PDA

View Full Version : AB 2714 Violates Federal Law


mikehaas
08-21-2006, 1:44 PM
New information has come to light that AB 2714 is a violation of Federal law. See the below link for details. Please include this new info in your talking points as you recommend opposition of AB 2714 from the CA legislature.

Contrary to what other CA gun-groups have been telling you, selling ammunition obviously isn't "just like selling wine." NRA has steadfastly opposed AB 2714 since it was introduced.

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2006&summary=ab2714

Mike

Matt C
08-21-2006, 1:59 PM
Seems to be like they will just amend ab 2714 to comply with the FAAA, perhaps we should let them pass it first then get the law nulled in court.

TKo_Productions
08-21-2006, 2:27 PM
Seems to be like they will just amend ab 2714 to comply with the FAAA, perhaps we should let them pass it first then get the law nulled in court.

I'm in agreement with Blackwater, why do the work for them? By releasing this information early, all the NRA is doing is helping them amend and strengthen the legislation. Why not let the legislature proceed with it, and then fight it in court and have it thrown out.

The NRA's acting like a research assistant, helping coagulate and solidify bulletproof legislation.

Sometimes the NRA shows its hand too early.

mikehaas
08-21-2006, 3:04 PM
I'm in agreement with Blackwater, why do the work for them? By releasing this information early, all the NRA is doing is helping them amend and strengthen the legislation. Why not let the legislature proceed with it, and then fight it in court and have it thrown out.

The NRA's acting like a research assistant, helping coagulate and solidify bulletproof legislation.

Sometimes the NRA shows its hand too early.
Just want to reiterate that NRA seldom "guesses" at this stuff folks. They don't fly by the seat of their pants, they arrive at their decisions by conferring with our state lobbyist, attorneys, staffers and even sometimes volunteers. In short, they know what they are doing and when to do it.

Please do as they ask; they know more than we do.

Mike

PS. Remember, the goal is to prevent AB2714 from passing. Preferring to allowing it to pass and expecting to fight it AFTER IT BECOMES LAW is not "fighting smart".

hoffmang
08-21-2006, 3:08 PM
Nah all... Better to point out that the politicos who sponsored this are going to waste money by passing a moot law before they waste the money.

Its not that hard to send an email or a fax or a letter with the reasons you oppose the law - chiefly that its pre-empted by Federal Law.

-Gene

grammaton76
08-21-2006, 3:20 PM
While CA politicians do occasionally like to pass laws which get shut down (gay marriage, handgun ban in SF, etc) those are generally just grandstanding on the part of radicals.

What was the last CA *state* anti-gun law you've seen that been taken down for sheer stupidity? Not which ones have been challenged - which ones have actually been taken down.

I believe in its current form, and any derivative form they could assume, it would be shut down. This late in the session, I doubt lawmakers are going to want to waste energy on passing this bill now that it's plainly just going to turn into target practice for lawyers.

Talkin2u2
08-21-2006, 3:32 PM
I'm in agreement with Blackwater, why do the work for them? By releasing this information early, all the NRA is doing is helping them amend and strengthen the legislation. Why not let the legislature proceed with it, and then fight it in court and have it thrown out.

The NRA's acting like a research assistant, helping coagulate and solidify bulletproof legislation.

Sometimes the NRA shows its hand too early.

That's not how it works in Sac. Pointing out certain things, such as this example of federal pre-emption, provides political cover for moderate Democrats to vote against a bill from one of their own party.

This is actually, a very smart move on the part of the NRA and it's legal team.

RS
Sac, CA

ketec_owner
08-21-2006, 8:14 PM
Isn't this the type of law that the Federal commerce clause was created to regulate?

hoffmang
08-21-2006, 9:24 PM
Yes and no. It is well within the Federal power to regulate this, but they have to state that they have occupied the field or show that a State law has discriminatory effects. In this case, ammunition isn't completely clearly ruled out by the direct regulations around ammo, but the Supreme Court ruled in the recent wine case that a State had to use the least impactful method of regulation which would be the signature process. However, NRA picked up on the fact that Federal Law is preempting this legislation through Commerce Clause regulation of common carriers (Read Fedex and UPS) which is excellent news.

The Commerce Clause isn't simple, but in this case the result looks correct.

-Gene

chris
08-21-2006, 10:42 PM
glad to see that the NRA is slamming them. on a side note when has federal law ever stopped these goons from intruducing legislation like this. i wish they would stop this state within a state crap. someone said that and i cannot remember who.

johnny_22
08-22-2006, 7:11 AM
They used rule 28.8 to get it on the floor

Aug. 9 From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate
Rule 28.8 and be amended.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2714&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email

mikehaas
08-22-2006, 11:57 AM
That's not how it works in Sac. Pointing out certain things, such as this example of federal pre-emption, provides political cover for moderate Democrats to vote against a bill from one of their own party.
I tell you, this is an example of the top-notch analysis one finds on this forum.

I think calguns.net and NRA working together has been a great thing and portends victories. And remember too, NRA has given us the perfect tool for California NRA members to help out in a HANDS-ON way...
http://calnra.com/volunteer/
(No other state has anything like it - each MC has monthy meetings to keep you focused, informed, connected and productive.)

Mike

phish
08-22-2006, 12:19 PM
The shipper might as well mark the box "STEAL ME" rather than the proposed new marking on the package. :rolleyes:

FreedomIsNotFree
08-23-2006, 12:23 AM
has some great analysis.

its like another caucus

Anthony....please dont try to get around the word filter.....

chris
08-23-2006, 12:27 AM
They used rule 28.8 to get it on the floor

Aug. 9 From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate
Rule 28.8 and be amended.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2714&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email

what is rule 28.8 anyway?

or is that the rule that it is ok to think with your arse than your brain.:) allthough they seem to intertwined there.

6172crew
08-23-2006, 10:28 AM
Anthony....please dont try to get around the word filter.....

LOL, indeed.:D