3 California PRO-GUN Bills introduced

Status
Not open for further replies.

MikeHaas

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
291
Last edited:
MikeHaas said:
Did that say "California" and "Pro-GUN" together? In the same statement?

Yes, sir! (Your NRA lobbyist has been doing his job!)
AB 2131 - ASSAULT WEAPONS LICENSING
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2131

Wow! Can you give us an indication of how likely this is to get through? I honestly wouldn't have a problem with the AWB if it allowed new registrations of guns and standard-cap mags.

Btw, are you an NRA official lobbyiest? A lot of people in CA are angry at the NRA because we often feel like the NRA has abandoned us. Maybe if we were kept better informed on what the NRA is doing in the Golden State would help get us more motivated to support the NRA. It seems like the NRA doesn't have much presence in CA.
 
Taco, you say you're OK with the PRK AWB as long as they allow new registrations and standard mags?

You are aware of what happened in Maryland when the DC snipers were active, right? The local Po-po using the state AW registry to knock on the doors of everyone in the area who owned a .223 'assault weapon' and take said guns away for testing? Does that ring a bell?

Or, closer to home, up in Sonoma County, the sherriff using the state gun registry to visit everyone in the county who owned a Marlin .45 (either LC or ACP) after ballistics determined a murder (or was it two?) was committed with one?

And don't you want to be able to have all the 'naughty features' that those of us in the (semi) Free States can have?
 
When I was doing some work for the legislative counsels office, I remember lots of bills that were introduced as place holders. They'd slip a bill in that had to with milk pricing and by the time the legislature voted on it, the subject matter could be beach erosion. Are these place holders?
 
Last I heard Mike was not a paid lobbyist. He does a lot of work in California with the Member's Council system, leads one MC (West Contra Costa) and acts as their volunteer webmaster.

NRA paid staff in California includes Ed Worley (lobbyist), H. Paul Payne (MC system coordinator) and Brian Judy (whose physical office is in California but he's active in the rest of the western states - he was key in the recent Alaska "Vermont conversion").

This may have changed over the last year, year and a half...
 
ElTacoGrande said:
Btw, are you an NRA official lobbyiest?...

Thanks for asking!

I started the Members' Council in my area in 1996, January marked our 10 year anniversary. Developer, administrator and provider (donated) of virtually all of NRA's California state-wide electronic resources (ONE-CLICK, CAL-ERTs, Life-Clock, etc). Built most of http://nramemberscouncils.com/ and all of the state NRA legislative info system ("legs page", exportable mini-box, etc.) at http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml and work closely with NRA's top staff in the state to keep it as accurate as we can.

For 'not much of a presence', don't know anyone else that hosts over 25 Members' Councils across the state, each of which has monthly meetings allowing each and every gun-owner in the Golden State the opportunity to get some grassroots hands-on at the direction of trained, experienced staff. It's a great chance for activists to become a part of an RKBA army on the ground. Do you actually meet anywhere in an organized fashion to work with others to protect your rights? We do all the time. (You can locate your local 'MC' at http://nramemberscouncils.com/volunteer/ - that page will identify it by zip code.)

Most folks don't realize it (guess they're listening to the wrong sources), but we've actually faired much better over the last few years than they've been led to expect. Of course, we are waging a fierce RKBA battle here, but most are surprised when they learn...
2003-2005.gif


For reference:
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?year=2003
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?year=2004
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?year=2005

So, nice to meet you.

Mike Haas
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/ - aka http://calnra.com/
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
ILA EVC, CA Congressional District 7
Webmaster, Fifty Caliber Institute, http://fiftycal.org/
Webmaster, Fifty Caliber Shooter's Ass'n, http://fcsa.org/
Owner and Author, http://AmmoGuide.com/
Co-founder, http://E-GovMail.com/
Co-founder, http://ProjectBoreSnake.org/ (PLEASE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!)
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
 
Langenator said:
Taco, you say you're OK with the PRK AWB as long as they allow new registrations and standard mags?

You are aware of what happened in Maryland when the DC snipers were active, right? The local Po-po using the state AW registry to knock on the doors of everyone in the area who owned a .223 'assault weapon' and take said guns away for testing? Does that ring a bell?

Or, closer to home, up in Sonoma County, the sherriff using the state gun registry to visit everyone in the county who owned a Marlin .45 (either LC or ACP) after ballistics determined a murder (or was it two?) was committed with one?

And don't you want to be able to have all the 'naughty features' that those of us in the (semi) Free States can have?


Langenator, I tell you now, this is the danger. When a slave gets used to the chains of slavery, he may even came to love the chains, happy that his master doesn't add more of them.

Gun control is bad for all the reasons you give. Especially registration (just as registration of anything can be dangerous to liberty)

It reverses innocent until proven guilty
 
Merkin.Muffley said:
When I was doing some work for the legislative counsels office, I remember lots of bills that were introduced as place holders. They'd slip a bill in that had to with milk pricing and by the time the legislature voted on it, the subject matter could be beach erosion. Are these place holders?

Merkin, just got off a conference call with NRA's top staff in CA and asked that question. No, we won't put 'spot bills' (what placeholder bills are actually called in Sacramento) on the website. No 'gut & amend' should happen here.

BTW, I can't say more about these bills right now, but I wish i could. Very exciting stuff. These guys are good.
 
While I wish all would pass, I am particularly interested in the "Workers Protection" bill.

I have a CCW permit and I could lose my job by having my weapon in my car while parked on company property.
 
What I'd really like to see is the national NRA bankroll the CA RKBA initiative ammendment. You can get anything on the ballot in this state for 2 million dollars, and if it gets on, it'll likely pass. The NRA is one of a few organizations with the capital to make this happen, and they've turned it down twice. The gun-rights fight in this state is all volunteers, with minimal support from national gun organizations. We in California have some of the most (small 'L') liberal direct-democracy laws in the country. We should be using them.

But I guess the NRA's more interested in holding us up as a warning example to donors in other states than they are in helping us secure our rights here. Or am I too cynical?

--Shannon
 
Langenator said:
Taco, you say you're OK with the PRK AWB as long as they allow new registrations and standard mags?

Yes.

You are aware of what happened in Maryland when the DC snipers were active, right? The local Po-po using the state AW registry to knock on the doors of everyone in the area who owned a .223 'assault weapon' and take said guns away for testing? Does that ring a bell?

Search and seizure without a warrant is "bad police behavior", something they do when they think they can get away with it. If they are going to behave badly, they'll do it with or without registries or anything else.

And don't you want to be able to have all the 'naughty features' that those of us in the (semi) Free States can have?

Yes I want to have whatever features I choose. If they open the AW registry to new registrants, we would be able to do that, right? I'm going to use the current situation to get myself a Yugo underfolder in a non-importable configuration, right here in California! But this should be something anyone can do.

As for the whole thing about "registration leads to confiscation": They don't need a registry to confiscate. All they have to do is make it a felony to possess something, and then gun owners are left with a choice: turn it in, or be a felon. I would turn it in in that case, or move, because I don't want to deal with any possibility of defending myself from felony charges on something like this. I would imagine most gun owners would do the same, realisticly. So we need to fight bans, but registration doesn't change much.

And anyway, the reality is that California all about incremental victories. That's the only approach that could work here.

My ideal would be a simple background check, no registration, buy whatever you want, up to and including M60s, and Vermont carry, etc. But we're a long long way from that in CA. We're a lightyear away from that. So let's just change things one step at a time.

And Mike, I'm glad you're here, and I'm glad to hear about what the NRA is doing. I guess there just isn't enough awareness among CA gun owners about what the NRA is doing here. I'll try to get more involved in my local chapter. There are more gun owners in CA than in any other state. We just need to get betterorgnaized and fight more.

It disgusts me that I went to my local gun store and I asked about why they didn't have any fliers about the ammo serialization (ie ban). They said, "oh, we stay out of politics." That is the kind of attitude we need to change. If that ban had passed, that store would be out of politics and out of business.
 
Some are happy about these 3 bills. IMHO, I see nothing in here to really advance the cause of making gun ownership/carry any better.

Now, if you go to http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml you will find things that are going against us.

Be sure you read the last paragraph. Last sentence; If you “FIX YOUR GUN you FACE A FELONY.”

Example,
AB 98 HANDGUN CARRY Description: Existing law generally makes it a crime to carry a concealed handgun.
This bill would repeal those provisions and establish the new crime of unlawfully carrying a handgun, as specified. The bill would make it a crime to carry a handgun in a vehicle or upon one's person, subject to exceptions, regardless of whether the handgun was concealed. The bill would provide that unlawfully carrying a handgun is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine, as specified. The bill would also provide that the offense would be punishable as a felony if certain circumstances exist, as specified. The bill would further provide that in certain instances the penalty imposed would be by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, as specified.


Action needed: None at this time

Details: AB 98 stalled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee last year and may return in 2006.

Example, AB 352 Issue: MICROSTAMPING (Koretz)

Description: This bill would, commencing January 1, 2007, expand the definition of unsafe handgun to include semiautomatic pistols that are not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters, that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched into the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and which are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.
This bill would provide that, commencing on January 1, 2007, no handgun may be submitted for that testing unless the handgun is designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters, that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched into the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and which are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.


Action needed: None at this time

Details: AB 352 stalled in the Senate last year and may return in 2006.
NRA is strongly opposed to AB 352:

"FIX YOUR GUN - FACE A FELONY."

In AB352, the proponents seek to mandate that all new semi-automatic handguns introduced in 2007 would be required to have information (make, model & serial number) about the firearm "micro-stamped" on the surface of parts of the handgun. This "micro-stamped" information would supposedly be transferred onto the cartridge case of the ammunition when it is fired.

The technology being mandated in AB352 has not been studied or tested in the real world and is only available from a single source and would create a government sanctioned monopoly for that company.

The advocates of AB352 claim that the addition of this requirement in the manufacturing of handguns for California will assist law enforcement by creating additional evidence for solving crimes. In committee hearings the author admitted that the “micro-stamped“ cartridge cases could not even be used for evidence!

There is NO SUPPORT from the California law enforcement organizations, That includes the California Police Chiefs Association (Cal Chiefs). The Police Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) opposes AB 352.

The parts of the handgun that would have the 25 microns deep (half the thickness of a fine human hair) "micro-stamping" etched on them can be easily replaced without the use of tools. The markings on the parts will also be degraded and easily erased with the normal wear and tear in using the handgun.

A review of federal law has revealed that AB352 would make the everyday practice of maintaining and repairing firearms (as outlined in the handgun owners’ manual) a felony. If a person needed to replace commonly worn out “micro-stamped” parts to keep their handgun safely operating, that person would be violating Federal law because the alteration, removal and obliteration of a manufacturer’s or importer's markings on those parts carries the penalty of up to ten years in federal prison and $250,000.00 fine. If AB352 becomes law: If you “FIX YOUR GUN you FACE A FELONY.”

Vote: majority.
Appropriation: no.
Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
 
MikeHaas,

Can you please consider getting the NRA member council's and perhaps the NRA's support on getting the RKBA amendment onto the ballot in California?

Fair question and deserves an answer. Lonnie, I can assure you that this issue has been thoroughly examined by NRA again (3rd time, in my experience). Outside of that, I can't say anything else, just as I can't say anything about the above bills than what's been "OK"ed for public view. Surely you can understand why NRA doesn't want their strategies dicussed in public forums. I wouldn't think any gun owner, NRA member or not, would want that.

California is the only state that has an NRA office of it's own - it's right in Sacramento. Stop by sometime. Big reverse-relief NRA logo on the door. Cool to see. And while many states have organizations formed by activists, California is the only place where NRA gives volunteers a chance to organize under the "NRA" banner. We do so all over the state. No other state has NRA "Members' Councils", or ANY volunteer organization (outside of the normal EVC program and that's run from Fairfax). I wish more gun owners would take advantage of the special things NRA does give California and really get involved - it's been there for almost 15 years. If you're not there, the place to start is http://nramemberscouncils.com/volunteer/

For those Californians that are angry at what's been going on last 20 or so years to their gun-rights, NRA gives you more places to effectively vent that energy than any other state. How can someone complain about NRA if they haven't done what they could to help? That doesn't mean you can't be involved in other efforts too, but the MCs are an important one.

Oh, and Desertdog, AB 352 failed to pass last year (2005 was the first of a 2-year legislative cycle). That's already strikes against it for 2006. That doesn't mean the author won't try to amend it and move it forward again, but ususally that was tried last year and failed. The good thing about that is that the author has plenty of reason to wonder if the thing is a turkey and will just bring him/her more defeat. Nobody likes to have their bill fail. Even the bill number can become tainted, so it can be a bad candidate for a 'gut & amend'. I've seen legislators move failing language into a new bill UNCHANGED, and then it passes simply because it had a new bill number. THAT's something to watch for with AB 352 (and SB 357, etc.) , and we are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.