PDA

View Full Version : Another NRA victory - AB2111 passes the Assembly


mikehaas
05-11-2006, 12:00 PM
May 11, 2006 - NRA Sponsored AB2111 (Haynes) was passed by the Assembly with 62 YES votes and 0 (that's ZERO) NO votes. Thanks to all who contacted Assembly members in support of AB 2111 both in committees and on the floor. AB 2111 now moves to the State Senate for committee assignment.

AB 2111 makes sure that a handgun transfer can take place even if a handgun falls off the California DOJ safe handgun list during the waiting period.

The NRA Members' Councils have determined that other groups have been claiming credit for NRA's (our) recent victories both locally and in Sacramento. We recognize it is much more difficult for these groups to provide effective grassroots and legislative action support and we appreciate all assistance.

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

bwiese
05-11-2006, 12:07 PM
Hollow small victory.

IIRC, I think guns that fall off the list after you've DROSed are still legal for you to pick up after 10 days. This might be a comforting law that guarantees that, but I haven't heard of any problems with this before (though I'd like to hear of them if they do exist!)

It's kinda like if something gets declared as an AW during your 10 day wait, you can still take possession.

mikehaas
05-11-2006, 1:35 PM
Hollow small victory.

IIRC, I think guns that fall off the list after you've DROSed are still legal for you to pick up after 10 days...

You mean no one asked Senator Haynes at the meeting in Orange a couple days ago why, if that were the case, he would be doing this bill at all?
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/haynes060509.shtml
That was a missed opportunity, since some here seem to question the usefulness of his bill. BTW, did anyone here go?

But for the moment, let's completely forget that point. Whether one agrees or not with NRA and Senator Haynes that AB 2111 is a good bill, let's back up a bit and examine the situation from a greater distance...

NRA is sponsoring, supporting and PASSING pro-gun bills through the STRONGLY Democrat-controlled California legislature - UNOPPOSED. They are doing so with MULTIPLE BILLS, some of which are already out of their house of origin.

Even if every Republican voted with NRA every time, it would not be enough to pass a single thing. Forget the issue - do you really not see the bigger picture, what is happening here?

I suppose I'm a bit surprised (and little surprises me anymore) that anyone who purports to be seriously involved in protecting and advancing gun-rights in a state like California, on news that NRA passed a bill out of the Assembly UNOPPOSED, would not at least PAUSE for a moment before continuing to bash them (us). At least at calguns.net.

But carry on, just had to comment.

Mike

spitkiss
05-11-2006, 2:46 PM
I think its great that something passed in our favor but i'd like to see the NRA step up to the plate on the offlist lower situation. In fact I'm willing not to renew my membership until that happens. I'm not seeing much support from the NRA in california on the issues that matter most to me.

PanzerAce
05-11-2006, 2:49 PM
Mike, its great that 2111 past the assebly, but what is the word on 2131?

kantstudien
05-11-2006, 3:03 PM
Whoopty-f-ing-doo :rolleyes:

We could always pick-up handguns that fell off the list during the 10-24hr waiting period.

Does the CA NRA even know that we can purchase off-list lowers?

Dont Tread on Me
05-11-2006, 3:57 PM
Take a look at the bills the NRA is supporting by clicking on the link in my signature. There is one chipping away at the AW laws. Little steps - the same way the anti gunners work right?

The NRA is far from perfect, but we have to offer our support in time writing to politicians and money. I'm a little tired for the 30% - 40% of people in this state who own guns complaining rather than doing. We are a powerful group!

Ford8N
05-11-2006, 4:43 PM
A real simple "chip" at the AW law would be to allow those off list receivers already in the state that the DOJ has admitted are AK's and AR's to be listed. Simple.

Dont Tread on Me
05-11-2006, 4:47 PM
This is a pretty good chip! We just all have to move out then back into the state. Seriously, this is a step in the right direction.

"AB2131: ASSAULT WEAPONS (Haynes)

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."

Omega13device
05-11-2006, 5:08 PM
NRA is sponsoring, supporting and PASSING pro-gun bills through the STRONGLY Democrat-controlled California legislature - UNOPPOSED. They are doing so with MULTIPLE BILLS, some of which are already out of their house of origin.

Even if every Republican voted with NRA every time, it would not be enough to pass a single thing. Forget the issue - do you really not see the bigger picture, what is happening here?
Mike, I think you have a valid point there. Pro-gun legislation is just not seeing the opposition from the Democratic party that it used to. This bill might be an extreme example (because the impact was so small) but nonetheless it may signal something.

I think the reason people are less supportive than you might expect is that there are bigger things going on and those are the things we all want the NRA to focus on right now. Sure, it's great that we got a bill passed, but I think we would all happily postpone that effort if it meant the NRA could be cranking out legal opinions on the offlist lower issue and responding to the DOJ memos in a crisp and assertive manner. That is the issue we want you focused on right now. If we are truly experiencing a reduction in Democratic opposition to gun legislation, then all the more reason to be taking advantage of this to move our agenda forward on the lowers issue.

The fact is that what is happening with off-list lowers right now is just a pointless cat and mouse game between the DOJ and law-abiding gun owners so that Lockyer can keep this issue out of the news media until after the election. This seems like something the general public would be interested in - not to mention Lockyer's opponents for Treasurer. If the NRA doesn't take advantage of the increasingly pro-gun environment to poke a hole in the DOJ's position then I really want to know how the priorities are getting set over there.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-11-2006, 5:13 PM
Whoopty-f-ing-doo :rolleyes:

We could always pick-up handguns that fell off the list during the 10-24hr waiting period.

Does the CA NRA even know that we can purchase off-list lowers?

What the hell are you doing other than flappin your gums on a message board? Lets see, please do tell how involved you are in political action in CA. What pro-gun bills have you lobbied? What anti-gun bills have you lobbied against?

Either step up or shut up.....

I dont agree with everything the NRA does, but I know they are doing a hell of a lot more than you are.

Dont Tread on Me
05-11-2006, 5:21 PM
I agree that the NRA should be helping us stop our DOJ from kicking the listing can down the road until after the election. Please e-mail the NRA (as I did) as tell them that if they come out here and make a dent then they will see a lot of new members.

However, if I was president of the NRA, I'd saying the following to us. Why the are you worrying about listing? You should be worrying about unlisting. I mean removing the stupid AW laws in this state. If we spent 10% of the effort that has gone on lower on supporting pro-gun legistlation then where would be?

FreedomIsNotFree
05-11-2006, 5:36 PM
I agree that the NRA should be helping us stop our DOJ from kicking the listing can down the road until after the election. Please e-mail the NRA (as I did) as tell them that if they come out here and make a dent then they will see a lot of new members.

However, if I was president of the NRA, I'd saying the following to us. Why the are you worrying about listing? You should be worrying about unlisting. I mean removing the stupid AW laws in this state. If we spent 10% of the effort that has gone on lower on supporting pro-gun legistlation then where would be?

I agree. We have a bunch of blow-hards on this forum. We couldn't even get enough people to sign the petition to put a vote up....remember....

Pthfndr
05-11-2006, 5:40 PM
One small step at a time people. Incrementalism. It worked for our foes. It can work for us if we give it time.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
05-11-2006, 6:13 PM
I'm happy it passed, but AB2111 has got to be the weakest bill I've seen in a really long time. I'm not even sure it's pro-gun, but more pro-clarification.

xenophobe
05-11-2006, 6:21 PM
IF this is true, this was a LOSS:


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.

CALI-gula
05-11-2006, 11:07 PM
NRA-ILA weekly notices: General topics as well as "A LOOK AT THE STATES" topics for each notification:

Message 12/9/2005: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 12/18/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 1/6/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 1/13/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 1/20/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 1/27/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 2/10/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California.

Message 2/17/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California.

Message 2/24/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 3/1/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 3/3/2006: OH MY GOSH! General Topic (after the fact) "SAN FRANCISCO GUN BAN UPDATE" Hmmm... HOWEVER..... "A LOOK AT THE STATES"???? ..... Nothing on California

Message 3/10/2006: OH MY GOSH! A DOUBLE HEADER! A general topic: "CALIFORNIA JUDGE DISMISSES SUIT THANKS TO "PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT". (BUT WAIT - REALLY IT'S A FEDERAL MATTER - Darn, they wee so close to redeeming themselves). AND... "A LOOK AT THE STATES"????..... Nothing on California

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program....

Message 3/17/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 3/24/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 3/31/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 4/7/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 4/14/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 4/21/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 4/28/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

Message 5/5/2006: Hmmm... Nothing on California

What will tomorrow 5/12 have in store? Perhaps... "Hmmm... Nothing on California"?

1st Freedom Magazine: SEARCHED BACK MANY, MANY MONTHS.... Very few articles on California 2nd Amendment infringement, legislative bills, and general politics, and when (or if ever) mentioned, it is always AFTER the fact, usually weeks or months AFTER a bill has been passed.

I am not the norm, because I am EXTREMELY active in defending 2nd Amendment Rights here in CA and VERY aware of the political ongoings; but if I were the average citizen, the Joe-average NRA member, owning 2 or 3 guns for home protection and the occasional once-a-month at the range, limited to trust the NRA with my dues and donations to stick up for my 2nd Amendment Rights full force in California, and deliver relevant news and updates on how their millions of dollars are being used to help CA citizens? I would be screwed. I would be losing my 2nd Amendment Rights one after another, and WAIT! THAT IS HAPPENING ANYWAY!! The ONLY reason it has slowed in CA is because California citizens booted Gray Davis out of office. Arnold is no friend either, but the Republican Party influence has done at least a little bit to keep him slightly in line, and he has proven less of a threat on banning guns than he could have been - though AB50 made not a damn bit of sense - he is SURELY not great, but he could have passed a whole gaggle of gun laws these past few years, and Gray Davis surely would have passed them without question.

I already feel screwed by the NRA and I am not the norm. Ironically, I paid my NRA renewal fees at about this time last month, along with my taxes. I often send additional donations and throw dollars at the various sweepstakes booths and donation jugs at many gun shows. I sign EVERY petittion and have done dillegence in my time to peddle them as well, for numerous causes, proud to say I helped in the petitions to recall Gray Davis campaign. Yet time and time again, the NRA proves they don't give a crap about California. HOWEVER THE FRONT-LINE IS HERE!!! WHERE IN THE HELL ARE THEY??? ABSENT WITH OUT LEAVE!!!!! (Ashore with out Liberty for you ship-going folk).

Often, heroic individuals make great strides and accomplishments, and since they just happen to be NRA members, like myself, the NRA comes in after their individual accomplishments and touts "Look what the NRA did!!!" Bullcrap. I am sick of the NRA taking credit for my single-handed hard-work. I am also a member of CRPA and a few other 2nd Amendment advocacy groups, and I am sick of the NRA taking credit for those organizations' accomplishments as well, often doing much more on much smaller budgets with much less people.

When I and many other members of the FCSA/FCPI fought AB2222 for 2 years and held off AB50 for 3 years until it was horribly passed, in all that time, except for Ed Worley, the NRA was almost nowhere to be found. I read "1st Freedom" magazine time and time again, and the only time AB50 made the magazine was just before AB50 was to be signed, with a small blurb on the topic, and AFTER AB50 was signed into law. The NRA dropped the ball on AB50, they ignored the fact that a state was banning “traditional” bolt-action rifles, the very utility for which they were organized to protect.

I don’t expect the NRA to address the Off-List Lower issue, and I also don’t think they care. So what. The people here on Calguns.net with their grassroots efforts have done more to combat Roberti-Roos and SB23 with this "Off-List Lower" issue than the NRA ever has done against the same.

The off-list lower issue is a great commentary on the ridiculous designs of Roberti-Roos and SB23, and those laws' ineffectiveness of their original intent to keep AR and AK weaponry out of California, whether you were one of the “Off-listers” (as we have been called) wanting the DOJ to formulate a new “named” list or not. Event if the "off-listers" wanting update of the registration list can be determined as misguided, it does not discount the fact that a group of people, without dues, without donations, without political posturing, and without lobby-lucre lined wallets, these "off-list" lower people got together en-masse to fight the DOJ and these inane laws on a topic involving the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and eschew their limitations to certain "types" of arms that other states deem fully legal.

Some 40,000 AR/AK receivers have now legally come into California, STILL the largest firearm buying market in the United States, even WITH our fascist gun laws, and the NRA is found to be MUM??? Not even a mention??? Not even an analysis of the 40,000 purchases as a commentary on the futility of Roberti-Roos and SB23 to begin with? Why not?

The mass legal purchasing of AR/AK lowers/receivers is the greatest protest against California gun laws in the HISTORY of California gun laws, and the National Rifle Association is nowhere to be found???!!! Have they forgotten the meaning of the middle part of their acronym?

When I was doing my individual best to fight SB15, with a few other grassroots hopefuls, we got little (if any) help from NRA members at gun shows and saw nothing from numerous member's councils.

Again and again, I give the NRA money; again and again, they kick us Californians in the teeth AND in our wallets. However, it never ceases to amaze me how often they ask for donations, how much email and US junk-mail I get from them asking for donations, money, give, give, give!

They need to give California a WHOLE lot more attention than just pushing a "feel good" bill which does nothing to change current actions. I have stated elsewhere and will state again, I have previously had 2 handguns fall off the SB15 "Safety Approved" list during my 10 day wait, and was not blocked in picking up the firearm, not by the seller, nor by DOJ.

AB2111 isn't a "chip", it isn't even a flake or a crumb. It's a joke. And I can't believe they would use such an insignificant bill as loud-mouth propaganda.

Since January 1, 2006, the NRA has received $535 of my hard-earned cash: just what in the hell are they spending it on??? It's assuredly so that they received $1035 of my hard-earned cash last year. BECAUSE OF THIS, I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CRITICAL - I HAVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THEIR FAT-CAT, SILK-LINED POCKETS!! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK WHY IN THE HELL THE NRA-ILA NOTICES AND 1ST FREEDOM MAGAZINE COMPLETELY DISREGARD CALIFORNIA!!!!!

Yes I am fed up; I have been an NRA member for 23 years; in a Midwestern state and in CA for the past 13 years. And each year, my disappointment with the NRA and their abandonment of California grows and grows. In my past, upon coming to California, I too had a glossy eyed view of the NRA and there was always a shining silver-lining behind Eddie Eagle. But no more, NOT UNTIL THEY SHORE UP THEIR SLACK IN CALIFORNIA!!

You can post the most minimalist tea-cup clinking cheers by the NRA to the NRA's involvement with their trite tip-toeing through California politics all you want; but don't make the NRA out to be grander for California than their history and track-record shows.

Yellow journalism, aimed at putting the NRA on a pedestal, offends me more than just the NRA's disregard for California, because I know better, I know their real track record and the NRA's fear of the front-line. They stick to the easy states, to get the easy wins, to puff up like a blowfish for their own contrived media or NRA-ILA messages. Big deal.

I am still as sucker I guess. I still think my contirbutions to them might make a difference. However, their lack of presence in California just doesn't add up; that NRA dog don't hunt; and it surely isn't loyal, at least not to its California members anyway.

.

xenophobe
05-11-2006, 11:14 PM
CALI-gula, that was an excellent post.



Having worked for a retail gun store for the last 6 years of my life, this is only an added burden.

It is not pro-retailer... I must check the computer at the time of delivery?

It is not pro-consumer... A perfectly safe and legal firearm at time of purchase gets retested and revoked... So after paying fees, waiting, he can't take delivery because the status changed.

This is an anti-gun bill, and I'm embarrassed for the NRA that they didn't drop sponsorship of it just to get their "good" numbers up. Sickening.

kantstudien
05-11-2006, 11:18 PM
I dont agree with everything the NRA does, but I know they are doing a hell of a lot more than you are.

Wow, a strawman and a red herring in the same sentence? :rolleyes:

Actually, I am not promoting "pro" gun bills which actually screw gun owners over, so I am actually doing more by "doing nothing." :p

Anthonysmanifesto
05-11-2006, 11:30 PM
does the retailer community not get an update from DOJ or check the roster to see if they are delivering "unsafe" weapons, currently?

honestly, Im asking.

If DOJ were to ever use their authority to re-test a weapon and somehow the same model which had passed before just fails. Does DOJ just remove it as it does any others? Is there no e-mail, memo, fax or anything? Has it ever happened? if so and it was delivered, would the reatiler have any exposure for delviering a statutory "unsafe" hangun?

is clicking on http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ a burden or just annoying? and is the only thing you are now looking for is re-tested and failed weapons under AB 2111?

and is that to say no one is checking now?

FreedomIsNotFree
05-11-2006, 11:36 PM
Wow, a strawman and a red herring in the same sentence? :rolleyes:

Actually, I am not promoting "pro" gun bills which actually screw gun owners over, so I am actually doing more by "doing nothing." :p

Great...it only took you 8 hours to gather the courage to answer the question and you still haven't done that.

What exactly ARE you doing to further the debate? I still didn't see an answer from you.

Did you sign the petition for RKBA? Did you actively gather other signatures?
I seriously doubt it.

So the fact remains....you are a blowhard that has no problem criticizing others while you sit idly by, from the comfort of the sidelines, while others do the heavy lifting.

And please review the definition of "red herring" and "straw man argument".

Clearly your Community College Speech Class Instructor didn't teach you properly

Let me clear this up for you......

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.


And next to define "straw man argument" for you.....



The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.





So there you go....class dismissed.

xenophobe
05-11-2006, 11:37 PM
does the retailer community not get an update from DOJ or check the roster to see if they are delivering "unsafe" weapons, currently?


No.


If DOJ were to ever use their authority to re-test a weapon and somehow the same model which had passed before just fails. Does DOJ just remove it as it does any others? Is there no e-mail, memo, fax or anything? Has it ever happened? if so and it was delivered, would the reatiler have any exposure for delviering a statutory "unsafe" hangun?


No. The dealer is only required to submit a DROS which has a dropdown menu for selecting currently approved handguns. This is the only current requirement.


is clicking on http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ a burden or just annoying? and is the only thing you are now looking for is re-tested and failed weapons under AB 2111?


Yes. We only do it when we feel the need to print out a new list for reference, or to check to see if a gun is approved for re/sale.


and is that to say no one is checking now?

No. There was no requiremnt to check if a firearm was still on the approved list at the time of delivery. Only at the time of DROS.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-11-2006, 11:40 PM
Xeno...is that to say that once the DROS is approved, under current rules, then it is assumed the gun is approved?

Thanks.

chris
05-11-2006, 11:44 PM
cali-gula great post. i have given up on the NRA and go with the CRPA. they deal with california issues. although my membership has lapsed due to my current location. but i will sign back up when i get home.

i read along time ago the NRA said california has many lawsuits against the government but nothing has happened. this saddens me. because we are losing our rights more than any other states.but i give it to this group here. we can make a difference here with out the NRA we can do it. let us stick with the gun groups that deal with issues here. they NRA only cares about the federal level but that is important too. we can lose really big there if anti gun dems are elected to office.

so i say to everyone here let us focus on california issues and kick their collective *****es in sacramento. i feel the pain that the NRA has left us to fend for ourselves. we can do it.

when i go to the gun shows i brush off the NRA guys working there but they are fighting the good fight. i cannot blame them for that. but we need california organizations there too.

this is an idea i have we need an organization that focuses on all outdoor activity in this state. i mean dirt bike riding, hiking, camping, off road activity, shooting sports (this covers them all) hunting, and fishing. can you imagine the political clout an organization like this would have. since all the above are in danger of being outlawed.
i have said the above before and i think it woul be one too. tell me what you think guys.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-11-2006, 11:55 PM
It sure would be interesting to hear the NRA's response to such criticism on this bill.

kantstudien
05-12-2006, 12:05 AM
Xeno...is that to say that once the DROS is approved, under current rules, then it is assumed the gun is approved?

Thanks.

Reading isn't your strong suit I see? :rolleyes:

About the "8 hours to gather courage" thing, I don't stay glued to the computer screen to respond to community college dropouts, sorry. I am out there busily promoting "pro-gun" bills like the one where the purchaser can pick-up his gun even after 10 twenty-four hour periods have passed since being DROSed... oh wait...

xenophobe
05-12-2006, 12:35 AM
Actually, I don't work at a gunstore (Xenophobe does), but I've seen gunstore operate using a dog-eared printout of the roster. They print it every few weeks, as it changes very slowly.

That is what they do at the store, except they don't bother crossing it off the list. The expiration date is clearly printed along with the other info.


If a bulletin comes in from the DoJ (something like "model X failed the retest and is being taken off the roster effective immediately), they just scratch that line out on the printout - this doesn't happen all that often.

In the last 6 years there is only 1 handgun that ever had a notice from the DOJ, and that was the Walther P22 because they found that it fell under AW definition.

The DOJ does not actively inform a dealer if a handgun has fallen off the list or is approved for sale. You must actively look on the approved list, in the recently added/deleted PDF files. A dealer does not do this much either. The DROS will let you pick a specific model to DROS. If a handgun that needs DOJ approval to sell is not on the DROS machine, then it has either been removed, fallen off or is just not on the list at all.

To be brutally honest: if a gun shop has a gun sitting in its display case, and it falls off the roster at 10AM, then at 10:30AM the local police could come in and bust them for violating section 12125,

None of that matters. If a hangun sitting on the shelf drops off the list, it may not be selected on the DROS entry screen, and therefore can't be sold.

shopkeep
05-12-2006, 12:53 AM
I think some folks are missing the point. It passed unopposed, that's the point here.

Jedi
05-12-2006, 1:08 AM
I think some folks are missing the point. It passed unopposed, that's the point here.

Of course it passed unopposed. I am sure that the Assembly saw this bill for what it is: ANTI-GUN. All this bill did was to take a crappy law (PC §12125) and make it MORE ENFORCEABLE! This did nothing good for the gun buying public and only made things more difficult for the dealers.

Inoxmark
05-12-2006, 1:17 AM
Yeah, 75 members of California assembly unanimously voted for a pro-gun bill. Including the most rabid anti-gunners in the country. Sure ...
To those who thinks they were influenced by the NRA: on the same day they also voted through (51-26) the bill requiring all FFL holders, in- and out-of-state, to obtain permission from CA DOJ prior to shipping a firearm to another FFL holder in California. Fees for the new bureacracy are to be paid by CA FFLs of course.

Doesn't this little fact make you stop and think?

FreedomIsNotFree
05-12-2006, 2:07 AM
Reading isn't your strong suit I see? :rolleyes:

About the "8 hours to gather courage" thing, I don't stay glued to the computer screen to respond to community college dropouts, sorry. I am out there busily promoting "pro-gun" bills like the one where the purchaser can pick-up his gun even after 10 twenty-four hour periods have passed since being DROSed... oh wait...

Is that another "straw-man", "red herring"......hahah.

sac7000
05-12-2006, 12:20 PM
I think its great that something passed in our favor but i'd like to see the NRA step up to the plate on the offlist lower situation. In fact I'm willing not to renew my membership until that happens. I'm not seeing much support from the NRA in california on the issues that matter most to me.

The NRA will never get involved in situation they have no possible chance of winning. However they have been extremely supportive money-wise for range improvements. We've got a long way to go before we ever see any major change in gun laws in Kalifornistan. In the meantime, enjoy your hobby and reject authority every chance you get.

mikehaas
05-12-2006, 4:52 PM
Again, a "step back" is a valuable thing. Let's try it again. I have not asked NRA about these issues, but the following has been discussed, I believe...

1. AB 2111 was originally proposed in a stronger form, but was watered down due to opposition from the manufacturers (who opposed the "one time fee" provision - IMAGINE THAT, they want to pay over and over again. Are you curious w-h-y? Hint: don't think "good for gun-owners".) Those were not NRA's changes - it created a "version 2" of NRA's original bill. Now, NRA represents all gun-owners, not just manufacturers, and that's what "version 1" was designed for. In fact, as has been said, gun makers/dealers have their own lobbyist who surely is the force behind the changes. Anthonymanifesto suggested "ask her". I have no connection with any other staff other than NRA so don't look at me.

2. Dealers seem to be complaining that with AB 2111, they have to check the gun again at pickup. I'm not an FFL, but am a shooting-related business owner. Liability is a primary concern to me and I have no federal license to risk. It seems to me that, if a gun actually failed testing during the DROS, and I as an FFL subsequently delivered it UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, I am open to liability regardless of a requirement that I check on delivery or not. I delivered an "unsafe gun", regardless of when I printed out my "compare against" list. If that gun is then involved in a safety-related incident, I would not be surprised to find I've got a legal problem on my hands. (You may win, but who wants to find out?) FFLs, is this NOT a concern for you?

It can cartainly be argued in court by our enemies that delivering an "unsafe handgun" is irresponsible after the state goes to the trouble of testing them and maintaining a list. If AB 2111 protects dealers from liablility AND removes this critisism (if this happens, it could be a big PR problem - do you think the media would blow it up?) - where is the hit? Where exactly is the ANTI-GUN component here? Remember, the buyer has then taken posession of an "unsafe gun" and potentially, seller, FFL and buyer have taken part in an illegal transaction? is this not a dangerous gray area being clarified?

We as gun-owner should be concerned about protecting the purchasing process. I don't mean just getting rid of waiting periods and all that "wish list" stuff, but making sure there are not serious legal holes that gun-owners/sellers/FFs can fall into. And forget about protectiion from legal problems - how about not giving the media another issue?

3. Someone said "the transaction is complete at DROS time". So if the buyer fails the BG check, the seller still gets the money? The FFL is stuck wth the gun? It seems that if necessary, a court would force the refund just from a consumer point of view. But FFLs, how does that work?

4. Those that think NRA is not involved in the AW lower issue **AND** thinks NRA handles all situations publicly **AND** thinks if you aren't aware of it, it doesn't exist, are... incorrect. (to put it mildly) You don't want NRA revealing everything it's doing publicly, especially when it comes to dealing with DOJ. And if your gut tells you that something as big as AW issues could escape NRA's note, you need abdomen surgery. NRA isn't competing for your business, it's operating with the interests of it's members in mind. They have a fudiciary responsibility to do so.

5. For those that pine for a "major action", I identify completely. So does the staff at NRA I work with (they live and own guns in CA too). Unfortunately, this is not the movies and any large, public pro-gun effort is sure to generate a larger anti-gun response. Remember, the left owns the media. Public battles put politicians on the spot, making them take stands. In most of California, we do NOT want that to happen. We do much better talking sense to such lawmakers behind the scenes (which is why AB 2111passed with no opposition). We don't want pro-gun candidates to be FORCED to voice their pro-gun beliefs when it would be disadvantageous to do so (knocking them out an election is a disadvantage). And most of all, we can't dump millions of dollars into something that could lose big. For example, the Indian Gaming Initiative cost $110 million. NRA only makes TOTAL maybe $250 million/year. Big, public RKBA battles are not a winning tactic for California - this state is just too expensive for us to win such a battle. And look at Prop 187. We could not survive such a defeat.

Unfortunately, your frustration doesn't help the cause unless you convert it to REAL ACTION. If you want to eventually do things like repeal gun bans and relax CCW, one better be willing to put in a ton of footwork first and be satisfied with incremental improvement for a long time (like the antis were). C'mon, just a few years ago, we were being run roughshod over, and now we are gaining small staps. THERE ARE NO MAGIC PILLS HERE. Not for them, not for us. They got serious after their big initiative defeat in 1982. We better be able to withstand a 20-year battle like they did... patiently, taking everything we can, when we can.

And picking apart what NRA - OUR *OWN* ASSOCIATION - does, to the point of twisting AB 2111 into an ANTI-GUN bill, is self-defeating in the extreme.

Mike

Omega13device
05-12-2006, 5:12 PM
Mike, thanks for the post. I think folks just need you to pop into some of these threads to let us know that the NRA is aware of what is going on. No need to reveal details if they're sensitive, we just need some reinforcement that folks over there are aware of it and working on it. Educating the members is a job that never ends.

linuxgunner
05-12-2006, 5:23 PM
Mike, this is a small victory, but it's still a VICTORY. Every time the NRA works to get something through the legislature, it become that much easier to work on the next thing. Next time you call Mark Leno you'll have a history of working TOGETHER and a pattern of working TOGETHER. As the legislators get to know you they'll see that gun owners are sane normal people, many are liberal, and they're basically just like any other Californians. We will win a little bit at a time.

Unfortunately, your frustration doesn't help the cause unless you convert it to REAL ACTION. If you want to eventually do things like repeal gun bans and relax CCW, one better be willing to put in a ton of footwork first and be satisfied with incremental improvement for a long time (like the antis were).

I'm willing to. My frustration has been channeled into http://CaliforniaCCW.org which is already making a real difference (in less than three weeks of operation) and is focused on small, local incremental victories, in fights that we CAN win. We will reform CCW in CA one application, one police chief, one sheriff at a time.

mikehaas
05-13-2006, 7:14 AM
Mike, thanks for the post. I think folks just need you to pop into some of these threads to let us know that the NRA is aware of what is going on. No need to reveal details if they're sensitive, we just need some reinforcement that folks over there are aware of it and working on it. Educating the members is a job that never ends.

I think the Publications Division at NRA HQ would slap hands and shout "Alleluia!" (BTW, aren't the magazines looking great these days? Whenever I go through my old AmRifleman's I'm always struck by how NRA has constantly improved and expended them. AND -- talk about wanting to help! Check out http://ProjectBoreSnake.org/ - scroll down a bit - for the great support the NRA has been giving our small, little 1 year-old non-profit. Soon to come: a donated PBS ad in the American Rifleman! - in this month's mag, page 22 I'm told. :-)

But at some point, faith has to enter into it too. Members join (which ultimately means GIVES $$$ - the fuel of any political machine) to support the association in protecting the Second Amendment. So, do we want NRA to be spending our dollars constantly re-assuring us it is on track or helping elect a pro-gun candidate or sending out another postcard for a meeting, etc? I think we get a lot of reassurance already, and as we discussed, how much HOT stuff can NRA really publicly discuss? (Come to a meeting if you want to hear more poop - really.) How much re-assurance should we need? It makes no sense to establish a powerful organization that can hire experts, attorneys, get people elected, move legislation - DO WHAT NEEDS DONE - and then cut them down when we think we know how to do it better. They are passing bills right now! Does anyone here want that to stop?

If we don't give NRA an assumption of competence and our subsequent support... if we don't trust them to be able to implement a strategy without having every detail laid out FOR *US* TO SEE... if we insist on PUBLICLY second guessing our own representation at the capitol - how can they succeed at what we want them to do?

mikehaas
05-13-2006, 7:38 AM
...My frustration has been channeled into http://CaliforniaCCW.org which is already making a real difference (in less than three weeks of operation) and is focused on small, local incremental victories, in fights that we CAN win. We will reform CCW in CA one application, one police chief, one sheriff at a time.

Local elections are very important to our cause. That's one of the areas that the Members' Councils try to help NRA with - directly interfacing with pro-gun campaigns of all kinds.

With such individual actions comes a responsibility to make sure we aren't somehow butting heads with another pro-gun effort. For example, competing pro-gun candidates can split the vote and lose an election to an anti. Another: I'd always wished the people behind the RKBA Initiative had worked more closely with NRA - I don't think it was necessary to inflate and deflate all those good volunteers 3 times. How many will never help another grassroots effort? Losing doesn't help anyone. There's a lot of good energy in the pro-gun community, we shouldn't allow it to be self-cancelling. Supporting a pro-gun candidate in your area? Has that candidate filled out an NRA questionaire? That would be my first question.

Mike

artherd
05-13-2006, 9:37 AM
I suppose we should celebrate every victory, even if it's a hollow near meaningless one.

Now let's attach something meaty to it and sneak it through dirty-like! :D

Omega13device
05-13-2006, 12:18 PM
If we don't give NRA an assumption of competence and our subsequent support... if we don't trust them to be able to implement a strategy without having every detail laid out FOR *US* TO SEE... if we insist on PUBLICLY second guessing our own representation at the capitol - how can they succeed at what we want them to do?
Mike, that's an idealistic scenario but it's unrealistic. We are giving the money and we have a right to know how it is used, and to have a say in what the NRA works on (not running the show, just "a say in what's going on"). If that's not the point of a membership-based organization, I don't know what is. No one is asking for a direct mail campaign every week with details on every initiative that's underway. Reread my post - I was just suggesting that YOU keep us in the loop. IIRC you're a volunteer so that costs the NRA nothing. :D

6172crew
05-13-2006, 12:41 PM
Thanks for the update Mike, Im looking forward to your next post.

Having a spokesperson from the NRA on this board is valuable and Im sure your passing the feedback to the folks in charge.:)

Semper Fi!

M. D. Van Norman
05-14-2006, 12:25 AM
For those that pine for a “major action”, I identify completely.… Unfortunately … any large, public pro-gun effort is sure to generate a larger anti-gun response.… Public battles put politicians on the spot, making them take stands.… We do much better talking sense to such lawmakers behind the scenes (which is why AB 2111passed with no opposition). We don’t want pro-gun candidates to be FORCED to voice their pro-gun beliefs when it would be disadvantageous to do so.…

In other words, we’ve already lost and must wait until the time is right to reclaim our freedom … and heaven forbid that our so-called leaders should have to take a stand on anything.

I’ll see you in a thousand years.

Benellishooter
05-14-2006, 7:42 AM
Big Woop. The Auschwitz inmates won the right to extra soap for the showers. Go NRA leadership.

P.S. I have heard it all now. The NRA has plans. They are just a secret. But, they don't want to do anything important because they anti gunners might notice and get mad.

Who thinks up this stuff?

xenophobe
05-14-2006, 5:08 PM
A victory would be defeating AB2714. :rolleyes:

Benellishooter
05-14-2006, 8:43 PM
That would not be a victory. That would be effective defense. Victory is by initiating a significant attacks to gain or take back ground. Defense alone does not win campaigns.

But, the NRA has a super secret plan for victory. Mike Haas even said so. It is so secret that gunowners that would love to support them can't even see it. Therefore, following their brilliant example, we keep our support for the NRA secret.