Referendum AB962?

[Werewolf1021]

Just got this letter from my senator.

Dear Gun Owner,
The Legislature should punish lawbreakers who use guns illegally, not punish law-abiding citizens who use them legally and responsibly.

This year, the Governor signed a measure, SB 175, to eliminate some red tape legal firearms owners go through to have their guns repaired. He also vetoed SB 41 which would have only created more bureaucratic red tape for legal gun purchases.

Unfortunately, the Governor did sign a measure, AB 962, which bans internet sales of ammunition and creates additional hurdles for legal gun owners to purchase ammunition.

While I strongly opposed this measure, it won majority approval of the Legislature. Consequently, it is unlikely the Legislature would appeal this law. However, the state Constitution gives voters the right to reject any law passed by the Legislature through the referendum process. If you feel strongly about stopping this law from taking effect, you may wish to consider this option.

I have consistently opposed legislation that restricts the right to own a firearm or limits an individual’s ability to protect themselves or their family, and I will continue to do so. Please continue to count on me to vote in favor of legislation that protects your 2nd Amendment rights and to oppose any measure that would threaten your Constitutional right to bear arms.


Sincerely,

Senator Dave Cogdill

What is the referendum process? Never heard of it before. Would it be a viable option or a waste of time since we already have planned legal action?

[Seesm]

Anything that MAY help is a godo thing yes no maybe?

[bwiese]

CA referendum on gun law details = BAD IDEA.

[ke6guj]

IIRC, the referendum process is that you submit the entire bill to the voters to see if they want to void the law. Same process as any other referendum. The trick is that you have to print the entire bill that they passed on the signature sheets, including all the code that didn't change. So, what happened when they tried to do a SB23 overturn is that they had to print tons of PC, and only had room for like one or two sigs on the page.

[bodger]

So I can see why it's a bad idea. A referundum that requires a majority vote to repeal AB962?

Not going to happen in this state.

Better luck with the interstate commerce angle. Of course, the way courts move, who knows how long that will take before we see the results.

[Cokebottle]

So I can see why it's a bad idea. A referundum that requires a majority vote to repeal AB962?

Not going to happen in this state.

Oh, it might (especially if you can get it into an off-year election), but if the majority upholds it, it will make it much more difficult for our PACs to get another bill negating it pushed through Sacramento.

It's a bit risky.

[gregorylucas]

It seems to me that the majority of voters in California don't make very good decision's at the ballot box. I doubt very seriously they would vote to repeal AB962 and the courts have the final say in any case.

-Greg

[HondaMasterTech]

I would probably let the 2nd amendment win in a court of law, not at the hands of the public. ( that sounds wrong, don't it? )

[locosway]

It depends how this is proposed to the people. Selling the idea is everything, no matter how the PC reads. There are a lot of conservative areas in CA that could get signatures to overturn such a law. The problem is the time involved.

[jdberger]

Referendum (ae?) are seriously expensive - especially for this next election.

Read "paid signature gatherers".

[Roadrunner]

The problem is Urbania. Too many people in California buy into the hogwash that politicians have given them, and too many are just too damn lazy to actually do research to see if what those Sacramento liars tell them is true. If a referendum was put out there, you would have to have a huge education campaign about guns before that, and that would be impractical unless every NRA trainer and gun enthusiast was willing to put aside some time to educate the ignorant about guns and gun safety and offer the training for F R E E.

[Doug L]

What is the referendum process?

We would circulate petitions to collect signatures. After we get the minimum number, then the issue would be put on the next available ballot as a Proposition to be voted on.

Just got this letter from my [state] senator.

"...the state Constitution gives voters the right to reject any law passed by the Legislature through the referendum process..."

Sincerely,

Senator Dave Cogdill

...Would it be a viable option or a waste of time since we already have planned legal action?

Since there is already legal action in process, it's probably too early to start the signature gathering.
If the legal avenue fails, then we would have to pursue this option.

[7x57]

When this came up in Joel Friedman's presence, he said that Wayne LaPierre once asked him about running a referendum in California. Joel told him that the tribes had spent something like a million dollars to get casino gaming on the ballot, and asked Wayne if he was ready to put up a million dollars for a ballot initiative that might very very easily lose.

Since we haven't had such a thing, apparently the answer was no.

For all the reasons already discussed on the thread, national NRA just could not justify the cost considering the chances and considering the risks involved. On the risks, think about this: if we ran an initiative and lost, what would be the effect in Sacramento? Every single time an anti-gun bill came up in committee, the point would be argued over and over again that the voters had rejected the pro-gun lobby. The results would be used to support every anti-gun bill California gun-banners can devise (whether even vaguely relevant or not). For that we'd pay a million dollars that could instead go toward legal fees, lobbying Sacramento, and other activities with higher payoff and less risk?

For that matter, with that money we could probably offer free handgun training to every woman in every women's shelter in California for a good long time.

7x57

[Doug L]

When this came up in Joel Friedman's presence...

You describe what we should not do.

In my humble opinion, it's more productive to focus on what we should do.

So, what should we do???

[7x57]

You describe what we should not do.

To be precise, I discussed ballot initiatives as the OP requested.

In my humble opinion, it's more productive to focus on what we should do.

In my humble opinion it would be more polite to actually address the OP's question instead of using his thread to discuss a different topic.

So, what should we do???

See many, many other good threads in this forum. It's half the discussion here.

7x57