PDA

View Full Version : Nra Introduces New Ca Legislation


mikehaas
04-18-2006, 3:52 PM
(Please distribute far and wide)

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION INTRODUCES NEW CA LEGISLATION

4/18/06 - NRA introduces Assembly Bill 2111 - The CONSUMER HANDGUN TRANSFER PROTECTION ACT

AB 2111 will ensure that once a person has purchased and started the background check to transfer a handgun in California that they can complete the transfer even if the handgun "falls off" the California Department of Justice Handgun Roster.

This bill will allow handguns to be transferred to the purchaser if, at the time the DROS was initiated, the firearms were included on the roster of handguns approved for sale by the state.

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2111

For information on other bills and issues, please visit:
http://calnra.com/

50 Freak
04-18-2006, 4:09 PM
WHOOOO HOOOO, big whooop....

Why don't they tackle something bigger. Where are my dues going to?

RRangel
04-18-2006, 4:13 PM
One step and a time. That's what the victim disarmers have done.

TonyM
04-18-2006, 4:18 PM
Hopefully our money will go on to something like "If the buyer already has a like weapon (handgun/rifle) the 10 day wait does not apply."

Yeah, I know... I know.. I'm dreaming.

I still give them money regularly though, hoping for a better day in California.

50 Freak
04-18-2006, 4:19 PM
Agreed, but at this rate, the Anti's are coming out with 5,000 bills to the NRA's one.

Come on, I support the NRA with my membership but sometimes I wonder if the NRA does anything for us CA people except flood our mailboxes with junk mail.

I sent the NRA money when they became active in New Orleans and when SF enacted the handgun bill. I was hoping for a change of pace with the NRA, but this bill is a waste of valueable resources.... How many people actually are affected by this? 20-25 a year????? Big deal.

ohsmily
04-18-2006, 4:35 PM
If you don't think the NRA does anything, ask yourself this...why do you think it is that objects as innocuous as nunchakus (nunchucks), throwing stars, spring-loaded knives, blackjacks, blowguns, etc, are ILLEGAL to own in this state but guns aren't??? It is because there are lobbyist groups like the NRA who are watchdogs to make sure laws like that don't pass against guns. They can't win every battle but all the anti-gun politicians know they are there waiting if they ever tried to put an outright ban on handguns or something similar through There aren't lobby groups protecting weapons like the above and thus it is EASY to ban them. If not for the NRA defending our rights over time, you probably wouldn't even be able to buy a gun in this state (at least not a handgun).

kantstudien
04-18-2006, 5:25 PM
Ummm, I am pretty sure that you can already pick up a handgun that falls off the list if you DROSed it prior to falling off. :confused:

If that is the case, the NRA in Kali needs to get their head out of their a-holes and help accomplish something worthwhile. :rolleyes:

50 Freak
04-18-2006, 5:59 PM
If you don't think the NRA does anything, ask yourself this...why do you think it is that objects as innocuous as nunchakus (nunchucks), throwing stars, spring-loaded knives, blackjacks, blowguns, etc, are ILLEGAL to own in this state but guns aren't???

Probably also because the anti's know an outright ban will never pass the public opinion (and as you know CA does not only consist of LA and SF). So why risk turning the whole state against your cause when you can get what you want but slowly. Think Frog and boiling pot analogy.

It is because there are lobbyist groups like the NRA who are watchdogs to make sure laws like that don't pass against guns. They can't win every battle but all the anti-gun politicians know they are there waiting if they ever tried to put an outright ban on handguns or something similar through

That's fine, they don't have to win every battle, but at least show up ready to fight. Or fight at least half of the battles.

If not for the NRA defending our rights over time, you probably wouldn't even be able to buy a gun in this state (at least not a handgun).

As it is now, I can't buy a real AR nor can I buy "non-approved" handguns. What's your point.

Mine is....The NRA is happy to take my money along with hundreds of thousands of Cali residents. But they hardly ever come to bat for our cause.

bg
04-18-2006, 11:39 PM
One step and a time. That's what the victim disarmers have done.
+1. Yep one step at a time.

Rumpled
04-19-2006, 12:26 AM
I gotta say, this is pretty meaningless legislation; but has a good chance of passing. But, what's the point; just to count a victory?
Like the measure about tax waiving on gun safety stuff? Oh, please!
That can only benefit the safe manufacturers.
So, I save 75 cents on a ten dollar gun lock that I actually don't have to buy because I own a safe.
Now, if you want to sell me a safe and I can save $75 because of a tax loophole?
BFD - jnojr in SD did 10X that much for gun rights with the 2nd amendment petition that failed than the NRA is doing with these two fluff pieces of legislation.
And, did the NRA really inrtroduce these bills?
If so, I've got a few of my own to introduce.
Actually some elected representative had to introduce these.

I wish the NRA would get behind some real legislation here in CA.

A step, yeah; but a really, really small baby step.

yiha
04-19-2006, 12:32 AM
i agree. I really dont see how this will contribute to anything but making statistics look good.. "4/10 pro gun bills passed!!"

show us some serious bills regarding assault weapons, concealed carry and waiting times and private party transfers.. :confused:

chris
04-19-2006, 1:27 AM
I would very much like to see this state move out of the stone age and use the NICS. I know that this is wishfull thinking on my part. :)

mikehaas
04-19-2006, 2:02 AM
Patience, gents. We have a large task ahead of us and it will take focus and determination. Some wise words have been posted here regarding the "Chip, chip, chip" philosophy. Remember how we lost our gun-rights and how the Grand Canyon was created. The antis are counting on us losing heart and becoming (staying?) factionalized. Damned if I'll give 'em that.

http://calnra.com/gfx/2003-2005.gif

Source:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2005
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2004
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2003

We have been turning it around. Never, ever give up!

Mike

klmmicro
04-19-2006, 6:22 AM
Patience, gents. We have a large task ahead of us and it will take focus and determination. Some wise words have been posted here regarding the "Chip, chip, chip" philosophy. Remember how we lost our gun-rights and how the Grand Canyon was created. The antis are counting on us losing heart and becoming (staying?) factionalized. Damned if I'll give 'em that.

http://calnra.com/gfx/2003-2005.gif

Source:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2005
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2004
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2003

We have been turning it around. Never, ever give up!

Mike

Hey Mike, I do not think anyone is saying give up...at least not in this group. We would all like to see a change in this state that is positive for our 2nd ammend. right, our sport and our hobby.

What they are saying is, it is too late for us to "chip chip chip" back our rights in this state. If WE do not score a major victory soon, then one of the anti's non chip bills will eventually pass and all the 80 cent tax breaks and DROS modifications will not mean much. Serialization of ammo, microstamping or banning of "magnum" ammunition are just around the corner unless a REAL roadblock to the ignorant "anti-agenda" is pushed through.

I too have often questioned where my money goes. I do not see enough action in this state for the amount of time the NRA spends trying to get more money from me. Tray not sending me anything in the mail and instead putting that money to getting the AWB here repealed. Who cares if the NRA loses the first time around. Just keep at it. THAT is what the anti's did. Defeats meant nothing to them. They would just re-introduce again and again until their scheme passed. I think the terms are "tenacious" and "unwavering".

Paladin
04-19-2006, 8:59 AM
One Click-ed.

Thanks for all your work, Mike.

CALI-gula
04-19-2006, 10:45 AM
I HAVE already picked up handguns, and MORE than once, after my 4473/DROS was already initiated and the handgun fell off of the SB-15 DOJ Safety Approved list DURING my 10 day waiting period.

This was applied in the same terms as to how the 10 day wait has nothing to do with ownership - you own the firearm the day you do the 4473; California merely makes you wait 10 days and the dealer stores it for you. Owning and taking possession are 2 different things, and California law repeatedly shows it is within the law for people to 4473/DROS AW and .50BMG items up until the very day before the ban on SALES was to be effective.

I am the NRA and I repeatedly support the NRA as well as OFTEN contribute money and time in ADDITION to my annual dues. I am also CRPA and FCSA.

However, this bill is just another example of how even the NRA is out of touch with the laws and trappings of California and will often inflate activity within our state to appear as a bigger triumph than reality dictates. The hardest Ed Worley ever worked on an issue was when the FCSA continually prompted him on AB50. Even when he or Paul Payne are going to bat for us, it always seems as if Ed and Paul are operating independently, on their own, as rogues adhering to the original concept of the NRA as opposed to the national NRA bureaucratically held doctrine that have allowed certain NRA administrators develop their involvement with the NRA into a well-paid job as opposed to truly holding such NRA positions to fight for our 2nd Amendment rights; it's like Ed and Paul are out here on their own and their work is only acknowledged by the NRA after the fact, to say "look what the NRA did". NO! It should have been look what Ed or Paul did!!

The NRA was nowhere to be found during the fight against AB2222, but afterward, I repeatedly saw instances of "look what the NRA did". NO!! IT WAS LOOK WHAT THE FCSA DID!! It was the FCSA that repeatedly went to bat against AB2222 and AB50 for us while the NRA (except Ed) was nearly nowhere to be found until it was too late, in the 2 years and summer before 9/13/04 of Arnold signing AB50. Only slightly before or AFTER AB50 was passed did articles about AB50 begin to appear in their "1st Freedom" magazine. Pathetic.

This latest bill does nothing; to borrow a term heard elsewhere, and by the opposition groups, it is a "feel good" bill. It changes nothing.

If the NRA really wants to address faulty SB15 issues, and there is little hope for ever completely rescinding SB15, then why have they not worked to revise SB15 to only involve handguns for the list that have been new models since the list's initiation?

For example, a 1971 Colt Python is not approved for sale in California by dealers because it does not meet the requirements of the SB15 DOJ safety testing. OK, a member of an anti-2nd Amendment hate group might say, "it doesn't have a transfer bar to prevent accidental firing if dropped on the hammer."

Then what about a 1996 Smith and Wesson Performance Center gun which was never on the list, never was submitted for the list, never will be submitted for the list by Smith and Wesson since they no longer make it and have no profit in it, it was discontinued before the list ever came out, but would STILL surely pass the testing as well as any Smith revolver currently on the list?

The retroactive application of SB15 requirement for handguns that were new models before the list ever came out, is no different than if California came out tomorrow and said that car dealers could no longer offer or import into California a 1969 Mustang for sale on their lots because it does not meet air-bag, crunch-zone crash testing, and 5 MPH bumper requirements for year 2006.

Sure, you can get that Colt Python as a PPT or by consignment from many dealers, but the consignment factor is only by allowance of a DOJ opinion memo; did you know that the methods by which consignment sales have been allowed as exempt under SB15 are no where actually written in the law?? They were only released in a Bill Lockyer bulletin.

I think there are MANY issues that the NRA could address with SB15 other than to perpetuate bills which do nothing but waste time and members' (and my) dues, merely to present a "feel good" law. The NRA has gobs of my money that with all of the minimal fights now existing in other states, they could come here en masse and focus more on our issues. 38 states now have "Shall issue" CCW - when will they come here and help us fight for our shall issue CCW?

I need the NRA's help in my personal battles to change restrictive Anti-2nd Amendment laws more than ever before. WE need the NRA to helps us in our battles. However I see Calguns.net and its members acting independently and as a greater force collectively, doing MUCH more in just a short amount of time (without NRA involvment of any kind) than the NRA has done in the past 10 years to help California gun owners stop the loss of our 2nd Amendment rights. In that respect, Calguns.net and its effectiveness is comparable to the amazing work of the FCSA which left the NRA gape-jawed and in awe of their effectiveness (for such a small group of people compared to the NRA). If the NRA had gotten more involved and backed the FCSA when the beginnings of anti-50BMG sentiment arose, with the "Paul Koretz Anti-sniper Rifle Bill" over 7 years ago, there likely never would have been an AB2222 or the eventual AB50.

So two REAL relevant issues with SB15 (other than to try and completely rescind it) would be to make it apply only to handguns as new models since its inception as law, and to add specific wording to the law which spells out that consignment sales are actually exempt from SB15, which truly gives legal right for FFL dealers to display the guns in a counter in their store without fear of a gray area.

.

bwiese
04-20-2006, 10:06 AM
Cali-Gula's got it....

There are some ultra-special situations that this might help but it's small beans.

If a gun falls of the approved safe gun list after it's been sold/DROSing and is in the 10 day wait, the purchaser will still get his gun. This is akin to when new assault weapons are listed - if your firearm was DROSed and in 10day wait before listing, you'll still get your gun even though it's an AW.

The only thing this MIGHT help is to codify this in statutory law, because the above practice is just DOJ SOP regulatory (which they could possibly change).

This law may help in rare special issues like when handguns have been DROSed but the dealer's inventory has been seized, business goes bankrupt etc etc - conceivably the DOJ would not let an unapproved gun back to owner in this situation even with LEGR filed.

Inoxmark
04-20-2006, 10:57 AM
The only thing this MIGHT help is to codify this in statutory law, because the above practice is just DOJ SOP regulatory (which they could possibly change).
Actually it might codify just the opposite.

The way things are right now:
DROS submitted online, the handgun is on the list, DROS is not rejected, 10 days later purchaser picks up a gun. Nobody ever checks the list again to see if the gun is still on the list, more importantly, nobody is required to.

Now let's look at the AB2111:
REV 1 (3/30/06): The bill would provide for one-time fee for the testing/listing. Once on the list = always on the list. VERY GOOD BILL.

REV 2 (4/17/06): This bill would provide that if a purchaser has initiated a transfer of a handgun that is listed on the roster as not unsafe, and prior to the completion of the transfer, the handgun is removed from the roster of not unsafe handguns, the handgun would be deliverable to the purchaser if the purchaser is not otherwise prohibited from purchasing or possessing the handgun. LAME BILL, DOESN"T CHANGE ANYTHING.

REV 3 (4/18/06): The bill would also provide that if a purchaser has initiated a transfer of a handgun that is listed on the roster as not unsafe, and prior to the completion of the transfer, the handgun is removed from the roster because of a failure during retesting, as specified, the handgun would not be deliverable to the purchaser. STATUS MUST BE CHECKED AGAIN PRIOR TO DELIVERY.

This bill started really good, and went downhill from there really quick. Sorry, I don't have any enthusiasm about AB2111 whatsoever. In it's current revision it does more harm than good.

M. D. Van Norman
04-20-2006, 11:30 AM
Though I support the NRA with both dues and (when I can) ILA donations, I have to admit that this bill is less than a baby step forward. It’s more like a toe wiggle, if that.

Every single year, anti-RKBA legislators introduce a ban on handguns and a plethora of other so-called gun-control bills. We have to match force with force. Every single year, our pro-RKBA legislators must introduce shall-issue CCW bills and repeals on the various semi-auto bans. That would be a step forward.

Inoxmark
04-20-2006, 11:37 AM
In the meantime AB 2521, virtually identical to AB 754 vetoed by Arnold last year, is flying completely under NRA radar, already managed to clear two committees with no opposition, without being even listed on NRA list of CA firearm related legislation.

Just to remind, that bill would require FFL dealers to obtain authorization from CA DOJ prior to shipping a firearm to CA FFL, federal FFL is not enough anymore. We could kiss out-of-state transfers goodbye if this gets through, for sure.
We should not rely on the gov vetoing this thing again, this fall Arnold might not be in position to veto anything.

Paladin
05-02-2006, 11:35 PM
Every single year, anti-RKBA legislators introduce a ban on handguns and a plethora of other so-called gun-control bills. We have to match force with force. Every single year, our pro-RKBA legislators must introduce shall-issue CCW bills and repeals on the various semi-auto bans. That would be a step forward.

Bills are not force. We, politically active constituents, are force. Nothing gets a politician’s attention like a mobilized (i.e., active) group of voters who are watching and contacting them re what they are doing. In politics, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” and they hear our squeaks by our One Click emails, calls, and letters.

Paladin
05-02-2006, 11:38 PM
If the bills the NRA “introduces” are really such small potatoes, making only cosmetic changes to Kali gun laws, then they should be a slam dunk for such a self-disciplined army of 2nd A rts supports as the members of CGN, right? We should easily be able to rally enough emails, calls and snail mail to ram these “baby step” and “toe wiggle” bills thru Sacto, right?

How about no criticizing of the NRA about a bill they’re promoting until after we’ve taken the 5 minutes to One Click” and another 5 min to either call or snail mail our state Assembly/Senate member about it? If Mike averages 1 alert/wk, I think we can all reduce our time at CGN by 10 min to devote to 2nd A political action.

Once we’ve got, oh, let’s say, 3/4ths CGN members (>3,300) doing that regularly, then we can start complaining about the NRA saying they need to give us bigger challenges.

If we CGN members aren’t even doing the “light lifting” of One Click emails, what makes us (or the NRA leadership) think we’re ready for the “heavy lifting” needed to pass Shall Issue, repeal the AWB, or, the heaviest, getting a RKBA amendment on the ballot and passed by the voters?

Python2
05-03-2006, 1:42 PM
If you don't think the NRA does anything, ask yourself this...why do you think it is that objects as innocuous as nunchakus (nunchucks), throwing stars, spring-loaded knives, blackjacks, blowguns, etc, are ILLEGAL to own in this state but guns aren't??? It is because there are lobbyist groups like the NRA who are watchdogs to make sure laws like that don't pass against guns. They can't win every battle but all the anti-gun politicians know they are there waiting if they ever tried to put an outright ban on handguns or something similar through There aren't lobby groups protecting weapons like the above and thus it is EASY to ban them. If not for the NRA defending our rights over time, you probably wouldn't even be able to buy a gun in this state (at least not a handgun).

Amen to you.....I am 62 and yet joined Life Time member to NRA and have been contributing money to fight this stupid Prop H in SF.

xenophobe
05-03-2006, 2:32 PM
Actually it might codify just the opposite.

The way things are right now:
DROS submitted online, the handgun is on the list, DROS is not rejected, 10 days later purchaser picks up a gun. Nobody ever checks the list again to see if the gun is still on the list, more importantly, nobody is required to.

Now let's look at the AB2111:
REV 1 (3/30/06): The bill would provide for one-time fee for the testing/listing. Once on the list = always on the list. VERY GOOD BILL.

REV 2 (4/17/06): This bill would provide that if a purchaser has initiated a transfer of a handgun that is listed on the roster as not unsafe, and prior to the completion of the transfer, the handgun is removed from the roster of not unsafe handguns, the handgun would be deliverable to the purchaser if the purchaser is not otherwise prohibited from purchasing or possessing the handgun. LAME BILL, DOESN"T CHANGE ANYTHING.

REV 3 (4/18/06): The bill would also provide that if a purchaser has initiated a transfer of a handgun that is listed on the roster as not unsafe, and prior to the completion of the transfer, the handgun is removed from the roster because of a failure during retesting, as specified, the handgun would not be deliverable to the purchaser. STATUS MUST BE CHECKED AGAIN PRIOR TO DELIVERY.

This bill started really good, and went downhill from there really quick. Sorry, I don't have any enthusiasm about AB2111 whatsoever. In it's current revision it does more harm than good.

Wow... Original form is excellent and pro-rights, the latest revision is anti...

Vote NO.

grammaton76
05-03-2006, 3:03 PM
Wow... Original form is excellent and pro-rights, the latest revision is anti...

Vote NO.

So all of the form-1 "once listed always listed" features are gone? Or are the form 2 and form 3 bits just add-ons?

So what I'm asking here is, did they add in a lot of bad with the good, or did they just replace the good with bad?

Inoxmark
05-03-2006, 8:16 PM
AB 2111 is a good bill, a pro gun owner and pro gun retailer bill.
It is sponored by the NRA and supported by CRPA.
It has no negative consequences on anyone in the gun community.
It is only positive.it is a good pro-active measure to solve a real problem.
it can be read in its entirety at www.assembly.ca.gov
Let's read it in it's entirety then, shall we?
AB 2111, as amended, Haynes Firearms: unsafe handgun registry.
Existing law provides that the Department of Justice may charge
licensed firearms manufacturers, as specified, and persons who import
into the state for sale, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale
any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed
upon the person in this state, an annual fee not exceeding the costs
of preparing, publishing, and maintaining the roster listing handguns
that are not unsafe, and the costs of research and development,
report analysis, firearms storage, and other program infrastructure
costs necessary to implement those provisions related to determining
unsafe handguns, as specified.
This bill would provide that if a purchaser has initiated a
transfer of a handgun that is listed on the roster as not unsafe, and
prior to the completion of the transfer, the handgun is removed from
the roster of not unsafe handguns because of nonpayment of the
fee required to list the handgun on the register , the handgun
would be deliverable to the purchaser if the purchaser is not
otherwise prohibited from purchasing or possessing the handgun.
The bill would also provide that if a purchaser has initiated a
transfer of a handgun that is listed on the roster as not unsafe, and
prior to the completion of the transfer, the handgun is removed from
the roster because of a failure during retesting, as specified, the
handgun would not be deliverable to the purchaser.
If there is anything good left in this bill I would respectfully ask to point it out to me, because I don't see anything that would benefit pro-gun community.

I suspect all the support and sponsorship was obtained back when it was indeed a good aggressive bill. In it's current revision the bill is harmful to us. The author of the bill tried to clarify a gray area in the approved handgun law and in the efforts to get his bill through he "clarified" it to the point that not only everything good from the bill is gone, it really has become an anti-gun bill. There's no way any anti-gunner is going to vote against it, and they haven't. This got to tell you something, they are not stupid. The author must can this piece himself, unless he is too blind to realize what he has done.

bwiese
05-04-2006, 8:19 AM
The author has been a 100% vote by every gun group's
(NRA, CRPA, GOC,) standard for 14 years.

If you have evidence of something not pro gun in this bill, If there was an error, im certain they would want to know. But the posting of the Leg Counsel's Digest didnt reveal anything onerous.

It (AB2111) was, originally, a useful bill.

At of now, after multiple revisions, it's not useful and actually a tad harmful.

Therefore, it should be pulled as it's drifted way far away from writer's intent.

The fact that a gunrights supporter (Ray Hayes) introduced it is irrelevant: bottom line is what it does or doesn't do.

Even if the law ends back up neutral we don't need another gun law unless there is a clear net-positive effect.

I therefore now oppose AB2111.

tcrpe
05-04-2006, 8:19 AM
(Please distribute far and wide)

This bill will allow handguns to be transferred to the purchaser if, at the time the DROS was initiated, the firearms were included on the roster of handguns approved for sale by the state.




Talk about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic . . . . .