PDA

View Full Version : AB1934 moves forward today


Robidouxs
05-12-2010, 10:07 AM
Apparently AB1934 moves forward, just finished listening to the committee meeting.

loather
05-12-2010, 10:47 AM
gah. There's only one way to describe how this makes me feel:


http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2364/ffffuuuu.jpg

IrishPirate
05-12-2010, 10:52 AM
great...so what's the next step?

pullnshoot25
05-12-2010, 11:37 AM
FML

Gio
05-12-2010, 11:39 AM
Start busting out some 80% lowers, before this takes place. Also I hope that once McDonald goes in our favor all these silly Laws and Restrictions will be picked apart and thrown out.

-Gio

vladbutsky
05-12-2010, 11:44 AM
Where can I find who voted for it? Not like I have any hope that my representative voted against it, but just to make sure he ignored my letters and calls again...

1BigPea
05-12-2010, 11:48 AM
Start busting out some 80% lowers, before this takes place. Also I hope that once McDonald goes in our favor all these silly Laws and Restrictions will be picked apart and thrown out.

-Gio

FYI: AB1934 is for banning Open Carry, not the Long Gun Registration.

Gio
05-12-2010, 11:49 AM
FYI: AB1934 is for banning Open Carry, not the Long Gun Registration.

Good to know, I was told that they were voting on Long Gun Registration today. :kest:

-Gio

Aegis
05-12-2010, 12:07 PM
Surprise, the Democrats voted for an unconstitutional gun bill. :rolleyes:

The 2A rights of people in this state will have to be renewed through the courts after McDonald.

brookin
05-12-2010, 12:32 PM
Is there anything us DECENT FOLK can do about this Saldana %^^$%&^&^% , huh???

brookin
05-12-2010, 12:33 PM
To finish what I was writing Saldana Bill??

goober
05-12-2010, 12:37 PM
Just to be clear folks, AB1934 passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee today. This is a bad thing, but does not mean the bill has been passed.
It still needs to pass a vote on the Assembly floor (which it unfortunately probably will).
Then it still needs to get through the whole process in the Senate (again, doesn't look good).
But the point is, you can still do something to make our voices heard on this matter. Contact your Assemblymember and make sure they know your position on this. If you don't know who it is, go here (http://www.capwiz.com/nra/state/main/?state=CA&view=myofficials).
Stay active, even if it seems a lost cause. We need a show of force on this and every ant-gun bill.

Swiss
05-12-2010, 12:39 PM
Can someone post the vote tally?

mfmayes49
05-12-2010, 12:40 PM
If Obama's new supreme court judge pick gets on the bench, We may lose the Mcdonald case. I just hope I'm proved wrong.

Scratch705
05-12-2010, 12:41 PM
If Obama's new supreme court judge pick gets on the bench, We may lose the Mcdonald case. I just hope I'm proved wrong.

no, since obama's replacement is replacing a anti-gun justice so the 5/4 split is kept from the Heller decision. it is a net zero loss for us.

plus the justice that is retiring isn't doing so until after McDonald.

Window_Seat
05-12-2010, 12:44 PM
If Obama's new supreme court judge pick gets on the bench, We may lose the Mcdonald case. I just hope I'm proved wrong.

Kagen will be on the bench after the opinion has been made, actually released.

Erik.

brookin
05-12-2010, 12:47 PM
As Goober said, we still need to rally, we need to show those up in Sacramento that some of us Level-Headed Californians still have some fight. I already sent a Msg. to the Assembly Man serving my area a few days ago. I think he needs to be reminded. We Legal Gun owners need to show strength & solidarity AND that the 2nd Amendment MATTERS! Let's get going...

advocatusdiaboli
05-12-2010, 1:12 PM
Remember folks this was just a committee vote sending the bill to the floor for a full House vote. Then of course the Senate has to ratify it. And the Rino-nator has to sign it, let it become law with no action, or veto it (ha as if). So we have time to get the word out and contact lawmakers. But don't delay.

Here is the text of email the NRA-ILA sent me on this today:

Attack on Open Carry Passes Committee, Heads to Floor for Vote
Please Contact Your Assembly Member Today!

Today, Wednesday May 12, the Assembly Appropriations Committee passed Assembly Bill 1934. AB1934 now heads to the floor of the Assembly for consideration.

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

Please contact your Assembly Member TODAY and respectfully urge them to oppose AB1934.

Contact information for your Assembly Member can be found by clicking here (http://www.capwiz.com/nra/state/main/?state=CA&view=myofficials).

NRAILA.org
Write Your Representative
Write The Media
Get Involved Locally
Register To Vote
Contribute
Follow NRA-ILA

The 2A rights of people in this state will have to be renewed through the courts after McDonald.

That's pretty much our last stand. I am starting to feel like Custer--he was open carry too ;-)

Lancear15
05-12-2010, 1:18 PM
Exactly what CGF predicted UOC would get us...

calixt0
05-12-2010, 1:49 PM
please someone correct me. If this passes won't it be a good thing. I'm told that one of the main arguments against us having a shall issue on ccw is because we can open carry. If they take that away, wont those who wish to defend themselves have to be issued a ccw as long as they can legally own a gun?

Maybe I missed a bunch in the middle? I'm actually so confused... these laws make it so hard to protect oneself, and to keep on the lawful side of the law.

goober
05-12-2010, 1:51 PM
Exactly what CGF predicted UOC would get us...

Let's refrain from finger-pointing and teeth-gnashing at this point, OK? This has been beaten to death in numerous other threads, please go there or start a new one if you feel the need to express those opinions. You have every right to express them here, but it would be most productive to keep this a positive thread discussing our efforts to fight this bill. I appeal to your sense of decorum.

TripleT
05-12-2010, 1:55 PM
Just to be clear folks, AB1934 passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee today. This is a bad thing, but does not mean the bill has been passed.
It still needs to pass a vote on the Assembly floor (which it unfortunately probably will).
Then it still needs to get through the whole process in the Senate (again, doesn't look good).
But the point is, you can still do something to make our voices heard on this matter. Contact your Assemblymember and make sure they know your position on this. If you don't know who it is, go here (http://www.capwiz.com/nra/state/main/?state=CA&view=myofficials).
Stay active, even if it seems a lost cause. We need a show of force on this and every ant-gun bill.

and the governor, whomever that might be at the time, will have to sign it.... Does that give anyone an incentive to vote correctly ?

smarter
05-12-2010, 1:57 PM
AB 1934 passed the appropriation committee and the next step will be for a floor vote. I called the office of my assemblymen to see which way he voted and unsurprisingly he voted YES for the 23rd district by Joe Coto.

Here's is the list of members on the appropriation committee and their info to contact their office and you can ask how they voted.

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/directory/committees.tt?commid=CA016

So the vote count so far is 1-0.

advocatusdiaboli
05-12-2010, 2:03 PM
please someone correct me. If this passes won't it be a good thing. I'm told that one of the main arguments against us having a shall issue on ccw is because we can open carry. If they take that away, wont those who wish to defend themselves have to be issued a ccw as long as they can legally own a gun?

I'll provide a brief recap but that's it--best to focus on defeating this and any infringement of rights.

The two-sides here fall roughly one way or another: on one hand, some think anti-gun folks will see any capitulation or offering giving up UOC as weakness and use it to further infringe and we'll gain nothing and lose more, while others view it as a strategy in that eliminating UOC only leaves CCW and makes CCW approval more likely especially if McDonald goes our way.

If you have questions--search provides answers already provided (sometimes, but I realize it's sometimes hit or miss).

Organizations with limited assets may pick and choose their battles, but we members should be able to oppose every bill. Now let's fight this bill.

winnre
05-12-2010, 2:04 PM
How long until a Starbucks is held up?

vladbutsky
05-12-2010, 2:17 PM
AB 1934 passed the appropriation committee and the next step will be for a floor vote. I called the office of my assemblymen to see which way he voted and unsurprisingly he voted YES for the 23rd district by Joe Coto.

Here's is the list of members on the appropriation committee and their info to contact their office and you can ask how they voted.

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/directory/committees.tt?commid=CA016

So the vote count so far is 1-0.

You're answered my question. I'm in 23rd district too.
...and yes, he ignored my calls too.
:mad:

Aegis
05-12-2010, 2:17 PM
Letter writing and calling assembly members is a waste of time. All of the Democrats and a few of the Republicans in the legislature wish to destroy the 2A. I have written letters and called assembly members numerous times and this garbage anti 2A legislation keeps getting passed in CA.

TripleT
05-12-2010, 2:18 PM
Others have said it before but it bears repeating. The authors of the Bill of Rights did not and could not have been able to foresee our Republic having been so hijacked as to allow the method of "bearing arms" to be subject to constraint.

UOC
LOC
CCW

All should be viable in a free Republic as our founders envisioned.

calixt0
05-12-2010, 2:32 PM
I'll provide a brief recap but that's it--best to focus on defeating this and any infringement of rights.

The two-sides here fall roughly one way or another: on one hand, some think anti-gun folks will see any capitulation or offering giving up UOC as weakness and use it to further infringe and we'll gain nothing and lose more, while others view it as a strategy in that eliminating UOC only leaves CCW and makes CCW approval more likely especially if McDonald goes our way.

If you have questions--search provides answers already provided (sometimes, but I realize it's sometimes hit or miss).

Organizations with limited assets may pick and choose their battles, but we members should be able to oppose every bill. Now let's fight this bill.

Thanks for the quick recap and I agree to fight any law that is a bad law to start with. However with that being said my member of congress (George Miller) has demonstrated over and over his refusal to listen to me and my thoughts I will let him know again as it comes to his vote but I'm not hopeful. I was just wondering.. thanks for the heads up.

goober
05-12-2010, 2:43 PM
Letter writing and calling assembly members is a waste of time. All of the Democrats and a few of the Republicans in the legislature wish to destroy the 2A. I have written letters and called assembly members numerous times and this garbage anti 2A legislation keeps getting passed in CA.

it's not a waste of time to make your voice heard and be counted. even if we do not get our desired result this time, or the next, or the next, how can it be a bad thing to make sure our position and numbers are clear to those we fight against (and those we might sway to our side)?

Others have said it before but it bears repeating. The authors of the Bill of Rights did not and could not have been able to foresee our Republic having been so hijacked as to allow the method of "bearing arms" to be subject to constraint.

UOC
LOC
CCW

All should be viable in a free Republic as our founders envisioned.

agreed 100%

Thanks for the quick recap and I agree to fight any law that is a bad law to start with. However with that being said my member of congress (George Miller) has demonstrated over and over his refusal to listen to me and my thoughts I will let him know again as it comes to his vote but I'm not hopeful. I was just wondering.. thanks for the heads up.

Just to be sure we're all on the same page- we're talking CA State Senate/Assembly here. George Miller is your U.S. Congressman. It's good to let him know where you stand on this type of issue as well, but he does not get to vote for or against AB1934.

yellowfin
05-12-2010, 3:04 PM
Was it just a coincidence or did they purposefully pick 1934 in reference to the NFA?

hoffmang
05-12-2010, 9:10 PM
FWIW I believe long gun registration has been stopped for now.

We should all oppose this bill. We have a better chance in the Senate. It really doesn't help any 12050 license cases as UOC isn't truly the self defense right to bear anyway. However, this bill causes some serious odd ball corners of the Penal Code for hunters and others.

-Gene

Tim McBride
05-12-2010, 9:46 PM
Exactly what CGF predicted UOC would get us...

Don't exercise your rights because they might get taken away. Bad logic. A right unused is no right at all.

N6ATF
05-12-2010, 9:59 PM
http://archvillain.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/not-this-again.jpg

winnre
05-12-2010, 10:07 PM
Don't exercise your rights because they might get taken away. Bad logic. A right unused is no right at all.

Hmmm, then I better go find some soldiers and yell at them that they cannot stay in my house. Never exercised my 3A to date. Don't wanna lose that right you know! :TFH:

Tim McBride
05-12-2010, 10:13 PM
Hmmm, then I better go find some soldiers and yell at them that they cannot stay in my house. Never exercised my 3A to date. Don't wanna lose that right you know! :TFH:
You could actually address the point that was made, or continue to post things that have no bearing on the subject at hand.

But if you want to play games; you do not exercise your 3rd Amendment right against the quartering of troops because it is not being done at this time.

nicki
05-12-2010, 10:16 PM
The California legislature is being watched in other parts of the country and when the rest of the country is running away from victim disarmament, Ca Democrats just can resist pushing the issue.

Their actions will help cost the Dems more seats in other races across the country.

Just as civil rights had to be forced on racist southern states by the Federal Courts, we are coming to that day here in California.

Considering the pending MacDonald case, the timing of this bill couldn't be worse.

Arnold the RINO may surprise us, don't write him off yet.

Nicki

neuron
05-12-2010, 10:32 PM
Well, we get to vote in June and November. (We still get to vote, don't we?)

The pols in office now will do what they do. If you don't like what they're doing (and I don't) vote them out of office. If you are a freedom loving American, you should vote like one. Massachusetts voters spoke up loud and clear, as did voters in New Jersey and a few other places recently. This is a good sign.

If you are a gun owner you should vote like one. We have our priorities when we vote, but I will never vote for a political candidate who is opposed to the RKBA. And I do try to find out candidates' opinions on this issue. You should do likewise, and try to convince your family and friends to vote for RKBA friendly candidates. If we all did this we wouldn't have to worry about politicians like Saldana. They would have to find useful employment somewhere else besides in State and Federal legislatures, and if they have no other marketable skills they could go on welfare or workfare...(hopefully the latter).:cool:

N6ATF
05-12-2010, 10:39 PM
Not even supposedly. They make it crystal clear with every breath that they only represent criminal interests, NOT those of law-abiding people.

GrizzlyGuy
05-13-2010, 8:36 AM
We should all oppose this bill. We have a better chance in the Senate. It really doesn't help any 12050 license cases as UOC isn't truly the self defense right to bear anyway. However, this bill causes some serious odd ball corners of the Penal Code for hunters and others.

Yes. I'm assuming that it will pass both houses, so I think it would be good if we could at least make it less bad.

My state senator and assemblyman are both opposed to the bill. My thought is that I would write them and send them a rather long document that explains many of the oddball impacts that may not have been intended even by Saldana, with some amendment ideas on how to correct those (e.g., exempt federally owned and controlled public lands such as national forests and national parks).

If you think that's the wrong approach, let me know. Maybe I should just send this info to CA NRA or whoever it is on our side that has enough mojo to get amendments made.

Window_Seat
05-13-2010, 9:11 AM
The California legislature is being watched in other parts of the country and when the rest of the country is running away from victim disarmament, Ca Democrats just can resist pushing the issue.

Their actions will help cost the Dems more seats in other races across the country.
...

IOW, guilt/death by association...:D

Seriously, this could lead to bad things as well for issues that you and I agree on, no?

Back to the topic, like some here suggest, the UOCers might have "screwed it up" for us, but the real reason for UOC was because we can't CCW. It's been said before that the Legislature cannot take away both forms of carry outside the home without blatantly violating the COTUS, and this is where McDonald comes in. Sykes v. McGinness (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) will absolutely pounce all over this issue when this case comes up.

Erik.

yelohamr
05-13-2010, 10:25 AM
Αν AB 1934 περνάει, οι ηλίθιοι στο Σακραμέντο cas φιλί ανταρτών κώλο μου.

loather
05-13-2010, 10:35 AM
Αν AB 1934 περνάει, οι ηλίθιοι στο Σακραμέντο cas φιλί ανταρτών κώλο μου.

Hell, that's Greek to me! *groan*

Crovax
05-13-2010, 11:24 AM
To be honest, this seems like a very motivating reason for people to CCW without a permit. The only reason I see myself open carrying is if there was some type of huge natural disaster in the area (earthquake) and I had to protect myself while out of the house in case of riots/thieves/etc. I would prefer to open carry as a deterrent in that situation.

However if someone is going to be arrested for either carrying openly or concealed, but one of the two (concealed) carries far less of a risk of being caught, then the logical choice would be to conceal carry without a permit.

A lot of this seems really bass ackwards in terms of what it will accomplish. How do we legally keep and bear arms in a situation where they are needed?

BluNorthern
05-13-2010, 12:16 PM
To be honest, this seems like a very motivating reason for people to CCW without a permit. The only reason I see myself open carrying is if there was some type of huge natural disaster in the area (earthquake) and I had to protect myself while out of the house in case of riots/thieves/etc. I would prefer to open carry as a deterrent in that situation.

However if someone is going to be arrested for either carrying openly or concealed, but one of the two (concealed) carries far less of a risk of being caught, then the logical choice would be to conceal carry without a permit.

A lot of this seems really bass ackwards in terms of what it will accomplish. How do we legally keep and bear arms in a situation where they are needed?
You're gonna get slammed with all the " We would never condone breaking the law..etc" for that, but I hear ya loud and clear. We're being boxed into an impossible situation by legislators that have determined that the 2nd amendment just doesn't exist for California gun owners. I don't know what to tell you, except don't be a victim if you can help it.

CharAznable
05-13-2010, 1:02 PM
Well, you see if we have more criminals then we need more prisons. And if we need more prisons we need more prison workers...

winnre
05-13-2010, 1:14 PM
Just got this:

Thank you for writing me about Assembly Bill 1934. I appreciate your suggestions on proposed legislation affecting our state.

I generally do not take a position on legislation until a bill has reached my desk because it can change significantly from the time it is introduced until the time it is finalized. For the current session, the California Legislature has until August 31, 2010 to pass legislation, and I have until September 30, 2010 to sign or veto proposed bills.

You may continue to follow this and any other bill under consideration by lawmakers at the Official California Legislative website: www.leginfo.ca.gov. You may also read my legislative messages at www.gov.ca.gov.

Again, I appreciate your interest in California's future. An informed and engaged public is important for effective government in our state.

Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

vincewarde
05-13-2010, 5:44 PM
FWIW I believe long gun registration has been stopped for now.

We should all oppose this bill. We have a better chance in the Senate. It really doesn't help any 12050 license cases as UOC isn't truly the self defense right to bear anyway. However, this bill causes some serious odd ball corners of the Penal Code for hunters and others.

-Gene

OK, so just how would this bill - in it's present form - affect our rights to carry openly in places where discharge of a firearm is legal (i.e. National Forest, BLM, etc.)?

What about hunting? (i.e. I am out for coyotes with my 9mm officer, here is my hunting license).

Thanks!

gbp
05-13-2010, 6:00 PM
please someone correct me. If this passes won't it be a good thing. I'm told that one of the main arguments against us having a shall issue on ccw is because we can open carry. If they take that away, wont those who wish to defend themselves have to be issued a ccw as long as they can legally own a gun?

Maybe I missed a bunch in the middle? I'm actually so confused... these laws make it so hard to protect oneself, and to keep on the lawful side of the law.

Why is it that we have to loose rights in order to gain rights?
for people to believe that this is in anyway a good thing and will eventually have better results is delusional.
jm2.0$

this is not the way to get things accomplished it amounts to nothing more than picking up the pieces of whats left after the bomb goes off and trying to make something out of it

IW378
05-13-2010, 7:59 PM
"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon"
What F#%&*NG part of these words do they not understand ??
If this passes the bear part is pretty much eliminated due to a shall not issue stance. The keep part will be next on the list.

erik
05-13-2010, 8:13 PM
Just got this:

Thank you for writing me about Assembly Bill 1934. I appreciate your suggestions on proposed legislation affecting our state.

I generally do not take a position on legislation until a bill has reached my desk because it can change significantly from the time it is introduced until the time it is finalized. For the current session, the California Legislature has until August 31, 2010 to pass legislation, and I have until September 30, 2010 to sign or veto proposed bills.

You may continue to follow this and any other bill under consideration by lawmakers at the Official California Legislative website: www.leginfo.ca.gov. You may also read my legislative messages at www.gov.ca.gov.

Again, I appreciate your interest in California's future. An informed and engaged public is important for effective government in our state.

Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

This wording is similar (identical?), save for the dates, of previous letters to the Gov. He just doesn't care until the bill hits his desk. (And maybe not even then. :TFH: )

N6ATF
05-14-2010, 1:35 AM
You're gonna get slammed with all the " We would never condone breaking the law..etc" for that, but I hear ya loud and clear. We're being boxed into an impossible situation by legislators that have determined that the 2nd amendment just doesn't exist for California gun owners. I don't know what to tell you, except don't be a victim if you can help it.

Not just the 2A. They even print the CA Constitution on toilet paper.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


If you live in CA, you have the right to lay down and be murdered. That is all the victim disarming traitors in power will allow us.

leelaw
05-14-2010, 1:51 AM
Not just the 2A. They even print the CA Constitution on toilet paper.

If you live in CA, you have the right to lay down and be murdered. That is all the victim disarming traitors in power will allow us.

Even given the Heller decision, can you explain why UOC would be considered a method of self preservation?

CalNRA
05-14-2010, 2:19 AM
Αν AB 1934 περνάει, οι ηλίθιοι στο Σακραμέντο cas φιλί ανταρτών κώλο μου.

τι ειναι "cas"?

winnre
05-14-2010, 9:16 AM
Even given the Heller decision, can you explain why UOC would be considered a method of self preservation?

Show of force.

Crazed_SS
05-14-2010, 9:46 AM
To be honest, this seems like a very motivating reason for people to CCW without a permit. The only reason I see myself open carrying is if there was some type of huge natural disaster in the area (earthquake) and I had to protect myself while out of the house in case of riots/thieves/etc. I would prefer to open carry as a deterrent in that situation.

However if someone is going to be arrested for either carrying openly or concealed, but one of the two (concealed) carries far less of a risk of being caught, then the logical choice would be to conceal carry without a permit.

A lot of this seems really bass ackwards in terms of what it will accomplish. How do we legally keep and bear arms in a situation where they are needed?


I seriously doubt people are going to start illegally carrying because they can UOC.

I dont think UOCers were carrying out of any real practical self-defense reason. For the most part, it just seemed like they were doing it simply because they could. Now that's it's gonna be illegal, they simply wont be able to do it (without getting arrested) and things go back to how they were before the UOC thing got let out of the bag.

If they didnt feel threatened enough to illegally CCW before this whole thing blew up, it's doubtful theyll start doing it after UOC is killed.

pullnshoot25
05-14-2010, 10:13 AM
I seriously doubt people are going to start illegally carrying because they can UOC.

I dont think UOCers were carrying out of any real practical self-defense reason. For the most part, it just seemed like they were doing it simply because they could. Now that's it's gonna be illegal, they simply wont be able to do it (without getting arrested) and things go back to how they were before the UOC thing got let out of the bag.

If they didnt feel threatened enough to illegally CCW before this whole thing blew up, it's doubtful theyll start doing it after UOC is killed.

Wow, your omniscience is frightening!

Allow me to congratulate you for finding and bludgeoning not just normal Quarter Horse but the gargantuan Suffolk Punch of obvious facts and stale arguments.

Tons of people already ccw illegally. To be perfectly honest, the big reasons why I don't are because I am trying to set a good example for the younger crowd, in addition to the fact that I fear an illegal police search more than criminals at this point in my life.

N6ATF
05-14-2010, 3:48 PM
Even given the Heller decision, can you explain why UOC would be considered a method of self preservation?

Other than a deterrent against non-government criminals, and a non-first-target method of defense... not at all. Which is exactly why the .gov banned their victims from defending themselves in the first place.

Mac
05-14-2010, 7:37 PM
Not much I can do.
My Senator and Assemblyman both have an R after their name.
I'd be preaching to the choir.

goober
06-15-2010, 3:28 PM
Assembly Bill 1934 is scheduled to be considered by the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, June 22.

You know the drill:
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:

State Senator Mark Leno (Chair)
(916) 651-4003
senator.leno@senate.ca.gov

State Senator Dave Cogdill (Vice-Chair)
(916) 651-4014

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo
(916) 651-4022

State Senator Loni Hancock
(916) 651-4009

State Senator Robert Huff
(916) 651-4029

State Senator Darrell Steinberg
(916) 651-4006

State Senator Roderick Wright
(916) 651-4025

Unfortunately most have gone to using forms on their websites for email contact, but I'm pretty sure I have their addies somewhere (just not right now). Someone else will post them here I'm sure (*cough*obeygiant*cough*), or I'll do it when I find them.

johnny_22
06-16-2010, 8:46 AM
Tried a First Amendment argument for freedom of speech. Not sure if it is more effective or not. We'll see.

goober
06-21-2010, 11:36 AM
reminder w/ updated contact info.
some emails (Cedillo's for sure) may bounce, but give it a shot:

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:
(916)651-4118
Fax: (916)445-4688

State Senator Mark Leno (Chair)
(916) 651-4003
Fax: (916) 445-4722
senator.leno@senate.ca.gov

State Senator Dave Cogdill (Vice-Chair)
(916) 651-4014
Fax: (916) 327-3523
senator.cogdill@senate.ca.gov

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo
(916) 651-4022
Fax: (916) 327-8817
senator.cedillo@senate.ca.gov

State Senator Loni Hancock
(916) 651-4009
Fax: (916) 327-1997
senator.hancock@senate.ca.gov

State Senator Robert Huff
(916) 651-4029
Fax: (916) 324-0922
senator.huff@senate.ca.gov

State Senator Darrell Steinberg
(916) 651-4006
Fax: (916) 323-2263
senator.steinberg@senate.ca.gov

State Senator Roderick Wright
(916) 651-4025
Fax: (916) 445-3712
senator.wright@senate.ca.gov

goober
06-22-2010, 12:11 PM
BEING DISCUSSED NOW IN PS COMMITTEE (https://www.calchannel.com/channel/live/1)

goober
06-22-2010, 12:15 PM
Wright is making good sense

goober
06-22-2010, 12:22 PM
Huff doing good too

goober
06-22-2010, 12:27 PM
just voted- missed full count but looks like it passed :mad:

Havoc70
06-22-2010, 12:28 PM
Aye - 3
No - 2

That's based on what I heard, the stream sucked, I had to keep refreshing it.

Wright was awesome.

Saldana lied her *** off. The Lafayette debate was in a GFSZ, no one was open carrying, and her speaking point of someone carrying a concealed handgun she didn't mention if that person had a CCW or not and CCWers can carry in a GFSZ. I loved her melodrama of us UOCers learning how to "avoid the police".

Goddamn, what a c***.

goober
06-22-2010, 12:33 PM
so it was just Huff and Wright opposed?
sounded like they said it was "on call" or some status other than "Passed", but i wasn't sure. yeah, stream sucked.
oh well, we can hope. but i'd be surprised if it doesn't make it out.

Havoc70
06-22-2010, 12:34 PM
You're right, I did hear on call, not passed. I don't know what that means.

NorCalDustin
06-22-2010, 12:46 PM
This is stupid

goober
06-22-2010, 1:02 PM
lmao i JUST received a GalGuns email telling me to contact the PS committee on AB1934... a bit late there folks.

goober
06-22-2010, 1:08 PM
from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/guide.html#Appendix_B
On Call
A roll call vote in a committee or an Assembly or Senate floor session that has occurred but has not yet been concluded or formally announced. Members may continue to vote or change their votes as long as a measure remains "on call." Calls are usually placed at the request of a bill's author in an effort to gain votes. Calls can be lifted by request any time during the committee hearing or floor session, but cannot be carried over into the next legislative day.

diginit
06-22-2010, 5:38 PM
Just got this:

Thank you for writing me about Assembly Bill 1934. I appreciate your suggestions on proposed legislation affecting our state.

I generally do not take a position on legislation until a bill has reached my desk because it can change significantly from the time it is introduced until the time it is finalized. For the current session, the California Legislature has until August 31, 2010 to pass legislation, and I have until September 30, 2010 to sign or veto proposed bills.

You may continue to follow this and any other bill under consideration by lawmakers at the Official California Legislative website: www.leginfo.ca.gov (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov). You may also read my legislative messages at www.gov.ca.gov (http://www.gov.ca.gov).

Again, I appreciate your interest in California's future. An informed and engaged public is important for effective government in our state.

Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

I got the EXACT same letter 3 weeks ago. :TFH: This tells me that no one actually reads what we write.

goober
06-22-2010, 5:59 PM
I got the EXACT same letter 3 weeks ago. :TFH: This tells me that no one actually reads what we write.

writing to the governator regarding legislation that has not passed both the house and senate is premature and will never result in anything but a form letter response.
that's not to say that one will necessarily do any better by waiting until the bill is on his desk, but you can be assured you are wasting your efforts until that time.

darkwater
06-22-2010, 7:45 PM
I didn't watch the video after it was put on call...did they complete the vote today?

sfrob
06-22-2010, 7:56 PM
Anyone else notice that Saldana has on her main page a youtube video of a guy pulling and racking a pistol? Unless this guy is a LEO, isn't that a PC417 violation? I'll ignore that this is an extremely misleading video, not that I expected anything less from her, but it would be funny if one of her staffers did 3-months because they have no concept of the laws they are trying to oppose.

goober
06-22-2010, 11:00 PM
I didn't watch the video after it was put on call...did they complete the vote today?

status here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1901-1950/ab_1934_bill_20100621_status.html) has not changed, but the leginfo.ca.gov site can sometimes lag a bit. i guess we will see in the next couple days if it is a done deal or is rescheduled for next Tues 6/29 (which is when AB1810 is scheduled to be heard)

goober
06-22-2010, 11:07 PM
Anyone else notice that Saldana has on her main page a youtube video of a guy pulling and racking a pistol? Unless this guy is a LEO, isn't that a PC417 violation? I'll ignore that this is an extremely misleading video, not that I expected anything less from her, but it would be funny if one of her staffers did 3-months because they have no concept of the laws they are trying to oppose.

Saldana's blathering on about how the justification for AB1934 is that existing LE SOP's are inadequate for dealing with the reality of people legally LOC'ing would have been laughable if it was not so maddening.
I mean come on, how can you argue that it is necessary to deny the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens on the basis that you haven't planned or trained well enough to defend and protect those very rights, a task which you are sworn to accomplish? WTF? :confused:

Crom
06-23-2010, 8:44 AM
So it passed out of the Senate committee but was re-referred to the appropriations committee.


UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: AB 1934
AUTHOR: Saldana
TOPIC: Firearms.
DATE: 06/22/2010
LOCATION: SEN. PUB. S.
MOTION: Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
(AYES 4. NOES 3.) (PASS)


AYES
****

Leno Cedillo Hancock Steinberg


NOES
****

Cogdill Huff Wright

What is the appropriations committee?

goober
06-23-2010, 9:39 AM
So it passed out of the Senate committee but was re-referred to the appropriations committee.



What is the appropriations committee?

Appropriations decides whether the bill should move forward based on fiscal impact.
This is where we focus our efforts for the next round. Please contact the committee members and express your opposition to this bill with particular attention to the cost it will incur for our near-bankrupt state.

Senate Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Room 2206
(916)651-4101

Senator Christine Kehoe (Chair)
5050 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4039
Fax: (916) 327-2188
senator.kehoe@sen.ca.gov

Senator Dave Cox (Vice-Chair)
2068 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Fax: (916) 324-2680
senator.cox@senate.ca.gov

Senator Elaine Alquist
5080 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4013
Fax: (916) 324-0283
senator.alquist@senate.ca.gov

Senator Ellen Corbett
5108 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4010
Fax: (916) 327-2433
senator.corbett@senate.ca.gov

Senator Jeff Denham
3076 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4012
Fax: (916) 445-0773
senator.denham@senate.ca.gov

Senator Mark Leno
4061 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4003
Fax: (916) 445-4722
senator.leno@senate.ca.gov

Senator Curren Price
2052 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4026
Fax: (916) 445-8899
senator.price@senate.ca.gov

Senator Mimi Walters
3082 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4033
Fax: (916) 445-9754
senator.walters@senate.ca.gov

Senator Lois Wolk
State Capitol, Room 4032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4005
Fax: (916) 323-2304
senator.wolk@senate.ca.gov

Senator Mark Wyland
4048 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4038
Fax: (916) 446-7382
senator.wyland@senate.ca.gov

Senator Leland Yee
4074 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4008
Fax: (916) 327-2186
senator.yee@senate.ca.gov

comma-delimited email list you can copy & paste:
senator.kehoe@sen.ca.gov, senator.cox@senate.ca.gov, senator.alquist@senate.ca.gov, senator.corbett@senate.ca.gov, senator.denham@senate.ca.gov, senator.leno@senate.ca.gov, senator.price@senate.ca.gov, senator.walters@senate.ca.gov, senator.wolk@senate.ca.gov, senator.wyland@senate.ca.gov, senator.yee@senate.ca.gov

6172crew
06-23-2010, 9:44 AM
Don't exercise your rights because they might get taken away. Bad logic. A right unused is no right at all.

Or wait until we have a 2nd amendment, then exercise your rights.:rolleyes:

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 9:49 AM
Someone should post up the video once it's made available in archive.

darkwater
06-23-2010, 9:58 AM
So it passed out of the Senate committee but was re-referred to the appropriations committee.



What is the appropriations committee?

That's weird...according to the history on leginfo, it never went to the Senate Appropriations committee to begin with, so why would it be re-referred? (even leginfo uses the term "re-referred")

Since this bill was amended in the Senate, it will have to be sent back to the Assembly again for the amendments to be approved, correct?

My senator, Dave Cox, will vote against it in Appropriations, but how did Mark Leno end up on both Appropriations and Public Safety? This guy is from SF and seems very keen on passing gun-control stuff in both committees...talk about double jeopardy!

N6ATF
06-23-2010, 10:09 AM
Or wait until we have a 2nd amendment, then exercise your rights.:rolleyes:

Can't even exercise our incorporated 4A/5A rights at the moment, illegal searches and forced identification rule the day. The Constitution is nothing more than toilet paper to ca.gov.

Crom
06-23-2010, 11:24 AM
Appropriations decides whether the bill should move forward based on fiscal impact.
This is where we focus our efforts for the next round. Please contact the committee members and express your opposition to this bill with particular attention to the cost it will incur for our near-bankrupt state.


Thanks. I will call every single one of them and urge them to oppose AB1934. I am not a fan of email as I know they can be deleted all too easily.

Crom
06-23-2010, 11:28 AM
000

John Sukey
06-23-2010, 11:34 AM
Solution, join the crips or the bloods or the black muslims and the law won't affect you.
As for Ah-nold, wasn't his father in the SS?;)

Legasat
06-23-2010, 12:13 PM
Emails sent!

EricFi1
06-23-2010, 1:38 PM
Just to be sure we're all on the same page- we're talking CA State Senate/Assembly here. George Miller is your U.S. Congressman. It's good to let him know where you stand on this type of issue as well, but he does not get to vote for or against AB1934.[/QUOTE]

miller is a liberal in disguise. he's as anti-gun as pelosi is.. he is of course, a pelosi confidant and "lieutanant".
he'll be in the distrct until he retires or dies. nobody can topple him. contra costa county is to democrat to change.

goober
06-23-2010, 2:09 PM
Just to be sure we're all on the same page- we're talking CA State Senate/Assembly here. George Miller is your U.S. Congressman. It's good to let him know where you stand on this type of issue as well, but he does not get to vote for or against AB1934.

miller is a liberal in disguise. he's as anti-gun as pelosi is.. he is of course, a pelosi confidant and "lieutanant".
he'll be in the distrct until he retires or dies. nobody can topple him. contra costa county is to democrat to change.

i'm not arguing with your statement but i'll respectfully request that you express your opinions regarding U.S. legislative representation in another more appropriate thread.
this thread is about CA state legislation. specifically, it is about AB1934, and our efforts to make our voices heard and defeat it.
thanks.

CitaDeL
06-23-2010, 5:38 PM
Appropriations decides whether the bill should move forward based on fiscal impact.
This is where we focus our efforts for the next round. Please contact the committee members and express your opposition to this bill with particular attention to the cost it will incur for our near-bankrupt state.

Senate Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Room 2206
(916)651-4101

Senator Christine Kehoe (Chair)
5050 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4039
Fax: (916) 327-2188
senator.kehoe@sen.ca.gov

Senator Dave Cox (Vice-Chair)
2068 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Fax: (916) 324-2680
senator.cox@senate.ca.gov

Senator Elaine Alquist
5080 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4013
Fax: (916) 324-0283
senator.alquist@senate.ca.gov

Senator Ellen Corbett
5108 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4010
Fax: (916) 327-2433
senator.corbett@senate.ca.gov

Senator Jeff Denham
3076 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4012
Fax: (916) 445-0773
senator.denham@senate.ca.gov

Senator Mark Leno
4061 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4003
Fax: (916) 445-4722
senator.leno@senate.ca.gov

Senator Curren Price
2052 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4026
Fax: (916) 445-8899
senator.price@senate.ca.gov

Senator Mimi Walters
3082 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4033
Fax: (916) 445-9754
senator.walters@senate.ca.gov

Senator Lois Wolk
State Capitol, Room 4032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4005
Fax: (916) 323-2304
senator.wolk@senate.ca.gov

Senator Mark Wyland
4048 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4038
Fax: (916) 446-7382
senator.wyland@senate.ca.gov

Senator Leland Yee
4074 State Capitol,
California 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4008
Fax: (916) 327-2186
senator.yee@senate.ca.gov

comma-delimited email list you can copy & paste:
senator.kehoe@sen.ca.gov, senator.cox@senate.ca.gov, senator.alquist@senate.ca.gov, senator.corbett@senate.ca.gov, senator.denham@senate.ca.gov, senator.leno@senate.ca.gov, senator.price@senate.ca.gov, senator.walters@senate.ca.gov, senator.wolk@senate.ca.gov, senator.wyland@senate.ca.gov, senator.yee@senate.ca.gov

I took a moment during lunch time to call and make my opposition to ab1934 known. I urge Calguns members to take 5 minutes to dial these Senators and voice your opinion. If you have more than 5 minutes, take the time to draft a brief letter and fax it to them.

From what I understand, the vote here is close enough and there are sufficient undecideds that this can have an impact.

DO NOT SIT THIS OUT... We need your support!

diginit
06-23-2010, 10:27 PM
I already emailed EVERYONE! Including Arnold. I know alot of people who will carry loaded concieled if this passes. We still have the right to defend ourselves and will. No matter what these idiot antis are doing. We would rather break the law than leave our defence to LE who most likely wouldn't be in the vicinity and have no obligation to assist us anyways.

nomidlname
06-24-2010, 3:57 PM
Or wait until we have a 2nd amendment, then exercise your rights.:rolleyes:

Wow. Really? That's what you believe? Wait until you have 2nd amendment rights to exercise them? Interesting...

On another note of the same topic... As anti-OC as CG members are you would think they would be thanking UOC'ers. I mean it's not like Anti-OC members are losing anything right? As a matter of fact you could argue this is a benefit for you. It would truly be infringing upon your rights if it is illegal to OC and also illegal to CC without government permission right? One or the other MUST be available to the citizens.

This law could possibly bring Shall Issue to the forefront... Too bad you guys have no respect for those people exercising their god given rights before someone gave them permission to do so.

UOC'ers. The men and women on the front lines risking it all while you wait until your granted permission to exercise your rights.

Graybird
06-24-2010, 5:50 PM
Emails sent, thanks for the addresses.

goober
06-26-2010, 11:00 AM
Remember folks you can do this more than once, and using more than one medium. I've already emailed and FAX'ed, and will make voice calls on Monday. Keep hammering them!
And be sure to emphasize the fiscal impacts of the bill.
Thanks to everyone who is putting in the effort.

goober
06-30-2010, 6:00 PM
just got this response (regarding the letter I wrote urging him to vote against AB1934) from Senator Cox on the Appropriations Committee. wish more of those in positions like his would be so forthcoming, and vote as he does.

Senator Cox to me

show details 4:16 PM (1 hour ago)

Thank you for contacting my office to express your opposition to gun control legislation. I appreciate hearing from you.

My stance on additional gun control legislation has been clear. I have consistently opposed efforts to restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and legally use firearms.

Several key bills relating to gun control or ownership rights have been introduced or re-introduced during this legislative session.

Assembly Bill 357 (Knight) would have revised state law as it relates to obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. Current law authorizes the sheriff of a county, "...upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists, and that the person applying satisfies any one of certain conditions..." to issue a license for the person to carry a concealed handgun. AB 357 would have deleted the good cause requirement, and required the sheriff to issue the license if the other criteria described above are met. As anticipated, AB 357 failed passage in its first hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 21 by a vote of 1-5. The bill was taken up for a vote of reconsideration on January 12 and failed passage a second time by a vote of 1-5. AB 357 is dead for the remainder of this legislative session.

Assembly Bill 962 is a far-reaching measure which prohibits any person not licensed as a gun dealer to transfer, sell or buy more than 50 pieces of ammunition in a month. The bill also implements extensive reporting and record-keeping requirements for all licensed gun dealers who wish to sell ammunition. The requirements listed in this measure are impractical and would do more to inconvenience lawful gun owners more than deter criminals. AB 962 passed both houses of the Legislature and was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger, Chapter 628, Statutes of 2009. I voted against AB 962 when it came before me.

Assembly Member Hagman introduced Assembly Bill 1663 to repeal the provisions of AB 962. AB 1663 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on March 23 by a vote of 2-4, with Republican members supporting the bill, four Democrat members opposing the bill, and one Democrat abstaining. Although the bill has been granted reconsideration, it is uncertain at this time whether the author will take the bill up for a second hearing.

Assembly Bill 1167 (Nielsen) "...would have deemed persons who have a valid permit or license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state or a political subdivision of another state to be authorized to carry a concealed handgun pursuant to provisions of California law...." and would have similarly "directed the Department of Justice to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states so that persons licensed in this state to carry concealed or loaded firearms would be authorized to do so in those other states." AB 1167 was never heard in committee, failed to pass out of the house of origin by the legislative deadline and is dead for the remainder of this legislative session.

Assembly Bill 1810 (Feuer) applies identical registration and tracking record requirements for handguns to long guns. Current law exempts long guns from certain tracking and registration requirements. This bill deletes the exemptions effective July 1, 2012. Once again, this legislation is directed at law-abiding gun owners. Clearly, convicted felons prohibited from being in possession of firearms will not register any illegally possessed firearms. AB 1810 passed the full Assembly on June 3 by a vote of 42-29. The bill subsequently passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on June 29 by a vote of 4-2 and is now awaiting a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Assembly Bill 1934 (Saldaņa) will make it a misdemeanor for any person to carry an exposed, unloaded handgun outside a vehicle on his or her person in a public place. Assembly Member Saldaņa admits that she introduced this bill as a result of "controversial events" where numbers of citizens openly carry unloaded weapons in an effort to begin to normalize such lawful conduct. Although the author cites an intimidation factor as her purpose for introducing this legislation, I am unaware of any compelling need for it, and I intend to oppose this bill as written should it reach me for a vote. AB 1934 passed the full Assembly on June 1 by a vote of 46-30. The bill subsequently passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on June 22 by a vote of 4-3 and is now awaiting a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Assembly Bill 2223 (Nava) is a bill to require the use of non-toxic shot for hunting purposes in specified wildlife management areas when taking migratory game birds, resident small game or non-game species. This bill is an expansion of the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act which prohibited the use of lead shot in areas where the California Condor was known to scavenge. AB 2223 passed the full Assembly on June 3 by a vote of 47-29. The bill failed passage in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on June 29 by a vote of 3-4, and the bill is dead for the remainder of this legislative session. I was opposed to this bill as written.

Senate Bill 41 (Lowenthal) would have imposed additional requirements on firearms dealers to track sales, returns and other transactions and report them to the California Department of Justice. Additional fees on dealers were also included in the bill which would have likely been passed on to consumers. SB 41 passed the full Senate on June 1 by a vote of 21-14. The bill subsequently passed the full Assembly on September 8 by a vote of 48-30, and on September 10, the Senate voted to concur with the Assembly amendments. The Governor ultimately vetoed the bill.

Senate Bill 585 (Leno) is a bill which would have prohibited firearms sales at the Cow Palace in San Francisco. The language in SB 585 was virtually identical to the final language contained in Assembly Bill 2498 (Leno) from the 2007-08 legislative session.

SB 585 was an effort to allow the City and/or County of San Francisco to discriminate against legitimate gun show participants and vendors who must comply with stringent state regulations affecting licensing, sales, background checks, liability and other provisions of state law governing gun shows, although the property in question is owned by the state, not the county. SB 585 originally passed the full Senate on June 3 by a vote of 21-18. SB 585 subsequently passed the full Assembly on September 9 by a vote of 45-33. The Senate concurred with the Assembly amendments on September 10. I voted against this bill when it came before me, and the bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

Senate Bill 697 (DeSaulnier) was a re-introduction of Assembly Bill 2235 a bill from the 2007-08 legislative session by the same author relating to "owner-authorized" handguns. AB 2235 passed the Assembly but was held under submission in the Senate Appropriations Committee and died without further action. SB 697 was never heard in committee and failed to pass out of the house of origin by the legislative deadline.

"Smart gun" technology may be perfected in the future, and "owner authorized" weapons may one day secure a niche in the marketplace. However, the potential availability of such weapons for those who wish to purchase them should not preclude the legal possession, purchase or transfer of other traditional firearms. For this reason, I was opposed to SB 697 as written.

Senate Bill 776 (Hancock) would have required owners of large-capacity magazines to register them with the Department of Justice. I was opposed to this bill as written. The bill was never heard in a policy committee and failed to pass out of the house of origin by the legislative deadline.

If you are interested in tracking the progress of this or any other legislation, you may access the status, votes, bill text and analyses of this and other legislation from my Senate home page at www.senate.ca.gov/cox.

Again, thank you for taking the time to relay your views. Please feel free to communicate with me on other issues of interest.

Sincerely,

DAVE COX
Senator, First District

johnny_22
07-03-2010, 6:37 AM
Remember folks you can do this more than once, and using more than one medium. I've already emailed and FAX'ed, and will make voice calls on Monday. Keep hammering them!
And be sure to emphasize the fiscal impacts of the bill.
Thanks to everyone who is putting in the effort.

I read the summaries and can't find a good fiscal argument. Nor does one come to my mind. Any suggestions?

goober
07-03-2010, 10:04 AM
I read the summaries and can't find a good fiscal argument. Nor does one come to my mind. Any suggestions?

Under the current financial climate any bill that has been deemed fiscal impact "unknown" (which is the case for AB1934) is unacceptable on fiscal grounds.

johnny_22
07-03-2010, 4:01 PM
Under the current financial climate any bill that has been deemed fiscal impact "unknown" (which is the case for AB1934) is unacceptable on fiscal grounds.

Thank you.

I used a cost to benefit argument, to say little benefit for unknown costs is unaffordable to California right now.

darkwater
07-03-2010, 4:05 PM
just got this response (regarding the letter I wrote urging him to vote against AB1934) from Senator Cox on the Appropriations Committee. wish more of those in positions like his would be so forthcoming, and vote as he does.

Yep, Senator Cox represents my district...heavily Republican and rural...you're welcome..:)

goober
08-04-2010, 7:23 PM
foooooook.
out of appropriations, and on to the senate floor.
make your voice heard!!!

joedogboy
08-04-2010, 9:11 PM
Hmmm, then I better go find some soldiers and yell at them that they cannot stay in my house. Never exercised my 3A to date. Don't wanna lose that right you know! :TFH:
Has the government been forcing you to house soldiers in your home?

If not, then you have been exercising that right.

xXBigJoeXx
08-04-2010, 11:56 PM
I am so sick of reading and hearing about these anti 2A bills that keep restricting our rights in the golden state. I for one have contacted my Senator who states he will vote against this bill. I have never open carried, but that does not mean that I should not have the right to. When will CA ever get a pro gun goverment......? :rolleyes:

IGOTDIRT4U
08-05-2010, 12:59 PM
Has the government been forcing you to house soldiers in your home?

If not, then you have been exercising that right.

You might actually have something to worry about. The 3A has never been incorporated to the States.

hoffmang
08-05-2010, 7:12 PM
You might actually have something to worry about. The 3A has never been incorporated to the States.

It has been in the 2nd Circuit. Engblom v Casey.

-Gene