PDA

View Full Version : AB 2714 vote may come May 22


mikehaas
05-19-2006, 12:45 AM
05/19/2006 - AB2714 may come up for a vote on the Assembly Floor on Monday, May 22nd.

This bill would provide that no ammunition or reloaded ammunition may be delivered pursuant to a retail transaction unless the purchaser personally presents clear evidence of his or her identity and age to the seller of the ammunition. Violation of these provisions would be an offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not to exceed six months, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both imprisonment and that fine, with increased penalties for second or subsequent violations.

AB 2714 is on the Assembly floor. Please contact the Assembly and urge a NO vote on AB 2714. Remind them that 1). There is no Law Enforcement support for AB2714. That doesn't square with the bill's analysis, where Torrico says the bill is crucial for public safety. 2). It is already illegal in CA to sell ammunition to minors and prohibited persons.

ONE-CLICK posted at:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2714

Mike

chunger
05-19-2006, 1:02 AM
Mike,

Thanks for keeping us updated on this one. I've sent a couple of one-click emails on this one.

-'Chung

Experimentalist
05-19-2006, 7:45 PM
This is my first post on Calguns, and I hope it is useful.

I thought I'd post the body of my email to the Assembly regarding this issue, in hopes of stimulating some similar emails. I think some of the issues I raise are worthwhile.

Dear Assembly Persons:

I am writing to you in opposition to AB2714, a ban on sales of ammunition via the internet or mail order.

Such a ban would place a serious economic hardship on thousands of honest people who simply wish to enjoy their hobby.

I can understand concern over the possibility of underage persons illegally acquiring ammunition in this way. However, I am unaware of any crimes or accidents that have occurred as a result of an underage person acquiring ammunition online. We should ask ourselves if this legislation is motivated by a demonstrated problem, and if the costs of its implementation - to the State and to the consumer – are worth the phantom gains.

Further, there are many more, and far more serious, online risks than ammunition sales. For example, a cursory Google search revealed the following items for sale via the internet:

Cigarettes: Cigarettes have been shown to be a tremendous risk to a persons health. Worse, these effects are considerably more serious when a person begins smoking at a young age.

Yet there are many online outlets for tobacco. One example is: http://www.discount-cigarettes.org/index.shtml It is plain from their web site that they are willing to ship to California.

Teen age drinking is a very serious problem in our society, causing countless youths to waste their lives as alcoholics. We all too often hear of teenagers involved in fatal automobile accidents involving alcohol.

And yet alcohol can be bought online. Here is one example: http://www.whiskyshop.com/

A knife is just as dangerous as a firearm at close range. Consider the vast range of cutlery available for online purchase: http://spyderco.com/ , http://www.knifeoutlet.com/ .

Of course, the degree of pornography and online solicitation our teens are exposed to on the internet is truly staggering. I didn’t bother searching Google for porn sites, I’m sure you do not need to be convinced.

I have to wonder why the assembly is spending important time and resources on such an obscure issue as online ammunition sales, when there are much more threatening issues to our children, and to our society?

Let’s all stop wasting our resources on nonissues like online ammunition sales, and start spending it where it really counts.

Thank you for reading this,

<My name>

chickenfried
05-19-2006, 7:53 PM
Sent my letters in today too. The only problem I have with your letter, you're pointing out other fun areas I don't want legislators poking there noses into either :D .

The Soup Nazi
05-19-2006, 7:54 PM
You should also remember that some (more like everyone) could see this as an unfair buisness practice that discriminates against out of state buisnesses, as well as paving the way for an ammunition cartel headed by local stores.

markymark
05-19-2006, 7:58 PM
Sent in an email.

EBWhite
05-19-2006, 8:11 PM
Worst case is we will lose some major sellers to this but small time dealers will still ship here as long as you want to take the chance. I won't be following that one, sorry....

but please lets get some emails and phone calls so we dont lose the big guys!

Apostolos
05-19-2006, 8:28 PM
I contacted my reps., McCarthy and Parra.

God Bless,
David

hoffmang
05-19-2006, 11:53 PM
Soup,

Not only is that a risk, that issue makes the law unconstitutional. Here is the legal analysis after I spent some time pulling it together (I plan on sending this to the author and my rep - feel free to crib):

AB 2714 is barred by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. First and foremost Federal supremacy makes it clear that the Congress has had multiple opportunities to change and expand 27 CFR 178.99. While subsection (2) does delegate to the States the power to restrict sales of firearms in retail transactions to non FFLs (“licensees”), the same section clearly only bars licensees and non-licensees from selling ammunition to those persons who are under the age of 21 in the case of handgun ammunition and under the age of 18 for all other ammunition.

More to the point, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated clearly defined rules in the area of allowable state restrictions on interstate commerce. First, there is no direct or indirect delegation to the States of the Commerce Clause power of Congress as to ammunition. In a light most favorable to the proposed legislation, a court would be forced to use a balancing test as outlined under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970). However, as the stated purpose of this law is to target “Ammunition purchases over the Internet,” this law would create a disproportionate burden on out of State sellers of ammunition. In State sellers would still be allowed to sell ammunition to all residents of California in person as well as all residents of the other 49 states via the mail or internet. Ammunition sellers in the other 49 states would not be able to sell to California residents. As such, this statute will be subject to the strict scrutiny required under Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Oberly , 822 F.2d 388, 398 (3d Cir. 1987) ("[S]tate actions that purposefully . . . discriminate against interstate commerce . . . are given heightened scrutiny.") As the Supreme Court has clearly stated in Granholm v. Heald (#03-1116, May 16, 2005) as it pertained to a State argument that restricting interstate commerce in alcohol was justifiable to stop underage purchase, “the States can minimize any risk with less restrictive steps, such as requiring an adult signature on delivery.”

AB 2714 as it reads now is unconstitutional. Please refrain from passing it. It will be a waste of taxpayer funds to defend this clearly unconstitutional law in Federal Court.

RRangel
05-20-2006, 4:30 PM
Please folks don't forget to call, or fax as this needs to be timed right for the 22nd..

RRangel
05-22-2006, 10:53 AM
Once again this may be reach the Assembly floor on tomorrow the 22nd. Now is the time to let them know.

dmckean44
05-22-2006, 3:25 PM
Any news on this?

kenc9
05-22-2006, 4:13 PM
I did vote against AB 2714 when it came up before Appropriations, but it passed on a straight party line vote, with all the Democrats voting in favor of the bill, and all the Republicans voting against it. It is now on the floor of the Assembly, and could be heard anytime. I will openly oppose this bill, as I do all bills infringing on our Second Amendment rights.



Assemblyman Ray Haynes

Choptop
05-23-2006, 9:22 AM
My letter to my reps...

I am writing to urge your NO vote on AB2714, a ban on sales of ammunition via the internet or mail order.

Such a ban would place a serious economic hardship on thousands of honest people who simply wish to enjoy their target shooting or hunting hobby.

I can understand concern over the possibility of underage persons illegally acquiring ammunition in this way. However, I am unaware of any crimes or accidents that have occurred as a result of an underage person acquiring ammunition online. The sponsors of this bill have not shown a problem that this bill address.

Remember, the job of the legislature is not just to enact new laws, but to reject uneccesary bills.

Sincerely,

Alan Galbraith

chickenfried
05-23-2006, 10:57 AM
Thank you for your email regarding AB 2714. Fremont Police Chief Craig
Steckler sent a letter in support of this bill to the author,
Assemblymember Alberto Torrico. The City Manager's Office did not
generate any letter of support or opposition to this bill for the
Mayor's signature. Staff for the Assembly Public Safety Committee made
an error when they listed the City of Fremont as a supporter of this
legislation.

Lisa Goldman
Intergovernmental Relations Manager
City of Fremont

mikehaas
05-25-2006, 10:30 AM
05/25/2006 - AB2714 was "passed on file" this morning in the State Assembly. This means it did NOT have a vote, but could be voted on at any time.

PLEASE KEEP-UP THE PRESSURE ON THE ASSEMBLY!

AB2714 (TORRICO) AMMUNITION SALES ID REQUIREMENT
This bill would provide that no ammunition or reloaded ammunition may be delivered pursuant to a retail transaction unless the purchaser personally presents clear evidence of his or her identity and age to the seller of the ammunition.

STATUS: ASSEMBLY FLOOR

NRA POSITION: OPPOSE

For more info on AB2714 go to:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2714

chunger
05-25-2006, 3:09 PM
I've sent emails to the assembly, my wife has sent emails, I've emailed my friends to send emails. I've called my assembly person. I hope we can put some real pressure on because this one would really really really suck for everyone, and I don't think everyone knows its on the Assembly floor.

-'Chung

CalNRA
05-25-2006, 3:31 PM
THere are 32 Republicans in the assembly, 48 democrats. THis is why I don't believe in libral gun owners, who kep voting in anti-gun politicians that only go by party politics.

RRangel
05-29-2006, 2:27 PM
Update. AB 2714 may be heard May 30 since it was passed over for vote previously. If you haven't already contact your reps.

PeteyG
05-31-2006, 12:31 PM
Update it was amended yesterday to include only handgun ammo.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2714_bill_20060530_amended_asm.html

what a bunch of BS

I think Torrico is an Idiot.

Pete

m1aowner
05-31-2006, 2:46 PM
Yeah, because that's an acceptable compromise. Torrico= TOOL!