PDA

View Full Version : SB249 : How they are voting and who to vote OUT next election


PackingHeatInSDCA
08-08-2012, 5:28 PM
One of our problems is we don't remember this stuff come election day. I mean more than just voting NO, but talking to people around you and make sure they vote against these people too. If not for guns then something else they hold dear.

And so here is some info I found online regarding who has voted for SB249 (ayes) and who against (NOES). Obviously, we want to vote out the "AYES" and re-elect the "NOES" in the lists below.

and so here they are:

UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: SB 249
AUTHOR: Yee
TOPIC: District agricultural associations: 1-A Distr
DATE: 07/14/2011
LOCATION: ASM. FLOOR
MOTION: SB 249 Yee Senate Third Reading Amend By MA Set #1
(AYES 48. NOES 21.) (PASS)


AYES
****

Alejo Allen Ammiano Atkins
Beall Block Blumenfield Bonilla
Bradford Brownley Buchanan Butler
Charles Calderon Campos Carter Cedillo
Chesbro Davis Dickinson Eng
Feuer Fletcher Fong Fuentes
Furutani Gatto Gordon Hall
Hayashi Roger Hernández Hill Hueso
Huffman Lara Bonnie Lowenthal Ma
Mendoza Monning Pan Perea
V. Manuel Pérez Portantino Skinner Swanson
Torres Wieckowski Yamada John A. Pérez


NOES
****

Conway Cook Donnelly Galgiani
Grove Hagman Halderman Harkey
Jeffries Jones Knight Logue
Mansoor Miller Morrell Nielsen
Norby Olsen Silva Valadao
Wagner


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

Achadjian Bill Berryhill Beth Gaines Garrick
Gorell Huber Mitchell Nestande
Smyth Solorio Williams


---

UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: SB 249
AUTHOR: Yee
TOPIC: District agricultural associations: 1-A Distr
DATE: 05/05/2011
LOCATION: SEN. FLOOR
MOTION: Senate 3rd Reading SB249 Yee
(AYES 30. NOES 9.) (PASS)


AYES
****

Alquist Calderon Cannella Corbett
Correa De León DeSaulnier Emmerson
Evans Fuller Hancock Harman
Hernandez Huff Kehoe Leno
Lieu Liu Lowenthal Negrete McLeod
Padilla Pavley Price Rubio
Simitian Vargas Wolk Wright
Wyland Yee


NOES
****

Anderson Berryhill Blakeslee Dutton
Gaines La Malfa Runner Strickland
Walters


NO VOTE RECORDED
****************

Steinberg

ewarmour
08-08-2012, 5:36 PM
My representation:

NOES:
Assemblyman Jones
Senator Anderson

jdberger
08-08-2012, 5:54 PM
Not the same bill. It's been changed thrice since those votes.

wildhawker
08-08-2012, 5:59 PM
Not the same bill. It's been changed thrice since those votes.

This.

Librarian
08-08-2012, 6:19 PM
Right - when it was in the Senate, it was an Ag bill, nothing to do with guns.

Lots of reasons to campaign against Senators, but other than Yee and perhaps a co-sponsor or two, SB 249 is not yet an occurrence of a 'bad vote'.

huntercf
08-08-2012, 6:52 PM
Right - when it was in the Senate, it was an Ag bill, nothing to do with guns.

Lots of reasons to campaign against Senators, but other than Yee and perhaps a co-sponsor or two, SB 249 is not yet an occurrence of a 'bad vote'.

Well on my end, I called Sen. Gloria Negrete Mcleod's office in Sac. and asked to speak with her, the operator wouldn't let me speak with her and as soon as I said SB249 she said she would transfer me and then hung up on me. I wrote 2 emails to her and usually when I write an email I get a response, this time around, nothing. I think the dems are going to ignore anyone that calls them because they are arrogant and think they will get re-elected no matter what we think.

steve91104
08-08-2012, 8:05 PM
:popcorn:

PackingHeatInSDCA
08-08-2012, 8:10 PM
I figure it's always been a bill about limiting guns. so it doesn't matter if it's not exactly the same bill. these people voted against it once already in some form. good enough to vote them out as far as I am concerned.

I feel a bit taken by Senator Kehoe. She told me before her election in an email that she supported the 2A. errrrrrrrrr

PS: I just saw this post: Right - when it was in the Senate, it was an Ag bill, nothing to do with guns

ok then.....understood. well the same goes true after it comes to a vote then. we got to take names and target each in their specific district when they are up for election. etc.

choprzrul
08-08-2012, 8:14 PM
Wait for the final vote.

We need to pick a handfull of critical people who's vote could make or break this bill and might have some vulnerability come election time in their district. Then, every last swinging Richard needs to target those few.

If we fail, we have to pick 1 or 2 of those selected above to target for booting out of office with our time and wallets.

the_natterjack
08-08-2012, 8:24 PM
Well see if I get a response back, just sent a couple of very direct emails.

In a nutshell the emails read . . . .

I am your Constituent. I voted for you that last _ _ election cycles.

This bill, SB 249, is going to damage me, your constituent, to the tune of
$ _,000 worth of my private property that will be confiscated and destroyed.

What are you going to do to protect me, your constituent, so I don't have
$ _,000 worth of my private property taken unlawfully?

Looking for to your response.




Well on my end, I called Sen. Gloria Negrete Mcleod's office in Sac. and asked to speak with her, the operator wouldn't let me speak with her and as soon as I said SB249 she said she would transfer me and then hung up on me. I wrote 2 emails to her and usually when I write an email I get a response, this time around, nothing. I think the dems are going to ignore anyone that calls them because they are arrogant and think they will get re-elected no matter what we think.

huntercf
08-08-2012, 8:40 PM
Well see if I get a response back, just sent a couple of very direct emails.

In a nutshell the emails read . . . .

I am your Constituent. I voted for you that last _ _ election cycles.

This bill, SB 249, is going to damage me, your constituent, to the tune of
$ _,000 worth of my private property that will be confiscated and destroyed.

What are you going to do to protect me, your constituent, so I don't have
$ _,000 worth of my private property taken unlawfully?

Looking for to your response.

I like it, do you mind if we use it?

motorwerks
08-08-2012, 9:19 PM
I love my area

NOES
****

Gaines, La Malfa

AndrewMendez
08-08-2012, 9:34 PM
OP, love the idea. It's been thrown around here multiple times, and I would love to see the effort....the issue however, is people like talking...but don't like actually putting in the effort.

I am "attempting" to work with a Pro Gunner, running for Congress against a super anti. I have spent time calling swing voters and other Republicans to get out and vote, and we are heavily out numbered. I have averaged only about 1 hour a week, and sadly, i am one of the biggest helpers. The other lady has a staff and hundreds of thousands from Union donations.
To give you an idea, he has hundreds of people on his Volunteer list...
Most of those people have spent less then 60 minutes doing anything to help the cause of getting the other person elected.
I would love to see a HUGE push to get Yee out of office on the next go around, but he is in a very secured area. Apparently he doesn't know who the Pink Pistols are.
Andrew

the_natterjack
08-09-2012, 7:35 AM
Please do, spread it around.

It's not directly a 2A issue, but seriously what kind of response are they going to send me? That they don't care that I'm going to loose $_ _, 000 of dollars.

My car is not worth that much.

That's a down payment on a house.

That a college degree from a decent college.

And your going to take that from me?

- Brian

I like it, do you mind if we use it?

wjc
08-09-2012, 4:02 PM
Fong, Alquist

NO VOTES FOR YOU!

adampolo13
08-09-2012, 5:03 PM
If we are really go to do this, and I think we totally should, we need to get a very unified plan together. We also need to make this about MORE than just 2A. We need to paint the picture about these guys so that everybody doesn't want to vote for them. Think about Yee, he has been caught strolling for hookers, caught shoplifting, cost the state millions of dollars yet people in his district vote for him no matter what. If we are going to do this we must really get the word out about these politicians. This is the way the NRA works on the national level, they go all out on all fronts.

prob
08-09-2012, 5:28 PM
I think the dems are going to ignore anyone that calls them because they are arrogant and think they will get re-elected no matter what we think.

That's because they WILL be reelected no matter what we think. You have to realize that democratic legislators are elected by democratic constituents who don't care one wit about the 2nd Amendment.

jdberger
08-09-2012, 7:16 PM
That's because they WILL be reelected no matter what we think. You have to realize that democratic legislators are elected by democratic constituents who don't care one wit about the 2nd Amendment.

California politics isn't about Dem/Rep anymore.

A determined, well funded and well volunteered campaign always has a fighting chance. There are lots of Dems who understand that.

huntercf
08-09-2012, 8:10 PM
California politics isn't about Dem/Rep anymore.

A determined, well funded and well volunteered campaign always has a fighting chance. There are lots of Dems who understand that.

Time to pick some low hanging fruit!

Whoosdat
08-09-2012, 8:35 PM
Well all of the assembly members in my area are pro gun but I put into calls to the one that is not and Spoke to Mr. Perez personally and informed him that if he votes yes on sb249 I will use every resource I have to make sure he doesnt get re-elected. After alot of back tracking he said that with all of the phone calls letters and emails he has reciaved he will be ABSTAINING his vote. So it does look like making calls and putting pressure on them may work.

huntercf
08-09-2012, 8:46 PM
Well all of the assembly members in my area are pro gun but I put into calls to the one that is not and Spoke to Mr. Perez personally and informed him that if he votes yes on sb249 I will use every resource I have to make sure he doesnt get re-elected. After alot of back tracking he said that with all of the phone calls letters and emails he has reciaved he will be ABSTAINING his vote. So it does look like making calls and putting pressure on them may work.

For the win :D, my senator won't speak with me nor respond to my emails :(.

prob
08-09-2012, 8:59 PM
California politics isn't about Dem/Rep anymore.

A determined, well funded and well volunteered campaign always has a fighting chance. There are lots of Dems who understand that.

I beg to differ.

Democratic constituencies generally remain that way for a very long time - as do Republican constituencies. All one need do is look to the recent redistricting that has had politicians in an uproar. They want those same solid blocks of votes and they'll do everything they can to get them.

And if you look at their voting records, the outcomes almost always show results that coincide with party affiliation. Republicans on one side, Dems on the other, and never the twain shall meet.

Rob7.62
08-09-2012, 9:02 PM
Anyone who votes yes for this bill I will make sure to donate to whoever it is running against them when they are up for election.

jdberger
08-09-2012, 9:21 PM
Time to pick some low hanging fruit!

Look. It's not even that difficult.

Pick a candidate who's been a proven anti who's in a close race - say...Pete Stark (CA-15). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark)He's in a contest for the first time in about 20 years. His opponent is Eric Swalwell (http://www.swalwellforcongress.com/). He's a Democrat and probably not going to be an NRA "A" politician - but Stark is a solid "F".

Identifying us as gunnies and throwing our weight behind Swalwell shows him that we, as a community, are worth listening to.

******************

Here's another scenario.

You take a proven anti incumbent who's never had any serious opposition - like Barbara Lee (CA-9). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lee)For the first time, she has a little bit of opposition, Marilyn Singleton (http://www.singletonforcongress.org/) (note the redistricting).

You throw your weight behind a challenger and force the incumbent to spend campaign money on their own race instead of on another tight race. Also, in this particular case, the incumbent is in a new district with a different demographic.

These are big races and require some serious effort - but what if there was a proven anti on a City Council? Or a County's Board of Supervisors? Or a School Board or Water Board? How many people actually even vote for those people? How many are simply guessing when they're voting?

What if you could change 500 of those votes? 100? What if you could start making anti-gun politics toxic - much in the same way the Temperance Movement is seen?

So - spend a few minutes and take a look at who's running for election where you live. Find one you want to back and CALL the campaign and volunteer. Bring some buddies. Let them know you're gunnies and you're volunteering because gun rights are important to you.

If you can't find a local race - volunteer for one that isn't (like one of the ones I've listed above if you're in the Bay Area).

There are 100,000 Calgunners. Can you imagine our power if we actually have the will to use it?

/soapbox

wjc
08-09-2012, 10:08 PM
There are 100,000 Calgunners. Can you imagine our power if we actually have the will to use it?


...and they all decide to get involved. :rolleyes:

Good strategy tho. It's one I'm using.

jdberger
08-10-2012, 11:25 PM
I beg to differ.

Democratic constituencies generally remain that way for a very long time - as do Republican constituencies. All one need do is look to the recent redistricting that has had politicians in an uproar. They want those same solid blocks of votes and they'll do everything they can to get them.

And if you look at their voting records, the outcomes almost always show results that coincide with party affiliation. Republicans on one side, Dems on the other, and never the twain shall meet.

The new primary system of "top 2" and the entrance of the Dem supermajority makes the old paradigm obsolete. See my post a couple up.

wildhawker
08-10-2012, 11:31 PM
...and they all decide to get involved. :rolleyes:

Good strategy tho. It's one I'm using.

Apply a factor of .10 to web forum figures and that's more realistic.

-Brandon

Quser.619
08-11-2012, 4:08 PM
Is there a way to track the expense of these losing gun control laws to the CA tax payer? I love see the advertisements for all AYE votes being run that the law supported & knocked down cost you this much, meanwhile the state is still 3 Billion+ over budget. Let's start showing that these laws cost everyone $$$ & do little else but punish law abiding citizens.

wjc
08-11-2012, 5:15 PM
Tangential to this, I'd like to see something that shows estimated sales/tax revenue lost by the restrictions/regulations.

I realize it's vaporware but it's something I'd like to see.

Librarian
08-11-2012, 6:00 PM
Tangential to this, I'd like to see something that shows estimated sales/tax revenue lost by the restrictions/regulations.

I realize it's vaporware but it's something I'd like to see.

Sure, lets imagine.

In 2011 there were about 308,000 long guns DROSd.

Let's say they were all new AR-15 types. Let's suppose that all AR-15 types could no longer be sold.

Look at impact guns: http://www.impactguns.com/ar15-rifles.aspx. Average price of the first 16 on the page is about $1200. (Ignore 'assault weapon' issues.)

That would be $369,600,000.

Let's pick LA county as representative of CA - 8.750% sales tax for $32,340,000.

Just a drop in the bucket, I'm afraid. Enacted CA budget for 2012 is $91,338,000,000. But it could cover the 2012 reduction in general child care programs.

OTOH, look at the number of AR-15 types we think are in California.

Brandon's guess is about 400,000. I think it could easily be 3x that.

A 'governmental taking' would cost around 400,000 x $1200 = $480,000,000 - 15 times the guesstimate loss of one year's sales tax revenue on such guns.

The state has HALF A BILLION DOLLARS to waste on this folly? That number would cover the 2012 reduction in payments in the Quality Education Investment Act funds.

Schools or court losses? Which should the state choose?

wildhawker
08-11-2012, 8:42 PM
Just to clarify that we think it's actually much higher, but there is no data that can substantiate it without getting ATF or mfgr books.

-Brandon

wjc
08-12-2012, 2:07 PM
Geez...that's a lot of samolians!

I'm sure the current legislature would embrace it whole-heartedly...idiots.

Thanks for the breakdown Librarian!

Felix168
08-12-2012, 3:32 PM
Why are people like Leland Yee and Adam Keigwin allowed to hold office since they don't believe in the Constitution of this country? Shouldn't the Supreme Court look into this?? When one go into Naturalization to become a citizen, he has to take an oath to commit to the Constitution of the United States.

By the way, None of these "Stop SB249" will help. If they want to ban it, they will.  The fathers of this country had already predicted this kind of BS would eventually happen. Plan and simple, the government is getting way too big and they're changing the Constitution and there isn't a thing you can do about it, unless we vote everyone out and start over, which is next to impossible.

"For the People, By the People" is now "For their Power, By our Money".

Boogie Woogie
08-12-2012, 4:16 PM
Librarian, I am :notworthy:

Great info; no, excellent info. :notworthy:

Librarian
08-12-2012, 5:56 PM
Just to clarify that we think it's actually much higher, but there is no data that can substantiate it without getting ATF or mfgr books.

-Brandon

True.

There's 'reasonable inference' and there's WAG. My suspicion of larger number is less than the first, and IMHO not quite at the second.