PDA

View Full Version : E-mail them (AB144)


Lost.monkey
04-03-2011, 7:52 PM
All,

On April 12th, our "servants" will begin hearing arguments for/against AB 144 (outlaw open carry). Please e-mail/call and let them know how you feel.

Here's the link: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6501

I know we're the minority here, but they must know our 2A rights are sacred, and we will fight for them.

I think our best argument is that CCW is "may issue", and that the law abiding citizens are left without alternative if this passes, save criminalizing ourselves along with those we would protect ourselves from. If anything, plant the seed for "shall issue".

Be tactful, succinct, and yet venomous in your correspondence. These legislators must know it is the patriots of this nation that are decent, moral, and compassionate that wish to stand guard against those who possess the will and determination to ignore both the laws of man, and of god.

mossy
04-03-2011, 9:19 PM
I think our best argument is that CCW is "may issue", and that the law abiding citizens are left without alternative if this passes


i am gonna play devils advocate here for a second, how is carrying a unloaded gun going to help defend yourself and others from harm? lets say a bad guy walks into a store with a AR and demands every one get on the ground. the unloaded gun on your hip is only going to escalate the situation further before you have time to load a mag in and try to defend your life. to me open carry in CA is more of a political statement and not so much about self defense.

Lost.monkey
04-03-2011, 9:34 PM
i am gonna play devils advocate here for a second, how is carrying a unloaded gun going to help defend yourself and others from harm? lets say a bad guy walks into a store with a AR and demands every one get on the ground. the unloaded gun on your hip is only going to escalate the situation further before you have time to load a mag in and try to defend your life. to me open carry in CA is more of a political statement and not so much about self defense.

It is a matter of odds. If I am to rob a store with an AR, how likely am I to do so knowing that XX% of the population is CCW, and XX% is UOC? The higher the % for CCW, the more likely a perp is to die on a job. I'm for CCW, and the 2A in general, just for the sake of "playing the odds" in the mind of a career criminal.

A good case study: 90% of those who commit what we would call felony crime in Japan are caught, and prosecuted. For a criminal in Japan, this produces a mindset of "If I do this, I am going to get caught", creating a penalty-prohibitive mindset. In the USA, only 25% of felony-commission crimes are caught and prosecuted. The minset then is that "of I do this, I MIGHT get caught".

Take that same sampling and mindset, and apply it to CCW/OUC. If a criminal's mindset is "If I do this, I'm going to get shot", this will serve as a prohibitive motivation into itself. I believe as the Cali laws are written now, the terminal consequence is simply not a factor.

And, no one robs a 7-11 with an AR. Not concealable, and impractical for a smash-and-grab.

zvardan
04-03-2011, 11:36 PM
Japan has a high conviction rate because they don't have a jury system. ;) An arrest is more or less the only sign of guilt in their point of view...then they question you to the point of exhaustion.

Seems like you'd want them to pass AB144...wouldn't it be easier to argue in court for CCW's if you can't even open carry in public?

unusedusername
04-04-2011, 12:26 AM
It has been said a few times already on the board, and to me in person by people in the know that passing the open carry ban will be of at most marginal usefulness in the current round of court cases for CCW.

Infighting is bad poeple. Don't let them pass ammo bans, black rifle bans, import bans, or any sort of carry bans.

I don't open carry, but I sure as heck want the weight of the open carriers behind trying to defeat any legislation against something I do so I'll help defeat the ban on open carry again.

Lost.monkey
04-04-2011, 7:03 AM
Dear Mr. Knight,

I’d like to take a moment to express my displeasure regarding the introduction of Assembly Bill 144, which proposes the prohibition of what is known as “unloaded open carry” (UOC) of firearms by law-abiding citizens exercising their 2nd amendment right.

Aside from the obvious intrusion upon rights stated in the United States Constitution, I believe this attempt at otherwise good-intentioned legislation is misguided at best. The UOC movement is a clear illustration of the need of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against those who ignore firearm laws, as concealed carry has become too difficult to obtain within most counties in California. This has led to many misunderstandings, and rightfully so, between citizens and law enforcement. Clear examples can be found on youtube.com of law enforcement responding to “man with a gun” complaints only to be met with a well-informed, law-abiding citizen.

To parade in public with an unloaded firearm, in my personal opinion, is to invite trouble into itself. With that stated, it is clear that any citizen that would choose to do so is only utilizing the only means available to them of personal protection. With the delayed response of law enforcement, the law-abiding citizen must be provided with a means of defense until authorities can arrive to diffuse or document the situation.

The need for self-defense in modern society cannot be discounted merely by the existence of law enforcement. Often, when one views law-enforcement, a false sense of security prevails until the situation arises in which seconds count, and law enforcement is minutes away. This knowledge often instills a sense of urgency for any citizen, creating the visceral need to carry a firearm for the sake of “peace of mind”. Were concealed carry permits accessible, this visceral need can be met without the unfortunate encounters with law enforcement responding to concerned citizen calls that arise with UOC.

The mere existence of restrictive firearms and weapon laws by no means protect the citizenry of California. These laws only embolden career criminals as there are no terminal consequences for violent acts against law-abiding citizens. These innocents are left subjugated by the will of those who ignore all laws, not just those applying to firearms. Legislation will never serve to deter a criminal with ill will, and insane people will commit insane acts. One needs only to study the California prison system for clear illustration of this frightening truth of human nature.

In conclusion, as a law-abiding citizen, father, former United States Marine, and responsible firearms owner, I believe the California laws regarding concealed carry have left me with no choice but to carry my weapon openly to protect my life, and my property. To further restrict my fundamental right to keep and bear arms is unacceptable to me, and would only serve as yet another reason I will investigate employment and residence elsewhere.

Sincerely,

*Contact info Deleted*

johnny_22
04-04-2011, 7:56 AM
This is a First Amendment issue. Your right to assemble with a symbol of protest (an unloaded firearm) shall not be infringed by the State. No need for a Nordyke decision to argue the point; the First is already incorporated in California.

I will write, fax, email and call my guy, but, he was hand picked by Toricco, so I am not hopeful.

Lost.monkey
04-04-2011, 8:06 AM
From Assembly Member Hagman:

"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to AB 144 (Portantino), which would make it an offense to openly carry an unloaded handgun in specified public areas.

As a California State Assemblyman and a fellow Second Amendment supporter, I wanted to be sure and let you know that I strongly oppose this bill I will vote against it when it reaches the Assembly Public Safety Committee and the Assembly Floor.

I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment which gives us the freedom and right to bear arms. It is outrageous that this kind of bill is even being considered. We need to focus our efforts on strengthening the economy and creating jobs, not punishing and regulating law abiding citizens.

I will not give up the fight to protect our basic rights and I hope you will also continue this cause. I urge you to contact your Assembly and Senate representatives and tell them to oppose this bill when it is brought to their attention. Thank you for your support.

It is an honor to serve you and the State of California.


Sincerely,
Assemblyman Curt Hagman
District 60"

Lost.monkey
04-04-2011, 8:08 AM
From Assembly Member Hill:

"Thank you for contacting me. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to respond to your e-mail. In order to enable me to send you a responsive e-mail, please go to www.assembly.ca.gov/hill and click on “Contact Me”.
If you would like to schedule an appointment to meet with me or a member of my staff, or you would like to extend an invitation to attend an event, please e-mail Marina Gonzales at marina.gonzales@asm.ca.gov or telephone her at 916-319-2019.
If you are seeking assistance resolving an issue with a state government agency, please call my district office at 650-349-1900.
I am here to serve you.
Jerry Hill
Assemblymember, 19th District"

I went to the link, and I get screened as I'm out of his district.

terdog
04-04-2011, 8:51 AM
Lost.monkey,

While I appreciate your effort, I would object to paragraph 3, as I question its purpose in this cause.
Personally, I think that paragraph #1 would suffice.

SanPedroShooter
04-04-2011, 8:56 AM
I copied your first paragraph and some of the structure of the entire letter, I left out a lot of the UOC advocacy stuff and I changed some of the words. I replaced displeasure with disgust, good intentioned to "security theater". Asked her if she or her body guards carry, are the legislature defying the Supreme Court on purpose, does she know how profitable "may issue" is for baca and the public safety unions etc.... My typical brand of nastiness. I am dealing with loenthall, district 24. NRA grade F-

Lost.monkey
04-04-2011, 9:28 AM
Lost.monkey,

While I appreciate your effort, I would object to paragraph 3, as I question its purpose in this cause.
Personally, I think that paragraph #1 would suffice.

And I appreciate any and all feedback you guys have to offer. If I'm off the reservation, then by all means, correct me. Just be prepared to offer a solution with any problem offered.

Try to avoid the "flock of seagulls" approach: swoop in squawking, crap all over everything, then swoop out leaving someone else to clean up the mess.

How would you word the letter?

As to my purpose, the NRA has issued the call, and I will answer it as best I can without endangering my own family and security.

SanPedroShooter
04-04-2011, 9:49 AM
I think your wording is fine. It didnt quite fit my purpose, which was just to be nasty and pull loenthals chain a bit. You are to much of gentleman for the type of scum I am dealing with in D24. The only thing that would stop her aye vote on this one is... well, she wont be changing her mind anytime soon.

AnthonyD1978
04-04-2011, 10:27 AM
Japan has a high conviction rate because they don't have a jury system. ;) An arrest is more or less the only sign of guilt in their point of view...then they question you to the point of exhaustion.

Seems like you'd want them to pass AB144...wouldn't it be easier to argue in court for CCW's if you can't even open carry in public?

+1

also if you read up on Japan and it's court system you will run across studies that show they do very little investigation and only press crimes that are easy convictions.

even going so far as labeling a crime something else so that it doesn't hurt their numbers.

this is said to happen to make the public feel safer with high conviction rates and also to "save face" for the PD...."saving face" is very important in Japanease government/culture.

barthel
04-04-2011, 10:30 AM
Done and Done

Chester
04-04-2011, 10:55 AM
Doesn't this pose. Win/win situation for us?

If it fails, I retain the option to and some of you guys can continue to UOC.

If it passes, they take our knight and leave their queen open to our rook who is conceal carrying.

To use another chess analogy, this bill going to a vote seems a lot like a fork to me.

Ripon83
04-04-2011, 11:01 AM
Next to our beloved second amendment is the first.....if they take away the second the first will be the next to go. I agree with you its a political statement. Political statements need to be as protected as any second amendement right possible.


i am gonna play devils advocate here for a second, how is carrying a unloaded gun going to help defend yourself and others from harm? lets say a bad guy walks into a store with a AR and demands every one get on the ground. the unloaded gun on your hip is only going to escalate the situation further before you have time to load a mag in and try to defend your life. to me open carry in CA is more of a political statement and not so much about self defense.

CitaDeL
04-04-2011, 1:29 PM
Here's a quick draft of my letter to the public safety commitee-

Open to suggestions...

Dear.....

I'm writing you in your capacity as a committee member addressing public safety.

It is my understanding that you will be hearing AB144 on April 12, and I wanted to urge you to put an end to this legislative red herring.

This bill intends to ban the exposed carry of unloaded handguns. I have two takes on this as a 'public safety' concern.

1) An unloaded handgun has about the same effective range and lethality as a carpenters hammer. You see, without ammunition in a position to be fired, the only way one can use an unloaded firearm to impact public safety is to use it as a club.
2) In banning only unloaded handguns, the legislature is leaving a myriad of other weapons (including hammers) as an alternative to carry. This proposed law does not address the exposed carry of long guns such as shotguns and rifles, swords, knives, spears, bows, crossbows, air guns, tasers, tomahawks, hatchets, or pepper spray. If the bill advances and is signed into law, it is easy to conclude that those who choose to carry weapons in plain sight will select one or more from the partial list above to arm themselves with. Those people that are inclined to carry weapons will not be deterred by the elimination of one particular kind of weapon. Law enforcement must give the same attention to armed individuals regardless of whether it is a holstered handgun or a sheathed Khukri or a rifle slung over ones shoulder. This law will have virtually no impact on ensuring public safety.

If the legislature is so limited in scope of what type of weapons they want banned, the only conclusion a reasonable person could arrive at is that they wished to silence the minority of those who chose to carry a handgun for defense.

Thank you for your attention in this matter,

I would also add that instead of emailing letters, that they should be sent via USPS in an 'invitation' or 'thank you card' sized envelope.

Lost.monkey
04-04-2011, 1:34 PM
Here's a quick draft of my letter to the public safety commitee-

Open to suggestions...



I would also add that instead of emailing letters, that they should be sent via USPS in an 'invitation' or 'thank you card' sized envelope.

Roger, wilco. Going out today.

Lost.monkey
04-04-2011, 2:13 PM
Here's a consolidated contact list for all those sitting on the Public Safety Committee:

Tom Ammiano (D-13) - Chairman
District Office:
55 Golden Gate Avenue,
Suite 14300
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone (415) 557-3013
Fax (415) 557-3015
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0013
Tel: (916) 319-2013
Fax: (916) 319-2113
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Steve Knight (R-36) - Vice Chairman
District Office:
41319 12th Street W, Suite 105
Palmdale, CA 93551
(P) (661) 267-7636
(F) (661) 267-7736
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
(P) (916) 319-2036
(F) (916) 319-2136
(916) 319-2036
Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov

Gilbert Cedillo (D-45)
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0045
Tel: (916) 319-2045
Fax: (916) 319-2145
District Office:
360 West Avenue 26, Suite 121
Los Angeles, CA 90031
Tel: (323) 225-4545
Fax: (323)225-4500
Assemblymember.Cedillo@assembly.ca.gov

Curt Hagman (R-60)
District Office
13920 City Center Drive, #260
Chino Hills, CA 91709
(P) (909) 627-7021
(F) (909) 627-1841
Capitol Office
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
(P) 916-319-2060
(F) 916-319-2160
Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Jerry Hill (D-19)
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
Tel: (916) 319-2019
Fax: (916) 319-2119
District Office:
1528 S. El Camino Real
Suite 302
San Mateo, CA 94402
Tel: (650) 349-1900
Fax: (650) 341-4676
Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Holly J. Mitchell (D-47)
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0047
Tel: (916) 319-2047
Fax: (916) 319-2147
District Office:
300 Corporate Pointe,
Suite 380
Culver City, CA 90230
Tel: (310) 342-1070
Fax: (310) 342-1078
Assemblymember.Mitchell@assembly.ca.gov

Nancy Skinner (D-14)
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
Tel: (916) 319-2014
Fax: (916) 319-2114
District Office:
Elihu Harris State Building
1515 Clay Street
Suite 2201
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 286-1400
Fax: (510) 286-1406
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

E-mails - CHECK
Letters to both district and capitol offices - CHECK
Faxes to both district and capitol offices - IN PROGRESS
Phone calls - Back Burner

Lost.monkey
04-07-2011, 3:51 PM
"Dear Mr. XXXXX

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the latest attempt by some in Sacramento to undermine our Second Amendment rights. Your thoughts on this important issue help me to better represent the needs of our district. AB 144 was sent to the Public Safety Committee on February 3, 2011 and will be heard in Committee on April 12, 2011.

Like you, I share your concern about the effect that more gun control measures will have on our state. Government has an important responsibility to help ensure the safety of our families and the health of our environment, but it needs do it in a way that is smart and effective.

What is needed is not more burdensome regulation of lawful gun owners and hunters, but better enforcement of existing laws that target dangerous criminals and put them behind bars where they belong. I believe current efforts by the liberal majority to restrict the activities of law-abiding Californians will do nothing to make us safer and will instead add another layer of red tape.

It is unfortunate that some believe more control is the solutions to our state's problems. Instead of squeezing gun owners and hunters, the state should go after those who have actually hurt people and caused damage to our communities.

I am committed to doing everything I can to uphold the Second Amendment in California and to ensure that your rights are protected. The legislature must do a much better job listening to hunters and gun owners when crafting legislation that can have a negative impact for decades to come.

It is an honor representing you in the Assembly. If I can be of any help in any future state-related matter please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Steve Knight, Assemblyman
36th Assembly District"

OK, so that's 2 for 7, with Knight and Hagman against. Anyone have any luck contacting the rest?

Librarian
04-07-2011, 5:45 PM
Anyone have any luck contacting the rest?

2 Rs have a rational response.

If you get a response from a D on this committee, it will be "I plan to vote for the bill, couldn't care less about the plebs."

CitaDeL
04-11-2011, 3:37 PM
Just a quick bump as a reminder; AB144 will be heard in committee just hours from now. If you havent already contacted the listed assemblymen, please take the time to do so now.