AB962 Opposition Letter Thread

[woodsman]

So let me get this right. They want to spend our tax dollars on preventing you and me, law abiding citizens, from purchasing ammo over the internet - which will eat into already limited and obviously inadequate resources to protect our children from sexual predators.

YES! But it would seem that, the California powers that be, tend to view them less as predators but more as mentally stricken. Thus they can be rehabilitated - NOT.

[curtisfong]

here is mine

AB 962 provides that: "No person shall sell or otherwise transfer ownership of
more than 50 rounds of ammunition in any month unless the person is licensed by
the department as a licensed handgun ammunition vendor..."

No reasonable argument can be made that this Bill is in effort to reduce crime.
Existing law already provides for penalties for the possession of or provision
to prohibited persons. All it does it make it harder for law abiding citizens
to obtain ammunition for *legal* purposes, such as target shooting and
home/personal defense.

Furthermore, before the last Appropriations hearing, Finance *OPPOSED* AB962,
and yet it still (inexplicably) passed Appropriations, even during the fiscal
emergency CA is facing today.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/legislative_analyses/LIS_PDF/09/AB-962-20090504035415PM-AB00962.pdf

"Finance believes creating a new database and registration program would
require significant staff and contract resources. The bill would allow for a
fee to be charged to cover DOJ's costs, but caps that fee at $50. It is not
clear that this program can be implemented at that fee level. If it cannot, DOJ
would have to seek additional funding, creating pressure on other special funds
and possibly the General Fund."

Finance *opposed* this bill, and yet appropriations passed it, after amending
it to provide "funding". Funding in the form of an *additional* tax on
ammunition, which criminals are unlikley to ever pay regardless!

Taxes, I might add, that punish *law abiding* citizens who buy ammunition, not
to mention the businesses that are sure to see plummeting sales in the face of
cost increases and burdensome regulation. Tax revenue from ammunition sales is
sure to plummet. Many smaller retail stores will probably go out of business.
There is literally no way to fund this ill-conceived bill.

Furthermore, criminals do not buy more than 50 rounds at a time. Sportsmen and
target shooters buy more than 50 rounds at a time.

In fact, several *sheriffs* oppose this bill. They know it will do nothing
to curb crime or gun violence.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_cfa_20090902_174119_sen_floor.html

Butte County Sheriff
Del Norte County Sheriff
Fresno County Sheriff
Glenn County Sheriff
Kern County Sheriff
Lassen County Sheriff
Riverside County Sheriff
San Benito County Sheriff
San Bernardino County Sheriff
San Joaquin County Sheriff
Shasta County Sheriff
Stanislaus County Sheriff
Sutter County Sheriff
Tehama County Sheriff
Trinity County Sheriff

Please, join the many Law Enforcement officials who oppose AB962,
and vote against, regardless of your party affiliation.

[Nevermore]

A follow-up letter of mine, incorporating recent developments on the Senate floor:

OPPOSEAB 962, which is currently on the Senate floor. This bill will create new regulatory requirements for all handgun ammo vendors as well as restricting mail order or online purchases of handgun ammunition into California.

Despite the modifications introduced on September 4, 2009, this bill shall only hamper legitimate commerce and restrict lawful sporting activities in the state. In particular, the state is in the legally precarious position of creating law with respect to interstate commerce, an area wholly occupied by the Federal Government and the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8). Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state interference in interstate commerce is unconstitutional in 2005 with Granholm v. Heald. Ironically, this was a case where several states banned the import of certain goods fromwill get challenged on Commerce Clause grounds: Is it really a good use of state money defending an unconstitutional law?

AB 962OPPOSING AB 962.

Sincerely,


(Your Name)
(Your Address)
District (XX) Voter/Resident/Constituent/Employer

[rxdude]

I just emailed the governor urging a veto and will follow-up with a phone call.

It would be great if a link to this thread was included in the other threads that contain updates and contact tools.

If anyone else is like me, writing a letter or email of this nature is so much easier when a template is available containing key points.

It is one thing to get mad and disgusted when presented with information about this type of legislation, but it takes a little bit of time and effort to do something about it.

Thanks everyone for making it easier. Keep up the letters and phone calls!

[obeygiant]

I just emailed the governor urging a veto and will follow-up with a phone call.

It would be great if a link to this thread was included in the other threads that contain updates and contact tools.

If anyone else is like me, writing a letter or email of this nature is so much easier when a template is available containing key points.

It is one thing to get mad and disgusted when presented with information about this type of legislation, but it takes a little bit of time and effort to do something about it.

Thanks everyone for making it easier. Keep up the letters and phone calls!

from the main thread.

916-445-2841

Step 4a. Press 3 for SB585
Step 5a. Press 2 for Oppose
Step 6: Repeat as necessary (preferably once or twice a day).

[rxdude]

from the main thread.

916-445-2841

Yes, I've done that and have been urging others to do the same. Does the phone yes/no tally system carry the same weight as a letter or email? I did the email as I figured someone had to read it and understand why it is a bad idea.

[Nevermore]

I've been sending Twitter messages to Schwarzenegger's official Twitter feed, as well as faxing in letters. I'm down to a 'short and sweet' version, since the Governor's office is spammed with requests for the current period (30 days between the Legislature's end and when he needs to sign/veto them).

Current letter, sent AND faxed to his office:

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Office of the Governor
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916-558-3160

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

Please VETO SB 585 (Leno). This bill is a blatant attempt to eliminate lawful firearms sales on state property. Please do not allow those who disrespect the Second Amendment to gain a foothold to outlawing any and all lawful firearms-related activities on state properties.

Please VETO AB 962 (De Leon). This ammunition registration bill has constitutionally questionable elements, while the rest are redundant restatements of existing California law. It also creates a new Dept. of Justice program with no funding mechanism.

Sincerely,


[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Phone/E-mail]

You can also ask him to sign/veto any other legislation you're paying attention to. I figure at this point, the key things to communicate are:

1) Sign/Veto request
2) Bill Number (with sponsor)

At this point, his staff probably know what's being lobbied for. We just need the numbers to let them know that there's a lot of unhappy Californians who want Bill X shot down (or signed, as the case may be).