View Full Version : Replies from McLintock & Cox on AB 2714

08-25-2006, 4:12 PM
Thank you for your e-mail. I oppose all bills that harm our Second
Amendment rights.

Take care,


Thank you for contacting my office regarding gun control legislation. I
appreciate hearing from you.

My stance on additional gun control legislation has been clear. I have
consistently opposed efforts to restrict the ability of law-abiding
citizens to be able to purchase and legally use firearms.

Again this legislative session, numerous bills aimed at curtailing
Second Amendment rights have been proposed. I have included below a
summary of legislation that may be of interest to you:

Senate Bill 48 criminalizes the act of selling ammunition to an underage
person whether or not the seller knew the person was underage. SB 48
passed the Senate on April 25, 2005 by a vote of 21 to 15. I voted
against SB 48. The Governor signed the bill into law on October 7,

Senate Bill 59 (Lowenthal) makes it a crime for a person to not report
their gun being stolen or lost to a law enforcement agency. SB 59
passed the Senate on May 31, 2005 by a vote of 22 to 15. It then passed
from the Assembly on August 22, 2006 by a vote of 44 to 34. The bill is
now back in the Senate where Assembly amendments must be voted on before
it could advance to the Governor.

Senate Bill 357 (Dunn) and Assembly Bill 352 (Koretz) seek to implement
a gun ammunition serialization program which would require every piece
of ammunition sold, manufactured or possessed in the State of California
to contain a unique serial number for identification purposes. The
measures would also make it a crime to possess unserialized ammunition
in a "public place" after July 1, 2007. SB 357 passed the Senate on
June 2, 2005 but did not advance from the Assembly Appropriations
Committee. I voted against SB 357 when it came before me in the Senate.
AB 352 passed from the Senate on August 24, 2006 by a vote of 22 to 18.
I again voted against the bill at that time. The bill is now in the

Assembly Bill 98 (Cohn) is a very large and confusing measure that
sought to extend California's concealed weapons law to include as a
crime possessing an unloaded and unconcealed weapon in a public place.
AB 98 officially died on January 31, 2006.

Assembly Bill 944 (Ridley-Thomas) would have required firearm dealers to
post a dire warning regarding the "dangers" of owning and keeping a
firearm in the residence. It would have also required the same warning
to be placed in all gun sales contracts. AB 944 passed the Assembly on
May 26, 2005, but did not advance from the Senate Public Safety

Assembly Bill 996 (Ridley-Thomas) seeks to prohibit California retailers
from displaying gun ammunition in such a way that would allow customers
access to the ammunition without the help of a store employee. AB 996
passed the Senate on August 25, 2005 by a vote of 22 to 15. I voted
against the bill at that time. The Governor vetoed this bill on October
7, 2005.

Assembly Bill 1002 (Nava) sought to phase out lead-based gun ammunition
in the State of California by the year 2009. This bill officially died
on January 31, 2006.

Assembly Bill 2111 (Haynes) resolves a technical loophole that had the
potential to unfairly inconvenience California handgun buyers. The bill
allows a purchaser of a DOJ-approved handgun to complete the legal
transfer of the weapon in the event that the manufacturer of the weapon
fails to pay a required annual fee to the federal government. I voted
in favor of this measure on June 26, 2006 and the Governor signed it
into law on July 12, 2006.

Assembly Bill 2714 (Torrico) requires that all handgun ammunition sales
in the State of California be contingent upon verifying the purchasers
age in person at the time of sale. This has the effect of banning
handgun ammunition sales over the Internet and phone. AB 2714 passed
from the Assembly on May 31, 2006 by a vote of 43 to 34. The bill is
now in the Senate. I will not vote for this piece of legislation should
it come before me.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to call my office.


Senator, First District

I'm sure everyone who did the one click thing got the same reply but just wanted to share. Hope this will change the minds of those who are sitting on the fence saying that we have no chance.

08-25-2006, 4:37 PM
So both where asked the same question?
If so... I like McLintock's answer best!

I fell asleep after Cox's 3rd paragraph! ;) :)

08-25-2006, 4:41 PM
Thats some scary stuff man , Its hard for me to believe some people are trying to pass things like that , They must have very miserable life's .:rolleyes:

08-25-2006, 5:30 PM
So both where asked the same question?
If so... I like McLintock's answer best!

I fell asleep after Cox's 3rd paragraph! ;) :)


08-25-2006, 5:40 PM

Damn! you know... that actually worked!!! haha!! :D :D :)

08-25-2006, 6:14 PM
McClintock and Cox are both VERY pro 2A. Cox does tend to be wordy at times. But that's a good thing on the floor.

08-25-2006, 11:21 PM
I got the same e-mails from both of them. Tho mine was about SB59

08-26-2006, 7:14 AM
Me too...same LONG response.. :)

08-26-2006, 7:37 AM
I got the same reply from McClintock on the one click.

I like Cox's long response. It has a detailed brief of each bill trying to hamstring the 2nd Amendment. Shows me he is informed and his staff is keeping him so.
Its not a boilerplate response or form letter as the whole shebang is dynamic and requires vigilance.

He's earning his keep.