PDA

View Full Version : it begins, open carry ban and rifle registration pass committee


mag360
04-12-2011, 11:35 AM
the public safety commitee's approved ab809 rifle registration and sb144 open carry ban.

(but most of us knew these would pass the committee as they only care about eroding public safety in the name of gun controls, save for Curt Hagman)

haven't heard about sb124 yet.

this is war!

Swiss
04-12-2011, 12:03 PM
Did any Dems *not* vote in favor AB809?

PsychGuy274
04-12-2011, 1:13 PM
I won't be surprised when these pass.

Is the rifle registration going to include rifles that you already own?

C.W.M.V.
04-12-2011, 1:16 PM
Well guess I better buy an AR lower here quick like to finish my 16A1.

beauregard
04-12-2011, 1:18 PM
BS.

Total BS.

Swiss
04-12-2011, 1:24 PM
I spoke w/ Assemblymember Skinner's office. She wasn't in the committee today but the primary reason she supports AB809 is so long guns (as well as handguns) can be removed from the possession of prohibited persons (5150, R.O., felony conviction, etc.).

SenorJefe
04-12-2011, 1:31 PM
So very nice of the felons to comply with state firearm legislation.

:-/

omgwtfbbq
04-12-2011, 1:40 PM
Even more examples of gun legislation that doesn't police the fundamental causes of gun violence. Policing people who comply with established laws does nothing to assuage crime. Felons will illegally possess guns of any kind regardless of a ban because they are criminals. If they had the predisposition to obey the laws in the first place, they wouldn't be owning a firearm at all. To think that criminals will of a sudden comply with a new law despite the fact they were already disobeying a law with the same intent, is completely laughable.

As far as the open carry ban goes, it's the same situation. People to practice UOC do so in compliance with the law, banning it doesn't help the thousands of armed criminals or people looking to engage in criminal activity and violence who carry far more dangerous, illegally possessed, loaded and concealed firearms.

The fear of guns as more than tools that are sometimes used by those operating outside the bounds of law and order to execute violence has grown past the point or restraint. The fear of guns is not of firearms themselves as sources of violence... It's cases like these that make the plight for firearms education and awareness all the more grievous.

speeedracerr
04-12-2011, 1:41 PM
Given that AB809 can remove firearms from prohibited persons i.e. (5150, R.O., felony conviction, etc.), it can also remove firearms from normal everyday law abiding citizens in the future if/when MORE anit-gun legislations are introduced in the future :mad:

Of course Assemblymember Skinner et. Al would have such logic! This is just the beginning to the total gun registration scheme which ultimately will lead to total firearms confiscation!!! Grrrr!

frankm
04-12-2011, 1:46 PM
This is just the beginning to the total gun registration scheme which ultimately will lead to total firearms confiscation!!! Grrrr!

Your post is anti-Revolutionary, comrade.

Swiss
04-12-2011, 1:52 PM
Yep, it sure can. Her district director was pretty candid with me - she feels that while we have a right to bear arms, that right does not preclude the public safety gains that registration will supposedly provide.

Given that AB809 can remove firearms from prohibited persons i.e. (5150, R.O., felony conviction, etc.), it can also remove firearms from normal everyday law abiding citizens in the future if/when MORE anit-gun legislations are introduced in the future :mad:

omgwtfbbq
04-12-2011, 2:02 PM
Yep, it sure can. Her district director was pretty candid with me - she feels that while we have a right to bear arms, that right does not preclude the public safety gains that registration will supposedly provide.

Couldn't agree more with Swiss:

The operative word in the quote is "supposedly". I defy any academic worth his salt to do a scholarly study that would find that requiring rifle registration would cause a meaningful reduction in amount of felons obtaining firearms. Felons are already precluded from owning firearms and yet they get them, just because some new laws says its still illegal doesn't create the necessary condition that less felons will obtain guns.

There still isn't a single scholarly study that can make a case for causation between gun ownership of any kind and gun crime rates. It's a case of legislators who lack the necessary knowledge of the operational mechanics of firearms making decisions on behalf of a public who is either irrationally afraid of guns based on false information. Fixing the problem isn't going to come from changing our government, but by changing the popular perception of firearms.

ocspeedracer
04-12-2011, 2:08 PM
That happens and thats it I will move out of CA

Swiss
04-12-2011, 2:11 PM
Except in this specific case it's not about preventing felons from obtaining them, it's strictly about removing them from persons who lawfully possessed them and now may no longer possess them.

I don't like it but I'm having trouble arguing against it. Who doesn't want the insane bastard down the street to lose his guns after he beats his wife? But we're the one's who pay!

Apparently LE can only lawfully access the reg database (CLEGS??) when responding to a domestic violence call or similar. Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

Couldn't agree more with Swiss:

The operative word in the quote is "supposedly". I defy any academic worth his salt to do a scholarly study that would find that requiring rifle registration would cause a meaningful reduction in amount of felons obtaining firearms. Felons are already precluded from owning firearms and yet they get them, just because some new laws says its still illegal doesn't create the necessary condition that less felons will obtain guns.

There still isn't a single scholarly study that can make a case for causation between gun ownership of any kind and gun crime rates. It's a case of legislators who lack the necessary knowledge of the operational mechanics of firearms making decisions on behalf of a public who is either irrationally afraid of guns based on false information. Fixing the problem isn't going to come from changing our government, but by changing the popular perception of firearms.

Joe
04-12-2011, 2:12 PM
It'll pass.

Just reading the 150th year civil war anniversary thread. It got me thinking. California is not America. America should declare war on us and force us back into the union and force the CA gov to follow the Constitution.

Joe
04-12-2011, 2:12 PM
So very nice of the felons to comply with state firearm legislation.

:-/

It'll work. Felons don't break the law.

omgwtfbbq
04-12-2011, 2:16 PM
I don't like it but I'm having trouble arguing against it. Who doesn't want the insane bastard down the street to lose his guns after he beats his wife? But we're the one's who pay!

As a pragmatist I find it's easy to argue against any type of law that hasn't proven that it is effective. There has been no study showing that gun bans of any type in the US or increased registration like that for handguns has any effect on crime rates or the ability for criminals, including felons to obtain guns. The fact of that matter is that I agree that I don't want that crazy guy down the street to have a gun, but at the same time I'm not naive enough to believe that a law like this is going to keep him from getting one. In fact... he probably already has one.

kneedeep323
04-12-2011, 2:17 PM
Does anyone know When this takes effect?????

Darthbauer
04-12-2011, 2:17 PM
Just reading the 150th year civil war anniversary thread. It got me thinking. California is not America. America should declare war on us and force us back into the union and force the CA gov to follow the Constitution.

+1..

resident-shooter
04-12-2011, 2:21 PM
I welcome the registration of all guns with the further goal of confiscating them and turning this place into a puhliz stayt. :)

gobler
04-12-2011, 2:21 PM
Does anyone know When this takes effect?????

When the legislature votes yes and the governor signs it.

CalBear
04-12-2011, 2:21 PM
As a pragmatist I find it's easy to argue against any type of law that hasn't proven that it is effective. There has been no study showing that gun bans of any type in the US or increased registration like that for handguns has any effect on crime rates or the ability for criminals, including felons to obtain guns. The fact of that matter is that I agree that I don't want that crazy guy down the street to have a gun, but at the same time I'm not naive enough to believe that a law like this is going to keep him from getting one. In fact... he probably already has one.
Agreed. Emotional examples like a felon down the street should be used as the motivating force to enact a law... research and hard evidence should. In the case of registration, I doubt it has done much in the way of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons. At most, some small time DV offenders might get stripped of their guns, but they weren't the ones heading toward homicide to begin with. The really dangerous folks get their guns from the street.

The problem is we're legislating for the worst-case scenario these days, and that almost never works. People are so comfortable with the idea of government harvesting loads of information for "security," so nobody really puts up a fuss. Gun owners always get the shaft first.

Norsemen308
04-12-2011, 2:21 PM
i just dont understand... we had the heller case... the SUPREME COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR, the 2nd amendment right is a INDIVIDUAL right. why do these damn laws keep coming? Didnt the supreme court say... we cannot be infringed?

scarville
04-12-2011, 2:22 PM
It'll work. Felons don't break the law.
Of course not. No felon wants to lose his right to own a gun.

weimarccw
04-12-2011, 2:24 PM
Does anyone know When this takes effect?????

When I read the language in AB809 it appeared to me to be January 1, 2013.

N6ATF
04-12-2011, 2:25 PM
:dupe:

CalBear
04-12-2011, 2:25 PM
Didnt the supreme court say... we cannot be infringed?
Not even close, unfortunately. The courts current hold that constitutionally protected individual rights can be subject to certain restrictions, including removal of rights for certain criminals and mentally unstable people, limits on things like yelling fire in a movie theater, permissibility of reasonable licensing schemes, etc. Only restrictions that substantially violate the individual right will be overturned in court, and it depends on what level of scrutiny we end up with.

Certain laws like gun free school zones, carry bans and possession & firing bans will be easiest to fight in courts for now, but the lower courts still need to be set straight on these.

cruising7388
04-12-2011, 2:26 PM
the public safety commitee's approved ab809 rifle registration and sb144 open carry ban.

(but most of us knew these would pass the committee as they only care about eroding public safety in the name of gun controls, save for Curt Hagman)

haven't heard about sb124 yet.

this is war!

I wonder if this is really bad news. Maybe they are taking it a bridge too far by legislating that you can't carry open and as a practical matter you aren't permitted to carry concealed = you can't keep and bear arms out of your own home, which IMO could be successfully litigated. Maybe they can do one or the other, but both?

barthel
04-12-2011, 2:27 PM
i just dont understand... we had the heller case... the SUPREME COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR, the 2nd amendment right is a INDIVIDUAL right. why do these damn laws keep coming? Didnt the supreme court say... we cannot be infringed?

Because the Supreme Court only covers the United States, it has NO business in the Peoples Republic. :puke:

IGOTDIRT4U
04-12-2011, 2:30 PM
When the legislature votes yes and the governor signs it.

Which leads to my thoughts. Depending on how they structure the registration process, Brown may veto the bill if it creates a bigger department to handle it or costs the state too much. Small chance, but he just may do that.

ubet
04-12-2011, 2:41 PM
Which leads to my thoughts. Depending on how they structure the registration process, Brown may veto the bill if it creates a bigger department to handle it or costs the state too much. Small chance, but he just may do that.

Yeah, he will veto right after my money tree blooms.

C&Rtrader
04-12-2011, 2:44 PM
interesting study: How much will it cost to create and maintain this database? Divide that number by the number of Felons found in possession of a registered firearm. Learn the amount spent to take a LONG GUN away from 1 felon. And we wonder why we are flirting with bankruptcy.

Take that same number (amount needed to maintain and create the database) divide that by an average LEO salary. How many more police could we add to the street? How much crime could they stop?

looks like a great use of money to me. :(

omgwtfbbq
04-12-2011, 2:46 PM
Agreed. Emotional examples like a felon down the street should be used as the motivating force to enact a law... research and hard evidence should. In the case of registration, I doubt it has done much in the way of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons. At most, some small time DV offenders might get stripped of their guns, but they weren't the ones heading toward homicide to begin with. The really dangerous folks get their guns from the street.

In the article "Mass Shootings: the Worst Possible Case For Gun Control" by Rick Ruddel back in 2004 examines the emotional argument surrounding gun control in the context of mass school shootings, which the author defines as an shooting resulting in more than 4 deaths. The author finds that in all cases with the exception of the Columbine massacre in 1999, all shootings were committed with guns that were stolen, not purchased. This is the case with most violent crimes at large as well.

It's definitely an interest read.

ubet
04-12-2011, 2:54 PM
will this ban loc in unincorporated areas as well? Or just inside city limits?

hill billy
04-12-2011, 3:11 PM
Please note that Steve Knight is also on on the PS committee and worked hard to keep these from passing.

repubconserv
04-12-2011, 3:21 PM
:banghead: seems like I am reading crap like this constantly.

I guess it is important to know though.... I mean, law abiding citizens are dangerous, and if they have guns, they might revolt against an ever bigger, stronger, more tyrannical govt.

I'm gonna go watch MSNBC on my telescreen and have some victory gin

eville
04-12-2011, 3:33 PM
gesssh. Don't "our" legislators have more important work to do... like fixing this economy, budget reform, etc. They seem to be working to pass more gun "laws" faster than the courts can work to overturn them...

javalos
04-12-2011, 3:37 PM
the public safety commitee's approved ab809 rifle registration and sb144 open carry ban.

(but most of us knew these would pass the committee as they only care about eroding public safety in the name of gun controls, save for Curt Hagman)

haven't heard about sb124 yet.

this is war!

Called Comrade DeLeon's office and a staffer told me it passed out of committee. Looks like we have a long summer again in Kalifornia with other anti-gun bills.

frankm
04-12-2011, 4:07 PM
Prepare to buy many long arms. Let's see, give to my mom, gives to my siblings, gives to their spouses, gives to their parents and kids, etc., etc.

HondaMasterTech
04-12-2011, 4:12 PM
Rejoice! Breath a sigh of relief as bills of this nature are the death throws of the dying gun-control monster that lived in California. If these pass, Jerry wont sign them.

mag360
04-12-2011, 4:13 PM
I'm going to call Feuer and DeLeon to see what they say if I ask why they don't just have a bill that bans guns for everyone.

OHOD
04-12-2011, 4:22 PM
I've been working with a Realtor to buy some land in Florida. My brother is going to take a look at it this weekend. If the deal goes through, I spend the next 2 years in Kalifornia to save up money for building a house. When that happens I will be moving back home, Florida.

repubconserv
04-12-2011, 4:25 PM
I'm going to call Feuer and DeLeon to see what they say if I ask why they don't just have a bill that bans guns for everyone.

they would say, "That is a wonderful idea, and we are working on it. We appreciate your enthusiasm for the cause." then they would put you on their mailing list

Quser.619
04-12-2011, 4:34 PM
Rejoice! Breath a sigh of relief as bills of this nature are the death throws of the dying gun-control monster that lived in California. If these pass, Jerry wont sign them.

Care to place a wager on this?

HondaMasterTech
04-12-2011, 4:43 PM
Care to place a wager on this?

I won't wager on whether or not Jerry will sign/veto this but I will gladly wager that ten years from now California will be unrecognizable with regards to gun-rights.

CalBear
04-12-2011, 4:44 PM
Care to place a wager on this?
I'd guess he would definitely sign the long gun registration, and probably would sign the OC ban. JB believes we have an individual right to own firearms, and he himself owns guns, but that doesn't mean he won't support strict gun control. My guess is he probably believes registration is a very reasonable measure, and I'd also guess he does not see a problem with banning open carry with a CCW permitting system in place.

TRICKSTER
04-12-2011, 4:48 PM
Besides the constitutional rights issues, this should also be fought on the cost issues. California has a population slightly larger than Canada. Canada's long gun registration has been said to be a total failure and he net annual operating cost of the program is reported to be $66.4 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Can we really afford to spend this kind of money every year on a program that has shown to be a failure when tried elsewhere. This does not even take into account the start up cost for the program.

HondaMasterTech
04-12-2011, 4:49 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to find that Gov Jerry Brown understands the result of Heller and McDonald, agrees with the descision and will act with reflection of that. Politics is a game, he's playing along, if he weren't good at it, he'd have a day job. I think he'll be surprising with his pen.

ojisan
04-12-2011, 4:49 PM
Which leads to my thoughts. Depending on how they structure the registration process, Brown may veto the bill if it creates a bigger department to handle it or costs the state too much. Small chance, but he just may do that.

Naw, gun buyers will just have to pay higher registration fees to fund the bigger department.
:(

smallshot13
04-12-2011, 5:06 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to find that Gov Jerry Brown understands the result of Heller and McDonald, agrees with the descision and will act with reflection of that. Politics is a game, he's playing along, if he weren't good at it, he'd have a day job. I think he'll be surprising with his pen.

Sounds like you and Jerry are really close. Would you do us a favor and not wake him up in the morning, as he has indicated he will call on the public employee unions to bring pressure to bear on extending the one-time-only tax increases that you and he voted for last year. You know, those public employee unions that he said he knew how to handle during the election?

CalBear
04-12-2011, 5:10 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to find that Gov Jerry Brown understands the result of Heller and McDonald, agrees with the descision and will act with reflection of that. Politics is a game, he's playing along, if he weren't good at it, he'd have a day job. I think he'll be surprising with his pen.
I don't. He himself said in the McDonald amicus brief that "California... has been a national leader in passing common-sense legislation to regulate firearms." In the brief, he went on to praise the Unsafe Handgun Act (roster law), and call for clarification from the Supreme Court on what the permissible government regulations entail. Seriously, if he thinks CA has led the nation in passing common sense gun control legislation, there's no way he will veto most, if any of these bills.

Window_Seat
04-12-2011, 5:10 PM
What we will need to do as the large member base of CGF, CRPA, NRA, SAF and the others is all of us (when given the go ahead) to begin bombarding our lawmaker's offices in Sacramento (and the home district offices) AT THE SAME TIME, MULTIPLE TIMES PER DAY...

When last year's OC bill and registration bill was very active, we called, and the staff was literally pulling their hair out because their offices were getting so many calls per hour. The phones were literally ringing OFF THE HOOK. We need to double, or even better, TRIPLE the amount of phone calls when this happens, and MAKE SURE that NO ONE ELSE gets through when these begin to move. This is the only way.

Erik.

Icypu
04-12-2011, 5:14 PM
Besides the constitutional rights issues, this should also be fought on the cost issues. California has a population slightly larger than Canada. Canada's long gun registration has been said to be a total failure and he net annual operating cost of the program is reported to be $66.4 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Can we really afford to spend this kind of money every year on a program that has shown to be a failure when tried elsewhere. This does not even take into account the start up cost for the program.

Do you have a good article on Canada's failed long gun registration? I think it would be good to present this evidence as a case study for our California politicians. I do envy Canadians as they are allowed to own Semi Tavor Tar-21s and 14" bbl Shotguns.

SanPedroShooter
04-12-2011, 5:31 PM
Is there a link to the audio or video of the committee meetings? I have watched it before. I found an audio link on the assembly home page, but its not working.

HondaMasterTech
04-12-2011, 5:35 PM
I don't. He himself said in the McDonald amicus brief that "California... has been a national leader in passing common-sense legislation to regulate firearms." In the brief, he went on to praise the Unsafe Handgun Act (roster law), and call for clarification from the Supreme Court on what the permissible government regulations entail. Seriously, if he thinks CA has led the nation in passing common sense gun control legislation, there's no way he will veto most, if any of these bills.

If he said anything different his chances of getting democratic support would have been affected. Like I said, he's playing the game.

TRICKSTER
04-12-2011, 5:35 PM
Do you have a good article on Canada's failed long gun registration? I think it would be good to present this evidence as a case study for our California politicians. I do envy Canadians as they are allowed to own Semi Tavor Tar-21s and 14" bbl Shotguns.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/long-gun-registry-canada-history-operation-and-debates#canada
http://dev.armspolicyresearch.net/featured-articles/53/

safewaysecurity
04-12-2011, 5:37 PM
Didn't the courts already say it's ILLEGAL to charge criminals for not registering their guns because it would be self-incrimination? This only effects law abiding citizens.

Brickman
04-12-2011, 5:57 PM
Besides the constitutional rights issues, this should also be fought on the cost issues. California has a population slightly larger than Canada. Canada's long gun registration has been said to be a total failure and he net annual operating cost of the program is reported to be $66.4 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Can we really afford to spend this kind of money every year on a program that has shown to be a failure when tried elsewhere. This does not even take into account the start up cost for the program.

This. This is an excellent, measurable, quantifiable, solid argument against this bill.

We should all mail a copy of this information to our state representatives. In this economy, given the state of the state's finances, it would be foolish and irresponsible to proceed with this legislation.

SanPedroShooter
04-12-2011, 6:00 PM
here is a link to listen to the committee meeting. I cant get it to work, if someone else can, please let me know.

http://192.234.214.75/ASM-126

its from here
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/committee_hearings/defaulttext.asp

maybe they havent uploaded it yet

bg
04-12-2011, 6:04 PM
What guns ?

Apocalypsenerd
04-12-2011, 6:16 PM
So if this passes, do we need to register existing guns, or will they only register new purchases?

Also, does this affect C&R?

safewaysecurity
04-12-2011, 6:19 PM
So if this passes, do we need to register existing guns, or will they only register new purchases?

Also, does this affect C&R?

I believe it's only on all guns transferred or purchased after jan 1st 2013. Kinda like the handgun registration scheme. It's not illegal to have an unregistered handgun you just have to register all the ones you buy.

ubet
04-12-2011, 6:58 PM
HMT, I sure hope your right, but Im not holding my breath.

For as bad as this is, if that ****ed up ammo bill gets through, we are ALL screwed.

crackerman
04-12-2011, 6:58 PM
Rejoice! Breath a sigh of relief as bills of this nature are the death throws of the dying gun-control monster that lived in California. If these pass, Jerry wont sign them.

I hope you are right, but I believe you are high on this one. JB will term out in 8 years we will be stuck with Gavin Newsom and you're right CA will not be the same in 10 years. JB will have signed every bill that the crap legislature gives him and eventually guns will be banned by default as CA moves to a New York City or England model.

despite that I will be in the NRA, give to CGF when I can, help where I can, educate who I can, etc.

But I do think the best endgame for my personal gunrights is to move. :(

FeuerFrei
04-12-2011, 7:01 PM
This will pass even if it costs billions we don't have.
We will shake our clenched fists in the air...and collectively bend over for it.
Our rights are in the hands of JB. Crap! :cuss:
The clowns are still running this once proud and prosperous state into a wall. :banghead:
God help us all. In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti.

Inoxmark
04-12-2011, 7:36 PM
Also, does this affect C&R?Yes, among other things it removes C&R PPT exemption for long guns, they would have to be transferred through FFL.

Those with C&R license with COE (have to have both) could purchase without FFL01 involvement, but still would have to register the gun with DOJ.

G60
04-12-2011, 7:44 PM
Rejoice! Breath a sigh of relief as bills of this nature are the death throws of the dying gun-control monster that lived in California. If these pass, Jerry wont sign them.

They can still become law without his signature =(
What are the odds on a veto?

TMC
04-12-2011, 7:59 PM
I font understand all this gun legislation. Why don't they just make a law that you can't kill anyone? That would solve everything.

sfpcservice
04-12-2011, 8:06 PM
How's about CGF, SAF and NRA get some adds on tv talking about the racist nature of gun control going back to the 1923? (current) CCW laws? Oh yeah, don't leave out the part about it being a Civil Right too.

NytWolf
04-12-2011, 9:31 PM
America should declare war on us and force us back into the union and force the CA gov to follow the Constitution.

+1000000000

CA is becoming a bastard of the rest of the U.S. of A.

Theseus
04-12-2011, 9:33 PM
Except in this specific case it's not about preventing felons from obtaining them, it's strictly about removing them from persons who lawfully possessed them and now may no longer possess them.

I don't like it but I'm having trouble arguing against it. Who doesn't want the insane bastard down the street to lose his guns after he beats his wife? But we're the one's who pay!

Apparently LE can only lawfully access the reg database (CLEGS??) when responding to a domestic violence call or similar. Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

I can say why I am against it. . . Just because a person beats their wife, doesn't mean that they don't deserve tools of self-defense as well.

I had a friend where his girlfriend came home drunk and violent and started beating him in his sleep. . . dude ran in the bathroom to get away from her and even though she was banging the door down with some candle sticks as the police arrived, since she got a bruise from when he blocked her punches he went to jail and she didn't. - Too much wrong with our system for me to allow registration of any kind.

Besides, we aren't talking about people that beat their wives, we are talking about any person that finds themselves on the wrong end of a RO or false DV charge.


How's about CGF, SAF and NRA get some adds on tv talking about the racist nature of gun control going back to the 1923? (current) CCW laws? Oh yeah, don't leave out the part about it being a Civil Right too.

I will tell you why. Although not a true statement in all cases, many of the majority of anti-gun people I know are closet racists. The ideal that crime is caused by Mexicans and black people is something that resonates and creates fear in the people. Besides, they are poor and need societies protection. . . we are doing this to protect them.

IncVoid
04-12-2011, 9:44 PM
I really am ignorant to who represents me.
I can plug my address in here, and that is who I could call and write, to voice my opinion.
http://www.asmdc.org/en/find-your-representative

That is the people we are talking about calling and voicing opinions correct?


It just seems that it's a way of making dros data for all guns "stick around" now.

California registers people as non firearm owners (felons)...not this long gun cannot be owned by people, we knew that already because of existing laws, we have to go through an ffl, cannot lend to prohibited people.
Sounds like a money sponge, our money, charging us money so they can convert and keep the dros data.

On a similar note, registration of handguns/rifle.
If I have a handgun registered to me as required by california, why is there a waiting period? I have a handgun already, i'm not detained or charged with crimes(require instant check). If I want to sell that handgun to somebody that has a rifle registered to him, why is there a waiting period? We have means to do illegal things already, so why do we have to wait? Shouldn't this registration, the fact we are out of jail with a clean record, get rid of the waiting period?



The state of california knows my father is a felon and cannot possess ANY firearm, regardless of whether it is registered or not.
Seems they are just trying to make felons out of people that fail to register.

Jump through my hoop or your a felon.

tenpercentfirearms
04-12-2011, 9:49 PM
I need to sell my post Obama panic over stock lowers. Start a new long gun registration panic! :eek:

DisgruntledReaper
04-12-2011, 9:56 PM
SERIOUSLY NEED TO NUKE this place from orbit........I will not be registering any thing I already own....I may send a bag o crap to every member in that worthless building up north or call and tell them all to ****** off and hope they die a slow painful death.......and then when I move and my family gets pissed,specially mom,I will sick her on the douches in BALL-SACramento..

too bad a tsunami cant reach that far in..love to have an act of nature sweep all of them out to sea........

DisgruntledReaper
04-12-2011, 9:59 PM
oh yea,everyone better take a look at Antique firearms....

ColdDeadHands1
04-12-2011, 10:02 PM
One thing is for sure, when these laws pass the legislature and end up on JB's desk we will find out if all the Calgunners pushing so hard for his election were right or not. He will either stand up for us and veto the bills or he will do what is expected of him and sign away. We'll see.

Colt-45
04-12-2011, 10:08 PM
Excuse me but,

AGAIN?!:mad::mad:

Weren't these already terminated ONCE last year?

Lets make a law that you can't bring up the same law over and over and over.:mad::mad:

tenpercentfirearms
04-12-2011, 10:11 PM
Lets make a law that you can't bring up the same law over and over and over.:mad::mad:

Seriously. That is how those people eventually got their civil rights laws passed! The country hasn't been the same ever since! :rolleyes:

If you don't like the laws, quit electing the people that make them!

TRICKSTER
04-12-2011, 10:15 PM
It's quite simple, we can't afford the cost of implementing such a system. Canada has already show that this registration doesn't work and is just a burden on on the taxpayer. What social programs will be cut to fund this. How many seniors and children will go hungry. Those supporting this bill just want people to starve. Do you really want people to starve just so we can have some type of long gun registration that does nothing to stop crime? Sound familiar. :D

Bobby Hated
04-12-2011, 10:18 PM
careful who you shack up with fellas. that drama queen you call your better half could cost you big!

if your woman screams during a fight, threatens to call the cops, threatens violence, accuses you of threatening her, breaks things during a fight, etc... leave her yesterday or catch a DV and RO tomorrow.

no woman is worth my guns. i dont know about you.

IncVoid
04-12-2011, 10:30 PM
I did some thinking. It's easier to list firearms than people. But I thought people had to be listed as legally clean citizens to buy the firearms in the first place! I am registered, not my firearm!
My job isn't an FFL. This make me have to goto an FFL to wash my name off a firearm now when selling it. But, that is already existing law right?

I know this, tried to sell a shotgun to a friend, 10 days later I was paying the 35$ to get the firearm back. They do a check on me as a seller. Now If It's registered to me, I shouldn't have to pay that fee, because it's already mine, the background check is the registration. If not, they'd have warrants out for my arrest, also auto tack on possession of a firearm after not giving it up in the 24 or 48 hours of being charged. The registration should at least speed up the background check process. I understand FFLS are not law enforcement.

Do rifles have to be registered to be reported stolen? Basically the name attached to the rifle vanishes when the dros does? So reporting a rifle stolen isn't going to put a number into a system that LEO can lookup? But a registered one can be looked up?

Handguns already registered when bought correct?
They'd make every rifle a handgun without the 1 per 30 day requirement.

But since we would all be registered firearm owners, out of jail, no criminal record, can't we at least lose the 10 day waiting period? Registration proves I have a firearm already, Whether I buy another one or not isn't going to affect what I do with the one already possessed by me? At least 10 days on your first, after that...no more waiting? They know I have firearms, haven't served any warrants, why wait?

If I did something wrong, they'd mark me saying I have warrants and the instant background check would show it.
It might be hard to mark somebody as "out on bail awaiting trial" for privacy reasons, but still, don't release somebody on bail until the database reflects that they cannot buy any other firearms.
I can see "the system is down, we can't release you yet because the database isn't updated.



I do understand these are the people that do not want us to have any firearms at all. Certainly not ease how hard it is to purchase one.

Yugo
04-12-2011, 10:36 PM
im new to guns and laws and the whole bit. can some one explain in laymens turms this to me? register guns I already have? or going to buy? :shrug:

N6ATF
04-12-2011, 10:37 PM
It'll pass.

Just reading the 150th year civil war anniversary thread. It got me thinking. California is not America. America should declare war on us and force us back into the union and force the CA gov to follow the Constitution.

I will gladly become a traitor to my birth state if the 49 United States of America go to war with the seceded state of CA.

DannyInSoCal
04-12-2011, 10:45 PM
The solution is simple:

NRA donates $25 Million in small bills to various union officials - And the politicians will do as they are told...

AyatollahGondola
04-12-2011, 10:46 PM
I can say why I am against it. . . Just because a person beats their wife, doesn't mean that they don't deserve tools of self-defense as well.

I had a friend where his girlfriend came home drunk and violent and started beating him in his sleep. . . dude ran in the bathroom to get away from her and even though she was banging the door down with some candle sticks as the police arrived, since she got a bruise from when he blocked her punches he went to jail and she didn't. - Too much wrong with our system for me to allow registration of any kind.

Besides, we aren't talking about people that beat their wives, we are talking about any person that finds themselves on the wrong end of a RO or false DV charge. .
Amen to that one. Restraining orders and domestic violence charges are some of the worst cases to sort out aggressors from victims, and often it's mutual combat. The police are often looking to take someone out of the situation because that usually insures that they won't have to return a few hours later for a repeat. If someone goes downtown, that's going to weigh on them if the other party presses for a TRO. Do you think the issue of a person's 2nd amendment rights, or concern for their personal safety is going to be high on the considerations list while the judge decides whether to issue a TRO on him or her?

I will tell you why. Although not a true statement in all cases, many of the majority of anti-gun people I know are closet racists. Yikes! closet racists....

AyatollahGondola
04-12-2011, 10:56 PM
careful who you shack up with fellas. that drama queen you call your better half could cost you big!

if your woman screams during a fight, threatens to call the cops, threatens violence, accuses you of threatening her, breaks things during a fight, etc... leave her yesterday or catch a DV and RO tomorrow.

no woman is worth my guns. i dont know about you.

Now, now...
Gay men get TRO's too. I have heard many a boast by my fellows in regards to their independence, but I've also come to understand we don't really mean it. When lonliness sets in, you'll risk your wallet, your food, your pets, and your rifle to make it go away. No man's an island, and most woman are great.

C.W.M.V.
04-12-2011, 11:19 PM
...no woman is worth my guns. i dont know about you.

Wow, this type of mindset really surprises me. This is just crazy talk. Id give up every firearm I own, and forfeit all that I will own if it came down to them or my wife.
I'm sad for you that you've not known that type of closeness.

AyatollahGondola
04-12-2011, 11:26 PM
Wow, this type of mindset really surprises me. This is just crazy talk.

Be that as it may, this is the way we are. We are always saying things we don't really mean
I'm never going to drink again...
I am quitting this job....
when they pry it from my cold dead hands...

Yugo
04-12-2011, 11:28 PM
theres no one online that can explain this?

racky
04-12-2011, 11:32 PM
3 words: Tragic Boating Accident

RRangel
04-13-2011, 3:51 AM
I'm going to call Feuer and DeLeon to see what they say if I ask why they don't just have a bill that bans guns for everyone.

You know these radicals would if they could. It's just easier for them to do it incrementally instead of all at once.

I will say that gun owners need to get on this at once. These people need to hear from us.

tenpercentfirearms
04-13-2011, 6:04 AM
3 words: Tragic Boating Accident

I am sure this was said with some humor, but just in case it wasn't, this is my absolute favorite line of reasoning.

So when the UN invades and goes door to door looking for guns, they roll up to your house and ask for your guns. You tell them you lost them. They believe you and go to the next house.

Wrong! They arrest you, take you to the concentration camp, and torture you. Maybe they just execute you. Either way, your lies won't work and your truth won't work either.

When it is time to bury your guns, it is time to dig them up and use them.

The only thing that cracks me up more than this are the people who think they are off the grid by not having any "registered" guns. Yet they get a hunting license and hunt deer every year. The government will never use that database to collect "trouble makers" either.

They definitely won't confiscate the business records of your most popular online retailers. No way. MidwayUSA, Brownells, Bud's Guns, Cabelas, etc.

I am not for registration as it is simply unnecessary. However, I have no problem letting the government know I own firearms and I want them to know the 2nd Amendment and the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence are the reason I own them. Their role for hunting, sport shooting, and defense from criminals are all secondary purposes.

mag360
04-13-2011, 6:06 AM
how can we break out of the mold of just having the dedicated shooting enthusiasts protest these actions? Where's the constitutional fans, the civil liberties junkies? We need to get them on board or start doing a lot more because simply calling offices is never enough. Donate money to anyone running against DeLeon and Feuer will be a start, make damn sure they know why we are in support.

JaeFern
04-13-2011, 6:07 AM
I am sure this was said with some humor, but just in case it wasn't, this is my absolute favorite line of reasoning.

So when the UN invades and goes door to door looking for guns, they roll up to your house and ask for your guns. You tell them you lost them. They believe you and go to the next house.

Wrong! They arrest you, take you to the concentration camp, and torture you. Maybe they just execute you. Either way, your lies won't work and your truth won't work either.

When it is time to bury your guns, it is time to dig them up and use them.

The only thing that cracks me up more than this are the people who think they are off the grid by not having any "registered" guns. Yet they get a hunting license and hunt deer every year. The government will never use that database to collect "trouble makers" either.

They definitely won't confiscate the business records of your most popular online retailers. No way. MidwayUSA, Brownells, Bud's Guns, Cabelas, etc.

I am not for registration as it is simply unnecessary. However, I have no problem letting the government know I own firearms and I want them to know the 2nd Amendment and the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence are the reason I own them. Their role for hunting, sport shooting, and defense from criminals are all secondary purposes.

Well said sir, very well said. /clap

ScottB
04-13-2011, 6:36 AM
Time to force a constitutional convention on CA. As gun owners and hunters we have nothing to lose.

And if they do pass, I bet Jerry signs them - unless he has a compelling political cost/benefit reason not to.

ubet
04-13-2011, 6:45 AM
Can "normal" ca just invade SF, and LA, kick them out of the state, and let them have their own little gay fern gully orgy and leave the rest of ca alone?

watsonville
04-13-2011, 6:52 AM
damn this sucks and i am coming up for my 21st in may i was looking forward to uoc in watsonville with a few buddies thanks deleon

glockman19
04-13-2011, 7:04 AM
I've been working with a Realtor to buy some land in Florida. My brother is going to take a look at it this weekend. If the deal goes through, I spend the next 2 years in Kalifornia to save up money for building a house. When that happens I will be moving back home, Florida.

My wife is fron FL...Hollywood...

I am seriously looking into doing the same. We can move in with my mother-in-law.

javalos
04-13-2011, 7:16 AM
How they voted:

Senate Public Safety Committee -SB 124

Senator Loni Hancock (D-9), Chairman-Yes
Senator Joel Anderson (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Senator Ron Calderon (D-30)-Yes
Senator Tom Harman (R-35)-No
Senator Carol Liu (D-21)-Yes
Senator Curren Price (D-26)-Yes
Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6), President pro Tem-Yes



Assembly Public Safety Committee –AB 144

Tom Ammiano (D-13), Chairman-Yes
Steve Knight (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Gilbert Cedillo (D-45)-Yes
Curt Hagman (R-60)-No
Jerry Hill (D-19)-Yes
Holly J. Mitchell (D-47)-Yes
Nancy Skinner (D-14)-Yes



Assembly Public Safety Committee – AB 809

Tom Ammiano (D-13), Chairman-Yes
Steve Knight (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Gilbert Cedillo (D-45)-Yes
Curt Hagman (R-60)-ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING (what happened??)
Jerry Hill (D-19)-Yes
Holly J. Mitchell (D-47)-Yes
Nancy Skinner (D-14)-Yes

All bills referred to Appropriation Committees

goodlookin1
04-13-2011, 7:31 AM
I am sure this was said with some humor, but just in case it wasn't, this is my absolute favorite line of reasoning.

So when the UN invades and goes door to door looking for guns, they roll up to your house and ask for your guns. You tell them you lost them. They believe you and go to the next house.

Wrong! They arrest you, take you to the concentration camp, and torture you. Maybe they just execute you. Either way, your lies won't work and your truth won't work either.

When it is time to bury your guns, it is time to dig them up and use them.

The only thing that cracks me up more than this are the people who think they are off the grid by not having any "registered" guns. Yet they get a hunting license and hunt deer every year. The government will never use that database to collect "trouble makers" either.

They definitely won't confiscate the business records of your most popular online retailers. No way. MidwayUSA, Brownells, Bud's Guns, Cabelas, etc.

I am not for registration as it is simply unnecessary. However, I have no problem letting the government know I own firearms and I want them to know the 2nd Amendment and the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence are the reason I own them. Their role for hunting, sport shooting, and defense from criminals are all secondary purposes.

- If you've opened the door and let them into your house, you've already lost.

- If they break down the door and you're not shooting back, you've already lost.

- If the UN invades the US and nobody rises up and fights, we've already lost.


There is little else that would cause all Americans to rise up together as one than an invasion by a foreign entity on our soil! Yet the sheeple would largely be willing to give up their guns if it was our own government knocking on the door. I say "largely" in a general sense because many groups/people would surely go down with a fight, but the masses would rather be peaceful about it. But I will go as far to say that the day the gov't comes knocking down doors to collect weapons is the day that they invalidated the constitution. The day they invalidate the constitution is the day that "our government" is NO LONGER "our government" and becomes a tyrannical entity which would need to be disposed

I dont think any of this happens without a complete collapse/anarchy (which one day may come).

MultiCaliber
04-13-2011, 7:31 AM
Well, I sense a true test of Jerry's frugal ways coming when these bills hit his desk, as we know they probably will. I don't think any of them wouldn't cost the state any money, just to implement, then there's the money battling it out in the courts after. Ugh.

resident-shooter
04-13-2011, 8:25 AM
Here, here. I'm up for a fight against the anti-gunners. Just because the bills have moved into from the Public Safety Committee to the Appropriations committee is no reason to throw in the towel..remember..never confuse a single defeat with a final defeat.

Exactly my point. Remember how far AB 962 got? Well, it failed because we stepped in. However, before it was defeated, how many people ran around waving their arms and histerically screaming about moving out of cali, need for a revolt, etc etc etc? Many....

CalBear
04-13-2011, 8:37 AM
Yup. It's not how you win fights. Don't concede and move out of state, unless you have some other reason driving you. As for these bills, there's still LOTS of time left in the legislative session. The guys in Sacramento will work their magic, and these may not make it through. We'll see. If they do, the governor may veto them. We'll see. If OC ban gets through, we may get shall issue CCW. We'll see. Again, nothing is over at this point. These are just out of committee, and we knew that would happen.

OleCuss
04-13-2011, 9:06 AM
Brown mostly fills me with disgust. But it is not a done deal that he will sign off on long-gun registration.

But never overestimate the intelligence of a politician (and it is horribly easy to do).

OK, OK, maybe they're not really all that stupid on average. But the combination of intellect, wisdom, a devotion to liberty, and the courage to do the right thing - is not at all common in the political ranks.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-13-2011, 9:10 AM
Rejoice! Breath a sigh of relief as bills of this nature are the death throws of the dying gun-control monster that lived in California. If these pass, Jerry wont sign them.


I believe this to be true. That he is (referring to your other post) playing the game of politics.

Still, sending him info on the cost of the Canadian fiasco couldn't hurt. :)




And this is the correct attitude to have. OF COURSE they passed in committee. The fanatics run the committee. NOW is when the fight begins. The Dems who aren't fanatics should be getting the cost info about the Canadian fiasco as well. Info about the cost of fighting this should be sent north as well. Along with copies of Heller, McDonald & a reminder that JB wrote his own Brief in support of McDonald. This isn't a loss. Its an opportunity. Played right, this won't lead to bad, it'll lead to an even greater good.


SERIOUSLY NEED TO NUKE this place from orbit........I will not be registering any thing I already own....I may send a bag o crap to every member in that worthless building up north or call and tell them all to ****** off and hope they die a slow painful death.......and then when I move and my family gets pissed,specially mom,I will sick her on the douches in BALL-SACramento..

too bad a tsunami cant reach that far in..love to have an act of nature sweep all of them out to sea........


Actually, since it is a sea port, & judging from the footage that I've seen from Japan, there's no reason at all that a tsunami couldn't reach all the way to Sacramento & remove this pestilence from our soil.

Not that I would wish for such a thing.

Of course.


The Raisuli

Wherryj
04-13-2011, 9:16 AM
Here, here. I'm up for a fight against the anti-gunners. Just because the bills have moved into from the Public Safety Committee to the Appropriations committee is no reason to throw in the towel..remember..never confuse a single defeat with a final defeat.

The caveat is never consider a previous victory as the final victory. These clowns will continue to push these bills as long as there are voters inane enough to vote them into office.

The good news is that it appears that groups like the SAF and GCF have helped to better organize the fight. It isn't only the NRA taking all comers anymore.

tleeocinca
04-13-2011, 9:43 AM
It really amazes me that people truly think getting OC banned will likely loosen the current laws on CCW. The goal here is to eliminate guns in public period. It doesn't matter if it is UOC, LOC, CCW, the anti's in California want all gun right taken away so they will not take away one and then give you another. I will say it again, they are working to take all gun rights away

WokMaster1
04-13-2011, 9:44 AM
Hope the NRA would take this & unleash an all out campaign against these politicians.

BluNorthern
04-13-2011, 9:52 AM
Time to get serious about my CCW permit here for the interim. My better half is definitely getting serious in agreement with my view that another State would be preferable to this one...it is and has been in a downward spiral for decades and it is not going to turn around. The gun grabbing efforts are not going to stop here, and that is just one of many problems that unfortunately are part of the status quo and are not going to change. We're not getting any younger, and I'm weary of beating my head against the wall.

mcsoupman
04-13-2011, 10:02 AM
Time to release the minions boys

Glock22Fan
04-13-2011, 10:27 AM
How they voted:

Senate Public Safety Committee -SB 124

Senator Loni Hancock (D-9), Chairman-Yes
Senator Joel Anderson (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Senator Ron Calderon (D-30)-Yes
Senator Tom Harman (R-35)-No
Senator Carol Liu (D-21)-Yes
Senator Curren Price (D-26)-Yes
Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6), President pro Tem-Yes



Assembly Public Safety Committee –AB 144

Tom Ammiano (D-13), Chairman-Yes
Steve Knight (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Gilbert Cedillo (D-45)-Yes
Curt Hagman (R-60)-No
Jerry Hill (D-19)-Yes
Holly J. Mitchell (D-47)-Yes
Nancy Skinner (D-14)-Yes



Assembly Public Safety Committee – AB 809

Tom Ammiano (D-13), Chairman-Yes
Steve Knight (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Gilbert Cedillo (D-45)-Yes
Curt Hagman (R-60)-ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING (what happened??)
Jerry Hill (D-19)-Yes
Holly J. Mitchell (D-47)-Yes
Nancy Skinner (D-14)-Yes

All bills referred to Appropriation Committees

Where are those idiots on this board who are always telling us that Republicans are just as likely to vote against guns as Democrats? Instead of analysing Ahnold and other governors, here's the real nitty gritty, from the people that actually make the laws.

As far as I can see, 100% of the dems voted in favor and 100% of the (voting) R's voted against. Don't know what Curt Hagman was up to that day, but I am sure he would have been a "No" had he voted.

I know there are dems on our side, and republicans who aren't, but when it comes down to generalizations, dems are not our friends.

mag360
04-13-2011, 10:34 AM
citizen roadblocks into the capital for their anti constitutional voting!

Glock22Fan
04-13-2011, 10:47 AM
citizen roadblocks into the capital for their anti constitutional voting!

The problem we have here in California is that well over 50% of the population WANTS them to vote against the Second Amendment.

N6ATF
04-13-2011, 10:49 AM
That's what they want us to believe. We need to cure Battered Gun Owner Syndrome.

Amacias805
04-13-2011, 10:54 AM
even if this were to pass, i don't see how they would realistically register long guns, and maintain those records, let alone register retroactively... the feds dont do it because its too much work for them, so they make the dealers maintain them, until the deal goes out of business....

mag360
04-13-2011, 10:57 AM
true Steve knight is a friend of ours. The prob is with Ammiano and Skinner. Why are they even on this committee?? The 2 most anti constitution liberals besides DeLeon in the state. Ammiano's site says he stands up for civil liberties... Just not the 2nd amendment, it's different.

mag360
04-13-2011, 10:59 AM
k well I want a bill that bans anyone who pays no taxes from voting. Prob unconstitutional, but hey in 10 years when the courts figure it out we weeded out all the bleeding hearts from the poor parts of the state.

macey109
04-13-2011, 11:00 AM
registration is a scam to get your money- I doubt most things even hit a database, just a check cashing exercise.

I bought a papoose- after sales tax and DROS the govt got over 20% OF THE PROCEEDS!!!!

a1c
04-13-2011, 11:08 AM
i just dont understand... we had the heller case... the SUPREME COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR, the 2nd amendment right is a INDIVIDUAL right. why do these damn laws keep coming? Didnt the supreme court say... we cannot be infringed?

The proponents of that proposed legislation will argue that this would not infringe on your rights to keep or bear arms.

Don't forget also that even Scalia said that states can impose "reasonable" restrictions. SCOTUS didn't say that no gun control legislation should be passed anymore.

Lost.monkey
04-13-2011, 11:10 AM
The laws that are tolerable, we tolerate.

The laws that are intolerable, we ignore. This is a right as a free citizen, perhaps we begin exercising them. Flood the system.

The only way to win, is not to play.

ubet
04-13-2011, 11:46 AM
I guess my question got missed. What about loc outside of city limits? How is this going to affect loc in unincorporated areas?

Swiss
04-13-2011, 12:36 PM
Where did you get this info? Skinner wasn't there (a substitute was assigned), Hagman was away, and the votes for AB809 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/ab_809_vote_20110412_000001_asm_comm.html) were as follows:

UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: AB 809
AUTHOR: Feuer
TOPIC: Firearms.
DATE: 04/12/2011
LOCATION: ASM. PUB. S.
MOTION: Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
(AYES 5. NOES 1.) (PASS)


AYES
****

Ammiano Cedillo Hill Mitchell
Yamada


NOES
****

Knight


ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************

Hagman


How they voted:

Senate Public Safety Committee -SB 124

Senator Loni Hancock (D-9), Chairman-Yes
Senator Joel Anderson (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Senator Ron Calderon (D-30)-Yes
Senator Tom Harman (R-35)-No
Senator Carol Liu (D-21)-Yes
Senator Curren Price (D-26)-Yes
Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6), President pro Tem-Yes



Assembly Public Safety Committee –AB 144

Tom Ammiano (D-13), Chairman-Yes
Steve Knight (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Gilbert Cedillo (D-45)-Yes
Curt Hagman (R-60)-No
Jerry Hill (D-19)-Yes
Holly J. Mitchell (D-47)-Yes
Nancy Skinner (D-14)-Yes



Assembly Public Safety Committee – AB 809

Tom Ammiano (D-13), Chairman-Yes
Steve Knight (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Gilbert Cedillo (D-45)-Yes
Curt Hagman (R-60)-ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING (what happened??)
Jerry Hill (D-19)-Yes
Holly J. Mitchell (D-47)-Yes
Nancy Skinner (D-14)-Yes

All bills referred to Appropriation Committees

Colt-45
04-13-2011, 7:04 PM
Seriously. That is how those people eventually got their civil rights laws passed! The country hasn't been the same ever since! :rolleyes:

If you don't like the laws, quit electing the people that make them!

No I don't elect those idiots. Unfortunately, were a minority in California and they get elected anyway.

And in my comment, I meant it in terms of firearm laws.:D It's getting very annoying that the same laws keep coming up year after year after year. They were already brought down ONCE why have to do it time after time and time again!

Librarian
04-13-2011, 7:54 PM
It's getting very annoying that the same laws keep coming up year after year after year. They were already brought down ONCE why have to do it time after time and time again!
Are there still guns in the hands of the mob?

Then we're not done! More laws!

Ding126
04-13-2011, 8:26 PM
Can the Gov JB veto these bills?

ubet
04-13-2011, 8:36 PM
yes, will he? I aint holding my breath

IncVoid
04-13-2011, 9:12 PM
I see how stupid I am, I don't recognize any of my names.
When I tried to figure out who represents me I got Bill Berryhill as Assembly Member, and Lois Wolk as Senator. Since these names aren't on the list.
It is because they aren't on the Public Safety Committee?
So they vote after the Committee says "we need to look into this?"

How they voted:

Senate Public Safety Committee -SB 124

Senator Loni Hancock (D-9), Chairman-Yes
Senator Joel Anderson (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Senator Ron Calderon (D-30)-Yes
Senator Tom Harman (R-35)-No
Senator Carol Liu (D-21)-Yes
Senator Curren Price (D-26)-Yes
Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6), President pro Tem-Yes



Assembly Public Safety Committee –AB 144

Tom Ammiano (D-13), Chairman-Yes
Steve Knight (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Gilbert Cedillo (D-45)-Yes
Curt Hagman (R-60)-No
Jerry Hill (D-19)-Yes
Holly J. Mitchell (D-47)-Yes
Nancy Skinner (D-14)-Yes



Assembly Public Safety Committee – AB 809

Tom Ammiano (D-13), Chairman-Yes
Steve Knight (R-36), Vice Chairman-No
Gilbert Cedillo (D-45)-Yes
Curt Hagman (R-60)-ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING (what happened??)
Jerry Hill (D-19)-Yes
Holly J. Mitchell (D-47)-Yes
Nancy Skinner (D-14)-Yes

All bills referred to Appropriation Committees

C.W.M.V.
04-13-2011, 9:16 PM
Can the Gov JB veto these bills?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Librarian
04-13-2011, 9:38 PM
Can the Gov JB veto these bills?
Can.

Have to get through both houses of the legislature first.

We'll find out June-ish.

Colt-45
04-13-2011, 10:38 PM
Are there still guns in the hands of the mob?

Then we're not done! More laws!

In that case well need to pass laws in other countries, the countries that supply the mob with all the NFA goodies.:D ban ban ban :43:

Seeker
04-14-2011, 12:25 AM
What we will need to do as the large member base of CGF, CRPA, NRA, SAF and the others is all of us (when given the go ahead) to begin bombarding our lawmaker's offices in Sacramento (and the home district offices) AT THE SAME TIME, MULTIPLE TIMES PER DAY...

When last year's OC bill and registration bill was very active, we called, and the staff was literally pulling their hair out because their offices were getting so many calls per hour. The phones were literally ringing OFF THE HOOK. We need to double, or even better, TRIPLE the amount of phone calls when this happens, and MAKE SURE that NO ONE ELSE gets through when these begin to move. This is the only way.

Erik.

Im down!:punk:

jnojr
04-14-2011, 8:05 AM
Can the Gov JB veto these bills?

He can, in that, if they reach his desk, he absolutely has the power to do so.

However, "can" he, politically? I doubt it. Not with the state's huge budget problems... he's going to need all the political capital he can muster up to gain Democratic support for trimming projects near and dear to their constituents' hearts. I doubt he'll waste that capital on defending vetoing a bill he is not 100% opposed to.

I think a lot of "single issue" voters are going to find out they were worrying about the wrong issue. Jerry is not "anti-gun", but that does not make him "pro-gun".

Ahh well. Maybe one day California voters will learn their lesson. Or decide to opt out of the results of the increasingly-stilted state elections. Or maybe an asteroid will fall on the Bay Area.

tenpercentfirearms
04-14-2011, 8:32 AM
However, "can" he, politically? I doubt it. Not with the state's huge budget problems... he's going to need all the political capital he can muster up to gain Democratic support for trimming projects near and dear to their constituents' hearts. I doubt he'll waste that capital on defending vetoing a bill he is not 100% opposed to.

With the state's huge budget problems and his vow to fix it, he can veto anything that comes to his desk that is going to cost the state any amount of money. Most of these gun control bills are going to create new programs that cost money to enforce. He has the excuse to veto them.

Also, most of the liberals in this state only do gun control bills as a pet project or because everyone else is doing it. They won't make gun control the hill they die on.

Again, we are eventually going to find out if Jerry can be counted on or not. That is pretty much assured.

Glock_Toter
04-14-2011, 8:59 AM
:banghead:

ap3572001
04-14-2011, 9:19 AM
Sorry , I have not been on top of this . What exactly is going on ???

Ding126
04-14-2011, 10:26 AM
I guess we will see how pro gun JB is after all