Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-30-2005, 11:46 AM
jnojr's Avatar
jnojr jnojr is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 7,998
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

AB 352 and SB 357 are going to go all the way. That's pretty clear at this point. Our only real hope is that Schwarzenegger will veto them, and there's a better-than-even chance of that happening.
__________________


San Diego FFLs | San Diego ranges
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-30-2005, 7:58 AM
TimG's Avatar
TimG TimG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lake View Terrace
Posts: 355
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's the entire e-mail :

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : S.B. No. 357
AUTHOR(S) : Dunn (Principal coauthor: Senator Perata) (Coauthors:
Senators Alquist and Cedillo) (Coauthors: Assembly
Members Klehs and Ridley-Thomas).
TOPIC : Ammunition: serialized handgun ammunition.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 06/22/2005


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 06/29/2005
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to
Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) Re-referred to Com.
on APPR.

TITLE : An act to amend Section 11106 of, and to add Sections
12313, 12314, 12315, 12315.1, 12315.2, and 12315.3 to,
the Penal Code, relating to ammunition.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-30-2005, 11:03 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,127
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

.457 mag has it exactly right.

The bill was amended, then passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. For reasons unknown to me, that committee thought the amended bill had some fiscal effect, so it goes back to Appropriations. (Might also be 'get this off -our- plate, we don't want to touch it'.)

The bill analysis has a bright spot, maybe:
Quote:
5)Provisions in This Bill Part of SB 1152 (Scott) : SB 1152
(Scott), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session, was vetoed. SB
1152 contained the provisions now in this bill as well as
other provisions related to recordkeeping of handgun
ammunition sales. The Governor's veto message for SB 1152
follows in its entirety. No where in that veto message is any
mention of the provisions now contained in this bill:
"I am returning Senate Bill 1152 without my signature. This
bill proposes an ammunition registration process that has
already been considered and rejected by the federal government
when they repealed a substantially similar law citing it was
simply unworkable and offered no public safety benefit. In
addition, no other state collects information on ammunition
sales or purchasers. Forensic testing of ammunition used in a
crime is the most effective way of tracing criminal activity.
For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my
signature."
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-30-2005, 8:26 AM
bd457's Avatar
bd457 bd457 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego East County
Posts: 883
iTrader: 86 / 100%
Default

It looks to me like the bill has passed but got sent back to Approprations for a cost issue.

Boy do I hope I'm wrong. This will no doubt be the last stab at getting me to move out of this state.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-30-2005, 7:57 AM
TimG's Avatar
TimG TimG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lake View Terrace
Posts: 355
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I got this update on SB 357 this morning, towards the bottom it says :

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 06/29/2005
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to
Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) Re-referred to Com.
on APPR.

what the heck does that mean ??
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-30-2005, 9:35 AM
Turbinator's Avatar
Turbinator Turbinator is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 11,260
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

If anyone (Bill Wiese?) can help decipher, that would be great.. I'm ready to write more letters to this Appropriations committee as needed!!

Turby
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:21 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.