PDA

View Full Version : AB 1912 before committee TODAY (4/19)


mikehaas
04-19-2006, 2:47 AM
AB 1912 will appear before the Assembly Labor & Employment Committee on Wednesday, April 19, 2006.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging or refusing to hire an employee or applicant on the basis that the employee or applicant legally stores a firearm in his or her vehicle at the worksite.

NRA STRONGLY SUPPORTS THIS BILL. AB 1912 follows the pattern of legislation introduced by NRA in state capitols across the country.

Please contact the committee and voice your support. More information, Contact Info and Tools are available at:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab1912

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

Paladin
04-19-2006, 7:49 AM
Thanks, Mike. "One Click" done.

I also got this auto reply: (quote)
Thank you for e-mailing me with your comments. Due to the large volume of e-mails I receive, I regret that I can only respond to those inquires from constituents who live in the 15th Assembly District. When contacting my office, please include your home address so that we may quickly reply.

If you would like help with any personal matter regarding state government, please be sure to provide a phone number so that we may call you to follow up. If you would like assistance immediately, please call my district office at (925) 606-4990.

If you are not a resident of the 15th District, or are not sure what district you reside in, you can visit http://www.assembly.ca.gov/ and click on the "Find My District" link on the far left.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I always appreciate hearing from my constituents.


Best regards,
GUY S. HOUSTON
15th Assembly District
(close quote)

I don't know Mr. Houston. I don't know if he's a Repub/Demo/other and I don't care. I'm going to call his office after 9:00am and explain to his staff that when he is voting in committee, he is voting as a representative of the entire Assembly (and thus all of their constituents), not just as a rep for his constituients. He is determining for the entire Assembly what bills are worthy of consideration and possible vote by the entire Assembly.

So, politically active CGN members (that should be redundant, but isn't, as seen by the low response to the LAC and OC CCW Permit Challenges), don't be discouraged when someone tries to brush you off by saying they're not your representative.

mikehaas
04-19-2006, 11:12 AM
Thanks for ONE-CLICKING! two things:

1. You know that ONE-CLICK is working when you get replies back, canned or otherwise.

2. Don't be discouraged by those kinds of responses. These lawmakers are sitting on a committee that you are providing input to as a resident of the Golden State. The idea that they will ignore your input because you are not in their district is incorrect. Think about it - in the Assembly Labor & Employment committee, there are only 8 members. Does that mean only Californians that live in those 8 districts get to provide input on this issue? I think not. (That's why it's good to followup ONE-CLICKs with phone calls. Each form of contact has it's advantages.)

Thanks again! You guys are the BOMB. (that's a good thing, I've been told :-}

Mike

FOLLOWUP: Just spoke with a staffer in Guy Houston's office and he reinforced my understanding - that it doesn't matter what district you are in if you are providing input to a committee bill and even if you get that canned message, the email is still there to be processed. He even found my email in the list, and I got one of the above responses too (of course). He commented it was probably a good idea to note the name of the committee in the subject line. We may have to incorporate that into the ONE-CLICK system.

M. D. Van Norman
04-19-2006, 1:11 PM
I wasn’t aware that we could legally store a firearm in a vehicle. For handguns at least, I thought it was only legal to transport them (locked and unloaded, of course) to and from places where we are legally allowed to have them.

Paladin
04-19-2006, 2:51 PM
FOLLOWUP: Just spoke with a staffer in Guy Houston's office and he reinforced my understanding - that it doesn't matter what district you are in if you are providing input to a committee bill and even if you get that canned message, the email is still there to be processed. He even found my email in the list, and I got one of the above responses too (of course). He commented it was probably a good idea to note the name of the committee in the subject line. We may have to incorporate that into the ONE-CLICK system.

Thanks, Mike for following up. Something came up and I couldn't get back until now. Since Houston apparently understands his distinct role when he's voting in cmte, I won't bend his staffer's ear about it.

That's a good idea re putting cmte name into the One Click so we can put it in the subject line along w/the AB number.

bwiese
04-20-2006, 10:58 AM
I wasn’t aware that we could legally store a firearm in a vehicle. For handguns at least, I thought it was only legal to transport them (locked and unloaded, of course) to and from places where we are legally allowed to have them.

Good man, you got it.

This new law will conflict with the old, and will likely be moot for handguns (and especially, assault weapons which have their own more stringent specific destination rule). It would still be useful for long guns.

Perhaps the new law can be tweaked to allow locked vehicle storage for all weapons :)

andywoolcott
04-20-2006, 11:17 AM
Sounds like a good bill to me.

Anonymous Coward
04-20-2006, 6:48 PM
Good man, you got it.

This new law will conflict with the old, and will likely be moot for handguns (and especially, assault weapons which have their own more stringent specific destination rule). It would still be useful for long guns.

Perhaps the new law can be tweaked to allow locked vehicle storage for all weapons :)

Which law prevents us storing a firearm in a vehicle on private property?

mikehaas
04-20-2006, 9:50 PM
I wasn’t aware that we could legally store a firearm in a vehicle. For handguns at least, I thought it was only legal to transport them (locked and unloaded, of course) to and from places where we are legally allowed to have them.

Good eye. However, this bill is based on real situations, where gun-owners have been innocently caught up in prodecution for no more than having a gun properly stored in their vehicle (locked case, separate from the ammo, no loaded mags, etc).

Now, I'm no lawyer or lobbyist, don't even play one on TV, but I think these situations have cropped up when people have legally stored a firearm in a vehicle (like it says in the bill description), such as going to & from the range during lunch or leaving on a hunting trip after work - this is very common. In these situations, work was enroute to the ultimate destination where the firearm was used.

I know I've done it.

Mike

Rumpled
04-20-2006, 11:25 PM
From reading the text of the bill, it appears to be directly stating it's in response to the Weyerhauser and other incidents.(out of state)

Maybe more of preemptive strike to prevent the same in CA?

grammaton76
04-21-2006, 3:52 PM
Actually, the bill would also permit the storage of non-assault-weapon long guns, which are not subject to the specific-location provisions.

So therefore, it would prohibit employers from firing you because of your Yugo SKS trunk gun, or even Kel-Tec SU-16 (if you feel comfy with the interpretation of loaded mag vs loaded gun)...

edwardm
04-21-2006, 5:39 PM
But how many Californians actually get fired every year because they store a rifle in their trunk? I bet it is zero, or at most a few. And even those that are in that danger today can avoid the risk of being fired by going home after work, picking up the gun, and going from there to the range, or parking near work on a public road. This bill makes an insignificant difference, and fixes a nearly non-existing problem.

As Bill said: if the bill allowed storing ones handgun in the car for extended periods, for example while at work, this would make it a little more interesting. Again, how many prosecutions or convictions happen today because people store handguns in the car during the day on the way to work? None or few.

Maybe none, but my company policy says you can't have firearms on company property, not even locked in the trunk. That makes it a PITA to go to the range after work or at lunch, etc, because then I have to risk being fired. Not good.

grammaton76
04-21-2006, 5:44 PM
Maybe none, but my company policy says you can't have firearms on company property, not even locked in the trunk. That makes it a PITA to go to the range after work or at lunch, etc, because then I have to risk being fired. Not good.

Amen to that. It's a PARTICULARLY big deal if someone has a grudge against you and knows you're into guns. If they happen to overhear or whatnot that you're going to the range afterwards, they can call up security, exaggerate things a little, and have you terminated on the spot. That's the sort of thing the liberals back at MP3 would have loved to pull on me.

It kinda backfired on them... I parked in the parking lot every day EXCEPT range day, when I parked in a somewhat prominent spot OFF of the paved parking lot, but in full view of everyone, and it was well known that whenever my SUV was parked there, my arsenal was with it. The company policy specifically covered the parking lot, not the dirt part outside of it.

But, passive-aggressive work turkeys are precisely the reason we need this law. The counterpoint is just to live in secrecy and stay "in the closet" as a gun owner. But whenever the libs manage to force that mindset on us, they win just one little bit more mindshare.

Anonymous Coward
04-21-2006, 6:05 PM
And the whole problem that this bill solves is shooters having to drive from work back home before going to the range - a small inconvenience.


Is transportation really the problem? If you read the penal codes it is legal to transport a firearm from the residence to a place of business:


PC 12026.2. (a) Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
[...]
(4) The transportation of a firearm by a person listed in Section 12026 directly between any of the places mentioned in Section 12026.

where PC 12026 says:

2026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, who carries, either openly or concealed, anywhere within the citizen's or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

It seems if the firearms would be legal at the place of business (which this bill tries to achieve) then you could transport it from your home to work and store it legally while parked at your work.