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
  #41  
Old 06-08-2020, 4:14 PM
morleda's Avatar
morleda morleda is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern CA - Shasta County
Posts: 158
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

The “Bill Analysis” that goes along with AB-2699 is full of lies.


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01920200AB2699



4) Argument in Support: The California Statewide Law Enforcement Association states, “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 DOJ permitted these officers and departments to acquire these firearms for their public safety personnel.

((Dave: the BS starts here there are no laws that would “require thousands of law Enforcement to forfeit their guns”) (and “repurchase new firearms”)

However, recent enforcement of the gun roster 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 to sworn officers within various state departments, including the California Horse Racing Board, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Toxic Substance Control, Investigators at the at the Department of Business Oversight, and others who have the necessary training to carry these particular handguns. ”
5) Prior Legislation: AB 1794 (Jones-Sawyer) of the 2019 Legislative Session was almost
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-08-2020, 4:25 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morleda View Post

((Dave: the BS starts here there are no laws that would “require thousands of law Enforcement to forfeit their guns”) (and “repurchase new firearms”)

However, recent enforcement of the gun roster 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.

This is from the author of the bill.. I doubt the author has any clue what the changes in this bill actually do .. She was just paid or whatever to make the bill.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-08-2020, 4:37 PM
seaweedsoyboy seaweedsoyboy is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 53
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morleda View Post
The “Bill Analysis” that goes along with AB-2699 is full of lies.


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01920200AB2699



4) Argument in Support: The California Statewide Law Enforcement Association states, “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 DOJ permitted these officers and departments to acquire these firearms for their public safety personnel.

((Dave: the BS starts here there are no laws that would “require thousands of law Enforcement to forfeit their guns”) (and “repurchase new firearms”)

However, recent enforcement of the gun roster 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 to sworn officers within various state departments, including the California Horse Racing Board, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Toxic Substance Control, Investigators at the at the Department of Business Oversight, and others who have the necessary training to carry these particular handguns. ”
5) Prior Legislation: AB 1794 (Jones-Sawyer) of the 2019 Legislative Session was almost
Nah, the best is in the 05/31/2020 - Assembly Appropriations analysis:

COMMENTS:

2) Background. "...Some newer model firearms are not yet fully compliant with California’s microstamping law and, as a result, are technically considered “unsafe” and not listed on the DOJ’s Roster. This bill states specified law enforcement agencies may legally purchase newer model weapons that might not be listed on the Roster, but are still safe to operate. If a manufacturer wants a newer model to appear on the Roster, it must pay the $200 fee assessed by DOJ."

So if they're still safe to operate, just not "safe" enough to be "not unsafe," then... **** it I can't even begin to try and engage in the gymnastics required to justify this ****. People (myself included) need to stop letting legislators get away with continuing to push these things through the process, with no hesitation or questions, like a particle accelerator. Keep calling and keep emailing your Assembly Members and State Senators.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-09-2020, 6:55 AM
Quickdraw559 Quickdraw559 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Madera, CA
Posts: 1,612
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
It has been said that the best horse is in a can of dog food.
My dad used to say something similar. Did they used to put horse meat in dog food?
__________________
WTB CZ stamped Oakhurst
WTB 12 gauge Wingmasters
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-25-2020, 1:41 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

06/23/20 Referred to Senate Committee on Public Safety

No schedule time yet.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-28-2020, 12:44 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This bill is on the agenda in the Senate Public Safety committee Friday July 31 9am.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-29-2020, 2:08 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 762
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickdraw559 View Post
My dad used to say something similar. Did they used to put horse meat in dog food?
Yes and the hooves went to the glue factory.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-01-2020, 6:03 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Looks like the public safety committee didn't vote on this one during the July 31 meeting.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-01-2020, 6:47 AM
JDoe JDoe is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,045
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaweedsoyboy View Post
Nah, the best is in the 05/31/2020 - Assembly Appropriations analysis:

COMMENTS:

2) Background. "...Some newer model firearms are not yet fully compliant with California’s microstamping law and, as a result, are technically considered “unsafe” and not listed on the DOJ’s Roster. This bill states specified law enforcement agencies may legally purchase newer model weapons that might not be listed on the Roster, but are still safe to operate. If a manufacturer wants a newer model to appear on the Roster, it must pay the $200 fee assessed by DOJ."

So if they're still safe to operate, just not "safe" enough to be "not unsafe," then... **** it I can't even begin to try and engage in the gymnastics required to justify this ****. People (myself included) need to stop letting legislators get away with continuing to push these things through the process, with no hesitation or questions, like a particle accelerator. Keep calling and keep emailing your Assembly Members and State Senators.

Maybe we need to go all black lives matter on them at their homes, businesses and communities. I’m not going to organize anything but I’ll show up for something that is organized properly and with my megaphone and verbally engage them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-01-2020, 7:25 AM
Cactus_Tim's Avatar
Cactus_Tim Cactus_Tim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,321
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I have three megaphones.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-01-2020, 9:09 AM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,835
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

I dont get why roster exemptions dont apply to military police.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-01-2020, 9:24 AM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,146
iTrader: 87 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
I dont get why roster exemptions dont apply to military police.
Because like federal agents, they are not cops. They can investigate and apprehend but arrest at the federal level is reserved for the US Marshal. A couple of FBI agents found that out last year, here in California.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-01-2020, 10:07 AM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,835
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby View Post
Because like federal agents, they are not cops. They can investigate and apprehend but arrest at the federal level is reserved for the US Marshal. A couple of FBI agents found that out last year, here in California.
Can you drop a link for that please?
And MP’s are sworn police officers.
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 5:22 PM.




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