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
  #201  
Old 08-05-2020, 10:57 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 862
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default



Given the recent spat of accidental law enforcement firearms theft, the many illegal police shootings and LEO misuse of firearms (including framing of innocent bystanders), this bill should be amended to apply to all law enforcement agencies and government employees as well.

Any firearm in CA used by a citizen, employee of the state or State recognized Police force should have to utilize these safer and more accountable tools that they are mandating. Especially including the tools and weapons of war on loan from the federal government.

Its for the children and the community we need safe firearms and government accountability in the current environment of realization of so many mistakes, accidents and intentional acts.
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 08-05-2020, 11:01 AM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 583
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

The irony of this bill is that this bill is happening in the same legislative session as the pending AB2699, which would make more law enforcement agencies exempt from the roster. Apparently, the limitations of the roster make it too difficult and dangerous for law enforcement to acquire handguns. Representatives from NRA and NSSF did point out the dissonance between AB2699 and AB2947 to the Senate committee at the hearing of this bill.

The California Statewide Law Enforcement Association gave this statement in support of AB2699:
Quote:

In 2001, Penal Code §32000 created a list of non-exempt agencies who may purchase non-roster firearms for use in the discharge of their official duties. Questionably, certain trained peace officers and law enforcement personnel were left off the list. These peace officers are often required to participate in mutual aid situations, task forces, sting operations and arrests. These high-risk situations require that these officers be properly armed.

In years past the Department of Justice permitted these agencies and departments to acquire these firearms for their public safety personnel. However, recent enforcement of the gun roster by the Department of Justice would require thousands of law enforcement to forfeit their guns. This legislation is necessary because it will allow officers, who have gone through the appropriate training to carry and keep their ‘non-roster’ handguns, while on active duty. Thereby also not creating a new expense for the State to repurchase new firearms and to retrain these personnel on these new firearms. In particular, this bill will expand the unsafe handgun exemption to sworn officers within various state departments, including the California Horse Racing Board, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, Investigators at the Department of Business Oversight, and others whom have the necessary training to carry these particular handguns.

Last edited by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ; 08-05-2020 at 11:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 08-05-2020, 12:22 PM
REH's Avatar
REH REH is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,519
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
The irony of this bill is that this bill is happening in the same legislative session as the pending AB2699, which would make more law enforcement agencies exempt from the roster. Apparently, the limitations of the roster make it too difficult and dangerous for law enforcement to acquire handguns. Representatives from NRA and NSSF did point out the dissonance between AB2699 and AB2947 to the Senate committee at the hearing of this bill.

The California Statewide Law Enforcement Association gave this statement in support of AB2699:


Gee I wonder why???
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 08-06-2020, 3:39 PM
BeanFromSanDiego's Avatar
BeanFromSanDiego BeanFromSanDiego is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 604
iTrader: 86 / 100%
Default

Not sure if this is too far off topic, but wouldn’t this bill ironically make it easier to make pistols from 80% AR lowers and P320s?

My thought process is that you could have the firing pin imprint the serial number to pass the requirements for home built firearms. There’s nothing stating that you can’t change parts down the road. If that were the case removing LCIs and mag disconnects would be unlawful.

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 08-06-2020, 3:49 PM
Dave Hill Dave Hill is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Shasta Co.
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by REH View Post
[/U][/B]
Gee I wonder why???
I would hae to say our politicians and unionized government employees are a top to bottom crime gang raping the taxpayers.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 08-06-2020, 5:27 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,192
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This bill is schedule for the Senate Appropriations committee for Aug. 13th.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 08-11-2020, 7:30 PM
Mr.Baker's Avatar
Mr.Baker Mr.Baker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default AB 2847

What are you doing about AB 2847? This bill is to go into effect 2022 which is all about the micro-stamping from the firing pin on all guns in California; the latest rewrite states for every gun With the micro-stamp technology that gets added to the roaster 3 previous approved guns come off the roaster

You better be reaching out to State SenatorJohn Moorlach (Republican) that’s reviewing this case and make sure you advise him to vote No on AB 2847; also you need to articulate why this is a agenda driven bill systematically removes the already short list of so called safe handgun roaster and will ultimately create a monopoly with only one or two companies that could even pull off this bogus technology, which by they way can be easily filed down to remove the Unique identifier on the firing pin and make it worthless for what they are trying to achieve. The governor is already signing bills behind closed doors and if this gets to him he will sign.

Thanks Please Act Now
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 08-12-2020, 6:38 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,192
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Baker View Post
You better be reaching out to State SenatorJohn Moorlach (Republican) that’s reviewing this case and make sure you advise him to vote No on AB 2847; .
Moorlach voted against it already in the Senate Public Safety committee.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 08-12-2020, 5:00 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,437
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Moorlach voted against it already in the Senate Public Safety committee.
Yes. He has done the best he can. Which is all he is able do. And it didn't matter because he is out-numbered. And it did not matter what he said in arguments. They all decided their vote before the hearings. They have rarely ever not liked any increase in restrictions on gun rights for civilians in years now. It is hard for a clear minority to win against a determined majority in a pure democracy without intervention from above that level and no one with power is intervening at the state level or federal level. Roberts has hamstrung the SCOTUS so the only chance at all right now is at the 9th circuit level.
__________________
Benefactor Life Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran, Black Ribbon in Memoriam for the deceased 2nd Amendment


Buy on Amazon? Use smile.amazon.com to contribute to the NRA. $181,944.67 as of February 2020 to the NRA from Amazon purchases.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 08-13-2020, 3:21 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,192
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Senate Appropriations committee heard the bill today, and placed this bill (and all other bills) on suspense. I think it means they will be voting in another meeting.

4 people called in who were in opposition, none for it.

Last edited by abinsinia; 08-13-2020 at 3:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 08-13-2020, 8:08 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,849
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Senate Appropriations committee heard the bill today, and placed this bill (and all other bills) on suspense. I think it means they will be voting in another meeting.

4 people called in who were in opposition, none for it.
They dump bills without strong, or lack of obvious, support into the Suspense File to take a breath and see what crawls out of the woodwork. The Senate Appropriations analysis said:
Quote:
Fiscal Impact: Costs to DOJ in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for two to five years to, in part, promulgate regulations prompted by this measure and, potentially, related to IT system changes and litigation. (General Fund, special funds*)
*Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund & Firearm Safety Account.
Basically, they’re balancing costs with other activities. Hopefully, they will realize that this one isn’t worth the cost. What they’ll probably realize is that the issue doesn’t relate to COVID, nor does it resonate with the progressive base. It’s too esoteric for headlines, and the masses will say, “So what?”

A suspense hearing will be held with “vote-only”, no public testimony, before the deadlines for fiscal committees to hear and report bills to the Senate Floor (Aug 21). The last Senate Appropriations meeting is scheduled for Aug 17, but this bill isn’t (yet) on the agenda. If the bill isn’t passed to the floor, it’s dead for the year.

The Governor will be providing the legislative leaders with guidance on what will be signed. They will adjust their selections to support his desire.

At the Suspense File hearing bills are taken up alphabetically by author. There is no public testimony.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 08-14-2020, 3:36 AM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,437
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Senate Appropriations committee heard the bill today, and placed this bill (and all other bills) on suspense. I think it means they will be voting in another meeting.

4 people called in who were in opposition, none for it.
Good, a victory for now. I did not see that coming...something changed. What is very telling to me was this part..."this bill (and all other bills) on suspense". They simply don't have the time and money to focus on gun regulation now or most other legislation that would normally get attention. That is our sliver lining in this cloud. COVID-19 has bought us time.
__________________
Benefactor Life Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran, Black Ribbon in Memoriam for the deceased 2nd Amendment


Buy on Amazon? Use smile.amazon.com to contribute to the NRA. $181,944.67 as of February 2020 to the NRA from Amazon purchases.
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 8:35 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical