View Full Version : AB 1810 in suspense file?

04-29-2010, 6:56 AM
I just got my California bill alert saying that AB 1810 was put in the suspense file. Did our arguments make sense to Feuer?

04-29-2010, 8:41 AM
Nothing pro gun (or not-anti-gun) makes sense to Feuer.

Something outside of Feuer - costs/budget, and/or some friendly folks in unusual places killed this.

And I don't think the DOJ BoF wants more work :)

My congrats to NRA's liaison Ed Worley and CRPA's Tom Pedersen for doing this magic.

It possibly could come alive again, however - so let's keep our eyes out!

04-29-2010, 8:47 AM

04-29-2010, 9:50 AM
Great to hear, I'll keep my eyes and ears open to make sure it doesn't come out of suspence.

Maybe that letter I sent to the appropriations committee helped. I'll have to do that more often.

04-29-2010, 11:07 AM
I spoke with a young woman in my Assemblymember's home office. She explained that the "suspense file" is a holder for bills that have cost implications for the State. In the bill analysis, it says that the bill will cost the State $400k in new software. In today's budget climate, no bill that adds to the State's budget is making it out of the Appropriations Committee.

However, the bill is not dead. There's still the risk that it will be hustled to the floor in the last hours of the legislative session. It's not unusual for hundreds of bills to be passed in the last day of the session, with little or no debate - just wham, bam, Next! Make sure you call your local Assemblymember and get your name on the list of people that oppose this bill, just in case it comes out again.

hill billy
04-29-2010, 11:08 AM
Well, I'm keeping on the optimistic side for now. :D Good news.

04-29-2010, 11:19 AM
Wasn't AB962 in the suspense file for a long time? I wouldn't get my hopes up.

04-29-2010, 11:27 AM
Wasn't AB962 in the suspense file for a long time? I wouldn't get my hopes up.

I was just going to say the same thing. I think what happened to AB962 was they rewrote the bill pretty heavily at the last minute to remove the provisions that would have cost the state money, and that resulted in it coming back to life. IIRC they removed the provisions having to do with ammo vendors needed to be licensed.

Not sure if that would be possible with AB1810, but I agree we need to be alert.

04-29-2010, 12:33 PM
With the DOJ already DROS long gun for $25.00 fee, adding to the process without additional income probably did not set well with DOJ.