the little piss-ants in Sacramento do, I refuse to change my daily routine for them or any other whiner.

As a suggestion, why not have a sub-forum for OC bashing. That way all of the threads will be in one place instead of tripping over one in one place or another.

lol u mad? :)

GrizzlyGuy
04-21-2010, 10:08 AM
For purposes of Section 12023, a firearm shall be deemed to be “loaded” whenever both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person.

If this passes, when my wife and I go for a walk, she will have to carry my pre-ban AR mags.


That one is actually existing law in 12001 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12001.html), you saw it in AB 1934 (http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20090AB193498AMD) because they are making other minor changes to 12001. Note also that it says "for purposes of Section 12023", and the new UOC-banned section is 12037.

However, there are some real bad aspects of the bill as written, including the arrest powers (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4130715&postcount=69), no accommodation for CCW holders to unload their weapon (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4130622#post4130622) as may be needed, potentially criminalizing hiking or backpacking in national forests while armed (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4130631&postcount=66), no exemption for hunters to UOC on the way to their hunting expedition, no exemption for fisherman while fishing or on their way to fish, etc.

N6ATF
04-21-2010, 11:15 AM
And Saldana wearing the bullet-resistant vest... wow, political theater at it's finest.

Actually, it's brazen criminality at its finest.

Criminals should not wear body armor while committing their felonies (Article III, Section 3, et al.)

Havoc70
04-21-2010, 11:18 AM
I'm not seeing how it was a violation of 12022.2 which relates to using AP rounds and body armor while committing a felony. Regardless, it's not effective yet:
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2011.

N6ATF
04-21-2010, 11:27 AM
I'm not seeing how it was a violation of 12022.2 which relates to using AP rounds and body armor while committing a felony. Regardless, it's not effective yet:
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2011.

Hmm, I thought there was an older (and currently operative) law that made committing a felony with body armor on a sentence enhancement/additional felony. Should have read the code...

(b) Any person who wears a body vest in the commission or
attempted commission of a violent offense, as defined in subdivision
(b) of Section 12021.1, shall, upon conviction of that felony or
attempted felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment
prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has
been convicted, be punished by an additional term of one, two, or
five years. The court shall order the middle term unless there are
circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the
reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at the time of the
sentence.


Apparently non-violent treason (a felony) wouldn't invoke 12022.2.

Havoc70
04-21-2010, 11:31 AM
Yah, too bad. I do agree it was non-violent treason.

jdberger
04-21-2010, 11:52 AM
Unfortunately Saladana is my rep in Sacramento. She is a total MORON.

Saldana's district in San Diego. (or maybe I misunderstood)

What you can do, since she's termed out, is do some research and let us know who's running for her spot.

Waddya think?

Untamed1972
04-21-2010, 11:54 AM
Why leave? The DJ has stopped the music but the party has just begun. Leaving is exactly what they want us to to. How about making all the $50 donation you give to CGF each month work?

Like 10% Wes has said, the milk has been spilled. Now, let US ALL help clean up, sit down & communicate to each other & help CGF put the contingency plan to good use. Stay & help in restoring the rights back to CA.


Or retreat to cover (out of state) let the state implode and when all the anti's have devovled into feeding on eachother and canibalized themselves into extinction, then move back in and take over this beautiful state!

yelohamr
04-21-2010, 1:46 PM
lol u mad? :)

No, just slightly pissed off.

dark_ninja
04-21-2010, 1:50 PM
Great job Open Carry folks!

Looks like you're getting what you wanted...

In that same respect...

Great job shooting enthusiast...

Purchasing ammo won't be that easy for you now!

You fool! :65:

dark_ninja
04-21-2010, 1:53 PM
I don't think it is fair to blame the UOC'ers. They are just excercising their rights. Since when did an off-base, corrupt government reaction become justified by people simply excercising their rights?

If they (the government) told us to stop bashing Obama, and we kept on bashing that moron, and they revoked our right to free speech, you'd blame us or blame the government for overstepping their bounds and once again crapping on the constitution?

The problem is not the OUC'ers, it is the asshats in Sacramento.

Well said my friend! Some people don't understand the grand picture...
They are taking our rights away bit by bit... some people are too stupid to see it that way!

yelohamr
04-21-2010, 3:33 PM
Got this from my assemblyman today:

April 16,2010

Thank you for contacting me about your concerns regarding Assembly Bill 1934 (AB 1934). I appreciate hearing your opinion about this important issue.

AB 1934 was introduced by Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D - San Diego) on February 17th. The bill would ban the longstanding right to openly carry an unloaded firearm in California.

I am a proud supporter of Second Amendment rights. I grew up in an environment of responsible gun ownership and have been a life-long hunter. I am a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association as well as the Safari Club. Second Amendment rights are very important to me and I will act as a staunch defender of these rights during my time in the State Assembly.

AB 1934 is unnecessary. The longstanding right of Californians to openly carry an unloaded firearm has not resulted in criminal use of those firearms across our state. AB 1934 was referred to the Public Safety Committee on April 7th. I am not a member of that committee, but I will oppose AB 1934 and similar bills that undermine our Second Amendment rights when they come before me for a vote in the full Assembly.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to let me know how you feel about these important issues. Please contact me at assemblymember.garrick@assembly.ca.gov or 760-929-7998 if you have any further comments or questions.

Sincerely,
Martin Garrick
Assemblyman

Barkoff
04-21-2010, 9:41 PM
Well the only good thing about this is that, once McDonald passes, we will truly be able to argue that except in special cases, there is NO freedom to legally bear arms in CA where we choose, which is (will be) in violation of the Constitution. This will no doubt will lead to our God given right to carry loaded (probably by shall-issue or better, loaded carry) WITHOUT "good cause".

But Tom Amiano needs to go like a bad habit.

+1, I think it will backfire on them.

Amiano isn't going anywhere, a flaming gay liberal in the San Francisco district, who is going to vote him out?

Barkoff
04-21-2010, 9:55 PM
You need to start thinking of it in terms of "We". I never open carried, but I still think in terms of "We".



Either we hang together....or hang separately.



Get that through your head.


Well said, reminds me of when the commercial and sport fishermen used to point a finger of blame at each other. Let it go gents, shouldn't we be getting on Arnold's *** to veto this debacle?

yelohamr
04-21-2010, 10:05 PM
+1, I think it will backfire on them.

Amiano isn't going anywhere, a flaming gay liberal in the San Francisco district, who is going to vote him out?

People in his district need to eat more Twinkies.

Colt-45
04-21-2010, 10:10 PM
Regardless on which side you guys are on (pro UOC or anti UOC), what happened in this state today proved something very important to its PRO-2nd amendment citizens. ANTi-Gun advocates can get something passed in this state in just a few months, PRO-2nd amendment? the complete opposite. It makes me feel sick at how quickly politicians respond to and act on anti-gun B.S., how many people died because of UOC? none.

tenpercentfirearms
04-22-2010, 6:33 AM
Regardless on which side you guys are on (pro UOC or anti UOC), what happened in this state today proved something very important to its PRO-2nd amendment citizens. ANTi-Gun advocates can get something passed in this state in just a few months, PRO-2nd amendment? the complete opposite. It makes me feel sick at how quickly politicians respond to and act on anti-gun B.S., how many people died because of UOC? none.

Excellent observation. Hopefully that sinks in. That is why I knew the repeal of AB962 was going no where quick. The California legislature hates us. Be very cautious messing with them. Like it or not, they have power.

calnurse
04-22-2010, 7:08 AM
Excellent observation. Hopefully that sinks in. That is why I knew the repeal of AB962 was going no where quick. The California legislature hates us. Be very cautious messing with them. Like it or not, they have power.

Sadly, this is very true!!! Can a new governor that is pro second amendment overturn any anti-gun bills that were signed into law? :(

BobB35
04-22-2010, 7:40 AM
Great job Open Carry folks!

Looks like you're getting what you wanted...

and what exactly would that be? exercising a right that they dems now are going to pass an unconstitutional law to ban....hmmm I have seen a lot of *****ing and moaning about I told you so on this site...but the fact is, there is nothing stopping the Dems from passing any law they want...

Don't blame the UOC group for this law, blame the idiots that vote for Aminino and every other dem in this state they are the problem not the people UOCing.

If you were afraid of what the legislature MAY do, why do you even get up in the morning? Geeze..

dustoff31
04-22-2010, 7:42 AM
Can a new governor that is pro second amendment overturn any anti-gun bills that were signed into law? :(

No, a governor cannot overturn or repeal any law. At best, they could only veto legislation sent to them. And in the case of gun laws in CA the veto would likely be overridden.

Having a progun governor is good. Having a pro gun, or at least a non hostile toward guns legislature is infinitely better.

Scarecrow Repair
04-22-2010, 7:55 AM
Either we hang together....or hang separately.

It takes two to hang together. When the other party wants to hang separately, not much you can do about it.

yelohamr
04-22-2010, 10:22 AM
If the count was 3 to 2, do the anti-gun Dems get to vote more than once or have the books been cooked?

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/07/2010
LAST HIST. ACTION : Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM PUBLIC SAFETY
COMM. ACTION DATE : 04/20/2010
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee
on Appropriations.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 05 Noes: 02 PASS

Aldemar
04-22-2010, 10:44 AM
[QUOTE=yelohamr;4161070]In regards to AB1934, BFD. It was only approved by the sissies in the committee. The only thing that passed, was gas and I directed it towards Sacramento.
Why do you non-gun users cry before there is actually something to cry about? There is a difference between gun owner and gun user. A gun owner usually just uses it as a paper punch. A gun user is someone that has actually used it for it's intended purpose, not as a fashion statement.
/QUOTE]

Guess I'm 'just' a gun owner. I hope I am never in the position where I have to use it for it's intended purpose!

You seem itching for a gunfight. I sincerely hope you never have to graduate to 'user' as these comments can be used by any DA and cause you many problems.

yelohamr
04-22-2010, 1:14 PM
[QUOTE=yelohamr;4161070]In regards to AB1934, BFD. It was only approved by the sissies in the committee. The only thing that passed, was gas and I directed it towards Sacramento.
Why do you non-gun users cry before there is actually something to cry about? There is a difference between gun owner and gun user. A gun owner usually just uses it as a paper punch. A gun user is someone that has actually used it for it's intended purpose, not as a fashion statement.


Guess I'm 'just' a gun owner. I hope I am never in the position where I have to use it for it's intended purpose!

You seem itching for a gunfight. I sincerely hope you never have to graduate to 'user' as these comments can be used by any DA and cause you many problems.

Hunters use guns too. Not looking for another gunfight. If it happens, I don 't want to be the one showing up with a knife.

BTW I graduated many years ago...with honors. As far using my comments against me, I'm not worried about it.

Havoc70
04-22-2010, 1:16 PM
I will update the title, it was actually 5 to 2. The person who called me probably didn't keep a close tally, he was kinda pissed.

The vote breakdown:

UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: AB 1934
AUTHOR: Saldana
TOPIC: Firearms.
DATE: 04/20/2010
LOCATION: ASM. PUB. S.
MOTION: Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on
Appropriations.
(AYES 5. NOES 2.) (PASS)


AYES
****

Ammiano Beall Hill Portantino
Skinner


NOES
****

Hagman Gilmore


ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************

HondaMasterTech
04-22-2010, 4:02 PM
Most gun owners aren't crazy nutjobs waiting, with their fingers on the trigger, to shoot someone. That just isn't the case. These legislators seem to actually believe gun owners want nothing less than to blow a bunch of giant holes through someone. They are so wrong. If I live my entire life without having to do something horrible like that I'd be happy. I'm sure just about everyone else feels that way too.

iRIGHTi
04-22-2010, 5:11 PM
From the NRA today:

On Tuesday, April 20, the Assembly Public Safety passed Assembly Bill 1934. The bill now joins Assembly Bill 1810 and Assembly Bill 2223 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee where they await consideration. No date has been scheduled.

AB1934 is a blatant attack on the self-defense rights of law-abiding Californians. Simply put, this legislation would outlaw the open carrying of a handgun for self-defense.

AB1810 would establish a registration system, similar to the one currently in place for handguns, for all newly-acquired long guns.

Under AB1810, the make, model and serial number of the firearm as well as the identifying information of the purchaser would be recorded and kept on file by the California Attorney General's office.

If AB1810 were enacted, violent criminals would continue doing what they do now - obtain firearms through illegal means. This bill would not decrease crime but will rather have disastrous effects on the already financially unstable Golden State. AB1810 would impose additional burdens on California's taxpayers to maintain the registration system as well as on the state's licensed firearms dealers, small businesses who already deal with extensive business requirements.

One simply needs to look at Canada, a nation with draconian firearms registration, to see the results - billions in cumulative administrative costs, annual cost overruns, no clear substantiation of public safety benefits, unjust prosecution, and a bureaucratic complexity that daunts those willing to comply. Ironically, California is considering a new registration scheme as Canada is considering doing away with its system.

AB2223 would outlaw the use of lead shot when shooting or hunting in state-run wildlife management areas. There is no scientific evidence justifying this proposed ban. It is intended only to discourage hunting in California and that is why the Humane Society of the United States is in full support.

AB1934, AB1810, and AB2223 are very serious threats to the rights of California's law-abiding gun owners and must be defeated.

Please contact the members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and strongly voice your opposition to AB1934, AB1810, and AB2223. Contact information can be found below.

Assembly Appropriations Committee:

Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes - Chair (D-39)
(916) 319-2039
Assemblymember.Fuentes@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Connie Conway - Vice Chair (R-34)
(916) 319-2034
Assemblymember.Conway@assembly.ca.gov


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


Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-51)
(916) 319-2051
Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Charles M. Calderon (D-58)
(916) 319-2058
Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Joe Coto (D-23)
(916) 319-2023
Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Mike Davis (D-48)
(916) 319-2048
Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Kevin de Leon (D-45)
(916) 319-2045
Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Isadore Hall III (D-52)
(916) 319-2052
Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Diane L. Harkey (R-73)
(916) 319-2073
Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71)
(916) 319-2071
Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2)
(916) 319-2002
Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Chris Norby (R-72)
(916) 319-2072
Assemblymember.Norby@assembly.ca.gov


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


Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-69)
(916) 319-2069
Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Tom Torlakson (D-11)
(916) 319-2011
Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov


Assemblymember Alberto Torrico (D-20)
(916) 319-2020
Assemblymember.torrico@assembly.ca.gov


Let the e-mail and telephone call floodgates open! :mad:

bomb_on_bus
04-22-2010, 7:19 PM
most liberals didnt even know about UOC until it was plastered all over the news a few months back. then every news person was saying things like why isnt that nut being arrested or why is that person with a gun being allowed to show up in a public gathering etc etc.

after that it caught the attention of the liberals and their political cohorts. so no wonder the bill passed with almost a landslide vote.


it would be wise to point out the fact that we should keep any remaining 2ndA rights that we want to continue to have out of the public eye as much as possible. the less our enemies know the better.

yelohamr
04-22-2010, 8:41 PM
I got that same e-mail too. Then deleted it after reading the 1st sentence.
On Tuesday, April 20, the Assembly Public Safety passed Assembly Bill 1934.

IT DIDN'T PASS, it was only approved. Another begging for money ploy.

HondaMasterTech
04-22-2010, 9:13 PM
In the end this bill will likely have more positive outcomes than negative.

Crazed_SS
04-22-2010, 9:22 PM
Great job Open Carry folks!

Looks like you're getting what you wanted...

Dont blame them. Blame me. Lori is my rep (76th district, San Diego) and I voted for her. It's my fault.

iRIGHTi
04-23-2010, 7:16 PM
California: Long Gun Registration and Lead Shot Ban be Heard on Wednesday, April 28!
Please Contact the Members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee Today!

On Wednesday, April 28, the Assembly Appropriations Committee will hear Assembly Bill 1810 and Assembly Bill 2223. The committee members need to hear from you today regarding these continued attacks on our Second Amendment rights.

Under AB1810, the make, model and serial number of the firearm as well as the identifying information of the purchaser would be recorded and kept on file by the California Attorney General’s office.

If AB1810 were enacted, violent criminals would continue doing what they do now – obtain firearms through illegal means. This bill would not decrease crime but will rather have disastrous effects on the already financially unstable Golden State. AB1810 would impose additional burdens on California’s taxpayers to maintain the registration system as well as on the state’s licensed firearms dealers, small businesses who already deal with extensive business requirements.

One simply needs to look at Canada, a nation with draconian firearms registration, to see the results – billions in cumulative administrative costs, annual cost overruns, no clear substantiation of public safety benefits, unjust prosecution, and a bureaucratic complexity that daunts those willing to comply. Ironically, California is considering a new registration scheme as Canada is considering doing away with its system.

AB2223 would outlaw the use of lead shot when shooting or hunting in state-run wildlife management areas. There is no scientific evidence justifying this proposed ban. It is intended only to discourage hunting in California and that is why the Humane Society of the United States is in full support.

AB1810 and AB2223 are very serious threats to the rights of California’s law-abiding gun owners and must be defeated.

Please contact the members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and strongly voice your opposition to AB1810, and AB2223. Contact information can be found below. Also, please contact your Assembly Member in opposition to these bills. Their contact information can be found here.


Assembly Appropriations Committee:

Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes - Chair (D-39)

(916) 319-2039

Assemblymember.Fuentes@assembly.ca.gov





Assemblymember Connie Conway - Vice Chair (R-34)

(916) 319-2034

Assemblymember.Conway@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-13)

(916) 319-2013

Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-51)

(916) 319-2051

Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Charles M. Calderon (D-58)

(916) 319-2058

Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Joe Coto (D-23)

(916) 319-2023

Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Mike Davis (D-48)

(916) 319-2048

Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Kevin de Leon (D-45)

(916) 319-2045

Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Isadore Hall III (D-52)

(916) 319-2052

Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Diane L. Harkey (R-73)

(916) 319-2073

Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71)

(916) 319-2071

Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2)

(916) 319-2002

Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Chris Norby (R-72)

(916) 319-2072

Assemblymember.Norby@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-14)

(916) 319-2014

Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-69)

(916) 319-2069

Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Tom Torlakson (D-11)

(916) 319-2011

Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Alberto Torrico (D-20)

(916) 319-2020

Assemblymember.torrico@assembly.ca.gov

iRIGHTi
04-29-2010, 7:17 PM
Sucramento has no $$$ either! Please make a phone call or two and shoot out some copy/paste e-mails.

UPDATE:

Long Gun Registration Bill Still Pending Consideration
Please Continue to Contact the Members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee!



On Wednesday, April 28, the Assembly Appropriations Committee met to consider Assembly Bill 1810 and Assembly Bill 2223. AB1810 was placed into the suspense file due to financial costs and will be reconsidered in the near future. This bill may be acted upon at a later date. Please continue checking your email and www.NRAILA.org for any updates on AB1810. AB2223 was re-scheduled for next week.



AB1810 would establish a registration system, similar to the one currently in place for handguns, for all newly-acquired long guns. Under AB1810, the make, model and serial number of the firearm as well as the identifying information of the purchaser would be recorded and kept on file by the California Attorney General’s office.

If AB1810 were enacted, violent criminals would continue doing what they do now – obtain firearms through illegal means. This bill would not decrease crime but will rather have disastrous effects on the already financially unstable Golden State. AB1810 would impose additional burdens on California’s taxpayers to maintain the registration system as well as on the state’s licensed firearms dealers, small businesses who already deal with extensive business requirements.



One simply needs to look at Canada, a nation with draconian firearms registration, to see the results – billions in cumulative administrative costs, annual cost overruns, no clear substantiation of public safety benefits, unjust prosecution, and a bureaucratic complexity that daunts those willing to comply. Ironically, California is considering a new registration scheme as Canada is considering doing away with its system.

AB2223 would outlaw the use of lead shot when shooting or hunting in state-run wildlife management areas. There is no scientific evidence justifying this proposed ban. It is intended only to discourage hunting in California and that is why the Humane Society of the United States is in full support.

AB1810 and AB2223 are very serious threats to the rights of California’s law-abiding gun owners and must be defeated.



Please contact the members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and strongly voice your opposition to AB2223. Contact information can be found below. Also, please contact your Assembly Member in opposition to this bill. Their contact information can be found here.



Assembly Appropriations Committee:

Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes - Chair (D-39)

(916) 319-2039

Assemblymember.Fuentes@assembly.ca.gov





Assemblymember Connie Conway - Vice Chair (R-34)

(916) 319-2034

Assemblymember.Conway@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-13)

(916) 319-2013

Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-51)

(916) 319-2051

Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Charles M. Calderon (D-58)

(916) 319-2058

Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Joe Coto (D-23)

(916) 319-2023

Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Mike Davis (D-48)

(916) 319-2048

Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Kevin de Leon (D-45)

(916) 319-2045

Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Isadore Hall III (D-52)

(916) 319-2052

Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Diane L. Harkey (R-73)

(916) 319-2073

Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71)

(916) 319-2071

Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2)

(916) 319-2002

Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Chris Norby (R-72)

(916) 319-2072

Assemblymember.Norby@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-14)

(916) 319-2014

Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-69)

(916) 319-2069

Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Tom Torlakson (D-11)

(916) 319-2011

Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov




Assemblymember Alberto Torrico (D-20)

(916) 319-2020

Assemblymember.torrico@assembly.ca.gov

postal
04-29-2010, 8:18 PM
Hates to be the pall bearer of bad news....

But I will not bother wasting anymore time or effort calling/emailing or otherwise contacting representatives because it makes ZERO DIFFERENCE to affect how they vote.

Does anyone really have any idea how much noise we made when it came to AB962? How many TENS OF THOUSANDS of calls and emails we sent?

....and how did that affect the bill? Huh? And further calls and emails about other bills are gonna do what exactly?

Yes this bill will probably pass, yes the rino governer will probably sign it, and no amount of calls or emails will have any effect.

Go ahead, pile it on if you want, people here do love to shoot the messenger. But is there any way anyone can fault the logic? Did we not tie up phone lines for days on end regarding ab962? And it still passed and the governer signed it?

N6ATF
04-29-2010, 8:59 PM
:iamwithstupid:

Since the legislature represents criminals above law-abiding citizens, if you don't identify yourself as an ex-con or unindicted traitor, they will vote exactly the opposite of what you ask they do.

SickofSoCal
04-29-2010, 9:08 PM
So, when does this go into effect?

N6ATF
04-30-2010, 12:41 AM
At some point after it passes a few more times, then is signed by the governor.

Just-in
04-30-2010, 1:15 AM
will we have to register all previously owned riffles?
Does this mean no more 80% paperweights either?

motorhead
04-30-2010, 10:29 AM
public safety is just a rubber stamp. they never met an anti-gun law they didn't love. now the real fight begins.

Anothercoilgun
05-06-2010, 1:36 AM
Great job Open Carry folks!

Looks like you're getting what you wanted...

You make me sick. Typical couch wisher.

Anothercoilgun
05-06-2010, 1:42 AM
Hates to be the pall bearer of bad news....

But I will not bother wasting anymore time or effort calling/emailing or otherwise contacting representatives because it makes ZERO DIFFERENCE to affect how they vote.

Does anyone really have any idea how much noise we made when it came to AB962? How many TENS OF THOUSANDS of calls and emails we sent?

....and how did that affect the bill? Huh? And further calls and emails about other bills are gonna do what exactly?

Yes this bill will probably pass, yes the rino governer will probably sign it, and no amount of calls or emails will have any effect.

Go ahead, pile it on if you want, people here do love to shoot the messenger. But is there any way anyone can fault the logic? Did we not tie up phone lines for days on end regarding ab962? And it still passed and the governer signed it?

Simple. There is no representation and no protection and maintaining of liberties outside of generating revenue and keeping the populous blind to the world just outside their door and place of work. Passage of AB1934 is like being cuffed and witnessing family members get rapped and shot one by one. Freedom is a LIE.

N6ATF
05-06-2010, 9:50 AM
You make me sick. Typical couch wisher.

LOL couch wisher!

Maestro Pistolero
05-06-2010, 10:58 AM
Originally Posted by thebronze
Great job Open Carry folks!

Looks like you're getting what you wanted...You can't lose what you never really had. It looks you anti-UOC'rs may get what YOU wanted, as well: no UOC, so we don't make the sheep restless.

limitdown
05-07-2010, 9:20 PM
I cannot imagine a reason why someone would want to carry a gun except to compensate for something, well, you know what."


LEOs carry guns, so they must all be "compensating for something" then...:banghead:

tankerman
05-07-2010, 10:36 PM
I don't think it is fair to blame the UOC'ers. They are just excercising their rights. Since when did an off-base, corrupt government reaction become justified by people simply excercising their rights?

If they (the government) told us to stop bashing Obama, and we kept on bashing that moron, and they revoked our right to free speech, you'd blame us or blame the government for overstepping their bounds and once again crapping on the constitution?

The problem is not the OUC'ers, it is the asshats in Sacramento.Give the guy a break, he's marching lock-step with 'popular opinion'. Don't you know it's more important to be right than to exercise your Rights.

Theseus
05-07-2010, 10:37 PM
Although inconvenient for now, Texas style also has its benefits. Even Texas is starting to have leanings to allow open carry now that the "blood in the streets" issue has proven wrong.

The part that I still think is funniest is that it has theoretically always been legal to open carry in California, just not loaded in most urban settings since the Mulford Act. . . . Yet only now, in 2010, some 43 years after that act does open carry pose a threat to society.

I only hope that those open carriers, self included, can get off their butts and either prevent this from happening or fighting until it is repealed.

Forestgnome
05-08-2010, 7:29 AM
What's classy is you guys doing your thing and p*ssing on the rest of us.

You guys brought it on yourselves.

What is wrong with you? You think you have a right when you have to make sure you're not seen excersizing your rights? That makes no sense at all. Apparently you lost nothing at all!

weezil_boi
05-08-2010, 9:41 AM
last fall I went to a Cal game with some buddies...

in the long drive to berzerkly, I sat in the back seat with one of Ammiano's highest staff (likely to be his chief someday). Hes a an old friend one one of my closest friends- and our discussions over the years have been spirited to say the least.

Those of you who think the open carry laws were challenged as a result of all the OCers recently are only partially right. It was just a matter of time.

He was proud to be involved in the "Anti Gang" ammo ban bill and saw it as the beginning of the many laws they aim to change. Another was open carry. I just never figured it would happen so soon.

Another they desperately want to enact... limiting CCWs to the county in which they are issued only. They see the ability to "easily" get a CCW in some areas and acrry them into the hearts of citys as a top public safety concern. So hang on, cuz if you could hear what this guy was saying... youd $h1t bricks. He was uninformed yet intent. And, of course, actually WRITES the drafts for some of this crap. In my polite, and sometimes bitter way, I tried to talk some sense into him. But theres no hope for changing his/their minds.

Here are a few he mentioned...

-ammo ban (they got it)
-shutting down check cashing biz, they say it preys on poor folks(no idea)
-limits of bank fees and transaction methods (I dunno)
-open carry ( in works)
-registering all guns, even rifles (trying)
-having too many guns creates a "weapons cache" (boy, that was a fun talk -not)
-need ammo to be serialized for crime investigation ( complete crap)
-CCWs issued by "easy" counties are unsafe to cities... want to limit to resident county only and have annual re-applicatins (I dont have a CCW but that would suck)
-limiting gun dealers/shops to be further away from any schools or parks (no word)
-legalization of Cannabis (on its way)

This is just from memory, and I was seeing red for about 40 minutes, but its pretty close list.

So to all you OCers... AB1934 was NOT in response to your actions. But you did provide a convenient excuse to cross one off the list early.

GnarlyMilk
05-08-2010, 10:13 AM
You're right. We pushed the buttons at the wrong time. Had I heard the call to stand down from here, I would have. I would have encouraged others to do the same.

So now all I can do is work with CGF to fix the mess, which I am doing by ensuring I contribute at least $50 a month to CGF.

Did we screw the dog? Probably. I've been spending a lot of time thinking about this the past couple of days and I'm going to retract some of my statements and state this instead:

1) Had I been here and heard the request to stand down, I would have and I would have asked others to do so as well.

2) I do harbor some regret for being part of the group that has given us yet another legal challenge. However, at the time I felt like it was a good idea and an opportunity to at least attempt to educate people on the fence about responsible gun ownership.

At least I succeeded in educating people. Heck, last night we had an Open Carry meet in Vallejo at a Round Table pizza restaurant. Invited, by the owner, to patronize his business. About ten of us showed up and I talked to the owner.

He is personally anti-gun, but believes that people have a right to defend themselves. His choice to do so is by compliance, but he at least respects the rights of others enough to put aside his personal feelings and support us.

As an added bonus, he didn't charge us for our food or drinks.

I think the UOC did some good, but I also think some of the more belligerent groups ultimately did more harm and for me, it is guilt by association.

I will, however, work with CGF however needed to enable them to keep up the fight.

You can hate me for being an open carrier, I personally don't give a ****, but at least understand I am standing with CGF even though I am getting flamed to Hell and back.

Well said! No matter what you should always stand up for what you belive in. OC or CC I belive in the right to be able to do eather one.

tankerman
05-08-2010, 2:39 PM
What is wrong with you? You think you have a right when you have to make sure you're not seen excersizing your rights? That makes no sense at all. Apparently you lost nothing at all!
Exactly, it's amazing how many 'smart guys' follow that line of thinking. If more folks were willing to step-up and exercise their rights we wouldn't be in this position; UOC events involving most of the state's gun owners would be a massive display..............not easily discounted as 'fringe' by Liberals and the person you're responding to. It's easier to point fingers than step up and take an active roll in expressing your rights (cause there's no personal risk).

Ishooter
05-08-2010, 3:03 PM
I don't have vote specifics yet, but Tom Ammiano had a typical classy closing statement:

"I almost helped author this bill. I cannot imagine a reason why someone would want to carry a gun except to compensate for something, well, you know what."

Saldana showed up in grand fashion wearing a bullet proof vest.
Tom Ammiano is a complete anti-gun advocate. He voted no on AB 1663 that's intended to repeal AB 962. AB 962 bans California residents to buy ammo from other states, and it requires fingerprinting and such related troubles. The ammo prices will spike up in a near future due to this AB 962. Hard to find ammo can't even be obtained due to this.