PDA

View Full Version : Reply from Senator Cox on AB 362


Bizcuits
10-10-2007, 11:31 AM
I got an email from Senator Cox today, kinda shocked I actually got a reply... heres what it said...

Thank you for contacting my office regarding gun control legislation.

My stance on additional gun control legislation has been clear. I have
consistently opposed efforts to restrict the ability of law-abiding
citizens to purchase and legally use firearms.

Here is a brief summary of some of the gun control bills currently
pending in the legislature:

Assembly Bill 334 (Levine) makes it a crime to fail to report a stolen
firearm. The bill provides a five day grace period between the time
when the gun is found to be missing and when the owner must file a
report. The bill also provides that an owner who files a timely report
will be immune from civil liability stemming from any illicit activity
as a result of the firearm being stolen. Despite this provision, this
bill is problematic for a number of reasons. The bill makes criminals
out of honest citizens who are themselves victims of crime. The offer
of civil immunity has multiple qualifications that makes its true value
questionable. For these reasons, I oppose AB 334 in its current form.
AB 334 failed to pass from the Senate this year, but may be eligible
for
consideration next year.

Assembly Bill 362 (De Leon) is a far-reaching measure which prohibits
any person not licensed as a gun dealer to transfer, sell or buy more
than 50 pieces of ammunition in a month. The bill also implements
extensive reporting and record-keeping requirements for all licensed
gun
dealers who wish to sell ammunition. The requirements listed in this
measure are impractical and would do more to inconvenience lawful gun
owners more than deter criminals. I oppose AB 362 in its current form.
AB 362 failed to pass from the Senate this year, but may be eligible
for
consideration next year

Assembly Bill 821 (Nava) would require the use of non-lead rifle and
handgun ammunition while hunting in certain areas as to reduce the risk
of lead poisoning to the endangered California Condor. While the goal
of protecting the endangered California Condor has merit, the
provisions
contained in this bill go too far and are of dubious value. AB 821
passed from the Senate on September 4, 2007 by a vote of 23 to 15. I
voted against the bill at that time. The bill is now on the Governor's
desk.

Assembly Bill 1471 (Feuer) would require all handguns sold after
January
1, 2010 to include micro-stamped identifying information that would be
transferred to each dispensed bullet cartridge as it was fired.
Technical issues aside, it is my opinion that such a program would not
lead to any significant reduction in gun violence, nor would it
increase
conviction rates of gun-related crimes. Moreover, the bill has the
potential to inconvenience and even implicate lawful gun owners whose
guns were stolen and used in the commission of a crime. AB 1471 passed
from the Senate on September 6, 2007 by a vote of 21 to 17. I voted
against the bill at that time. The bill is now on the Governor's desk.

I have also included below a summary of legislation from last year that
may be of interest to you.

Senate Bill 48 criminalizes the act of selling ammunition to an
underage
person whether or not the seller knew the person was underage. SB 48
passed the Senate on April 25, 2005 by a vote of 21 to 15. I voted
against SB 48. The Governor signed the bill into law on October 7,
2005.

Senate Bill 59 (Lowenthal) makes it a crime for a person to not report
their gun being stolen or lost to a law enforcement agency. SB 59
passed the Senate on August 29, 2006 by a vote of 21 to 16. I voted
against the bill at that time. The Governor vetoed this bill on
September 29, 2006.

Senate Bill 357 (Dunn) and Assembly Bill 352 (Koretz) seek to implement
a gun ammunition serialization program which would require every piece
of ammunition sold, manufactured or possessed in the State of
California
to contain a unique serial number for identification purposes. The
measures would also make it a crime to possess unserialized ammunition
in a "public place" after July 1, 2007. SB 357 passed the Senate on
June 2, 2005 but did not advance from the Assembly Appropriations
Committee. I voted against SB 357 when it came before me in the
Senate.
AB 352 passed from the Senate on August 24, 2006 by a vote of 22 to 18.
I voted against the bill at that time. The bill subsequently did not
receive enough votes in the Assembly and is no longer active.

Assembly Bill 98 (Cohn) is a very large and confusing measure that
sought to extend California's concealed weapons law to include as a
crime possessing an unloaded and unconcealed weapon in a public place.
AB 98 officially died on January 31, 2006.

Assembly Bill 944 (Ridley-Thomas) would have required firearm dealers
to
post a dire warning regarding the "dangers" of owning and keeping a
firearm in the residence. It would have also required the same warning
to be placed in all gun sales contracts. AB 944 passed the Assembly on
May 26, 2005, but did not advance from the Senate Public Safety
Committee.

Assembly Bill 996 (Ridley-Thomas) seeks to prohibit California
retailers
from displaying gun ammunition in such a way that would allow customers
access to the ammunition without the help of a store employee. AB 996
passed the Senate on August 25, 2005 by a vote of 22 to 15. I voted
against the bill at that time. The Governor vetoed this bill on
October
7, 2005.

Assembly Bill 1002 (Nava) sought to phase out lead-based gun ammunition
in the State of California by the year 2009. This bill officially died
on January 31, 2006.

Assembly Bill 2111 (Haynes) resolves a technical loophole that had the
potential to unfairly inconvenience California handgun buyers. The
bill
allows a purchaser of a DOJ-approved handgun to complete the legal
transfer of the weapon in the event that the manufacturer of the weapon
fails to pay a required annual fee to the federal government. I voted
in favor of this measure on June 26, 2006 and the Governor signed it
into law on July 12, 2006.

Assembly Bill 2714 (Torrico) requires that all handgun ammunition sales
in the State of California be contingent upon verifying the purchasers
age in person at the time of sale. This has the effect of banning
handgun ammunition sales over the Internet and phone. AB 2714 passed
from the Senate on August 31, 2006 by a vote of 23 to 16. I voted
against the measure at that time. The Governor vetoed this piece of
legislation on September 29, 2006.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to call my office.

Sincerely,

DAVE COX
Senator, First District

odesskiy
10-10-2007, 11:47 AM
If only more of our senators had as much common sense as Mr. Cox....

slick_711
10-10-2007, 12:01 PM
How had I not heard of AB362? Is that summary correct in it's statement that it would have limited purchase to 50 rounds per month? I shoot 2-4x that a week on slow weeks... WTF are the politicians thinking. Gangsters only need 50 rounds to kill 50 people... Anyone that buys more than 50 rounds at a normal gunshop is most likely a law abiding recreational shooter.

RudyN
10-10-2007, 12:14 PM
You beat me to it. I also received an e-mail from the Senator. It is nice that at least some legislators do let people know what is happening in Sacramento.

bulgron
10-10-2007, 2:53 PM
Yeah, that AB362 is pretty shocking. And I thought microstamping was bad. This state is seriously screwed up if legislation like that is getting any sort of serious consideration.

I really really need to move away from here. :mad:

Pthfndr
10-10-2007, 8:01 PM
Cox is VERY pro gun, and generally responsive if you write him.

LAK Supply
10-10-2007, 8:17 PM
One of my reps is currently involved in fighting the ATF over the Lautenburg amendment. ;) The water sure is warm.......


Yeah, that AB362 is pretty shocking. And I thought microstamping was bad. This state is seriously screwed up if legislation like that is getting any sort of serious consideration.

I really really need to move away from here. :mad:

Smokeybehr
10-11-2007, 1:48 PM
One of my reps is currently involved in fighting the ATF over the Lautenburg amendment. ;) The water sure is warm.......

I hope he wins, since it *is* an Ex-Post-Facto law, and therefore Unconstitutional.