Attention all CA Pro-Gun Websites

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
mclogoclr2.gif

05/03/2004
-----------------------------------

ATTENTION ALL PRO-GUN WEBSITES IN CALIFORNIA!!!!

Now ANY WEBSITE can easily provide detailed information and effective contact tools regarding pending California firearms-related legislation. Tap into this NEW, FREE information resource and help distribute important CA RKBA info to more gun-owners than ever before! The number of gun-owners that see this kind of information (or not) affects everyone's rights!

For years, the powerful news services and contact tools at http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/legs.shtml have helped coordinate pro-gun efforts in the Golden State, successfully blocking the majority of anti-gun legislation proposed, culminating in actually passing FIVE PRO-GUN LAWS in 2003! (See http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml). Now YOUR WEB SITE can help gun-rights continue to "turn the corner" in California - just add a few lines of HTML and turn your website into a political activism powerhouse!

Please visit:

http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/importlegs.shtml - shows how you can display a complete but abbreviated list of active gun-bills with links to more information and contact tools to get the job done.

Or...

http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/importfull.shtml - host your own complete copy of our comprehensive bill info and contact tools - right on *your* site!

Protecting gun-rights is one battle where it's better to have an ARMY OF THOUSANDS instead of AN ARMY OF ONE. SIGN UP *YOUR WEBSITE* TODAY!

-----------------------------------
Join with thousands of other California NRA members to save your rights at:
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/volunteer/

For the latest in California firearms-related legislation and laws, visit:
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/legs.shtml
...and...
http://CalGunLaws.com/

======================
* 2003 : A BANNER Year for California Gun-Rights
--- http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml
* LaPierre exposes CNN falsification of "Assault Weapon" info
--- 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 I applaud the efforts of firearms activists, and of the NRA specifically...

Isn't this a bit of a streatch?



passing FIVE PRO-GUN LAWS in 2003!
Click to expand...

AB1044 was hardly a 'win'. Didn't this actually destroy the data nessicary to prove CCW abuse is rampant?

AB1455 wasn't about firearms at all, rather pellet guns.

And didn't SB238 do little but requrie a siezed AW be destroyed instead of returned? (IIRC the narrow conditions of posession demonstrable prior to the ban of an un-registered AW, were a misdomenor anyway before this piece of literature.)

AB396 was about encouraging private landowners to allow public hunting/rec. While applaudable This is hardly Vermont-style CCW or repealing the 1934 ban!



I'm a little nervous when the NRA starts controling the news outlets too.

In the same way I still root for Apple Computer, but I don't want THEM with 100% market-share either.
 
Than ks for an opportunity to clear up some of these misconceptions.

>B1044 was hardly a 'win'. Didn't this actually destroy the data nessicary to prove CCW abuse is rampant?

No matter what you've heard from other places, government lists of gun-owners are never a good thing and NRA works to destroy every one it can. Talk about CCW abuse? Those kinds of government lists give the antis just as much access as any pro-gun effort and provide an avenue for WIDESPREAD abuse.

Would you want YOUR name on a publicly-accessible government list of gun-owners? If you say no, don't ask others to give up control of THEIR privacy either, just for someone ELSE's convenience.

>AB1455 wasn't about firearms at all, rather pellet guns.

AB1455 was an incremental improvement that served not only Airsoft-style shooters (who use their tools for practice) and dealers, who also had problems because their wares were considered "toys" and that left them open to all sorts of political, and future business, problems. One should not be selling toys in one's gun store.

>And didn't SB238 do little but requrie a siezed AW be destroyed instead of returned? (IIRC the narrow conditions of posession demonstrable prior to the ban of an un-registered AW, were a misdomenor anyway before this piece of literature.)

No, siezed "UNREGISTERED AW"'s have NEVER been returned. I refer you to the article I linked to...

"...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.... You see, being caugfht with one of these was a wobbler - it could have been a misdemeanor OR a felony (depending on how the DA likes your face, I guess).

In fact, NRA even got Perata to NOT oppose the idea of GIVING BACK THE "UNREGISTERED AW" in 238 and permitting the owner to register it, but the chairman of the committee shot that down.

>AB396 was about encouraging private landowners to allow public hunting/rec. While applaudable This is hardly Vermont-style CCW or repealing the 1934 ban!

Who said it was? This is getting back things JUST LIKE we lost them - incrementally. You would rather move backwards?

Now, if you want relaxed CCW, black guns, etc... I agree, but that's going to take more time. It took the anti's a long time to take away our black guns. There are NO magic pills and those that tell you there should be considered, well, magicians. Show me one that doesn't use illusion and fakery.

>...I'm a little nervous when the NRA starts controling the news outlets... too.

You prefer Peter Jennings?

>In the same way I still root for Apple Computer, but I don't want THEM with 100% market-share either.

Oh, if only it were possible! But we can agree that it isn't the case. I think it could never be the case - whenever you make comments like this against the only pro-RKBA group with the clout to come close to pulling off being a major media outlet, you support those who passed Campaign FInance Reform to stifle our (gun-owners) political speech.

Mike Haas
 
BTW, the website the original post refers to, http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/ and the legislative info and contact tools therein, are all produced by NRA members with ZERO use of NRA money. Even the website is volunteer-funded.

It is NRA staff in CA that works closely WITH the volunteers to get accurate and timely information published there. See what working together can accomplish?

Mike Haas
 
Sigh.

Not again.

Extreme short form:

Back in 1999, the California DOJ rigged the new state-standard CCW form so that local agencies would have a "fig leaf" to hide behind when asked to disclose "good cause" permitholder info. It's not much of a protection, as the Calif Supremes declared the data public record in order to evaluate equal protection violations back in '86.

Still, a lot of the worst sheriffs now try and conceal CCW data, illegally, due to the backing they have from Cal-DOJ. And since the Public Records Act is currently rather toothless, stepping around it has been a pain.

So in '02 I realized DOJ was sitting on a central archive of the same thing, and I tried to go after it. Didn't have the resources to nail 'em, as I wasn't yet connected to CCRKBA/Alan Gottlieb/SAF/etc.

AB1044 was passed in a rush to allow DOJ to destroy the most damaging of the CCW records in their central archive. The data would show that DOJ has been ignoring widespread corruption/cronyism/racism in the permit process, and be highly damaging to a whole slew of sheriffs.

Problem: most of these sheriffs acting badly in CCW are Republicans, at least "In Name Only" (RINOs). Which is why NRA was pressured to back the bill, to protect those GOP sheriffs considered necessary to provide future legislators - under term limits, they need a steady inflow, and sheriffs are a top source.

AB1044 concealed abuses against gunowners. It didn't "protect" anybody, it was part of a very cynical deal.

Speaking of which, I have to throw a tie on and get over to the courthouse, as there's a hearing on the lawsuit we have against AB1044 going on at 2:00pm today...
 
Well I personaly like the efforts to make this legislative information easily available. I put it up on my website. The more people know, the more people may feel the urge to contact their representitive and tell them enough is enough.
 
The policies that AB1044 CORRECTED sacrificed the privacy of EVERY CCW APPLICANT IN THE STATE.

Just because you applied for a CCW, the pre-existing policies opened your sensitive application information to all kinds of eyes, AND USE YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO DO IT. For example, there would be nothing to prevent anti-gunners from posting LISTS OF APPLICANTS IN NEWSPAPERS or worse. Do you think such practices might have a chilling effect on not only CCW applications but GUN OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL? Do you think anti-gunners learning all kinds of personal info about us can help them in their cause?

Remember, there are some very CCW-friendly counties and LEOS in California - more counties issue CCWS than not. The CCW issue is complex and won't be solved by giving anti-gunners what they want.

Remember, those still inclined can still pursue CCW abuse even after AB1044 - there is simply no reason to betray the privacy of other gun-owners to do it. But the pursuers have to contact the applicants and ASK PERMISSION of the applicant instead of being handed that info on a silver platter. How horrible! Someone has to ASK YOUR PERMISSION before they can publish the reason you were turned down to the world. I can't believe anyone that purports to protect our rights can support otherwise!

We don't want ANY gun owner personal information cataloged by the government. The less the better. Remember why we oppose registration so vehemently.

Do you want the government and anti-gunners to be able to search these databases too? Of course you don't. Folks, realize that these ideas come with their own poison pill already, but the carrot on the stick they put in front of you is large, and many don't think about the consequences. We cannot afford to be tunnel-visioned in such issues.

And, finally, watch out for people trying to keep themselves relevant to the gun movement at the expense of gun-owners by coming up with such insane ideas as SUPPORTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GOVERNMENT LISTS OF GUN-OWNERS and MAKING HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES ILLEGAL (another brainchild of late). I suggest to all that NRA has very good reasons for supporting some things and not supporting others. At least seek out the other side before buying into this kind of foolishness, because this idea is just incredible!

Mike Haas
 
>Well I personaly like the efforts to make this legislative information easily available. I put it up on my website. The more people know, the more people may feel the urge to contact their representitive and tell them enough is enough.

Now THAT'S what it's always been about! No magic pills - just working together in a focused manner. ;)

Thanks!

Mike Haas
 
Oh for...

More smoke'n'mirrors, folks.

The lists of permitholders aren't affected one way or another by AB1044. Lists of people denied were kept at the state level, but now aren't.

So yes, that's one small subset of the data destroyed. And because the state level version isn't there, local agencies will have an easier time not coming up with any.

Folks, without being able to compare who's been denied and who's approved, it'll be much harder to make equal protection claims. DOJ and the sheriffs, and NRA, all know this.

The denied lists, if kept accurately, will show higher percentages of minorities and women denied. Which is what will break this system's back in court one day.

NRA is acting to "prop up" the existing discretionary process.
 
NRA Misleading About 2003 CA Bills

I'll leave it to Jim to debate Mike Haas and the NRA about AB 1044 and CCW.

But Mike and NRA are very wrong in claiming that SB 238 somehow improved the semiauto ban by lowering penalties. The infraction language was already law. What SB 238 did was eliminate the provision that had allowed people to register and keep their semiautos if they got caught with unregistered guns. Now the guns have to be confiscated and there is no way to keep them. How is THAT an improvement? And Mike's statement that Perata would have been willing to do nice things is irelevant since whatever Perata may have discussed never happened.

Here is the official committee analysis on this part of the bill:

"Existing law provides an infraction penalty for first time violations of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 if specified conditions are found, including "if the person presents proof that he or she lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to June 1, 1989, or prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon." (Penal Code 12280(b) and (c).)

This bill retains that infraction penalty but specifically removes the language in those sections regarding registration and return of such firearms and instead requires that the assault weapon be destroyed pursuant to Section 12028.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_238_cfa_20030512_092716_sen_comm.html

I understand why NRA wants to make folks feel better about all the crap that has gone down in California in the last 10 years, but this BS about 2003 being a good year for us is absurd. NRA is playing up some very minor bills and ignoring the BIG UGLY one - the ban on new handguns that don't have load indicators (which don't even exist the way the new law requires) and magazine disconnects.

Jack Peters
 
>Mike and NRA are very wrong in claiming that SB 238 somehow improved the semiauto ban by lowering penalties...

The version of the bill you quoted was from May - the bill was amended since.

All that matters is the version that became law...
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_238_bill_20030924_chaptered.html

...which includes these improvements for gun-owners...

...Existing law provides that persons convicted of certain
misdemeanors are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm for a
period of 10 years, as specified.
This bill would delete the provisions imposing the 10-year
prohibition for conviction of a specified misdemeanor regarding
discharge of a firearm at a dwelling, other building, or vehicle, as
specified...

... Existing law provides that a firearm owned or possessed in
violation of certain provisions of law is a nuisance.
This bill would provide that with regard to violations of those
specific provisions of law, if the firearm owner disposes of the
firearm pursuant to a specified procedure, then the firearm would not
be a nuisance...


Both sound like important relief for gun-owners who are charged with these violations now.

BTW, there has never been provision for registering AWs after the deadlines, which is why none have been returned. They simply cannot be registed anymore by citizens.

Jack misunderstands SB489 also - there is no ban on guns that lack magazine disconnects and loaded indicators. All existimg models approved by CADOJ will be able to be made from now to eternity and never be affected by SB489. All the bill does now is require new designs submitted to DOJ testing after 2006 to have these features. Originally, Jack would have been right because it applied to ALL semi-auto handguns made after 2005. But the antis had to water it down to get it to pass and now does very little.

And as far as what conversations Perata may or may not have had with NRA, I have at least spoken with NRA about the issue. I'm unclear what enables Jack to know what was or wasn't said.

Mike Haas
 
Great, so we'll only be denied handguns designed after 2006 unless they are sabotaged to meet CA standards. Mike, if this isn't a ban to you, check back with us in 10 years when we're denied fine custom 1911s and the new HK P5000 (or whatever) because some manufacturers decided to thumb their noses at CA's handgun safety BS.

A handful of null effect laws got passed. 2003 was no "banner year" for RBKA in Cali. Why can't the NRA come straight with us? Lying to us is no way to rally the troops.
 
All the bill does now is require new designs submitted to DOJ testing after 2006 to have these features.
Click to expand...

Well, every handgun must be resubmitted each year. How exactly are existing models exempted from SB489? The new “law†goes into effect in 2005—does it not?—so I guess we’ll find out then.

~G. Fink
 
Come off it Mike. This effort to suger coat California is getting ridiculous.

Your original post quoted from the "2003: A Banner Year" blurb the NRA put out trying to say what a good job they'd done last year.

On SB 238 specifically, it said this:
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.

My point is that the semiauto ban already had the infraction language for an unregistered Roberti-Roos weapon. So that NRA post was not even accurate.

But it gets worse. Roberti-Roos law had allowed people to keep unregistered weapons if the owner agreed to register it. In 1999, Lockyer and HCI cut a legal deal to block any future late-registrations and now SB 238 locks that dirty deal into law. Have you really forgotten that the NRA went to court to try and stop the Lockyer-HCI deal to prevent late-registrations (which Dan Lungren HAD allowed for years, contrary to your statement)? NRA had promised to go to court and challenge the Lockyer-HCI deal, but SB 238 makes that impossible now.

SB 238 locks in gun confiscation as the only way to get an infraction for an unregistered Roberti-Roos weapon. It directly undercuts the legal challenge that the NRA promised when Lockyer-HCI did this dirty deed. So there is nothing in the infraction language that NRA or you can claim is good news - contrary to the "2003: A baner year" posting.

How in the world can you and NRA claim that this is good news???

As to the provisions in SB 238 that you are now pointing to - which were NOT in the original post at all - I don't know any gun owners who usually shoot at houses or cars. Chances are those violations are rarely if ever charged as misdemeanors anyway, but as felonies, so the SB 238 change on that won't make much of any difference anyway.

Meanwhile, you play down one of the worst gun bills ever passed in California, SB 489 - which is a handgun BAN. Sure old handguns can still be sold, but only if the manufacturers continue to pay to register them on the Locker "good guns" list, and only if the manufactuerers never make any changes to them (which would require new listing). Meanwhile, any new model is BANNED unless it has a load indicator - and the definition in the bill means there is NOTHING on the market today that would qualify, as well as a magazine disconnect. At least NRA played this straight when the bill was before the legislature and called it one of the worst gun bans in the country. How did that change after it got signed, Mike?

So cut the spin and talk straight. California sucks and there isn't any way to suger coat it. I don't blame NRA for all the bad S*** that has gone down the past 12 years, but I do blame them for trying to make it sound like we aren't being boiled alive.

If you call 2003 a "banner year", I'd hate to see what you'd call a bad year !!! Then again, 2003 was a BANner year - BANned a bunch of handguns.

Jack Peters
 
I haven't chimed in here yet, but here goes...

I keep thinking that maybe, just maybe, if people like Mike Haas were not around in California swallowing the NRA spiel that things are good in California, maybe, just maybe, the NRA would redouble their efforts in California and start making things better for the gun owners in the state.

Maybe, just maybe, we need to start getting mad, start getting angry. So angry and mad that we will not take it anymore. Maybe, just maybe, this will spur the legislative policritters into action, out of fear. Then, maybe, just maybe, we can get things turned around for the better, with the NRA acting as an intermediary to the legislative political animals that don't like the pain we are inflicting on them.

Maybe, just maybe, things really need to get really really bad before it can get better, but when it gets really really bad, we also don't need anyone telling us how it is already getting better. That just quells the outrage and anger that would enable a change in direction for the better.
 
I'm a NRA lifer

And I think Peratta is a snake,he said "they can all move" meaning us! gun owners are supposed to leave,many have.
I will as soon as possible.
Perratta is an evil,evil prevaricator.
Meanwhile as Some NRA bigwig said to a big crowd at FT Mason a year or so ago
NRA does not stand for National Republican Association.
I am not sure of the finer details of the case but from what I remember
Jim was on the verge of exposing in Court that CCW is for the wealthy white folks only.
The Republicans of Lincoln's time laid down their lives so that all people may be free,that we may all have the RKBA.
I am a registered Republican but that doesn't mean I will vote for folks like Arnold,Rosario Marin or even Bush if the AWB doesn't sunset.
We need a strong Conservative party,leave racial profiling for CCW to the damm liberals in NYC!
 
>If you call 2003 a "banner year", I'd hate to see what you'd call a bad year !!! Then again, 2003 was a BANner year - BANned a bunch of handguns.

Just not true Jack. Name ONE handgun that was banned last year. (SB489 - the only law the antis passed - originally would have banned lots of guns, but that provision was removed.)

All that SB489 does now is require loaded indicators and magazine disconnects on NEW GUN DESIGNS submitted AFTER JAN 1, 2006. NO EXISTING GUNS ARE AFFECTED OR WILL EVER BE AFFECTED. 1911's and similar guns will never be affected by SB489. SB489 IS NOT A GUN-BAN.

And those NEW designs don't even have to be on the market or ready to be released, so gun-makers can submit a DEVELOPMENT version of their new models - as long as it is submitted to CADOJ before 2006, IT WILL NEVER NEED THOSE FEATURES (no matter when it is "released"). That means there is time for gun-makers to "stuff the pipe" so that they can even forestall SB489's effects past 2006.

Not a single gun was banned last year, nor was any law passed that will cause any gun to be banned in the future. SB489 just requires some new features on NEWLY-DESIGNED GUNS after a certain date. Now, no one I know SUPPORTED SB489, but it isn't a gun ban.

Mike Haas
 
>Maybe, just maybe, we need to start getting mad, start getting angry. So angry and mad that we will not take it anymore

Do you think that Perata, Scott and their ilk don't think you're angry?

They don't care. They know as long as you are chasing windmills like CCW-reform-via-lawsuit you will never be organized enough to do what they really fear - AFFECT THEIR CHANCES FOR RE-ELECTION.

They know as long as you allow your emotions to run your actions, you will not be able to affect them or their agenda. They WANT you to be unfocused and doing things that hurt gun-owners relationships with law enforcement and other legislators. They WANT you to appear like political neopytes that think just getting angry is all that's necessary to accomplish your goals. They WANT you to blow your credibility with a bunch of chest-pounding. They WANT you to be impatient and not think of the generations to come after us. Because when you're all done with all that, they will be re-elected and prove your blustering is just that.

What they DON'T WANT is unity- the kind of unity that unseated Davis.

Ah, but that was anger that did that, right? No - it was money and organization. All the anger in the world wouldn't have helped without Issa's millions and a well-run petition effort.

It's not anger that will win the day, it is FOCUS. And running around suing sheriffs, begging the government to ESTABLISH LISTS OF GUN-OWNERS... these are about as unfocused and self-defeating as can be done.

There are NO magic pills, folks. It's always FOCUS and HARD WORK. And the focus is what gives one the ability to recognize and reject foolish schemes that harm the cause in ways the nieve refuse to see.

In 1998, Tanya Mataksa spoke in front of the Golden Gate United NRA Members' Council. Full text of her speech is here: http://nrawinningteam.com/tm/cadream3.html. The part I find most applicable:

"...if you're a Second Amendment champion, you'd better be ready for the long haul. When I look into the Second Amendment's future, I see every one of you, but let me be perfectly honest. I see your children too, and grandchildren (yours and mine), and your great grandchildren. Because this one, this one is the long one. No quick fixes, no cheap way outs, no silver bullets..."

That's called being honest with the troops. Those who promise success through lawsuit and similar chicanery are either tragically nieve or dishonest. Either way, it won't get you or me where we want to be.

Mike Haas
 
>Well, every handgun must be resubmitted each year.

That's not true. Three models of a given handgun design are submitted ONCE to CADOJ for safety testing. If they pass, they are approved for importation and sale in the state.

>How exactly are existing models exempted from SB489?

It's right there in the bill...

...This bill would, in addition, commencing January 1, 2006, for
firearms not already approved, as specified, include within the
definition of an unsafe handgun, a center-fire semiautomatic pistol
that does not have a chamber load indicator...

That "for firearms not already approved" was the amendment that NRA managed to get in there. Otherwise, yes, it would have banned all sorts of guns after 2005 (NRA also managed to get the deadline moved a year later) if they didn;t have these features.

That was a VICTORY folks. Realize THE ANTI-GUNNERS HAD TO WATER DOWN HIS BILL TO GET IT TO PASS. Scott didn't have the CLOUT to get the thing passed in the original onerous state he wanted.

SO why are so many of you misinformed about this? Hasn't your resident lobbysist filled you in? What? You've all been focusing on CCW-by-lawsuit? You have all been told it's a GOOD THING to have a government list of gun-owners? You've been told that you should support a bill that makes HI-CAP MAGAZINES ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA?

See what I mean about "FOCUS"?

Mike Haas
 
Mike - the "safety tests" for handguns absolutely do expire.

2003 was a banner year only in the sense that it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been, or as bad as other years have been.

Suing over CCW issuance is one item where we don't need to beg the indulgence of wildly liberal Legislators... I don't know whey you're even concerned with it. As far as AB1044, the state *still* has lists of gun owners... all we don't have now is the central repository of information that would have helped on the CCW issue.

On a side note... it would be helpful if, on the web site this thread started out being about, each bill had a link to go directly to the current text of that bill on the States web site. For example, in the Details of SB1140, it says "was massively amended", but doesn't say what the amendments were. Including a link to the proper page on leginfo.ca.gov would be helpful. However, I just noticed that, for this bill, there is no link... hmmmm...
 
Because when you’re all done with all that, they will be re-elected and prove your blustering is just that.
Click to expand...

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. :D

But serioulsy, Mr. Haas, we seem to read SB489 differently. Handguns must be re-approved each year. Thus, to me and almost surely to the anti-gun DOJ, exemptions for handguns already approved would appear to expire once their annual certification periods are over. In other words, the “exemption†will last for only one to 11 months, depending on the certification date, once the new “law†goes into effect.

However, I sure hope your interpretation is correct.

~G. Fink
 
My undestanding is that handguns are only tested once, and remain on the list for one year, then the certification is automatically extended another year provided that the manufacturer/importer paid the required annual fee. Each year AG office can re-test up to 5% of the roster at their expense to check for continuing compliance. Other than that, no re-testing for existing models.

As far as submitting development versions for testing, that's not going to work. This is from the law: These handguns may not be refined or modified in any way from those that would be made available for retail sale if certification is granted. The magazines of a tested pistol shall be identical to those that would be provided with the pistol to a retail customer.
 
SB489, as chaptered, is at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_489_bill_20030924_chaptered.html

>Mr. Haas, we seem to read SB489 differently. Handguns must be re-approved each year

Ok, show me.

I searched for "year" and only found it once - it has nothing to do with retesting expiration. I searched for "expir" and "retest" and find neither. I read the abstract of the bill and find nothing about a retest requirement.

In fact, here's the entire abstract. Which part requires a retest?

Existing law defines "unsafe handgun" in regard to pistols based
on certain criteria.
This bill would, in addition, commencing January 1, 2006, for
firearms not already approved, as specified, include within the
definition of an unsafe handgun, a center-fire semiautomatic pistol
that does not have a chamber load indicator that indicates, as
specified, that a cartridge is in the firing chamber or a center-fire
or rimfire semiautomatic pistol that does not have a magazine
disconnect mechanism that prevents the pistol from operating to
strike the primer of ammunition in the firing chamber when a
detachable magazine is not inserted in the pistol if the pistol has a
detachable magazine. The bill would, in addition, commencing
January 1, 2007, include within the definition of an unsafe handgun,
a center-fire semiautomatic pistol that does not have both of those
features.
By expanding the definition of "unsafe handgun," the manufacture,
sale, and other specified transfer of which is a crime, this bill
would expand the scope of an existing crime, and thereby impose a
state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires handguns to be submitted for testing to
determine if they are unsafe handguns, as specified.
This bill would provide that commencing January 1, 2006, no
center-fire semiautomatic pistol would be allowed to be submitted for
that testing if it did have a chamber load indicator, and no
center-fire or rimfire semiautomatic pistol that has a detachable
magazine would be allowed to be submitted for that testing if the
pistol does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism, as specified.
Existing law provides that, subject to exceptions, any person who
manufactures, causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for
sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends any
unsafe handgun is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year.
This bill would add to existing exceptions to those provisions,
the sale, loan, or transfer of any semiautomatic pistol that is to be
used solely as a prop during the course of a motion picture,
television, or video production by an authorized participant, as
specified.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.

That's SB489, folks. Do YOU see a retest requirement? Do YOU see any gun bans?
 
>As far as submitting development versions for testing, that's not going to work. This is from the law: These handguns may not be refined or modified in any way from those that would be made available for retail sale if certification is granted. The magazines of a tested pistol shall be identical to those that would be provided with the pistol to a retail customer.

Please provide a cite. You may be right, but that's not in SB489.

Mike Haas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Ca Ammo Tax (ab 992) On The Assembly Floor
Replies
49
Views
2K
Legal
twoblink
T
M
  • Locked
The Fight In California Continues
Replies
27
Views
1K
Legal
TheBluesMan
T
M
  • Locked
NRA Pre-Litigation Demand: Repeal of S.F. Gun ordinances
Replies
5
Views
744
Legal
Jim March
J
M
  • Locked
Ca Ammo Tax (ab 992) Moved Back To Inactive File
Replies
5
Views
542
Legal
Jim March
J
M
  • Locked
NRA Determined To Pass S.1805
Replies
6
Views
614
Legal
El Rojo
E
Top Bottom
Back