Talking Points for Letters in Oppostion to AB 2062

[bruce_ventura]

Calgunners have provided a template and other resources for writing letters and email. I sifted through the previous thread on this topic and my own thoughts, and came up with the following talking points. Feel free to use, edit or add to this list:

I write in opposition to AB 2062 as it would adversely impact my ability to defend my family in my home. My opposition is based on the following points.


AB 2062 would make it more difficult and expensive for law-abiding citizens to use handguns for defense. My wife and I rely on a properly stored handgun as our last line of defense in our home. Handling a handgun safely and responsibly requires frequent practice at a pistol range, and practice requires convenient access to ammunition. AB 2062 clearly infringes on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

AB 2062 would not accomplish the objective of preventing the use of handguns in a crime because ammunition is virtually untraceable and too easily transported across state lines.

Attempting to impede the purchase of ammunition by felons would only encourage a black market for it. This would certainly lead to a situation in which it easier for criminals to obtain ammunition (via the black market) than it is for law-abiding citizens (via a permit).

Handguns are available that are chambered in many rifle calibers. AB 2062 relies on subsection (a) of penal code section 12323 for the definition of handgun ammunition:
"Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles."

If enacted this bill could easily be mis-interpreted to restrict the purchase of rifle ammunition as well.

Finally, the burden this bill would place upon the Department of Justice is far beyond its capabilities. It is inappropriate for California’s premier law enforcement agency to perform the type of automated record keeping that is called for in AB 2062. What Californians need is better enforcement (by the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies) of the laws we already have that prevent felons from possessing handguns.

Remember, the language is intended for Assembly Members and Senators, not other Calgunners.

[elenius]

A couple of suggestions:

In the first bullet, I would remove "AB 2062 clearly infringes on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." and move it to a separate bullet, as the 2A is not ONLY about self-defense.

Add a bullet on other legitimate uses of guns/ammo: Sports, hunting?

[AfricanHunter]

I added this bullet(taken from calnra);

Ammo sales registration has been tried, and failed, before. From 1968 federal law required gun dealers to collect information on handgun ammunition purchases. The law was scrapped in 1986 when ATF testified before Congress that it was useless. In 1997, the City of Pasadena found that a similar ordinance it had on the books for several years didn't work. The records never helped police solve a crime, so Pasadena repealed the ordinance.

[Librarian]

I added this bullet(taken from calnra);

Ammo sales registration has been tried, and failed, before. From 1968 federal law required gun dealers to collect information on handgun ammunition purchases. The law was scrapped in 1986 when ATF testified before Congress that it was useless. In 1997, the City of Pasadena found that a similar ordinance it had on the books for several years didn't work. The records never helped police solve a crime, so Pasadena repealed the ordinance.This is the one I wish would succeed. I really believe in the "efficacy theory" of legislation - if it has been tried and failed already, or you can't articulate why it should accomplish what you claim it will accomplish, then there's no excuse for wasting everyone's time on it.

[jgaffney]

We might also include a bullet point about "narrowly tailored." This is one of the points that came up in the Heller arguments:

The DC law was written to prevent criminals from using handguns to commit crimes. However, the law had a blanket effect on legitimate handgun owners. Therefore, the law was not narrowly tailored to address the issue. When you are talking about such an infringement on a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, you'd better make damn sure that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve the goal it claims to be aimed at.