PDA

View Full Version : CA Dept. of Finance Opposition to AB 809


wildhawker
07-11-2011, 3:16 PM
Ca. Dept. of Finance has opposed AB 809.

Letter with their analysis here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BzuDXQ308KnoOGJjM2RjMWMtMTcyMy00MzNmLWFkZDk tZDY3ODc4YTMzYjVj&hl=en_US

BILL SUMMARY: Firearms

This bill would provide that the same regulations relating to the reporting and retention of records for handguns to firearms that are not handguns, as specified.

FISCAL SUMMARY

The Department of Justice indicates that there would be costs of approximately $665,000 in 2011-12, $327,000 in 2012-13 and $258,000 ongoing to the Dealer Record of Sale Account to hire staff and external consultants to develop, test, and implement the required enhancements.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local entities for increased costs associated with any new program or higher level of service imposed by the state on local entities if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the new program or higher level of service is reimbursable and a state mandate. Any local government costs resulting from the mandate in this measure would not be state-reimbursable because the mandate only involves the definition of a crime or the penalty for conviction of a crime.

COMMENTS

The Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it would result in additional costs that are not included in the 2011-12 Budget.

Existing law regulates the transfer of firearms and provides for retaining specified information regarding firearm transfers by the Department of Justice and establishes different requirements regarding reportable information for handguns and firearms that are not handguns. This bill would conform the provisions that the transfers and information reporting and retention requirements for handguns and firearms other than handguns are the same and that those exemptions become inoperative January 1, 2013.

Existing law prohibits peaces officers, Department of Justice employees, and the Attorney General from retaining or compiling certain information relating to transactions regarding firearms that are not handguns, as specified. This bill would provide that those provisions are repealed on January 1, 2013, and would require those peace officers to retain and compile information regarding firearms that are not handguns.

Exiting law requires a personal handgun importer to report certain information relative to bringing a handgun into the state. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2013, apply these reporting requirements instead to
a “personal firearm importer,” as defined, and would expand the reporting requirements to apply to the importation of firearms that are not handguns. This bill would further prohibit a personal firearm importer from importing a firearm that is a .50 BMG rifle or a destructive device.

unusedusername
07-11-2011, 3:18 PM
Time to email again with this letter as the email body...

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml

Connor P Price
07-11-2011, 3:18 PM
Who would have thought this would cost way to much money?

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

bwiese
07-11-2011, 3:20 PM
Those costs may be low, too.

jwkincal
07-11-2011, 3:26 PM
I'm not a JB fan but... THIS bill I believe he can veto. Now that it is on paper as being un-funded, I believe he will consider it low-risk to his standing among his party and possibly advantageous to his stance as "2A-friendly" to strike it down.

Which is good because this is one of my very least favorite bills.

craneman
07-11-2011, 3:32 PM
Maybe there is a silver lining to the state being on a shoestring budget after all.

Stonewalker
07-11-2011, 3:36 PM
This is awesome. I've always thought that if we can defeat long gun registration that it will have to be from a fiscal point of view. That's what I wrote my representatives about last year.

I agree with jwkincal, I think we've got a pretty good chance of JB vetoing this one. If we get REALLY lucky he might even say something about in his experience as the CA AG that the registry has been useless in preventing crime.

taperxz
07-11-2011, 3:53 PM
This may also open the door to not having to register handguns. It would save the state money and has done nothing to deter crime. Perhaps we can eliminate BOF:D

GOEX FFF
07-11-2011, 3:55 PM
JUST the costs alone just to start this is in excess of 1.2 Million. Plus, no question it will cost a lot more additionally down the line. I don't think even Gov. Brown is gonna like it.

BannedinBritain
07-11-2011, 3:55 PM
Just another reason to increase the DROS fee. :rolleyes:

hoffmang
07-11-2011, 7:00 PM
These costs will effectively kill the bill. It will now not leave appropriations.

-Gene

emcon5
07-11-2011, 8:02 PM
Interesting they left out the costs to defend the inevitable lawsuits.

Stonewalker
07-11-2011, 8:07 PM
These costs will effectively kill the bill. It will now not leave appropriations.

-Gene

Did the Dept of Finance not oppose this bill last year? Is their statement the only thing that has changed between this year and last?

hoffmang
07-11-2011, 9:49 PM
Did the Dept of Finance not oppose this bill last year? Is their statement the only thing that has changed between this year and last?

As I recall it died in Aprops last year too but I don't think DOF had officially opined.

It's a Zombie. I probably overstate above, but I'd put it at 98% dead.

-Gene

Stonewalker
07-11-2011, 10:10 PM
As I recall it died in Aprops last year too but I don't think DOF had officially opined.

It's a Zombie. I probably overstate above, but I'd put it at 98% dead.

-Gene

I believe it made it out of Aprops and was waiting to be voted on in the Senate but it died along with Saldana's bill because the session ran out.

ETA: Ah here it is! http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=337964
DEFEATED:
Assembly Bill 1810 (Feuer) - Registration of Rifles and Shotguns
Assembly Bill 1934 (Saldana) – Handgun Open Carry Prohibition
Assembly Bill 2358 (De Leon) – Ammunition Registration

All three of these bills posed a fundamental threat to the rights of gun owners. And there was no room for compromise any one of the bills. It was a fight down to midnight, but in the late hours of August 31, AB 1810, AB 1934, and AB 2358 were DEFEATED!

I remember being really worried about AB 1810 because it would be hard to challenge that in court on 2nd amendment grounds. You said something about that last year. Anyways, if this bill gets killed in appropriations I will be really happy. The ammo registration bill seems scary as well but that is far more onerous to gun owners than a long gun registration and probably easier to challenge.

dustoff31
07-11-2011, 10:12 PM
As I recall it died in Aprops last year too but I don't think DOF had officially opined.

It's a Zombie. I probably overstate above, but I'd put it at 98% dead.

-Gene

On NRA radio this evening, Ed Worley said it had been put in the suspense file.

smarter
07-11-2011, 10:14 PM
I'm sure on the next version of the AB they'll just tack on an extra fee to fund it. It's CA they are the best at nickel and diming, us to death.

Ubermcoupe
07-11-2011, 10:19 PM
These costs will effectively kill the bill. It will now not leave appropriations.

-Gene

Yay. =)

Blackhawk556
07-12-2011, 1:41 AM
They'll raise DROS fees next year and the year after that they will bring this back.

wildhawker
07-12-2011, 1:57 AM
They'll raise DROS fees next year and the year after that they will bring this back.

If they try to raise DROS on CA gun owners, we'll hit them so hard it will take two governors to figure out what happened.

-Brandon

GOEX FFF
07-12-2011, 3:10 AM
If they try to raise DROS on CA gun owners, we'll hit them so hard it will take two governors to figure out what happened.

-Brandon

:thumbsup: :D


Didn't BOF lower the DROS fee by $5.00 last year this time?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=325688

wildhawker
07-12-2011, 3:51 AM
:thumbsup: :D

Didn't BOF lower the DROS fee by $5.00 last year this time?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=325688

Our response to their proposed rulemaking is here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=342783

Maestro Pistolero
07-12-2011, 10:14 AM
A little OT, but did anyone's eyebrow go up when reading this vis-à-vis Obama's new long arm reporting requirement for state's 'near Mexico'? Existing law prohibits peaces officers, Department of Justice employees, and the Attorney General from retaining or compiling certain information relating to transactions regarding firearms that are not handguns, as specified. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

GOEX FFF
07-12-2011, 3:17 PM
Our response to their proposed rulemaking is here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=342783

Ah, I must have missed that follow up thread some how..:confused:

Thanks Brandon!

Apocalypsenerd
07-12-2011, 3:29 PM
Registration predates confiscation. We can only hope this bill does die.

BroncoBob
07-12-2011, 6:44 PM
When will this insanity end?

chris
07-12-2011, 9:01 PM
They'll raise DROS fees next year and the year after that they will bring this back.

If they try to raise DROS on CA gun owners, we'll hit them so hard it will take two governors to figure out what happened.

-Brandon

it should be done anyways. these guys need to be B**** slapped anyways.

wildhawker
07-12-2011, 9:04 PM
it should be done anyways. these guys need to be B**** slapped anyways.

Don't go thinking we got soft or anything. :43:

-Brandon