2003: A Banner Year for California Gun-Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MikeHaas

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
291
Please Distribute Widely To All Gun Owners/Groups
-----------------------------------
NRA MEMBERS' COUNCILS OF CALIFORNIA
10/23/2003
-----------------------------------

2003: A Banner Year for California Gun-Rights
by Mike Haas

2003 was certainly a year for change in California, and many Golden State gun-owners may not realize how their gun-rights were affected by new laws - mostly for the better!

Persistence pays off

To be sure, anti-gun forces advanced their agenda during the Davis regime. But one can only imagine what damage to our Second Amendment rights they dreamed about when Gray became Governor in 1998. With the advantage of five years of hindsight one can deduce (if not be outright entertained) that, despite their initial gains, the anti-gun lobby has been frustrated beyond understanding with their repeated failures to pass handgun licensing, taxes on ammunition, various types of handgun and rifle bans, and other assorted restrictions on the law-abiding. The California gun-owner, and **especially the California NRA MEMBER**, has not been "easy pickin's".

And this year, without a doubt, efforts in support of firearms rights in 2003 yielded much more fruit than that of the opposition. Five major anti-gun bills defeated and FIVE PRO-GUN BILLS SIGNED INTO LAW. While one bad bill did squeeze through, it had to be seriously compromised by it's author to achieve passage.

Turning corners

NRA members advanced the cause of freedom in California in 2003! The following pro-gun bills were signed into law...
Read the rest at http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml

----------------------------------------
Get the latest CA Legislative Info at:
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/legs.shtml
----------------------
AND DON'T MISS
----------------------
* WAYNE V. CNN - Wayne LaPierre takes CNN out in the FIRST ROUND
--- http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/wayne/cnn/
* The CA NRA Members' Councils' Life-Death Clock (As time goes by...)
--- http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
* ONLINE Calendar of California Firearms-related Events
--- http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/cgi-bin/calendar.cgi
!!! Submit your group's events via it's online interface !!!
======================
Provided as a service of the NRA Members' Councils of California
 
While one bad bill did squeeze through, it had to be seriously compromised by it's author to achieve passage.
Click to expand...


Uhhh, Is this the law that makes all Semi-autos illegal unless they have some worthless "safety devices" arbitrartily added?
 
How about SB23 which would make any sunset of the AWB moot in CA.

After banning all guns in CA, would the NRA call the following year a "banner year" since no new gun legislation passed? You know, because there wouldn't be any need.
 
Welcome to THR MikeHaas. Please flesh out the cheerleading on the good gun bills we got. Positives need to be trumpeted before all gun enthusiasts are driven from the state.
 
Turning corners

NRA members advanced the cause of freedom in California in 2003! The following pro-gun bills were signed into law:

SB255 (Ducheny - Dem) Landmark "First in the Nation" Background Check Law - Signed by Governor Gray Davis. The provisions of SB255 will allow persons to pay $20.00 and undergo a State and Federal background check to determine their legal status for purchasing firearms without risking the violation of State and Federal laws in the process. Senate Bill 255 is long overdue, and allows a person to comply with State and Federal laws without becoming a victim of inaccurate government records or bureaucracy. SB255 announcement

AB1044 (Negrete-Mcleod - Dem) CCW Applicant Privacy Protection - Several years ago, California law was changed to require the state Attorney General to maintain a centralized Department of Justice database of local CCW application data. Assembly Bill 1044 repeals this requirement, prevents the state from maintaining that information and affords other protections in local CCW forms and procedures. This bill would require the California Department of Justice to destroy any centralized database of information or records of CCW permit holders or applicants. AB 1044 announcement

AB396 (Harman -Rep) Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement Program - Authorizes the California Department of Fish and Game to work in partnership with nonprofit conservation groups and other interested non-governmental organizations to encourage private landowners to voluntarily make their land available to the public for wildlife-dependent recreational activities.

SB238 (Perata -Dem) Lowers the penalty for the simple possession of an unregistered firearm classified as a "Roberti-Roos Assault-Weapon" to a simple infraction (ticket) and not endanger your gun rights.

AB1455 (Negrete-Mcleod - Dem) Airguns - Declares that BB and pellet guns that shoot ceramic or plastic objects are not toys. Existing law requires that toy guns be either bright orange or green.
Click to expand...

This what they call "Banner Year" gun rights legislation????????????
 
Uh huh.

One of the "pro gun bills" in question is anything but. AB1044. "Gee, let's throw away most of Cal-DOJ's CCW records AND while we're at it, let DOJ do whatever they want to the CCW application form layout because after all, back when public oversight was required by law they didn't do it anyway so let's let 'em keep right on :cuss:ing gun owners..."

Color me unimpressed.

The NRA acted to protect sheriffs who are screwing us over in CCW, because most of 'em are Republicans and they felt they needed GOP state legislative friends and the sheriff's help blocking new gun control more than they needed CCW reform.

Just one problem: with a new major piece of gun control such as 489 (a new sweeping ban on semi-auto handgun sales) going through every year, we're going to be ultimately screwed.
 
Huh??

Jim March, you wrote: ".....a new sweeping ban on semi-auto handgun sales"?????

How is this a "sweeping ban"?

For clarification, I called the California Department of Justice (Firearms Division) and they told me that Senate Bill 489 only applies to NEWLY DESIGNED semi-auto handguns manufactured, imported, and/or sold in California after 1/1/2006 and those must be NEW SALES, not private-party sales (through dealers, as existing law requires). ALL EXISTING MAKES, MODELS, DESIGNS, ETC. ARE GRANDFATHERED IN AND ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THIS BILL.

And they also told me that the "facts and/or opinions" that you have used regarding Assembly Bill 1044 are also not accurate. It only requires that the State of California cannot maintain a "centralized database" of CCW permit applicants' data. All other records are held (as required by law) by the local "issuing juristictions." I don't know any gun owner that wants the state or federal government keeping a "centralized databased" of gun owners and their information.

Seems like the NRA is correct on these issues, like usual.

BTW, the guy at the DOJ did tell me that a "Mr. Jim March" is connected with a "rival gun group" to the NRA. Are you the same guy that they were talking about? Are you connected with a competitor to the NRA?

If so, it sounds like another "attack NRA/send me money instead" situation that I have seen so much of lately from different sources.

Savage
 
Savage, you may want to do a little research into Jim's background before you try to pick an argument with him.

Seriously. There is a major reason why he is very interested in California's CCW records.

In fact, if you ever get CCW in your state, it will probably be because of Jim and the few others like him.
 
How is this a "sweeping ban"?
Click to expand...

Let's see, no 1911s, no Glocks, no Berettas, etc, etc. unless they are redesigned per instructions from CA's beurocrats. Sounds pretty sweeping to me.
 
Last edited:
All pomp, no circumstance.

Getting a little tired of the NRA people thinking we can't read and make up our own minds.
 
I don't see how any year that SB489 was passed could be considered a banner year for gun rights. No offence, but if you don't see how that consitutes a sweeping semi-auto ban, you are a fool. If the few guns on the approved list fall off, we are left with nothing.
 
OK, let's get into some details here.

God, where do we start?

SB489: first, once the legislature declared the lack of certain features on semi-autos signs of a gun being "junk", that causes problems no matter WHAT is "grandfathered". So forget grandfathering for a sec: anybody who buys a new or used gun off a dealer which lacks a loaded chamber indicator and/or mag disconnect safety and blows their foot off with it has new enhanced grounds to sue the dealer for selling an "unsafe gun". Which is the REAL point here: drive the dealers out of business. The side effect is that this same liability issue can turn around and bite any police/sheriffs/whatever department that retains "unsafe" guns - any accidental shooting by a cop will immediately be blamed by his lawyer on the department's issuance of "junk" and instead of the cop being liable on simple damages, the department is now liable and *negligent* because they pick the guns.

Cute, huh?

That new police chief in LA who just placed an order for thousands of Glocks is NOT gonna be a happy camper. :rolleyes:

Second, yes, I am now the California Field Rep for the Citizen's Committee to Keep and Bear Arms, and am a registered lobbyist. A post I've held for a month and a half now - and obtained AFTER fighting a pitched battle over AB1044 *prior* to being hired, prior to even being offered the gig.

Now, the reason I was offered this spot is that I've been fighting to expose the problems with the current CCW system for years. I'm a veteran of two lawsuits on the subject, and I run the Equal Rights for CCW Home Page: http://www.equalccw.com

Interested parties are invited to check the "Expose Project" area of my site: http://www.equalccw.com/expose.html The materials on the city of Oakland ("Zen And The Art Of CCW Abuse"), Don Perata and Sacramento are the most entertaining.

Now, let's talk about AB1044. There are two sections of the final bill that basically cause three effects. Here's the first chunk:

SECTION 1. Section 11106 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

11106. (a) In order to assist in the investigation of crime, the prosecution of civil actions by city attorneys pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), the arrest and prosecution of criminals, and the recovery of lost, stolen, or found property, the Attorney General shall keep and properly file a complete record of all copies of fingerprints, copies of licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050, information reported to the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12053,...[other records mentioned not relevant, stuff they were already retaining...]
Click to expand...

So first, DOJ still has the complete list of CCW permitholders. Got that?

The difference in the rules above from the previous rules, is that DOJ used to be required (since 1/1/99) to keep the "full application file" including the "good cause details".

Folks, way too many permits are being given out on a "crony basis". We're not going to be able to fix this crap until we prove that, therefore we need access to "good cause data". Some of which are just...well, hilarious. I have a sarcastic "best of" collection from Contra Costa County that's just mind-boggling:

http://www.equalccw.com/cccr.pdf

Second, DOJ used to also keep the records of CCW denial...those now get thrown out.

If anything, these are even more critical. The rate of issuance to both Latinos and females is suspiciously low statewide. In Contra Costa County, there's one lady permitholder out of 179, and she's a judge....that kind of ratio is *common* wherever permits are literally issued on a "good ol' boys" basis. The Fresno Bee in 1995 got ahold of a list of 2,500 permitholders from that county and tallied up how many have Hispanic surnames - it came to 3%, in a county that's 44% Latino per census data: http://www.equalccw.com/fresnobee.html

This stuff MATTERS. The courts take it very seriously. And if the rates of denial to ladies and Latinos is abnormally high, that's the nail in the coffin.

When DOJ realized they were sitting on those kinds of high explosives, they acted to destroy it.

So, the only "gun owner list" that was destroyed was the list of denials. Well that's just great - now, with DOJ not keeping the records, if you get denied the local agency can just trash your file and you're blocked from filing a discrimination suit because you can't prove you WERE denied!

Ya, those folks are well served. NOT. :scrutiny:

Now let's take a look at the other bit of AB1044, the one DOJ didn't talk about with "Savage" at all:

(D) The standard application form described in subparagraph (A) is deemed to be a local form expressly exempt from the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

Both these cites are available at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1044_bill_20030926_chaptered.html
Click to expand...

So what's going on here?

In 1986, the California Supreme Court ruled that CCW "good cause data" must be kept public, and stated why:

Public inspection of the names of license holders and the reasons the licenses were requested enables the press and the public to ensure that public officials are acting properly in issuing licenses for legitimate reasons…If the information on which the decision to grant can be kept from the public and the press, then there is no method by which the people can ever ascertain whether the law is being fairly and impartially applied. Source: http://www.equalccw.com/cbsvblock.html
Click to expand...

Back on 1/1/99, the California DOJ was given the task of creating a new state-standard CCW application form. They took the opportunity to hide that "good cause" data by putting it in a section of the form labeled "Section 7 - Police Investigator's Notes". "Police investigator's notes" aren't subject to public disclosure. DOJ then did a memo to all law enforcement on 7/20/99 telling them NOT to release Section 7 to the public under the Public Records Act. The memo is here: http://www.equalccw.com/dojevidence.html

Twice, DOJ attorneys were asked where the heck they got the right to overturn the California Supreme Court. Both times they said "we used our regulatory authority". When they told that to me on 6/19/02, I then asked them for the regulation number they had to publish, the public comments they had to take and any other evidence they followed the rules.

I was met with the term: "ooops".

Because you see, here's what the same law looked like prior to AB1044:

(D) The Attorney General may adopt and enforce regulations that are necessary, appropriate, or useful to interpret and implement this paragraph pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Click to expand...

Government Code 11340 is a set of rules whereby various agencies that can do "regulations" have to follow at least basic Democratic principles: public comment, public notification, open meetings, etc. They systematically violated the HELL out of all that back in '99, so they hurriedly passed AB1044 to cover their blunder.

Cheered along by the NRA.

Folks, the California DOJ has been trying to suppress evidence of massive CCW misconduct, racism, corruption and fraud for decades, this is only the latest (albeit ugliest) chapter.

They ain't gonna get away with it.
 
Savage, the CA DOJ has woefully misinformed you on both points.

In order to be legal for sale in CA, a handgun must pass a firing and drop-safety test, paid for by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must pay to keep them certified and the AG may choose up to 5% of certified models to re-test each year. Starting 1/1/2006, if a handgun does not have the legislature's additional "safety features", it will not make it onto this list -- a section of SB489 specifically prohibits the State from accepting for testing any pistol without the extra features. Thus, starting 1/1/2006, as handguns come up for re-certification or the AG decides they need re-testing, the names of Glocks, SIGs, 1911s, etc. will disappear from this list.

AB1044 sounds like a good measure, but it will hurt the effort for CCW reform. Jim March is working on a lawsuit to try to prove that various LE agencies across the state are engaged in a pattern of racial and other discrimination in their denial of CCW applications. Now that the DOJ no longer must keep information on applications (and the denials), that information is scattered and diffused across various local jurisdictions, making the discovery process more difficult.
 
Savage,
Short and Sweet.....anytime THEY make a gun law, it is bad JUJU.

Repeat three times................
anytime THEY make a gun law, it is bad JUJU.
Don't even question it. Don't argue with it.
anytime THEY make a gun law, it is bad JUJU.

Got it?:cool:
 
I'm pretty sick of NRA doublespeak...

We lost BIG time this year.... Its not a matter of winning to them, its a matter of how much we did not lose.

Sorry I call BS.

SB489 is a prime example of LOSS not WINNING.

The NRA is losing my respect big time... I support them financially but they did nothing worthwhile for us with the AW ban.. and they put in an amicus brief for the other side on the folks that challenged it IF my information is correct.

See this thread too

Unless I start seing true results, WINS and fairly big ones on our side in my state, I see no real reason to kep my support of NRA going.

Miffed.
Charles
 
OK, so they got some bills passed. I still feel like we're losing ground.
 
This is the most amazing thread I have seen here in months.

I am dizzy from the spin.

Please - they pass a few token laws that help gun owners in very tangental, peripheral ways and say thats good? I love how they pass off 1044 as a "privacy" bill. Yeah - good thing all the rich white guys will have CCW "privacy" while everyone else gets the big shaft.

I swear, if they were reporting on a battle, they would report 5 dead enemy soldiers as "five victories" and a lost country as "one little loss".

When I moved to California in 1987, there was virtually no gun control.

This is what you live with now:

1. almost no repeating rifles save about 3 or 4.
2. extremely difficult to collect any older or classic handguns
3. only certain new handguns are available - many of the neatest ones are not.
4. all transactions go through FFL
5. "lifetime" BFSC card now more expensive and good for 5 years only
6. must prove you own a safe or buy a lock with every gun
7. most self loading handguns will be unavailable within 3-4 years (sb 489)
8. no over 10 round mags unless owned before '99

hmm, what else is there?

5%-15% ammo tax
ballistic fingerprinting
smart guns (only)
handgun bans
confiscation

You guys are about 85% of the way down the road to having ZERO gun privlidges. - yes, in CA, they are "privlidges".

And Jim knows what he is talking about. He probably knows more about the mess that is CA CCW than ANY single person in the entire world. If it changes, it will be because of him.
 
I know one thing....I am an American living free and I have our Constitution.
If any man takes issue with this, he can come to my front door and explain it to me.

address available upon request

Live Free or Die:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
The Fight In California Continues
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
TheBluesMan
T
M
  • Locked
Ca Ammo Tax (ab 992) On The Assembly Floor
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
twoblink
T
M
  • Locked
NRA Pre-Litigation Demand: Repeal of S.F. Gun ordinances
Replies
5
Views
741
Jim March
J
M
  • Locked
Attention all CA Pro-Gun Websites
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
Librarian
Librarian
M
  • Locked
Ca Ammo Tax (ab 992) Moved Back To Inactive File
Replies
5
Views
539
Jim March
J
Back
Top