Action has been taken on AB357

[Gronk Bronson]

Does anyone know if Danny Gilmore was the only "yes" vote?

[akulahawk]

There was only ONE "yes" vote and one abstention.

[captnorm]

These are some of the ammo/CCW, etc bills in Sac and how they were voted on.

Norm


Date and Time of Update: Thu Apr 23 5:13:38 US/Pacific 2009



Legislative action has occurred on bill(s) you have subscribed
to through the California Legislative Counsel's web site
(Official California Legislative Information)
or the California State Senate's web site
(California State Senate).

You can link to the Bill Documents page or to the specific page
of information that has been updated. If you cannot link from this
E-mail message, you can enter the URL on your Internet Browser.





AB 1498 Bill List

VOTES AB 1498 Assembly Bill - Vote Information



AB 357 Bill List

VOTES AB 357 Assembly Bill - Vote Information



AB 962 Bill List

VOTES AB 962 Assembly Bill - Vote Information

[Harry Carry]

Good info, cap. Thanks!

Originally Posted by captnorm

These are some of the ammo/CCW, etc bills in Sac and how they were voted on.

Norm


Date and Time of Update: Thu Apr 23 5:13:38 US/Pacific 2009



Legislative action has occurred on bill(s) you have subscribed
to through the California Legislative Counsel's web site
(Official California Legislative Information)
or the California State Senate's web site
(California State Senate).

You can link to the Bill Documents page or to the specific page
of information that has been updated. If you cannot link from this
E-mail message, you can enter the URL on your Internet Browser.





AB 1498 Bill List

VOTES AB 1498 Assembly Bill - Vote Information



AB 357 Bill List

VOTES AB 357 Assembly Bill - Vote Information



AB 962 Bill List

VOTES AB 962 Assembly Bill - Vote Information

[oneeyeblind]

What is the address of his website? Thanks

[captnorm]

Originally Posted by oneeyeblind

What is the address of his website? Thanks

Official California Legislative Information


Norm

[RDF]

Instead of relying on politicians to vote to force the issuing authority into "shall issue" (highly unlikely, IMHO), I believe that with D.C. v. Heller and Nordyke v. King there is enough ammunition (no pun intended) for CCW applicants to mount a campaign using, among other things, the 2nd Amendment. When the CCW is denied, it is TIME for a lawsuit, possibly a class-action!!!

The time for action is NOW. If you continually wait for the politicians to act, you will continually wait for the politicians to act, for they care not one whit about you or your safety.

[Harry Carry]

Originally Posted by RDF

Instead of relying on politicians to vote to force the issuing authority into "shall issue" (highly unlikely, IMHO), I believe that with D.C. v. Heller and Nordyke v. King there is enough ammunition (no pun intended) for CCW applicants to mount a campaign using, among other things, the 2nd Amendment. When the CCW is denied, it is TIME for a lawsuit, possibly a class-action!!!

The time for action is NOW. If you continually wait for the politicians to act, you will continually wait for the politicians to act, for they care not one whit about you or your safety.

Lawsuits are already happening.

[RDF]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

Lawsuits are already happening.

I realize that.

Perhaps I was unclear in my post. How I should have said it was for each individual CCW applicant to use the 2nd amendment as his/her GC in his/her CCW application. Then, when he/she is denied, EACH denied CCW applicant should file a separate lawsuit, which separate suits may possibly be combined into one class-action suit.

OPEN THE FLOODGATES, so to speak.

[Harry Carry]

Originally Posted by RDF

I realize that.

Perhaps I was unclear in my post. How I should have said it was for each individual CCW applicant to use the 2nd amendment as his/her GC in his/her CCW application. Then, when he/she is denied, EACH denied CCW applicant should file a separate lawsuit, which separate suits may possibly be combined into one class-action suit.

OPEN THE FLOODGATES, so to speak.

The lawsuits in progress right now are designed to define 'self defense' as part of the Heller decision. As it stands, despite what we all believe, there is no precedent or case law which say 'CCW is protected under 2A'.

A bad case and a bad decision could set things back years.

[huna koa]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

The lawsuits in progress right now are designed to define 'self defense' as part of the Heller decision. As it stands, despite what we all believe, there is no precedent or case law which say 'CCW is protected under 2A'.

A bad case and a bad decision could set things back years.

..may never meet; self defense and ccw are two parallels going in the same direction but never meeting or combining;only in my mind and in my dreams, perhaps someday my dream will come true??Or perhaps reality in some cities/counties/states?

[onlyaudio]

At the Friends of NRA gathering last year in Burbank (yes, <gasp> at the Elk's Lodge), Bruce Colodny was the guest speaker. In the Q&A I asked if he thought that "Shall Carry" had a snowball's chance in CA. He said he didn't think it would be done legislatively, but rather would have to happen through the courts. Regardless, we've got to keep hammering away using whatever legal means are available to us, so I'm off to find Steve Knight's web site.

[onlyaudio]

Harry Carry: "The lawsuits in progress right now are designed to define 'self defense' as part of the Heller decision. As it stands, despite what we all believe, there is no precedent or case law which say 'CCW is protected under 2A'.
A bad case and a bad decision could set things back years."

Am I the only one who notices that the Second Amendment says "...keep AND BEAR arms..."? The disagreements I've seen concentrate on the "keep" part and do not broach the "bear" argument. It seems to me that this one element would make ANY attempt to regulate the carry of legal firearms unconstitutional.

Just a thought, but definitely my opinion ... and I'm stickin' to it!

[spc]

Originally Posted by onlyaudio

Harry Carry: "The lawsuits in progress right now are designed to define 'self defense' as part of the Heller decision. As it stands, despite what we all believe, there is no precedent or case law which say 'CCW is protected under 2A'.
A bad case and a bad decision could set things back years."

Am I the only one who notices that the Second Amendment says "...keep AND BEAR arms..."? The disagreements I've seen concentrate on the "keep" part and do not broach the "bear" argument. It seems to me that this one element would make ANY attempt to regulate the carry of legal firearms unconstitutional.

Just a thought, but definitely my opinion ... and I'm stickin' to it!

Many of us here feel the same way about 'bear' arms. We are on our way to hopefully resolving the issue with the proper legal means. What has taken years to loose will not turn around in 20 minutes.

We have to do it correctly the first time.

spc

[TaxMan]

"...keep AND BEAR arms...", EXACTLY, note that it is not, "...keep AND CONCEAL arms..."? That's why 2A and CCW are not the same and as Harry Cary stated:

A bad case and a bad decision could set things back years.