PDA

View Full Version : IT STARTS! Please ONE-CLICK Assembly Public Safety Against AB 334


mikehaas
03-23-2007, 8:06 PM
NRA Members' Councils of California
http://calnra.com/skin/mclogoclr2.gif (http://calnra.com)
IT STARTS! Please ONE-CLICK Assembly Public Safety Against AB 334

This bill would make it an infraction for any person whose handgun is stolen or irretrievably lost to, within 5 working days after his or her discovery or knowledge of, or within 5 working days after the date he or she should reasonably have known of, the theft or loss, fail to report the theft or loss to a local law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss occurred or in which the person resides. The bill would provide that local governments are not prohibited from enacting ordinances imposing reporting requirements that are more strict than those specified in the bill.

03/23/2007 - AB 334 will be appearing before the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, March 27, 2007. Please contact the committee members and urge a NO vote on AB 334.

Supporting information and ONE-CLICK service has been established for this issue at:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab334

Mike

SunshineGlocker
03-23-2007, 8:27 PM
My take: this bill really isn't that bad. An infraction. Not a misdemeanor, an infraction. People should report guns when they are lost or stolen. Within five days of his or her discovery.

6172crew
03-23-2007, 8:33 PM
My take: this bill really isn't that bad. An infraction. Not a misdemeanor, an infraction. People should report guns when they are lost or stolen. Within five days of his or her discovery.
What happens when you dont know your gun was stolen then used in a crime and you find yourself in jail?

The people who make laws like this are always making the gun owner out to be the problem, not the guy who robbed the bank with your rifle....that guy gets sent to drug rehab and you get everything you have taken away.

No Thanks.

ONE CLICK SENT!

shooten
03-23-2007, 8:39 PM
Well said 6172crew. One click sent.

Scott

Directshot
03-23-2007, 8:39 PM
An attempt to make gun owners responsible for their property and public safety, what a concept. I personally don't see this as a bad item to be put on the table. Weapons lost or stolen should be reported as soon as possible, what's wrong with that.

hoffmang
03-23-2007, 8:42 PM
The problem with it is that this bill specifically allows local counties and municipalities to make it a real crime to not report your firearm stolen. Note that the definition of "soon enough" is theirs - not yours.

Want to have to call a lawyer when your gun is stolen? Can you name me anything else you own that you commit an infraction or a crime for not reporting stolen?

-Gene

6172crew
03-23-2007, 8:44 PM
An attempt to make gun owners responsible for their property and public safety, what a concept. I personally don't see this as a bad item to be put on the table. Weapons lost or stolen should be reported as soon as possible, what's wrong with that.

There isnt one thing in your house that cant be stolen without you knowing about it while your on vacation, you will just have to get a lawyer to explain your innocence with the use of a lawyer who gets paid 500 an hour.

Whats wrong with sending the guy to jail who stole your property in the first place?

No Thanks!

mikehaas
03-23-2007, 8:50 PM
The bill also allows localities to pass stricter ordinances and Sacramento is already trying to make it a misdemeanor and closing the window to 48 hours...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=saclosstheft.1&year=2007
That's a criminal issue that could affect your gun-owning rights for up to 10 years.

The proposed law further victimizes crime victims and should be called the "Attorney's Full-Employment Act". Without AB 334, when a gun is lost/stolen, the gun owner and law enforcement are eager to work together to recover the firearm. If AB 334 becomes law, the same gun owner will contact an attorney because they will be subject to possible prosecution for violating Mandatory Reporting Requirements. This bill places well-intentioned, law-abiding gun owners and law enforcement in an adversarial position and is therefore bad public policy.

Mike

Builder
03-23-2007, 9:20 PM
Already have 2 automatic responses from Jose Solorio (69th Assembly District) and Anthony Portantino (44th Assembly District)
Thank you Calguns, One-Click, Mike, and Gene!
Builder

Satex
03-23-2007, 9:24 PM
Sent!
Mike, keep us posted and tell us what to do!
:D

thmpr
03-23-2007, 9:30 PM
Sent.... With an explanation why they should vote "Oppose". Thanks for the heads up.

mikehaas
03-23-2007, 9:38 PM
Sent!
Mike, keep us posted and tell us what to do!
:D
Thank you all for helping to fight these slick attacks on our rights. You see how it works, they now have to craft the state legislation to work with local ordinances. The state law sounds light & fluffy while the cities will put the screws to you.

We must stay united to beat them. Please follow NRA's lead in these issues. They're on the inside, where we need people. They really do see things we don't - can't.

What else can you do? Sure. Next step past ONE-CLICKing, visit...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#oneclick

Note the section down below the ONE-CLICK links. "General Contact Info..." etc.

Since AB 334 is before the Assembly Public Safety Committee, click on that link. You will see individual email addresses, websites, local and Sacramento phone numbers. Go ahead, use 'em. Make some calls. Click through to their website and send some letters. For most folks, that's above the call of duty! I'm always happy if they ONE-CLICK!

Remember, you don't have to be from that district to make your thoughts known. These lawmakers are part of a COMMITTEE that is considering gun bills that affect US ALL. Your Assemblyman probably isn't on that list, so don't let that stop you from calling ALL OF THEM. Go ahead, help their staffs - IN BOTH LOCAL AND SAC OFFICES - understand the issue, no matter how long it takes. If they are going to get gun bills right, they have to understand the issues, right?

You guys are the bomb. Don't worry - my kids tell me that's a GOOD thing. :-)

Mike

mow
03-23-2007, 9:47 PM
One click sent

bg
03-23-2007, 10:27 PM
Yep it's on the way. Ya know this bill is terrible. What if you had to
go into the hospital in an ambulance and didn't have anyone to watch
out for your things ? So many people see a person being driven off,
it would be easy to let it slip that this person was in the hospital and
didn't have anyone to look out for them. If that's not a prime setup
for being robbed, what is ? How would a person even KNOW that
they had been robbed until they get home, IF they get home from
being in the hospital...Boy that's all you would need, trying to
recover, get home and the place is broken into and now you have
to try and make sure of what's gone and what's not and report
THAT to the cops or get busted.

How's that for rest & recovery ! Jeez. :(

vf111
03-24-2007, 8:19 AM
It sure would be nice if we were left alone to enjoy our hobby.....

colossians323
03-24-2007, 8:45 AM
Sent.... With an explanation why they should vote "Oppose". Thanks for the heads up.

plus one

johnny_22
03-24-2007, 10:05 AM
Hope they pay attention to logic.

TheMan
03-24-2007, 10:37 AM
An attempt to make gun owners responsible for their property and public safety, what a concept. I personally don't see this as a bad item to be put on the table. Weapons lost or stolen should be reported as soon as possible, what's wrong with that.

Everything. Why do this with just guns? Cars kill plenty of people every year, I don't see car owners being attacked in this way.

Why is that? Because the legislature isn't trying to legislate people into being responsible, it is trying to stigmatize gun owners, and make people who legally own guns into criminals, instead of victims.

It is effectively criminalizing legal gun owners when they are the victim of a crime. Once you cross that threshold of criminalizing gun owners for legally owning guns, it isn't as big of a step to criminalize ALL gun owners, not just the ones who had their guns stolen.

Every gun owner they can make into a criminal is one less legal gun owner in the state, which is their real goal.

Mike,
What is the deal with the 19.99 charge on the one click? What does this pay for? And if they are going to sell my email address after using that service, couldn't that be used to cover the charge?

Edited: Oops, I am illiterate. I reread the disclaimer, and see the fee does not apply to people using it for RKBA purposes.

6172crew
03-24-2007, 10:54 AM
TheMan, you had to pay for the one-click?:confused:

I did get something in the mail about sending a nasty gram to fienstiens but nothing like that on the web.

stator
03-24-2007, 10:58 AM
My take: this bill really isn't that bad. An infraction. Not a misdemeanor, an infraction. People should report guns when they are lost or stolen. Within five days of his or her discovery.

You should go to the California State Assembly website and reat the text of this bill. Once you do this, you will realize your statement is not valid as you make an assume that AB334 is solely about reporting lost or stolen handguns.

When you read it, you will realize that AB334 changes or adds definitions to other sections of the PC that has nothing to do with reporting lost or stolen firearms.

This is really an omnibus anti-2nd amendment bill.

TheMan
03-24-2007, 11:25 AM
TheMan, you had to pay for the one-click?:confused:


My bad, I went back and reread the Disclaimer. The 19.95 only applies to people trying to use it for something other than RKBA.

mikehaas
03-24-2007, 11:28 AM
...Mike,
What is the deal with the 19.99 charge on the one click? What does this pay for? And if they are going to sell my email address after using that service, couldn't that be used to cover the charge?

The reason I ask is that I paid for a multiyear membership to the NRA not long ago, and I think they may have already blown most of my membership dues on paper and mailing by sending me various contribution requests 2-3 times/week since then...
1. There is no $$ charge for you to use the ONE-CLICK. Read the disclaimer again...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#oneclick
...That's how we discourage the enemy from using our tools against us. Or those that want something to happen with tobacco or taxes or [whatever].

2. NRA uses direct mail fundraising practices for one reason - it works. They always make more than they spend at it. (Thank God!) Our association has no product to sell and depends on contributions from it's members. Wayne LaPierre has to raise over half-million-dollars every day. So please don't complain because you received another mailer - just throw it away if you don't want to or can't contribute right then. My understanding is that NRA's most frequent complaint comes from the number of direct mailings and I swear, I don't understand that one bit! That's our association doing it's job.

Mike

CALI-gula
03-24-2007, 12:15 PM
Obviously the first portion of this bill is garbage. That alone is why this bill needs to be stopped. But the second portion could set a terrible precedent and trend!

The second part seems to be a first step in the direction of selectively voiding the CA state preemption law that prevents local ordinances in CA from creating their own Anti-2nd Amendment laws.

They already skirt the state preemption by banning the sale of certain types of firearms in certain municipalities, but this latest is specifically making an attempt to throw out the state preemption for existing firearm ownership - next, they'll start installing the local ordinance allowance on other bills as exceptions to state preemption! :mad:

"The bill would provide that local governments are not prohibited from enacting ordinances imposing reporting requirements that are more strict than those specified in the bill."



.

James R.
03-25-2007, 12:04 AM
DDDone

leelaw
03-25-2007, 12:29 AM
within 5 working days after the date he or she should reasonably have known of

That part gets to me. It's not "when he or she DOES know" it's as above. That is a problem.

When I open my safe, I don't do an inventory of every single handgun, rifle, shotgun and frame. According to the proposed law, it could be articulated that just by opening my safe I should have reasonably known that it was missing, and hence I am a criminal because someone stole my property.

Thrillbilly
03-25-2007, 4:20 AM
sent :cool:

M. Sage
03-25-2007, 9:00 AM
Sent!

If nothing else, I don't like the idea of the government or anybody else telling me what to do with my private property. What part of "private" is open for discussion?

Dont Tread on Me
03-25-2007, 7:35 PM
Thanks for the heads up and 1-click sent.

I added the helpful suggestion of providing tax credit on gun safes as something that would be useful.

chunger
03-26-2007, 1:33 AM
1 click sent. . . fire up the emails :)