PDA

View Full Version : Debating AB962 in class, need some help.


trickyvic
07-26-2010, 11:55 AM
Hello Calgunners,
I'm writing an argumentative paper for one of my classes on Assembly Bill No. 862. Obviously, I will be taking the cons side of the debate, debating agains't AB962. I would like some help finding good sources to quote.

Also, I saw a video of DeLeon stating that it would close the loop-hole which currently allows convicted felons to purchase ammo, are felons currently not allowed to own ammunition?

I have several pro-gun youngins in my class and I feel this is a good opportunity to bring a few over to our side of the fight. If anyone can help me anticipated and counter the pros side of the debate that would be great. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Vic

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-26-2010, 12:00 PM
Hello Calgunners,
I'm writing an argumentative paper for one of my classes on Assembly Bill No. 862. Obviously, I will be taking the cons side of the debate, debating agains't AB962. I would like some help finding good sources to quote.

Also, I saw a video of DeLeon stating that it would close the loop-hole which currently allows convicted felons to purchase ammo, are felons currently not allowed to own ammunition?

I have several pro-gun youngins in my class and I feel this is a good opportunity to bring a few over to our side of the fight. If anyone can help me anticipated and counter the pros side of the debate that would be great. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Vic

Vic, I may be able to get you some more material later, but as to the argument that AB 962 will stop felons from buying ammo, it is a fallacy. There will be a record kept of the transaction to a felon that will be kept on the vendor's premises for 5 years, and if law enforcement searches the records he/she may get arrested. But if a felon walks into a store and purchases handgun ammo, he/she is walking out with the ammo. It is NOT an instant check.

safewaysecurity
07-26-2010, 12:01 PM
It prevents law abiding citizens to exercise their rights, it increases the size of an already ineffective govt. Invades privacy to exercise a fundamental right. Violates inter-state commerce. Burden on businesses. Criminals get as much ammo as they want regardless of laws..

Untamed1972
07-26-2010, 12:04 PM
I would suggest going to this thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=323738&highlight=AB962

and read the actual case filing. I'm sure there are plenty of good tidbits in there for reference.

trickyvic
07-26-2010, 12:09 PM
Vic, I may be able to get you some more material later, but as to the argument that AB 962 will stop felons from buying ammo, it is a fallacy. There will be a record kept of the transaction to a felon that will be kept on the vendor's premises for 5 years, and if law enforcement searches the records be may get arrested. But if a felon walks into a store and purchases handgun ammo, he is walking out with the ammo. It is NOT an instant check.

Awesome, I'd really appreciate some good material. The non-instant check is going to be one of my main points in the debate. I'm currently sifting through AB962 to find some key points to counter.

It prevents law abiding citizens to exercise their rights, it increases the size of an already ineffective govt. Invades privacy to exercise a fundamental right. Violates inter-state commerce. Burden on businesses. Criminals get as much ammo as they want regardless of laws..

Can you please elaborate on the issue of violating inter-state commerce?

Window_Seat
07-26-2010, 12:10 PM
I have been comparing 962 with the current process of buying certain over the counter drugs (eg: sudafed, Claritin D, etc), where you have to show your ID, write your address, and sign for it upon receipt. A LEA may have to bear the burden of referring to entire lists of thousands upon 10s of thousands of names to go on when investigating a crime involving the use of sudafed. Again, this is just another example of something that is passed to make a lawmaker look as if he is "doing something about crime", "getting tough on crime", "making a person accountable (for what?)", etc.

These are arguments I generally use when arguing about the merits of 962.

Erik.

Untamed1972
07-26-2010, 12:12 PM
Can you please elaborate on the issue of violating inter-state commerce?


if you read the federal case filing in the thread I linked above that question will be answered for you.

trickyvic
07-26-2010, 12:18 PM
if you read the federal case filing in the thread I linked above that question will be answered for you.

Yup, just skimmed through it. Very good info, thanks!

jdberger
07-26-2010, 12:21 PM
I don't have a problem with AB962....

But since I don't want to be called a hypocrite, I think that voting materials should be kept in a controlled space and that we should also require that people's identification be logged whenever they are given access to them.

To prevent duplication and the distribution of voting materials to felons and other prohibited persons, they have to be taken to a government licensed copy shop who will log all transactions along with the identification of the persons involved in the transaction.

Voting materials are defined as any printed or electronic materials that can be used to influence a persons vote for any candidate or issue.

After all, what possible use does a felon have for voting materials except for fraud?

rromeo
07-26-2010, 12:30 PM
Tangent for a moment. Felons can't vote, but they can hold office. Yes, they're likely to be expelled if convicted, but there is no restriction.

trickyvic
07-26-2010, 1:25 PM
Does this bill only apply to 50rds or more?

russ69
07-26-2010, 1:27 PM
The best argument is that we have done this before and not one crime was ever solved using this data. The only thing you get is a list of everybody that has bought ammo. It would be easier to look at a list of felons to solve a crime than a list of ammo purchasers.

Thanx, Russ

Rivers
07-26-2010, 1:27 PM
Draw on the similarity of buying handgun ammunition and buying gasoline for a car. Felons/(declared) intent to curtail gun crime/law enforcement records vs. Driver must pass a breathalyzer in order to activate the pump/(declared) intent to get drunk drivers off the road/law enforcement records (proving a drunk was driving, after the fact.)

You can put together a whole paragraph summarizing the effect of AB962, then simply substitute the alcohol/drunk driving similarities to illustrate how that would impact the law-abiding students and teachers in your debate. Why must the innocent prove their innocence in order to exercise their rights? Be sure to point out that driving is only a privilege and the 2A is a fundamental right.

winnre
07-26-2010, 1:32 PM
Tangent for a moment. Felons can't vote, but they can hold office. Yes, they're likely to be expelled if convicted, but there is no restriction.

If a felon is out of jail, not on probation or parole, and not specifically denied voting rights due to his crime (like vote tampering) then he can vote in California.

ZombieTactics
07-26-2010, 1:46 PM
You might watch the "Stupid Gun Laws" video linked in my signature for some ideas.

Stonewalker
07-26-2010, 1:54 PM
Awesome, I'd really appreciate some good material. The non-instant check is going to be one of my main points in the debate. I'm currently sifting through AB962 to find some key points to counter.



Can you please elaborate on the issue of violating inter-state commerce?

I'd be careful about focusing on the ability of a felon to buy ammo. It's not the point. It costs us law-abiding citizens too much, even if it were to work.

The point is - criminals will commit crime whether we have record of them buying the tools used to commit crimes or not. It's bad logic and more intrusion to our lives. Not to mention how damn expensive it's going to be.

Librarian
07-26-2010, 6:53 PM
Does this bill only apply to 50rds or more?

No - the 50-round language did not make it into the final bill. See the Wiki article (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/2009_-_AB_962_De_Leon%2C_Ammunition).

orangeusa
07-26-2010, 7:10 PM
There is SO much incorrect information if you Google AB962. Most of it is well-meaning posts which have the original bill as presented NOT as it was passed. Big difference..... I'm noticing that thare a LOT of new posts on CG - in various threads about parts of the bill which were removed - the 50 round limit just being one example.

Stay with the wiki article posted by Librarian which also has a nice summary of the bill attached.