PDA

View Full Version : Bill 809 - Goes to the Senate floor


jink122
08-26-2011, 1:01 PM
The Senate Appropriations Committee passed anti-gun bill AB 809 (long gun registration) by a 6 to 3 vote and it will be sent to the Senate floor for final consideration.

Question. So what happens if this bill passes and becomes law, does this mean I have to re-register all my current long guns or is this for all future long guns? Does CnR apply?

mag360
08-26-2011, 1:04 PM
future unless amended

Schrodinger's Cat
08-26-2011, 1:05 PM
I thought this thing was dead...?

Stonewalker
08-26-2011, 1:06 PM
Drat! I thought for sure it wouldn't make it out of appropriations, given the costs and our broke-*** State. Damnit!! This is bad guys. If JB signs this, it will not be easy to take down by any means. Fingers crossed for JB.

jwkincal
08-26-2011, 1:43 PM
We were assured that it was JB's hand which was going to keep it stuck in committee?????

Steveo8
08-26-2011, 1:50 PM
Drat! I thought for sure it wouldn't make it out of appropriations, given the costs and our broke-*** State. Damnit!! This is bad guys. If When JB signs this, it will not be easy to take down by any means. Fingers crossed for JB.

Fixed it for you!

HowardW56
08-26-2011, 1:51 PM
We were assured that it was JB's hand which was going to keep it stuck in committee?????


And how was the Governor going to control the Senate or Assembly?

hawk1
08-26-2011, 1:57 PM
We were told prior to the election that JB was our guy. Guess we'll get the real truth on this soon.

Stonewalker
08-26-2011, 1:57 PM
Fixed it for you!

Whatever Steve. You be negative, I'll call JB's office and write letters.

dantodd
08-26-2011, 2:02 PM
This is a very good bill by which to judge Gov. Brown. If it makes it to his desk he will have an important decision to make. If he vetoes the bill he's tough on limiting government spending. If he signs it he feels gun control is more important than keeping spending in check.

He has no reason to sign the bill to make himself look better in CA because he won't be running again. The only logical place to move from here is POTUS and being willing to dig a deeper fiscal hole to take away gun rights will not play well on the big stage.

Most likely this is the absolute last public service job JB will hold and we can view his approach to this bill as strongly indicative of his 2A v. economy stance.

I would be very disappointed were he to sign this.

curtisfong
08-26-2011, 2:02 PM
I am not optimistic. Even if JB is a "good guy", I don't think he can stand the repercussions of not signing this.

Politics as usual. No matter how "good" a guy your candidate is, his hands are tied, and he's powerless.

Stonewalker
08-26-2011, 2:07 PM
This is a very good bill by which to judge Gov. Brown. If it makes it to his desk he will have an important decision to make. If he vetoes the bill he's tough on limiting government spending. If he signs it he feels gun control is more important than keeping spending in check.

He has no reason to sign the bill to make himself look better in CA because he won't be running again. The only logical place to move from here is POTUS and being willing to dig a deeper fiscal hole to take away gun rights will not play well on the big stage.

Most likely this is the absolute last public service job JB will hold and we can view his approach to this bill as strongly indicative of his 2A v. economy stance.

I would be very disappointed were he to sign this.

Exactly my thoughts. Though, I had not heard that he won't be running again, did he declare that? Even if he was going to run again, I don't think this bill would be very politically visible if he vetoed it. At least not nearly as visible as vetoing AB144.

Lost.monkey
08-26-2011, 2:09 PM
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

frankm
08-26-2011, 2:14 PM
Keep your credit cards clear boys, gotta buy multiple lowers if this happens!

jwkincal
08-26-2011, 2:33 PM
And how was the Governor going to control the Senate or Assembly?

I don't know but SOMEBODY seemed to think so... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6919881#post6919881)

Long gun reg is mostly dead.
Ammo ban re-passes are so confused that even the sponsor isn't sure what's going on.
UOC ban has not had the reception most thought it would. It's alive but delayed.

Governor Brown has a lot to do with 1 and 3. On 1, he's all but solely responsible.

-Gene

Uxi
08-26-2011, 2:33 PM
And how was the Governor going to control the Senate or Assembly?

Telling them in no uncertain terms that he'll veto it and not to waist their time?

I am not optimistic. Even if JB is a "good guy", I don't think he can stand the repercussions of not signing this.

Politics as usual. No matter how "good" a guy your candidate is, his hands are tied, and he's powerless.

HTF are his hands tied? Does he plan to run for President again?

dantodd
08-26-2011, 2:40 PM
Though, I had not heard that he won't be running again, did he declare that?

I can't find a reference now, I thought I had read it. I may be mistaken.

Bigtime1
08-26-2011, 2:46 PM
Of course he'll sign it. The same scheme worked out so well in Canada :sarcasm:, and libtards like Moonbeam love to glean the best practices of socialist countries.

Stonewalker
08-26-2011, 2:49 PM
I don't know but SOMEBODY seemed to think so... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6919881#post6919881)

LOL

I can't find a reference now, I thought I had read it. I may be mistaken.

Last I heard he wasn't saying one or the other. He's what, 73? I can't imagine he would want to run again. But who knows.

HowardW56
08-26-2011, 2:53 PM
I don't know but SOMEBODY seemed to think so... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6919881#post6919881)

Well, we will see, if it ever makes it to his desk.

jwkincal
08-26-2011, 2:58 PM
(OT) Uxi aren't all the cool kids now using 300AAC? Time to change your sig?

Uxi
08-26-2011, 3:01 PM
Nah. 6.8 fo life!

safewaysecurity
08-26-2011, 3:05 PM
The Senate Appropriations Committee passed anti-gun bill AB 809 (long gun registration) by a 6 to 3 vote and it will be sent to the Senate floor for final consideration.

Question. So what happens if this bill passes and becomes law, does this mean I have to re-register all my current long guns or is this for all future long guns? Does CnR apply?

No... this only applies to guns bought through an FFL and they automatically get registered when the DROS happens. All your current long guns do not need to be registered. Also I personally think if this makes it to Brown's desk he will sign it. Also wasn't this bill placed on suspense?

darkwater
08-26-2011, 3:09 PM
Ugh...and here I didn't watch the Senate Approp. meeting because we were all thinking this was dead. An NRA-ILA email confirmed the news...

bballwizard05
08-26-2011, 3:13 PM
So how long before I have to blow up my Credit card and get my last rifles in under the wire?

jink122
08-26-2011, 4:09 PM
So how long before I have to blow up my Credit card and get my last rifles in under the wire?

no idea. I'm still recovering from blowing my money on ammo in Feb.

Uxi
08-26-2011, 4:14 PM
That makes the decision on the Turner's CGN special lower a lot easier!

Would they still record/register on PPT? Since they're doing it on DROS, I'd say yeah.... But what's to stop them from another bill telling them to go through every FFL's book retroactively anyway?

jamesob
08-26-2011, 4:36 PM
For those who think moonbeam won't sign it, you will be disappointed.

Dhena81
08-26-2011, 4:58 PM
Makes you wonder if this was passed based off of FUD from the ATF fast and furious.

GOEX FFF
08-26-2011, 4:59 PM
So how long before I have to blow up my Credit card and get my last rifles in under the wire?


January 1, 2013


" AB 809, as amended, Feuer. Firearms.
Existing law generally regulates the transfer of firearms and
provides for retaining specified information regarding firearm
transfers by the Department of Justice. Existing law establishes
different requirements regarding reportable information for handguns
and firearms that are not handguns. Under existing law, the
Department of Justice requires firearms dealers to keep a register or
record of electronic or telephonic transfers of information
pertaining to firearms transactions, as specified. Existing law
exempts from these requirements certain transactions involving
firearms that are not handguns.

This bill would conform those provisions so that the transfers and
information reporting and retention requirements for handguns and
firearms other than handguns are the same. This bill would provide
that those exemptions become inoperative on January 1, 2013."

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_809&sess=CUR

Librarian
08-26-2011, 5:07 PM
For those who think moonbeam won't sign it, you will be disappointed.

If it gets to his desk, we'll find out. Knowing one way or the other will be useful.

hoffmang
08-26-2011, 5:10 PM
I don't know but SOMEBODY seemed to think so... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6919881#post6919881)
I said "mostly." Everyone needs to take note that the bill was amended to try to get around the DOR's objections by delaying its implementation.
For those who think moonbeam won't sign it, you will be disappointed.
Quoted for posterity. I've placed my bets and I'm not often incorrect.

-Gene

SickofSoCal
08-26-2011, 5:11 PM
Going to the Senate?

Is there anything that they DON'T pass?

Stonewalker
08-26-2011, 5:11 PM
If it gets to his desk, we'll find out. Knowing one way or the other will be useful.

"Be ye friend or foe?"

Yup, the rubber may meet the road here soon. Personally, I think all his moves regarding RKBA have been way too calculated for him be an anti.

CaliforniaLiberal
08-26-2011, 5:51 PM
The Senate Appropriations Committee passed anti-gun bill AB 809 (long gun registration) by a 6 to 3 vote and it will be sent to the Senate floor for final consideration.

Question. So what happens if this bill passes and becomes law, does this mean I have to re-register all my current long guns or is this for all future long guns? Does CnR apply?


Remember, there is no required registration of non-AW firearms in California. Presently, the CA DOJ keeps records of sales of handguns. This bill if passed would require that records of sales of long guns would also be kept by the DOJ. There are states where firearm registration documents must be kept by the owner and shown to prove registration. Not in CA.

Skidmark
08-26-2011, 6:02 PM
Let's wait to see if it passes the Senate, and what the language of the Bill is, should it pass. And then... put pressure on JB.
He has no control over what an Assembly or Senate Committee votes out.

mag360
08-26-2011, 7:04 PM
Keep your credit cards clear boys, gotta buy multiple lowers if this happens!

yep, some .223 lowers, some .308, a long action remington 700 to shoot magnum cartridges, and maybe even an AR30 :shock:

prob a few saiga 7.62's and a saiga 308 too. hell why not.

otherwise it's going to be 80% lowers for me from 2013 on out.

jwkincal
08-26-2011, 7:31 PM
I've placed my bets and I'm not often incorrect.

I don't doubt your record... but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drkh0YLF8rI

I'm just sayin'

luckystrike
08-26-2011, 7:39 PM
dosent matter to me I wont register ****

NotEnufGarage
08-26-2011, 8:03 PM
yep, some .223 lowers, some .308, a long action remington 700 to shoot magnum cartridges, and maybe even an AR30 :shock:

prob a few saiga 7.62's and a saiga 308 too. hell why not.

otherwise it's going to be 80% lowers for me from 2013 on out.

Do I hear a CalGuns group buy for AR-10 and AR-15 lowers in the works?

I'm thinking a few M-1 Garand Receivers should be added to that list.

mosinnagantm9130
08-26-2011, 8:09 PM
dosent matter to me I wont register ****

If it passes, hello Nevada....

Crom
08-26-2011, 8:25 PM
Jerry himself is a gun owner... I hope he does the right thing and veto this most terrible bill.

monk
08-26-2011, 8:32 PM
Jerry himself is a gun owner... I hope he does the right thing and veto this most terrible bill.


The "right" thing to you is quite different then the "right" thing for so many others. Tricky word to use. Really, there are few "right" things and more "convenience" things.

Bigtwin
08-26-2011, 8:35 PM
Jerry himself is a gun owner... I hope he does the right thing and veto this most terrible bill.

I won't hold my breath! Many politicians are gun owners, that does not mean they think you and I should own them.

I can only hope to be wrong about Brown....but I bet not!

luckystrike
08-26-2011, 11:03 PM
If it passes, hello Nevada....

yeah that would be a big hint to gtfo

Mstrty
08-26-2011, 11:26 PM
We shall see.... It wasnt that long ago that Jerry wanted a moratorium on ALL gun sales. I still stand by my pre election comments. Jerry is no friend to a Pro 2A community. Those voting for him... foolish. There wasnt much to choose from and Meg would probably also sign this POS. At least she wasnt in bed with the blood sucking unions. If we are going to get Anti-gun laws signed anyway, I would rather they leave me some moving money.

56EfRXisPh4

dantodd
08-26-2011, 11:40 PM
When the going gets tough (well, maybe tough, but scary anyway) the not so tough move to Nevada.

repubconserv
08-27-2011, 12:36 AM
Quoted for posterity. I've placed my bets and I'm not often incorrect.

-Gene

I pray you are right.

Say (God forbid) this did pass, how hard would it be to fight?

repubconserv
08-27-2011, 12:38 AM
We shall see................... moving money.

56EfRXisPh4

Please tell me Mr. moonbeam is no longer THIS far out of his mind.

Trailboss60
08-27-2011, 1:03 AM
When the going gets tough (well, maybe tough, but scary anyway) the not so tough move to Nevada.


A retired buddy of mine that was a NY LEO, had worked with Jim Cirillo, moved to South Carolina to fulfill a dream of owning his own automatic weapons, so that he could compete in machine gun shoots to pursue his hobby. He knew that he would die in NY before he would ever be able to see his dream realized, so he moved.

After paying Ca. taxes for 25 years, and supporting the RTKBA in Ca., I moved to Arizona when a county sheriff in Ca. (San Benito) told me I could go pound sand when I applied for a permit.
A "tough guy" would have continued to fund that type of government and walked around unarmed when the gangsters don't?

Les Baer left Illinois because he tired of funding the politicians that chose to destroy the industry he works in.

When the rest of the nation seems to be reversing draconian gun laws and Ca. is continuing to go down this legislative road, a citizen that decides to move to greener pastures is hardly 'less tough".

dantodd
08-27-2011, 1:19 AM
Say (God forbid) this did pass, how hard would it be to fight?

Probably impossible. It is very unlikely that this is unconstitutional. Bad policy? Yes. Expensive and stupid for the state? Yes. But, this nothing to infringe your rights.

Havoc70
08-27-2011, 5:29 AM
I'm almost afraid to voice this, but what's next if this is made law? The "safe rifle roster"? The state legislature needs an enema.

Ford8N
08-27-2011, 6:19 AM
Keep your credit cards clear boys, gotta buy multiple lowers if this happens!

No matter what you should be doing this already. ;)

The more EBR's in this state makes it that much harder to ban them. Every gun owner should at least have one lower.

Of course he'll sign it. The same scheme worked out so well in Canada :sarcasm:, and libtards like Moonbeam love to glean the best practices of socialist countries.

A lot of Canadian gun owners were not registering, just like when California required all AW's be registered. It was a terrible failure. All gun owners should resist gun bans like Rosa Parks did on the bus, she refused to go along with an unconstitutional law. And any LEO should refuse to enforce any gun ban too, for the same reason.

A retired buddy of mine that was a NY LEO, had worked with Jim Cirillo, moved to South Carolina to fulfill a dream of owning his own automatic weapons, so that he could compete in machine gun shoots to pursue his hobby. He knew that he would die in NY before he would ever be able to see his dream realized, so he moved.

After paying Ca. taxes for 25 years, and supporting the RTKBA in Ca., I moved to Arizona when a county sheriff in Ca. (San Benito) told me I could go pound sand when I applied for a permit.
A "tough guy" would have continued to fund that type of government and walked around unarmed when the gangsters don't?

Les Baer left Illinois because he tired of funding the politicians that chose to destroy the industry he works in.

When the rest of the nation seems to be reversing draconian gun laws and Ca. is continuing to go down this legislative road, a citizen that decides to move to greener pastures is hardly 'less tough".

Same here. I won't live to see it either.

CaliforniaLiberal
08-27-2011, 6:21 AM
It is telling that those here who are so sure that Jerry Brown will shortly show himself to be anti-gun have to go back twenty years ago to find any evidence.

Let us watch and we will see in the coming weeks.

Anchors
08-27-2011, 6:47 AM
:puke:

At least we get to see what Moonbeam does.

SanPedroShooter
08-27-2011, 7:09 AM
Yup, rubber meeting the road here for ol' Jerry. CA will use the the registration lists to confiscate guns from "undesirables" and "get guns off the street" and they'll use your diverted DROS fee to pay for it (I am not sure the bill # on that one) Thats the long term plan IMO. Remember the DOJ muscle flex eariler this year? Taking guns away from felons and the mentally ill is probably a good idea at the present time (what happens when minor offences become felonys in CA?), but I see a slippery slope type pattern emerging.

BigDogatPlay
08-27-2011, 8:17 AM
If it passes, hello Nevada....

Which has a higher unemployment rate than California..... just sayin'.

VegasND
08-27-2011, 10:12 AM
Not all possible work slots are full anywhere.
A lot of the people leaving California have skills which can transfer anywhere.
Even more important: Pay attention to the small business owners that bring their accounts with them and create new jobs here and the other states they go to -- leaving more unemployed in California.

Which has a higher unemployment rate than California..... just sayin'.

Steveo8
08-27-2011, 10:44 AM
It is telling that those here who are so sure that Jerry Brown will shortly show himself to be anti-gun have to go back twenty years ago to find any evidence.

Let us watch and we will see in the coming weeks.

For a Leopard to change it's spots?

Mstrty
08-27-2011, 10:46 AM
Ultimately, it will be a question of which Jerry Brown was elected and we won't know that until the first gun control bill lands on his desk.
His amicus brief pissed off a lot of constituents. He may take this opportunity to sign a feel good anti-gun bill in an attempt to quell his base. He does believe the 2nd is an individual right, He also believes the government has a right to catalog, inpsect, and limit your's and his guns.

Fingers crossed, not holding breath for a veto.

Uxi
08-27-2011, 11:37 AM
It is telling that those here who are so sure that Jerry Brown will shortly show himself to be anti-gun have to go back twenty years ago to find any evidence.

How many anecdotes the other way are there in the intervening time? His amicus brief in Heller... what else? Meanwhile that was about off the deep end as you get with Feinstein and Boxer et al. He certainly hasn't publicly repudiated such drivel that he was spouting...

Let us watch and we will see in the coming weeks.

Indeed.

dantodd
08-27-2011, 12:02 PM
Yup, rubber meeting the road here for ol' Jerry. CA will use the the registration lists to confiscate guns from "undesirables" and "get guns off the street" and they'll use your diverted DROS fee to pay for it (I am not sure the bill # on that one) Thats the long term plan IMO. Remember the DOJ muscle flex eariler this year? Taking guns away from felons and the mentally ill is probably a good idea at the present time (what happens when minor offences become felonys in CA?), but I see a slippery slope type pattern emerging.

Yes. The misuse of the DROS fees is a problem. That has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a registration scheme. It is quite possible that the government will use the need to identify firearms owned by newly minted felons or incompetents as its compelling interest in defending this. I agree it is bad policy but there is nothing illegal about the law.

OleCuss
08-27-2011, 1:15 PM
We all know that Moonbeam is in the pocket of the unions. But you know? It just so happens he vetoed some particularly daft UFW legislation.

I'm no fan of Moonbeam, but the guy is a bit complex and he actually does believe in doing the right thing. I frequently (almost always?) disagree with him about what the right thing is. . .

In this case, I see this as political posturing legislation. The Assembly and Senate pass it and get anti-liberty votes as a result - and Brown will veto it with minimal coverage or political capital cost. That's the most likely scenario as it stands at this time.

Kavey
08-27-2011, 3:33 PM
I said "mostly." Everyone needs to take note that the bill was amended to try to get around the DOR's objections by delaying its implementation.



It appears that before passing AB 809 to the Senate floor, the Senate Appropriations Committee amended the bill by changing the start date from 1-1-2013 to 1-1-14.

If the full Senate passes the bill as amended by the Senate Appropriations Committee, does it have to go back to the Assembly for another vote? If it does we might be able to do something in the Assembly. Maybe

____________________________

I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen every episode of Judge Judy.

SanPedroShooter
08-27-2011, 3:51 PM
Yes. The misuse of the DROS fees is a problem. That has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a registration scheme. It is quite possible that the government will use the need to identify firearms owned by newly minted felons or incompetents as its compelling interest in defending this. I agree it is bad policy but there is nothing illegal about the law.


I never said it did, thats the problem (among other things) with registration type schemes. Stupid and evil doesnt always equal unconstitutional.. My point is, anti gunners have a hard on to get all guns papered. Why would that be...?

mag360
08-27-2011, 3:56 PM
We shall see.... It wasnt that long ago that Jerry wanted a moratorium on ALL gun sales. I still stand by my pre election comments. Jerry is no friend to a Pro 2A community. Those voting for him... foolish. There wasnt much to choose from and Meg would probably also sign this POS. At least she wasnt in bed with the blood sucking unions. If we are going to get Anti-gun laws signed anyway, I would rather they leave me some moving money.

56EfRXisPh4

he started with typical "party-line" comments of the time, but he finished with what the real answer is. He basically said there is not a gun problem, it is a crime problem. Solve that with education and jobs and the gun problem goes away.

Anchors
08-27-2011, 4:06 PM
he started with typical "party-line" comments of the time, but he finished with what the real answer is. He basically said there is not a gun problem, it is a crime problem. Solve that with education and jobs and the gun problem goes away.

True.
He was probably just playing up to his voting base in Oakland/SF, LA, SD, etc.

But he ended the speech in a way that made more sense even if I disagree with his theories of how to fix the economic situation of the time.

Connor P Price
08-27-2011, 4:14 PM
I never said it did, thats the problem (among other things) with registration type schemes. Stupid and evil doesnt always equal unconstitutional.. My point is, anti gunners have a hard on to get all guns papered. Why would that be...?

Historically registration leads to confiscation. However, I'm much less concerned about the prospect of confiscation in the post-Heller/McDonald America than I would have been before. Registration is still bad policy, but its less threatening than before IMO.

dantodd
08-27-2011, 4:58 PM
I never said it did, thats the problem (among other things) with registration type schemes. Stupid and evil doesnt always equal unconstitutional.. My point is, anti gunners have a hard on to get all guns papered. Why would that be...?

Because they fear guns.

DisgruntledReaper
08-27-2011, 8:33 PM
time to buy a crap load of lowers,kits,flats,etc and roll your own.... iff ya didnt BUY it you dont have to REGISTER it...in my opinion.......soooooo..... anyone going to buy like 200 lowers and be set for life??

Hmmm... didnt see how this affects PPT..????? i must have missed it... I blame it on the hot weather and me working outside this week+end

ElvenSoul
08-27-2011, 8:37 PM
Thank goodness for 80% Builds.

Meplat
08-27-2011, 8:40 PM
Have you read the NRA & CRPA FOUNDATION FILE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING FIREARM SALES “FEES” thread. DOJ is floating away in registration money. It's civil rights abuse for fun and profit.



This is a very good bill by which to judge Gov. Brown. If it makes it to his desk he will have an important decision to make. If he vetoes the bill he's tough on limiting government spending. If he signs it he feels gun control is more important than keeping spending in check.

He has no reason to sign the bill to make himself look better in CA because he won't be running again. The only logical place to move from here is POTUS and being willing to dig a deeper fiscal hole to take away gun rights will not play well on the big stage.

Most likely this is the absolute last public service job JB will hold and we can view his approach to this bill as strongly indicative of his 2A v. economy stance.

I would be very disappointed were he to sign this.

SanPedroShooter
08-27-2011, 8:41 PM
time to buy a crap load of lowers,kits,flats,etc and roll your own.... iff ya didnt BUY it you dont have to REGISTER it...in my opinion.......soooooo..... anyone going to buy like 200 lowers and be set for life??

Hmmm... didnt see how this affects PPT..????? i must have missed it... I blame it on the hot weather and me working outside this week+end

When you PPT, you run a DROS. When you run a DROS, registration. At least I think, I havent read the text of the bill.

As far as confiscation in post Heller/Macdonald, I agree, but the DOJ has already done a statewide confiscation sweep. There just getting started. When they can take unlimted cash from a massive DROS surplus, they will do this more and more and their net will get wider and wider.

Meplat
08-27-2011, 9:12 PM
prob a few saiga 7.62's and a saiga 308 too. hell why not.

And don't forget the thirty caliber saigas:p.

Meplat
08-27-2011, 9:22 PM
I'm almost afraid to voice this, but what's next if this is made law? The "safe rifle roster"? The state legislature needs an enema.

No CA needs an enema and the capitol building is where we should stick the hose.

BroncoBob
08-27-2011, 9:29 PM
Damn

Anchors
08-28-2011, 1:37 AM
So any word on when this will hit the senate floor?

Scratch705
08-28-2011, 2:14 AM
need to save up more money then to expand the collection.

Anchors
08-28-2011, 3:04 AM
Like someone else said, what's next? Rifle roster (again, but this time for "safety" and not for "evil looking guns")? Second proof of residency when you buy a rifle? When will they stop?

I'm not trying to be the "sky is falling!!1" poster. But it seems no matter what is accomplished, they are willing to answer with another restriction out of spite.
When will they realize no one in their voting base really cares about banning guns and if they dropped the gun issues, they might get some gun owner votes too (every vote counts, right?)

NovaTodd
08-28-2011, 4:51 AM
I made my decision after being a 30 year CA resident. When my opinons don't get any consideration from the elected officials, I had enough.
I voted with my feet. Sorry guys but keep up the good fight.

wazdat
08-28-2011, 6:59 AM
No CA needs an enema and the capitol building is where we should stick the hose.

a1Tpe-dbPQI

vantec08
08-28-2011, 8:02 AM
I made my decision after being a 30 year CA resident. When my opinons don't get any consideration from the elected officials, I had enough.
I voted with my feet. Sorry guys but keep up the good fight.


You've worked all your life, raised your kids, paid your way, retired. Time to do what you want to do where you can do it. If you wait for CA, you will die first. Enjoy retirement, sir. Best to you.

dantodd
08-28-2011, 8:13 AM
Have you read the NRA & CRPA FOUNDATION FILE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING FIREARM SALES “FEES” thread. DOJ is floating away in registration money. It's civil rights abuse for fun and profit.

Yes, I have and that brings up something I hadn't thought of, thank you for mentioning it. I suspect that this bill is what pushed the DROS fee lawsuit to the front burner. If the DROS fee isn't likely to be available due to the lawsuit then JB can say that relying on those fees is not reasonable so he has cover to veto.

With this in mind I suspect that we'll see a preliminary injunction files as soon as a reply is filed. If this is seen as an infringement on 2a at all then Ezell should be persuasive and injunctions are fast tracked. Even if we get denied in circuit I believe that SCOTUS treats injunctions on fundamental rights differently and a single justice can issue the injunction.

MatrixCPA
09-01-2011, 5:02 PM
They reached the item just now--pass and retain. Keeping an eye out.

Anchors
09-01-2011, 5:48 PM
They reached the item just now--pass and retain. Keeping an eye out.

"Pass and retain" gives it one additional day for review, correct?

MatrixCPA
09-01-2011, 6:13 PM
"Pass and retain" gives it one additional day for review, correct?

Yes, and if it's not taken up on the second day it's automatically put in the inactive file. Items can be brought back from the inactive file and put on the agenda with one day's notice. Of course, that presumes they follow the rules. Sometimes rules are suspended.

Basically we have to wait until Sept 10 to know it's dead....for this session.

CaliforniaLiberal
09-01-2011, 7:17 PM
"Pass and retain" gives it one additional day for review, correct?

Don't forget that they can vote to suspend the rules and do whatever. Doesn't happen every day but remember that none of the rules are set in stone.

Anchors
09-01-2011, 7:59 PM
Don't forget that they can vote to suspend the rules and do whatever. Doesn't happen every day but remember that none of the rules are set in stone.

Wow. So they really can "make it up as they go"...(more or less, if they vote to, etc)...

That is kind of scary.

MatrixCPA
09-02-2011, 8:59 AM
Item #120 today (Friday 9/2). Session starts anytime now (http://www.calchannel.com/channel/live/1).

Stonewalker
09-02-2011, 11:20 AM
Thanks. Will be watching today.

MatrixCPA
09-02-2011, 11:25 AM
They are adjourned until Tuesday.

MatrixCPA
09-03-2011, 11:40 PM
This is item 114 (Assembly Third Reading File) on Sept 6 Senate Daily File.

misterjake
09-04-2011, 2:09 AM
It's sad you guys are placing any hope of your constitutional rights to one man.

Jerry brown supported a reversal of an outright ban on handguns by the state.

Everything else is fair game.

Apocalypsenerd
09-04-2011, 8:14 AM
This is item 114 (Assembly Third Reading File) on Sept 6 Senate Daily File.

How many items do they usually get through?

darkwater
09-04-2011, 8:18 AM
It's sad you guys are placing any hope of your constitutional rights to one man.

Jerry brown supported a reversal of an outright ban on handguns by the state.

Everything else is fair game.

All we know at this point is that we have no hope in either legislative house.

MatrixCPA
09-04-2011, 8:00 PM
How many items do they usually get through?

Depends on your definition of "get through". They don't always take things in exact order and it can be that a bunch of bills will be missing floor managers or have amendments pending--which means they get skipped. Or the floor manager might "pass" and let other bills go first.

Some days, they wind up debating a few bills for hours and get very little else done. The only thing you can do is watch and see or wait and hear later. :)

repubconserv
09-04-2011, 9:02 PM
So earlier in the thread someone said that if passed it does not take effect until 2014 (instead of 2013) can anyone confirm or deny this?

darkwater
09-04-2011, 9:23 PM
So earlier in the thread someone said that if passed it does not take effect until 2014 (instead of 2013) can anyone confirm or deny this?

Last amended Aug 30th: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/ab_809_bill_20110830_amended_sen_v95.html

Existing law exempts from these requirements certain transactions involving
firearms that are not handguns.
This bill would conform those provisions so that the transfers and
information reporting and retention requirements for handguns and
firearms other than handguns are the same. This bill would provide
that those exemptions become inoperative on January 1, 2013 2014 .

repubconserv
09-04-2011, 9:31 PM
Last amended Aug 30th: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/ab_809_bill_20110830_amended_sen_v95.html

Existing law exempts from these requirements certain transactions involving
firearms that are not handguns.
This bill would conform those provisions so that the transfers and
information reporting and retention requirements for handguns and
firearms other than handguns are the same. This bill would provide
that those exemptions become inoperative on January 1, 2013 2014 .

that is better (if, God forbid, it does pass) I have an extra year to buy rifles/shotguns

vincewarde
09-04-2011, 10:43 PM
They will likely be:

The ammo bill - which may be a huge hassle for us

The long gun registration bill - which we don't want either, but which would have little effect unless or until they try to take guns away (not likely - and if you own a handgun you are already on the list).

And possibly the open carry bill.

JB can veto the open carry bill by pointing out the fact that it will lead to statewide virtual shall issue, leaving the other two. I think he will probably sign one of these two bills. Politically it will be hard for him to veto all the bills.

So, which one will he sign? My guess is long gun registration. He will point out that it will have little to no burden on gun buyers, since we already undergo a background check and 10 wait anyway.

In contrast, he can portray the ammo bill as very burdensome and likely ineffective.

I hope he vetoes ALL of them - but I don't think he will.

Finally, I think it is possible to believe that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms and at the same time allows for registration. It could be argued that the state needs to know who owns guns and what types they are in order to draft either or both in a national defense emergency such as the UK faced after Dunkirk.

Please understand that this is not my position - it's just a position that is held by some people. Until the SCOTUS further defines the nature of 2nd Amendment protections, we won't know if it is a legally sustainable position.

Kavey
09-05-2011, 5:01 PM
They will likely be:

The ammo bill - which may be a huge hassle for us

The long gun registration bill - which we don't want either, but which would have little effect unless or until they try to take guns away (not likely - and if you own a handgun you are already on the list).

And possibly the open carry bill.

JB can veto the open carry bill by pointing out the fact that it will lead to statewide virtual shall issue, leaving the other two. I think he will probably sign one of these two bills. Politically it will be hard for him to veto all the bills.

So, which one will he sign? My guess is long gun registration. He will point out that it will have little to no burden on gun buyers, since we already undergo a background check and 10 wait anyway.

In contrast, he can portray the ammo bill as very burdensome and likely ineffective.

I hope he vetoes ALL of them - but I don't think he will.

Finally, I think it is possible to believe that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms and at the same time allows for registration. It could be argued that the state needs to know who owns guns and what types they are in order to draft either or both in a national defense emergency such as the UK faced after Dunkirk.

Please understand that this is not my position - it's just a position that is held by some people. Until the SCOTUS further defines the nature of 2nd Amendment protections, we won't know if it is a legally sustainable position.

"vincewarde" has, in my opinion, correctly analyzed the situation.

I remember Jerry Brown from his first tour as governor some 30 years ago. JB has a well earned reputation for being able to straddle the fence through just about any issue.

- The latest version of the ammo bill (SB 427) will reach JB's desk and he will likely veto it because it's the one piece of anti-gun legislation that gun owners truly fear. If JB were to sign a bill like the one that has already been thrown out by the court (AB 962), gun owners would brand him as an F-rated anti gunner in the most extreme sense. JB can make several convincing arguments to the media why this bill is a bad idea for the state. And, since he will be signing another antigun bill, it will be a PR wash for him.

- The long gun registration bill (AB 809) will also reach JB's desk and he will sign it claiming that it will be a significant help in tracking "crime guns" (note: he knows better). The media and the libs will eat it up. Gun owners won't like it. But, we will be so grateful to JB for vetoing (SB 427) that we will overlook it and move on mumbling something about how Meg Whitman would have signed everything. (Bye-the-way, there is no doubt in my mind that she would sign them all!).

- AB 144 is the one bill that Brown will try to keep away from his desk. If it reaches his desk and he signs it, he is setting up a major court battle that is likely to result in all Californians having equal access to permits to carry concealed. If he vetoes it, the media will make it sound like JB is telling everyone to strap on a gun before they take a walk through their local shopping mall. I really don't know what Brown will do with AB 144 if it reaches him.

Like "vincewarde", the above is just my objective opinion. I hope I'm way off and nothing leaves the legislature. If anything does get out, I hope it is swatted hard and fast with a veto.

____________________________

I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen every episode of Judge Judy.

taperxz
09-05-2011, 5:49 PM
They will likely be:

The ammo bill - which may be a huge hassle for us

The long gun registration bill - which we don't want either, but which would have little effect unless or until they try to take guns away (not likely - and if you own a handgun you are already on the list).

And possibly the open carry bill.

JB can veto the open carry bill by pointing out the fact that it will lead to statewide virtual shall issue, leaving the other two. I think he will probably sign one of these two bills. Politically it will be hard for him to veto all the bills.

So, which one will he sign? My guess is long gun registration. He will point out that it will have little to no burden on gun buyers, since we already undergo a background check and 10 wait anyway.

In contrast, he can portray the ammo bill as very burdensome and likely ineffective.

I hope he vetoes ALL of them - but I don't think he will.

Finally, I think it is possible to believe that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms and at the same time allows for registration. It could be argued that the state needs to know who owns guns and what types they are in order to draft either or both in a national defense emergency such as the UK faced after Dunkirk.

Please understand that this is not my position - it's just a position that is held by some people. Until the SCOTUS further defines the nature of 2nd Amendment protections, we won't know if it is a legally sustainable position.

I disagree with you on ^^^ bolded

This bill will have the biggest financial impact on California. This is one thing JB will not tolerate. It will simply be a registry that must be maintained$$$ and for the good of LE??? Something that has not even been proven to be effective. JB Vetoes this!

mosinnagantm9130
09-06-2011, 12:19 AM
I disagree with you on ^^^ bolded

This bill will have the biggest financial impact on California. This is one thing JB will not tolerate. It will simply be a registry that must be maintained$$$ and for the good of LE??? Something that has not even been proven to be effective. JB Vetoes this!

This is my opinion. He knows how much it's cost Canada, and I don't think he'd sign it because of the financial impact.

CDFingers
09-06-2011, 4:56 AM
There is no reason of safety for the Governor to sign this. There is, however, revenue generated from the bill via fees. I think that makes the bill more attractive to the Governor than I'd like.

CDFingers

tabrisnet
09-06-2011, 12:17 PM
Advocatus diaboli: we already have a handgun registry. The mech for a long-gun registry isn't much different.

It will cost more, in that there will be a lot more data to store. But it shouldn't need a new development, so it shouldn't cost as much as Canada's.

CalBear
09-06-2011, 2:53 PM
Passed on file.

Stonewalker
09-06-2011, 2:58 PM
Interesting... so it will come up later then?

Mesa Tactical
09-06-2011, 3:13 PM
This is my opinion. He knows how much it's cost Canada, and I don't think he'd sign it because of the financial impact.

What financial impact? More hard disc space?

jwkincal
09-06-2011, 3:36 PM
What financial impact? More hard disc space?

That DB isn't on somebody's desktop computer that you can just plug a USB drive into. It will require a significant amount of time and expertise, and a savvy engineering team will almost certainly demand a total re-build of the extant infrastructure. I know I would.

This will cost a lot of money. Or it will not work. Or both.

Cnynrat
09-06-2011, 3:40 PM
Interesting... so it will come up later then?

Short answer: yes.

If a bill is passed on file two days in a row on the 3rd reading it goes inactive. I think it can still be brought back from that state though. I think this was the 1st pass on file.

Mesa Tactical
09-06-2011, 3:48 PM
That DB isn't on somebody's desktop computer that you can just plug a USB drive into. It will require a significant amount of time and expertise, and a savvy engineering team will almost certainly demand a total re-build of the extant infrastructure. I know I would.

There are about 1,000 DROS transactions per day. Some percentage of them, say 50%, are handguns and so the serial number is captured. With he new law, the serial number will be captured on all the transactions, and there will be some increase in total transactions (say, 20% or so) to account for multiple purchases that can no longer be handled on a single DROS.

The infrastructure is already there.

vincewarde
09-06-2011, 3:48 PM
I disagree with you on ^^^ bolded

This bill will have the biggest financial impact on California. This is one thing JB will not tolerate. It will simply be a registry that must be maintained$$$ and for the good of LE??? Something that has not even been proven to be effective. JB Vetoes this!

I hope you are 100% right :)

jwkincal
09-06-2011, 3:56 PM
There are about 1,000 DROS transactions per day. Some percentage of them, say 50%, are handguns and so the serial number is captured. With he new law, the serial number will be captured on all the transactions, and there will be some increase in total transactions (say, 20% or so) to account for multiple purchases that can no longer be handled on a single DROS.

The infrastructure is already there.

You are a database engineer? Systems Administrator?

POLICESTATE
09-06-2011, 4:02 PM
Jerry is our guy, with his help gun ownership, possession and use will become so restricted they will become overturned.

My 2 cents.

Mesa Tactical
09-06-2011, 4:08 PM
You are a database engineer? Systems Administrator?

No, but I used to write product specifications for DBAs when I worked at Cisco Systems.

Now that we have my CV out of the way, on what grounds do you see a massive re-investment in IT infrastructure for a system that collects serial numbers on all transactions instead of about half or a third of them? Where did I go wrong in my SWAG above?

On the other hand, I haven't read the law, but if long gun DROSes are to work like handgun DROSes, it will mean fewer firearms per DROS, which will mean more DROS transactions (the 20% increase I estimated above) which will mean, say, a 20% increase in DROS fees.

More than enough to compensate for whatever additional firepower is required to collect all those serial numbers, I am guessing.

POLICESTATE
09-06-2011, 4:11 PM
I anticipate at least a 20% drop in firearms sales in California due to financial hardship. So it will all balance out in the end. At least until society finally collapses because no one has anything left anymore and thus nothing left to lose.




No, but I used to write product specifications for DBAs when I worked at Cisco Systems.

Now that we have my CV out of the way, on what grounds do you see a massive re-investment in IT infrastructure for a system that collects serial numbers on all transactions instead of about half or a third of them? Where did I go wrong in my SWAG above?

On the other hand, I haven't read the law, but if long gun DROSes are to work like handgun DROSes, it will mean fewer firearms per DROS, which will mean more DROS transactions (the 20% increase I estimated above) which will mean, say, a 20% increase in DROS fees.

More than enough to compensate for whatever additional firepower is required to collect all those serial numbers, I am guessing.

jwkincal
09-06-2011, 4:19 PM
No, but I used to write product specifications for DBAs when I worked at Cisco Systems.

Now that we have my CV out of the way, on what grounds do you see a massive re-investment in IT infrastructure for a system that collects serial numbers on all transactions instead of about half or a third of them? Where did I go wrong in my SWAG above?

On the other hand, I haven't read the law, but if long gun DROSes are to work like handgun DROSes, it will mean fewer firearms per DROS, which will mean more DROS transactions (the 20% increase I estimated above) which will mean, say, a 20% increase in DROS fees.

More than enough to compensate for whatever additional firepower is required to collect all those serial numbers, I am guessing.

Yea, but how OLD is the system presently in place? Imagine you are an engineer on a government payroll and you have a fat portfolio of contractors in the jurisdictions of all your favorite legislators... and what about the demand in queries generated by the police, for whom this registry is being created, don't forget... they need it fast and they need it NOW! And for sure there will need to be additional redundancies put in place because the LAST thing we want is for our fancy new registry to go down; we can't host this thing on the Amazon cloud, you know...

There is no way they can do this on the cheap. I hope they try because it will break. It was designed years ago for a job whose scope has already been steadily increasing, even if the guys who did it first left a 100% margin (which would be irresponsible from a fiscal standpoint and thus maybe possible) it will still be exceeded by the change they want to throw at it. There isn't a way that a government effort can engage this kind of project without spending well into 7 figures. Hell, I doubt that many large companies could do it either; it'd have to be a lean shop that was wired in real tight and extremely efficient.

Dutch3
09-06-2011, 4:27 PM
That DB isn't on somebody's desktop computer that you can just plug a USB drive into. It will require a significant amount of time and expertise, and a savvy engineering team will almost certainly demand a total re-build of the extant infrastructure. I know I would.

This will cost a lot of money. Or it will not work. Or both.

Agreed. Look at the chaos created when the Department of Education hired IBM to redesign the CSIS student reporting system into CALPADS. It is still largely unusable after two years and undergoing constant revisions to the file spec due to "oops, we didn't think of that" omissions.

It got so bad (and expensive) that Schwarzenegger cut the funding last year. Some funding has now been restored, but the end is nowhere in sight.

vincewarde
09-06-2011, 6:00 PM
It's sad you guys are placing any hope of your constitutional rights to one man.

Jerry brown supported a reversal of an outright ban on handguns by the state.

Everything else is fair game.

You could be right, but I doubt it. Gov. JB, strictly speaking, did not support the reversal of a handgun ban, he supported the extension of 2nd Amendment protection against infringement to include protection against infringement by state and local governments. This is a whole lot more positive than most left or right coast Dems.

As to what is permitted under the 2nd Amendment, we really don't know at this point - but the protection will probably go far beyond simply prohibiting gun bans. I am sure that Gov. Brown knew this very well when he wrote his brief.

The next few years should be very interesting....

POLICESTATE
09-06-2011, 6:06 PM
You could be right, but I doubt it. Gov. JB, strictly speaking, did not support the reversal of a handgun ban, he supported the extension of 2nd Amendment protection against infringement to include protection against infringement by state and local governments. This is a whole lot more positive than most left or right coast Dems.

As to what is permitted under the 2nd Amendment, we really don't know at this point - but the protection will probably go far beyond simply prohibiting gun bans. I am sure that Gov. Brown knew this very well when he wrote his brief.

The next few years should be very interesting....

Yes they will be. Personally I don't trust JB. It's easy to say that he supports gun rights to an extent while at the same time driving our economy over a cliff probably knowing that people will start selling things (like guns) so they can eat.

Can't trust politicians though, that I know for sure :)

CaliforniaLiberal
09-06-2011, 8:17 PM
Jerry is an old man at the end of his political career. He will be less influenced by others and more inclined to make decisions according to what he really wants and believes. I think he has come a long way in the last thirty years and I'm expecting a lot from him.

We'll see.

MatrixCPA
09-07-2011, 9:15 AM
This is item #49 (Assembly Third Reading File) in the Senate Daily File on Wed, 9/7.

Mr.Glock45
09-07-2011, 2:19 PM
This is item #49 (Assembly Third Reading File) in the Senate Daily File on Wed, 9/7.

Any word on the bill? I missed the session, when I tuned in they were on item # 56

MatrixCPA
09-07-2011, 2:22 PM
They appear to have skipped over it for now. I didn't hear that actually happen and I've been watching all day.

pat038536
09-07-2011, 5:22 PM
Dear Mr. XXXX

Thank you for your recent communication in in opposition to AB 809 (Feuer), which would establish a state registration system, similar to the one currently in place for handguns, for all newly-acquired rifles and shotguns. Under AB 809, the make, model and serial number of the firearm as well as the identifying information of the purchaser would be recorded and kept on file by the California Attorney General's office. I appreciate hearing from you on these matters.

After carefully considering all the arguments before me, I supported AB 809 in the Senate Public Safety Committee on June 21, 2011 and again in the Senate Committee on Appropriations on July 11, 2011. This bill was read for a second time and amended, and since has been ordered to a third reading. While I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, I am generally a supporter of gun control and in the past I have supported many bills to that end.

blazeaglory
09-07-2011, 6:50 PM
Im just buying as much guns and ammo as I can for now regardless of what happens.

I know that sounds stupid but In the meantime of me writing, calling, emailing my officials, Im stocking up. And judging from how packed all the gun stores around here are, I think alot of Californians are doing the same thing.

It seems like our elected officials are making the gun industry in California rich

exklusve
09-08-2011, 8:25 AM
File Item #84 today.
Senate begins at 10am.

CalBear
09-08-2011, 11:13 AM
AB 809 up right now. De Leon has the floor.

Window_Seat
09-08-2011, 11:13 AM
DeLeon is discussing 809 now!! Pray it doesn't pass.

Erik.

Dutch3
09-08-2011, 11:19 AM
Go La Malfa, Gaines and Blakeslee. Excellent points.

CalBear
09-08-2011, 11:20 AM
De Leon: Police and Sheriffs support it, we need this for solving crimes.

La Malfa: Canada is moving away from long gun registration. Criminals don't follow the law. It's making a list so the government can come to take the guns some day. You'll be glad one day that there are so many firearms owners out there. Police can't do everything -- guns help stop criminals.

Gaines: We recently heard about ATF giving guns to the cartels. This is another limitation on law abiding people. Look at communist countries and ones like Nazi Germany -- they were good at registration and weapon tracking.

Blakeslee: Many of us are concerned about government intrusion into lives -- should only happen in extreme situations. We just prevented police from looking at your cell phone and library records / book stores. We passed legislation about government eavesdropping. Many argue about a woman's right to choose. We talk about being careful of government intrusions. Snooping on a legal action is a slippery slope.

MatrixCPA
09-08-2011, 11:20 AM
They actually got de Leon to mention F&F on the record at least.

CalBear
09-08-2011, 11:21 AM
ROFL!

"You need to know whether it was sold in the black market"

Oh ya, cause I'm sure a black market sale will be reported to BOF!! HAHAHA

CalBear
09-08-2011, 11:23 AM
Alquist, Calderon, Corbett, De Leon, De Saulnier, Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Vargas, Wolk, Yee

18 ayes

Leno, Simitian

20 ayes

Steinberg will vote aye, this will pass.

Window_Seat
09-08-2011, 11:23 AM
20 yes votes so far, moves the call.

Erik.

Mr.Glock45
09-08-2011, 11:25 AM
20 yes votes so far, moves the call.

Erik.

20 votes is not a majority is it? Does that mean the bill dies?

CalBear
09-08-2011, 11:25 AM
20 votes is not a majority is it? Does that mean the bill dies?
Moved to call. Once Steinberg is back, they'll lift the call, and it will get to 21.

Mr.Glock45
09-08-2011, 11:27 AM
Moved to call. Once Steinberg is back, they'll lift the call, and it will get to 21.

How many votes do they need to pass it?

lhecker51
09-08-2011, 11:28 AM
How many votes do they need to pass it?
Is it not just a simple majority? If so, the bill passes.

MatrixCPA
09-08-2011, 11:29 AM
21 is what they need

Mr.Glock45
09-08-2011, 11:31 AM
21 is what they need

Damn it. No more long gun purchases for me then

CalBear
09-08-2011, 11:31 AM
Yes, they just need 21. At this point, I will be astonished if it doesn't pass.

CalBear
09-08-2011, 11:32 AM
Damn it. No more long gun purchases for me then
This one has a fairly high probability of being met with a veto at the governor's desk.

Window_Seat
09-08-2011, 11:33 AM
Yes, they just need 21. At this point, I will be astonished if it doesn't pass.

I too will be astonished if it doesn't pass. We need Brown to veto. AB-144 will also pass.

Erik.

MatrixCPA
09-08-2011, 11:33 AM
Damn it. No more long gun purchases for me then

I foresee a possible boon in 80% lower sales. :)

darkwater
09-08-2011, 11:37 AM
Democrats Rubio and Negrete-McCloud voted against it, and there may have been one more that I missed, as there were 17 against with 1 out of 15 Republicans not on the floor.

Don't forget, if passed in the Senate, this bill has to return to the Assembly to vote on the amendments, as the bill was amended in the Senate, and the clock is ticking.

CalBear
09-08-2011, 11:38 AM
I too will be astonished if it doesn't pass. We need Brown to veto. AB-144 will also pass.

Erik.
I, too, think 144 will pass. I can't see a senator who votes aye for long gun registration then vote nay on an open carry ban. If I remember correctly, long gun registration died in the senate last year around the time open carry passed the senate. If long gun registration can get 21 votes, I'd expect the same or 22/23 for an open carry ban.

CalBear
09-08-2011, 11:39 AM
Democrats Rubio and Negrete-McCloud voted against it, and there may have been one more that I missed, as there were 17 against with 1 out of 15 Republicans not on the floor.

Don't forget, if passed in the Senate, this bill has to return to the Assembly to vote on the amendments, as the bill was amended in the Senate, and the clock is ticking.
Wright will also vote no, but he wasn't on the floor, from what I remember.

Mr.Glock45
09-08-2011, 11:40 AM
This one has a fairly high probability of being met with a veto at the governor's desk.

I really hope so, I'm tired of this state's marxist gun-control agenda, only 2 more years and it's goodbye Ca

darkwater
09-08-2011, 11:43 AM
Wright will also vote no, but he wasn't on the floor, from what I remember.

No, he wasn't...Steinberg, Walters (R), and Wright were absent, and yes, I bet he would vote against as well.

tackdriver
09-08-2011, 12:58 PM
So has anyone here written Gov Brown asking him to veto this and the other absurd bills that may reach his desk? It's easy, you can just type "contact Gov Brown" in your search engine and go to a site where you can send an email. Take you 3 minutes. Be sure to have the AB and SB numbers ready so you can include them. Once again, it'll take you 3 whole minutes.........

AmericanValues1776
09-08-2011, 1:26 PM
Vargas may switch! He needs to be hounded. He wants to run for Congress- 916-651-4040

Flying Sig
09-08-2011, 1:52 PM
This didn't pass by ONE vote but it's going back to the floor this afternoon. Call your senators NOW!!

Click the link below to find your senator by zip. It takes 30 seconds. DO IT NOW!!

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html



:banghead:


CRPA email below:....


Urgent! AB 809 - Long Gun Registration Bill is Pending on the Senate Floor Right Now!

9/8/2011

AB 809 was brought up for a vote this morning and failed passage by ONE vote. It will be brought up later today for another vote. Please contact your senator immediately and urge a NO vote on this bill! Please be courteous and thank them for their consideration on this very important bill.

These bills present a serious threat to firearms owners, shooters, and sportsmen. Don't delay! Take action now and make your voice heard at the state capitol! Don't let anti-gun legislation disassemble your firearms rights piece by piece!

AB 809 - Rifle and Shotgun Registration
CRPA Position: Oppose
URGE A NO VOTE ON AB 809
AB 809 was reintroduced this year by Assembly Member Feuer in an attempt to require registration of all newly acquired rifles and shotguns, similar to the required registration of handguns. This is another form of AB 1810 which you may recall was defeated last year. The $400K estimated cost to implement rifle and shotgun registration is far less than the real cost. A good example is Canada. With a population less than California, Canada has spent billions on long gun registration and is now considering throwing the registration system out because there have been no demonstrated benefits to law enforcement


If this passes and Brown does not veto it, it WILL become law.


GET OFF YOUR LAZY *****, GRAB A PHONE AND PLEASE CALL NOW!

Which Way Out
09-08-2011, 1:58 PM
Called mine Tony Strickland. He voted NO.

I asked about 144 and 427 and suggested he also vote no on them.

Mstrty
09-08-2011, 1:59 PM
This didn't pass by ONE vote but it's going back to the floor this afternoon. Call your senators NOW!!

Click the link below to find your senator by zip. It takes 30 seconds. DO IT NOW!!

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html


JUST DO IT!!!!

Mr.Glock45
09-08-2011, 2:00 PM
Just called Alquist, I doubt she'll change her vote but it's worth a try. Praying this doesn't pass

GOEX FFF
09-08-2011, 2:00 PM
Called!!! I urged my our Senator (Pavley) to STRONGLY oppose AB809........but she has always voted anti. :rolleyes:

But regardless, it took less time to complete the call than for me to walk 200 feet.

CALL!!!!!

Mr.Glock45
09-08-2011, 2:01 PM
EVERYONE CALL YOUR SENATOR AND URGE HIM OR HER TO OPPOSE AB 809 NOW!!!!!!

CalBear
09-08-2011, 2:14 PM
I called Simitian and Yee. I told their staff AB 809 is going to be costly and completely ineffective, just like handgun registration. But I know realistically, neither of these two (who have basically never voted in favor of defense rights) will switch their vote. They'll still hear about it from me, though.

monk
09-08-2011, 2:27 PM
Just called and asked that a message get sent to Senator Padilla. Not sure what his stance in on guns but I imagine he's anti-gun.

PropheZ
09-08-2011, 2:33 PM
First post on Calguns....called Senator Alquist's office and urged her to vote against spending more money on needless regulation.

Josh

Cnynrat
09-08-2011, 2:48 PM
So has anyone here written Gov Brown asking him to veto this and the other absurd bills that may reach his desk? It's easy, you can just type "contact Gov Brown" in your search engine and go to a site where you can send an email. Take you 3 minutes. Be sure to have the AB and SB numbers ready so you can include them. Once again, it'll take you 3 whole minutes.........


Yes, I wrote to the Governor last week about AB 809. I am moderately hopeful that he will veto this based on the cost to the state. He's been exercising his veto power more than a few times in the last week. Some of his veto messages have a surprisingly libertarian viewpoint. It doesn't appear he's going to blindly sign anything the legislature puts on his desk.

monk
09-08-2011, 2:49 PM
Has anyone heard from Gov. Brown? I'm sure he's not replying to many people but anyone?

Wherryj
09-08-2011, 2:50 PM
This one has a fairly high probability of being met with a veto at the governor's desk.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA
I'm certainly glad that I finally made the last two purchases that I had be putting off.

CalBear
09-08-2011, 2:50 PM
They're about to go back over the assy 3rd reading. This will be pulled from call very soon.

monk
09-08-2011, 3:02 PM
It's on now!

CalBear
09-08-2011, 3:03 PM
Steinberg aye. Measure passes 21-19.

chris12
09-08-2011, 3:04 PM
Just passed 21 19 :(

monk
09-08-2011, 3:04 PM
Lame...

Kodemonkey
09-08-2011, 3:04 PM
Just passed....

MatrixCPA
09-08-2011, 3:04 PM
Time to start bombarding Jerry.

JasonM
09-08-2011, 3:04 PM
Passed 21-19 :(

CalBear
09-08-2011, 3:04 PM
It will need to be concurred in the assembly first. Then it will go to the governor.

domino
09-08-2011, 3:06 PM
this such bullcrap...... I dont think they vote no very much. it seems like everything they bring up it gets passed. it is nuts to me that they just pass pass pass no matter what the bill is. what a big waste of $$$$

CalBear
09-08-2011, 3:07 PM
this such bullcrap...... I dont think they vote no very much. it seems like everything they bring up it gets passed. it is nuts to me that they just pass pass pass no matter what the bill is. what a big waste of $$$$
It's because near the end of the session the only bills you see are ones that made it from the assembly to the senate. These are all democrat bills, so it's very rare that the democratic senate (25-15) will not pass these bills.

MatrixCPA
09-08-2011, 3:08 PM
It will need to be concurred in the assembly first. Then it will go to the governor.

It was 47-29 in the Assembly. I'm not seeing a big enough shift to not meet concurrence. This is only going to not reach Jerry if they just run out of time.

mag360
09-08-2011, 3:11 PM
noooooooooooooo. My senator, Steinberg, who I called and emailed throughout this whole session, was the deciding vote.

CalBear
09-08-2011, 3:13 PM
noooooooooooooo. My senator, Steinberg, who I called and emailed throughout this whole session, was the deciding vote.
Yep. Steinberg is a party shill. I've hardly ever seen him go against the dems on anything.

GOEX FFF
09-08-2011, 3:25 PM
:mad: :facepalm: :mad: :facepalm:

It's all up to Jerry now.................

GOEX FFF
09-08-2011, 3:28 PM
this such bullcrap...... I dont think they vote no very much. it seems like everything they bring up it gets passed. it is nuts to me that they just pass pass pass no matter what the bill is. what a big waste of $$$$

Because, if they vote yes to everything and a bill passes, they can stand in the spot light for their re-election campaign and say "See I did something!" :facepalm:

Secret
09-08-2011, 3:29 PM
****

JasonM
09-08-2011, 3:33 PM
Yep. Steinberg is a party shill. I've hardly ever seen him go against the dems on anything.

He's the Senate President Pro-Tem, he IS the democrats.

GOEX FFF
09-08-2011, 3:34 PM
I know this has been asked before,
But how would this affect C&R long guns and 03 FFL's?
Since one retains records in their bound book, would that be sufficient for "record keeping."?

One thing though, IF Brown signs this we'll have until 2014 to fight it.

Window_Seat
09-08-2011, 4:40 PM
Dispensed with... Whatever that means, but it's been passed over again...

Erik.

MatrixCPA
09-08-2011, 4:42 PM
It was passed 21/19 and will be sent back to the Assembly for concurrence.

Mr.Glock45
09-08-2011, 5:19 PM
Time to call and email Jerry! Don't give up people this bill MUST be vetoed .

916-445-2841 <------ Jerry's #

RyanDBurkhart
09-08-2011, 5:34 PM
Time to call and email Jerry! Don't give up people this bill MUST be vetoed .

916-445-2841 <------ Jerry's #

Busy signal. BUSY SIGNAL.

At least that means someone is talking to him.

Flying Sig
09-08-2011, 5:59 PM
Busy signal. BUSY SIGNAL.

At least that means someone is talking to him.



"To continue in English, press "1" now....

We are so fu*ked




:banghead:

RyanDBurkhart
09-08-2011, 6:06 PM
"To continue in English, press "1" now....

We are so fu*ked

:banghead:

I emailed him, hopefully I can get a call through eventually, even if it's at a ridiculous time of night.

safewaysecurity
09-08-2011, 6:06 PM
"To continue in English, press "1" now....

We are so fu*ked




:banghead:

What you said reminded me of this bit by Louis CK

We have white people problems in America. You know what that is? That’s where your life is amazing, so you just make **** up to be upset about.

People in other countries have real problems, like, ‘oh ****, they’re cutting off all our heads today.’ Things like that.

Here we make **** up to be upset about, like ‘how come I have to choose a language on the ATM machine? It’s bull****! I shouldn’t have to do that, I’m American!’

‘I called American Airlines and I got a Pakistani lady. And she was in Pakistan! Only people near my fat white body should have jobs!’

Anchors
09-08-2011, 6:13 PM
Don't sign it Jerry!

ETA:
Email Jerry today! Select "gun control" and "con" in the options menu and tell him to veto 809!
http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php

Mr.Glock45
09-08-2011, 6:19 PM
Just sent him an e-mail . I will e-mail him EVERYDAY. And Call EVERYDAY. I'll wash his car for a year if he VETOES this

CaliforniaLiberal
09-08-2011, 6:32 PM
First post on Calguns....called Senator Alquist's office and urged her to vote against spending more money on needless regulation.

Josh


Welcome to CalGuns PrpheZ!


Remember that this has to go back to the Assembly to be passed again because the bill was amended by the Senate before being passed there. The Assembly has to vote again on the new version so that both houses have approved the identical version. Midnight Friday (tomorrow) is the deadline. Lots of clever little maneuvers are possible, with some luck.

Unless they just vote and pass it first thing in the morning, then we have to fall back on Governor Jerry.

Remember last year at this time when AB1934, the 2010 bill to kill Unloaded Open Carry, died at midnight? The Republican Senators staged a mini-filibuster with twenty minutes left on the clock. They each started to take their 5 minutes of debate and would have also killed 6 other bills that the Democrats wanted even more than AB1934. So they pulled AB1934 and everyone was happy. Except for Lori Saldana. That was sweet!

I'm planning to watch tomorrow night. There'll be a CalGuns thread giving blow by blow no doubt.

VegasND
09-08-2011, 6:40 PM
Sorry guys. I don't think I've ever seen a state government so determined to climb all the way up it's own anal sphincter.

vincnet11
09-08-2011, 6:46 PM
WWaLxFIVX1s

Flying Sig
09-08-2011, 6:56 PM
What you said reminded me of this bit by Louis CK


White people problems? WTF are you talking about?

Nevermind, I really don't care....

NovaTodd
09-08-2011, 7:07 PM
You've worked all your life, raised your kids, paid your way, retired. Time to do what you want to do where you can do it. If you wait for CA, you will die first. Enjoy retirement, sir. Best to you.

I'm about 20 years from retirement. I simply found a job that offered me the money I asked for and well - here I am in North Carolina fighting the knats. At least I can use OFF spray on them... Not to mention the out of state (I've only been here a couple of weeks) hunting, fishing, and big game stamp liceneses are about what I would pay in California WITHOUT the deer tag. By the way the deer tag comes with 6 tags and if you need more all you have to do is ask. The downside is there is no BLM land to shoot on. But all my 10 round magazines were sold before I left and the few I kept had the rivets drilled out about 20 min after I got into the state. The bullet buttons were also promptly removed.

Cnynrat
09-08-2011, 7:12 PM
Well, sent the Governor another email on this subject. Hoping for the best ...

Stonewalker
09-08-2011, 7:31 PM
JB emailed... check!

Ranger of the Wasteland
09-08-2011, 7:33 PM
If this pass's one more reason to leave the state, I love the desert but I can't stand the laws and people. My belief in this country is fading, my belief in my state was never there.

safewaysecurity
09-08-2011, 8:01 PM
White people problems? WTF are you talking about?

Nevermind, I really don't care....

Lol I tried to find the clip but they've all been taken down for copyright reasons.

redcoyote
09-08-2011, 9:03 PM
I wonder if this bill is going to make my recently acquired C&R license completely worthless...

Anchors
09-08-2011, 9:26 PM
I wonder if this bill is going to make my recently acquired C&R license completely worthless...

C&Rs have MANY uses.

1. Acquire C&R long guns and handguns out of state (in person).
2. Second proof of residency for handgun purchases (government issued document with valid expiration date).
3. Discounts at many vendors (Brownell's, Midway, etc)
4. Exempt from one handgun from FFL dealer per 30 days rule (even modern handguns!).

I'm sure there are more. For $10 a year, that is worth it to me!

zvardan
09-08-2011, 10:16 PM
Yeah..
Time to move.

huntercf
09-08-2011, 11:01 PM
Yeah..
Time to move.

It was time to move over 10 years ago. Instead of trying to get CA back in the black these bunch of ivory tower idiots just keep passing laws that push businesses out of the state. How bout us calgunners get a proposition going that says anytime a member of the legislature introduces a bill to take away our rights they immediately lose 2 of theirs.:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::ba nghead::banghead:

Yugo
09-08-2011, 11:05 PM
man oh man.....is there any good news?

blazeaglory
09-08-2011, 11:16 PM
At least now I can justify multiple lower purchases in the very near future:D

Bhobbs
09-09-2011, 12:08 AM
Does this cover home built rifles using 80% or less receivers?

safewaysecurity
09-09-2011, 12:17 AM
Does this cover home built rifles using 80% or less receivers?

Nope

oni.dori
09-09-2011, 1:09 AM
...what a big waste of $$$$

Because it's not THEIR money that they are throwing around wantonly. That is why they simply don't care. THEY aren't paying for it, so why be responsible with it?

Also, email sent to Gov. Brown.

popeye4
09-09-2011, 9:16 AM
man oh man.....is there any good news?

The good news these days all comes out of the judicial process. The best we can expect from the legislative process in CA is the absence of bad news.....

blazeaglory
09-10-2011, 10:54 AM
So did this pass and is this now law? I know the date is 2013 but did this pass or is it still in process?

CalBear
09-10-2011, 11:03 AM
So did this pass and is this now law? I know the date is 2013 but did this pass or is it still in process?
It's awaiting the governor's signature. It won't become law until that point.

Librarian
09-10-2011, 11:08 AM
So did this pass and is this now law? I know the date is 2013 but did this pass or is it still in process?

The way you find the answer to this is to read the first post in this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=399849

That post has a link to the Legislature's bill page, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_809&sess=CUR&house=B&author=feuer

That page has a link to a Status document.

The critical two lines on that page are LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 09/08/2011
LAST HIST. ACTION : In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and
Enrolling. and the key words are underlined.

'Engrossing' is leg-speak for 'proof-reading'.

'Enrolling' is leg-speak for 'sent to the governor'.

'Enrolled' is leg-speak for 'now it's part of California law', but that happens only after the governor signs it, or fails to return it to the legislature.

blazeaglory
09-10-2011, 11:22 AM
Thank you!:)

GOEX FFF
09-10-2011, 11:30 AM
So did this pass and is this now law? I know the date is 2013 but did this pass or is it still in process?


Actually, the bill was amened to 2014.

One other incredibly concerning thing, is that ignorant out-of-state sellers (gunbroker/auctionarms etc.) will ignore the date and will automatically assume the law begins right away and ramp up their anti CA and no CA sales BS. I'm getting a pit in my stomach anticipating this outcome.....:mad:

G60
09-10-2011, 11:36 AM
This, from the Violence Policy Center should give some good points to bring up when you contact Jerry Brown:
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/licreg.htm

"Licensing systems are very expensive to administer. Canada's experience with its full licensing and registration system, begun in December 1998, is not encouraging."

"by March 2000 the Canadian Firearms Centre admitted that the system... was running up an annual bill nearly 10 times higher than the government's original forecast"

" the estimated cost of such a system here is staggering."

"Most importantly, licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence"

Bhobbs
09-10-2011, 1:00 PM
This, from the Violence Policy Center should give some good points to bring up when you contact Jerry Brown:
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/licreg.htm

"Licensing systems are very expensive to administer. Canada's experience with its full licensing and registration system, begun in December 1998, is not encouraging."

"by March 2000 the Canadian Firearms Centre admitted that the system... was running up an annual bill nearly 10 times higher than the government's original forecast"

" the estimated cost of such a system here is staggering."

"Most importantly, licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence"



You didn't finish the BS quote.

"Most importantly, licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence, such as unintentional gunshot deaths, suicides and the majority of homicides, since most homicides are the result of arguments between people who know each other and who purchase guns legally."

Stonewalker
09-10-2011, 1:34 PM
Am I missing something here? This year's legislative session is over correct? I thought all the bills had to be signed by now in order to become law?

Librarian
09-10-2011, 2:16 PM
Am I missing something here? This year's legislative session is over correct? I thought all the bills had to be signed by now in order to become law?

Not quite. Bills that pass both houses go to the governor, and in the first year of the 2-year session, he has 30 days from the passing to sign or veto.

If he doesn't veto, they become law anyway.

And they take effect either on the date specified in the law (if any), on the following January 1, or immediately, if they were marked 'urgency' bills.

Constitution, Article 4 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_4), Section 10, (b)(1) (b) (1) Any bill, other than a bill which would establish or
change boundaries of any legislative, congressional, or other
election district, passed by the Legislature on or before the date
the Legislature adjourns for a joint recess to reconvene in the
second calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session, and
in the possession of the Governor after that date, that is not
returned within 30 days after that date becomes a statute.

G60
09-10-2011, 2:20 PM
You didn't finish the BS quote.

"Most importantly, licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence, such as unintentional gunshot deaths, suicides and the majority of homicides, since most homicides are the result of arguments between people who know each other and who purchase guns legally."

We know the VPC are our enemies, but when even they admit the cost is staggering and does nothing to fight crime, then that's a good thing.

never mind what they're really saying is they want a total ban.