View Full Version : We may have probs with SB 59 & AB 2714

09-29-2006, 12:18 PM
Just look at how many bills are still sitting on the Gov's
dest waiting to be determined. Time is running out.
Do you think he and his staff goes through all these
bills ? I've written a number of times and have called
twice, but just have no idea where he's at on 59 & 2714.

From here.

09-29-2006, 12:42 PM
Same here buddy...:confused:

09-29-2006, 12:50 PM
I called yesterday. Sat on hold for about 10-12 minutes listening to the 1-bar repetitious muzak, finally got someone. Politely asked for a veto.

He may be putting off making controversial issues to the last minute, on a weekend day when not so many folks will be monitoring the news, and make them all at once so they fight each other for the bandwidth of public perception.

09-29-2006, 12:53 PM

For your calls/faxes/emails regarding a polite request for veto on AB2714, it may well be helpful to also bring up the larger non-gun issue of its cancellation of preemption.

For a simple 'good government' aspect that might appeal to the Governor, you could also state that this will result in a patchwork quilt of varying local regulations and laws for no perceivable benefit, as well as varying enforcement levels - something a modern, well-run state should not tolerate.

C'mon guys, we did it with 352, we can do it again. Spend some time/nickels on the phone.

It may IMHO be best if you do two calls, one emphasizing your opposition to AB2728 and the other against SB59.

09-29-2006, 12:56 PM
I agree...the big sexy bills that hit key issues got press releases, signing ceremoines, etc..

Gun bills are alwys so vexing either way for campaigners, Id just put them in with a giant stack of the Saturday.

Correctamundo. Detailed, boring, smaller-picture contentious issues will wait to the last minute. Staffers won't give out much, if any, info as to status.

09-29-2006, 1:22 PM
I also think it might help if the matter of ACR73 is
included with a "please vote no" on both bills. ACR73
is supposed to be the issue of simplifying Ca's guns
laws starting in Oct 27 and will take multi yrs. What
better way to help the process by asking that NO OTHER
firearm bills be signed and added ?

09-29-2006, 6:28 PM
he vetoed it guys:


To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 59 without my signature. While I share the Legislature's concern about the criminal use of lost or stolen weapons, the ambiguous manner in which this bill was written would make compliance with the law confusing for legitimate gun-owners and could result in cases where law-abiding citizens face criminal penalties simply because they were the victim of a crime, which is particularly troubling given the unproven results of other jurisdictions in California that have passed similar measures. In addition, this bill may have undesirable legal consequences as it allows local governments to pass ordinances that differ from State law, thereby leaving law-abiding citizens with the task of navigating through a maze of different or conflicting local laws depending upon the jurisdiction they are in. A patchwork of inconsistent local ordinances creates compliance and enforcement problems that erode the State's ability to effectively regulate handguns statewide. For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.


Arnold Schwarzenegger

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2714 without my signature. It is important to ensure that minors do not use mail-order or internet sales to obtain access to items prohibited under current law that could be dangerous if used improperly. However, current law already requires sellers to verify the age of a purchaser who wishes to buy ammunition at the time of sale. By adding a new requirement that retailers ensure third party verification of the identity of the purchaser at time of delivery, this bill could inadvertently subject legitimate retailers to criminal penalties for actions that they have no control over. As a result, this bill could be counter productive by providing a negligible benefit to public safety while concurrently discouraging legitimate business. In addition, this bill would allow local governments to enact their own measures governing the sale of ammunition if they are stricter than state law. Statewide uniformity of the laws regulating firearms is critical to public safety. By allowing local governments to proliferate local measures regarding the sale of ammunition that significantly differ from state law, this bill could result in inconsistent regulation, interpretation, and enforcement of firearms laws by businesses, law enforcement, and the public. For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.


Arnold Schwarzenegger


Santa Cruz Armory
09-29-2006, 7:31 PM

Good job guys! We need to keep up the good work! We need to continue to let Arnold, and other CA politicians that we have a LOUD voice and that we will be heard through our votes!


09-30-2006, 12:19 AM
I love it. I also took a just a few minutes and wrote the
Gov for doing so. Why not do the same ? Maybe he'll
remember this next yr when once again we'll have to
more of these back door firearm banishment bills..