PDA

View Full Version : Two pro-gun bills before committee tomorrow (4/25)


mikehaas
04-24-2006, 10:03 AM
AB 2111 (sponsored and introduced by NRA) is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2006.

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.

More information, Contact Info and Tools are available at:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2111.1

AB 2131 (sponsored and introduced by NRA) is also scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2006.

This bill would revise permit and registration procedures for assault weapons obtained from interstate succession and assault weapons being brought into the state by person moving into the state, and for other persons wishing to acquire an assault weapon, as specified.

More information, Contact Info and Tools are available at:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2131.1

Please contact the committee and voice your support for these bills. Separate emails/phone calls/faxes are recommended.

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

Major Miner II
04-24-2006, 10:08 AM
Seriously folks.

If you want to really make a difference, take a few minutes out of your day and call.

Emails and faxes get deleted, ignored and tossed.

AB 2111 (sponsored and introduced by NRA) is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2006.

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.

More information, Contact Info and Tools are available at:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2111.1

AB 2131 (sponsored and introduced by NRA) is also scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2006.

This bill would revise permit and registration procedures for assault weapons obtained from interstate succession and assault weapons being brought into the state by person moving into the state, and for other persons wishing to acquire an assault weapon, as specified.

More information, Contact Info and Tools are available at:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2131.1

Please contact the committee and voice your support for these bills. Separate emails/phone calls/faxes are recommended.

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

PanzerAce
04-24-2006, 1:24 PM
Mike, could you please Direct me at the actual text of 2131? I have yet to find any concrete info on the law, such as how it would revise things. Untill I actually know what the law would be changed to, I am not going to support it.

Basically, I guess my question is: is a COE ALL that is needed for an AW permit if this passes? And would a COE also allow .50s? And finally, would COEs already issued be treated the same as new COEs for the purpose of permit issueing?

Mssr. Eleganté
04-24-2006, 1:43 PM
Here's the latest update of the text of AB2131 that I could find...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2131_bill_20060418_amended_asm.html

It's from April 18th.

PanzerAce
04-24-2006, 2:09 PM
Ok, so basically, it looks like to get an AW permit if this passes, you just have to get a COE, and then you can buy and register (within 90 days) .50s and AWs at any time you want, correct?

The Soup Nazi
04-24-2006, 3:02 PM
The AW ban repeal was shot down without a problem. The liberals aren't going to give up any ground that they've won.

PanzerAce
04-24-2006, 3:13 PM
The AW ban repeal was shot down without a problem. The liberals aren't going to give up any ground that they've won.

This is not an AW repeal, rather it changes how you can get a permit to buy more (which does infact exist)

The Soup Nazi
04-24-2006, 4:08 PM
They're already very angry at the fact that one can still get an SKS for 150-375 (the upper 300s for the Izzy non rearsenaled collector grades of course) and thus try to get the ignorant media and law enforcement to tote it as an evil assault weapon. If they can't even a tolerate a wepaon with a 10 round capacity non detachable magazine, they won't tolerate anymore semi automatic rifles going into the hands of the average US citizen.

mikehaas
04-25-2006, 6:57 AM
Mike, could you please Direct me at the actual text of 2131?...

I believe someone has already pointed you to the bill text from leginfo.ca.gov - the "official" state website.

I don't point people there because that site can be notoriously slow in being updated. And frequently, there are side issues that are not even explained or brought up in any way in the text of legislation.

That's why I produced the leginfo system. NRA staff and attorneys take all that into account as they work a bill. A few years ago, I created the leginfo system to help communicate as much of this as possible to the troops (us). They were more than happy to work with me to use the tool.

So I strongly recommend looking at http://calnra.com/legs.shtml first. it's usually first with the info because usually I get a call soon after (or even WHILE sometimes) a committee breaks from a hearing. That's why each page says NOTE: Legislative information will normally be posted here before appearing on the California state website. Important related information will only appear here. When the sources disagree, this page should be considered the more current and reliable of the two.

For AB 2131, we have Talking Points posted, straight from Sen. Haynes office. Those were developed with the help of NRA too. You won't find that on the CA state web site - EVER! :-)

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2131

BTW, when I told them about calguns.net - they already knew about the site, thumbs up. "Welcome to the trench" I think was the response. :-)

Couldn't agree more.

Mike

jdberger
04-25-2006, 7:04 AM
They're already very angry at the fact that one can still get an SKS for 150-375 (the upper 300s for the Izzy non rearsenaled collector grades of course) and thus try to get the ignorant media and law enforcement to tote it as an evil assault weapon. If they can't even a tolerate a wepaon with a 10 round capacity non detachable magazine, they won't tolerate anymore semi automatic rifles going into the hands of the average US citizen.

Can I try to rephrase this?

Don't do nothing....they already got us beat. Don't fight, you'll only get hurt. Best to just XXX XXXX and enjoy it.

Was I close?


(certain words were xx'd out cause this is still a family site and who knows, they might offend someone)

PanzerAce
04-25-2006, 10:23 AM
thx mike. But truthfully, I didnt find the talking points very helpful (sure, it was a little while since I read it, but still). It seemed that it was geared way more toward people on the fence, rather than explaining what specifically would be required to get an AW permit if it passes.

Ten Rounder
04-25-2006, 11:00 AM
Seriously folks.

If you want to really make a difference, take a few minutes out of your day and call.

Emails and faxes get deleted, ignored and tossed.

I called all of them and got a wet body on the line, took all of ten minutes. there was a separate page that gave the ASC numbers.

mikehaas
04-25-2006, 12:34 PM
4/25/2006 - NRA Sponsored AB 2111 was passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee with no amendments.

Thanks to all who contacted the committee in support of AB 2111.

(NRA asked me to pass on a special 'thank you' to calguns.net members!)

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

Mike

PanzerAce
04-25-2006, 1:02 PM
any word on 2131?

shopkeep
04-25-2006, 3:32 PM
Just for the record, despite my often cynnical attitude about our oppressors, I always call and write the committee members when needed. Seeing an NRA sponsored bill make it out of committee, however rarely it may happen, makes it worthwhile.

Seriously folks, it's just a 10 or 15 minute investment. That's less time than we spend popping the takedown pin all day at the range :D!

mikehaas
04-25-2006, 4:01 PM
any word on 2131?

Just got the word. AB 2131 did not come up today. Stay tuned to:

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2131

...for the next expected hearing date.

Mike

thesneakyrussian
04-25-2006, 4:04 PM
any word on 2131?

4/25/2006 - AB 2131 was expected to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee today, but did not come up. Please continue to contact the Assembly Public Safety Committee and voice your support. Stay tuned for the next hearing date.

Centurion_D
05-02-2006, 11:49 AM
Ummm..what are the phone numbers? Give us some numbers to call.:D

mikehaas
05-03-2006, 5:50 PM
Gotcha covered. "General Contact Info" is right there below the ONE-CLICK links at:

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo

Mike

beb1954
05-03-2006, 6:48 PM
They don't even read the emails.....I want you to know that I had gone to this webiste and sent in an email pertaining to AB448. As with another email to a differnt address, it too was deleted without being read... So how the hell can we get any action from our "elected" leaders if they refuse to listen to what the people want to say... Here is a cut ans paste of the return receipt that I received... thanks..

Your message

To: asmpubsafety060419@muzzleenergy.com
Subject: AB448
Sent: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:20:08 -0700

was deleted without being read on Wed, 3 May 2006 15:58:40 -0700


Here is the other...

Your message

To: asmpubsafety060419@muzzleenergy.com
Subject: AB448
Sent: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:20:08 -0700

was deleted without being read on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:42:23 -0700

Sic'em



----- Original Message -----
From: Assemblymember Leno
To: Bruce
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 3:58 PM
Subject: Not read: AB448


Your message

To: asmpubsafety060419@muzzleenergy.com
Subject: AB448
Sent: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:20:08 -0700

was deleted without being read on Wed, 3 May 2006 15:58:40 -0700

RRangel
05-03-2006, 6:54 PM
I think it's been mentioned before that you should write snail mail. That is still one of the best ways to contact a representative because paper gets read.

You can also call said representative. I think letters are best, but the phone call is more timely.

It looks like not all reps have the same policy regarding emails though.

Leno is known anti-gun so that may be an issue with email in itself.

aklover_91
05-17-2006, 9:31 PM
so, any news on 2131?

and whats a COE?

Archenemy550
06-02-2006, 10:15 AM
COE is Certificate of Eligibility

Yea, I wanna know the next hearing date. I have written e-mails, and had Tod Spitzer reply. Also have called, and sent "snail mail". Anyone who supports AB 2131, just do something. DOnt let this go by.

Archenemy550
06-07-2006, 4:53 PM
Latest Info: 6/6/2006 - AB 2131 has missed the dealine for passing its house of origin, stalled in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. The bill can only move forward via rule waiver. Accordingly, no more action is expected on the bill at this time.
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2131

:(

mikehaas
06-09-2006, 8:17 AM
...It looks like not all reps have the same policy regarding emails though...

This is why the ONE-CLICK system is so valuable:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo

It targets your ONE EMAIL to all concerned lawmakers dealing with a bill at a given time, be it a committee or on the floor.

It's so easy and quick, it makes no sense not to use ONE-CLICK because even if some lawmakers disregard it (and in my experience, few do), it goes to all of them and our pro-gun friends don't care where a good supporting argument comes from.

Don't send regular emails, use the ONE-CLICK system. Once it goes through our system, we get out of the way - any replies from the lawmaker's office go right back to you, just as if you has send a single direct email to them.

USE THE ONE-CLICK SYSTEM, PLEASE. We know it is very effective.

Mike

CALI-gula
06-09-2006, 10:14 AM
"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."


Mike: AB2111 still needs amendment and revision before it should be supported.

I don't mind AB2111 protecting dealers from claims of delivering an unsafe firearm inadvertently, but it should not hinder on 2nd Amendment Rights of citizens as I have previously noted.

So if you wish to keep the double-check aspect, why not have the NRA push to remove the portions of the bill that leave doubt as to whether a cancellation of your DROS due to a gun being removed from the DOJ/SB15 list will, or ADD text that will;

1) stop AB2111 from encroachment and adding time on top of the buyer's already in force limitations of 1 per 30 day,

2) prevent any necessity for the buyer to initiate a new 10 day wait for a replacement model handgun that IS on the list (since you have already been approved and have waited 10 days to pick-up the handgun)

3) your DROS fees are fully refunded if no replacement is sufficient to the buyer's wishes or liking.

4) reduces paperwork for the replacement handgun, so the only information needing revision on the original DROS is change of the handgun Model, manufacturer, serial number, etc. AND NO NEW BACKGROUND CHECK IS REQUIRED, FEDERAL OR STATE (True a new 4473 would probably need to be completed since that is Federal - but there is no waiting period for that one, so no harm).

5) protect the dealer in the event the second check before delivery yields incorrect information from the DOJ, or a technical break-down of DOJ's the on-line system/server for updating the list delays the update or notification of dealers.

6) If verification of the DOJ/Safety list is not possible as noted above at the time of delivery, due to technical errors or information that seems to need a "double check" it should not prevent the buyer from picking up their gun after the 10 day wait. If I come to the store to pick-up my handgun after my 10 day wait, I don't want to be told I need to come back a different day because you can't check the roster upon my rightful delivery of MY POSSESSIONS due to inability to check it!! Especially at today's gas prices!!

7) prevent new paperwork and/or forms. While I see yet ANOTHER FFL form in the works addressing this, another affidavit possibly, THE BILL SHOULD STATE NO NEW FORMS OR PAPERWORK will be required of the buyer under AB2111. Some delaers are SURE to create a new form for this if it passes. Ever hear of the Paperwork Reduction Act??? It's printed on the back of the 4473. APPARENTLY IT MEANS NOTHING IN CALIFORNIA!!

So what do you do, buy something else? And wait 10 more days? You are prevented a longer length of time for your 1 per 30 day handgun purchases?

And as it is now, even if the DROS is initiated, and the gun falls off the list during the 10 day wait for ANY reason, there are no dealers preventing pick-up of the gun. AB2111 without the changes above, is just another way to ban sales of guns, and put additional waiting period time blocks in the way of gun buyers. I don't miss a month without buying a new high-end model handgun and this could affect my 1 per 30 day allowance.

I see the personal liability concerns for the dealer. I can fully see how lawsuits could arise, especially Gray Davis installing allowance in CA to sue manufacturers and dealers for negligence or factors beyond product safety, which hopefully the national anti-frivolous lawsuit laws added last year would eclipse the California law. However, since regulation of firearms is in majority left up to states, I doubt it, and a precedent could be tested here in CA.

Still, I can't support AB2111 if the above changes are not addressed by Ray Haynes, his staffer Anthony J. Tannehill, and the NRA and our members as a whole.

.

xenophobe
06-09-2006, 9:24 PM
The NRA Supports AB2111 for consumer protection, but is against AB944... It's all politics and inconsistent stands... for the same reasons they're for AB2111, they're against AB944... *shrug* I give up. There is no method to this madness.

theJoker
09-14-2006, 9:45 AM
any update on AB 2131 ???