Ca Legislation

[Glock Guy]

AB 962 is alive again. It was brought out of suspense. First year costs are estimated at 500,000 and following years at 1 million + . Funding would come from a "special fund" likely the DROS fees. This bill must be defeated. It would restrict businesses, especially smaller businesses, and transfers of more than 50 rds between citizens. Call, write, email all legislators, not just your own district.

[Nathan P]

I wrote my rep, he's the monority leader so most likely preaching to the chior...

Just got an email saying that it's passed one stage and is going to the next

This is so retarded it's not even funny. How the HELL are they even going to enforce it? Have a cop in everybody's house???

[libertarian]

This is a serious issue at this point, as it's passed out of committee in both the assembly and the senate.

Contact your legislators now!

Bill information/status: AB 962 (De Leon): Ammunition.
Find your legislators: Your Legislature

[akulahawk]

This bill was passed out of Committee, and, has been read a second time, and could be voted on basically any time now. If there's been any changes in the bill as passed by each house, it'll have to a conference committee, and then back to each house for an up/down vote.... and then on to the Governor... who can pass, allow to become law, or veto.

Write your legislators... and let's try to get this killed before we have to rely on the Governor...

[coq]

Updates to AB692...just saw on CalGuns

CALNRA: AB962 Ammo Sales Ban Heavily Amended on 9/4
9/8/2009 1:15 AM - PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

Update - AB962 Handgun Ammo Sales Registration - Sales Ban

The bill was drastically amended on Friday, 9/4/2009. Some of the provisions deleted:

1. The new license for handgun Ammo Dealers
2. Ban on the transfer of more than 50 rounds of handgun ammo between private persons
3. Use of the DROS Fee (background Check Fees) monies for implementation of the Program

NRA and CRPA remain opposed to the bill. It still requires the:

1. Registration and finger printing of handgun Ammo Purchasers
2. Mandatory storage / Display requirements for Ammo Dealers
3. Ban on the Sale of Handgun Ammo through the Internet or mail Order

Stay tuned to...
CA Legislative Info and Contact Tools
...for more information. The bill can come up for a vote on Wednesday, 9/9/2009. If it passes the Senate it must go back to the Assembly for a final Vote. The Legislative Session ends on Friday, 9/11/2009.

Updates and contact tools available at:
CA Legislative Info and Contact Tools

Stop to Cow Palace Gun Show Ban!
CA Legislative Info and Contact Tools
__________________

[Poogsdad]

I sent off the following letter to every CA State Assembly Member and Senator about a week ago:

Dear Assembly Member:

I oppose AB 962 (de Leon D-Los Angeles) regarding the proposed licensing of handgun ammunition vendors. AB 962 provides that: “No person shall sell or otherwise transfer ownership of more than 50 rounds of ammunition in any month unless the person is licensed by the department as a licensed handgun ammunition vendor...”

In addition, although AB 962 purports to create a registry for ammunition vendors it equally creates a registry of law abiding citizens who purchase ammunition at a point of sale. Within the Bill, the proposed licensed vendors are required to record all identifying information of a purchaser including their driver’s license number and a thumb print.

Further, AB 962 makes it a crime for family members to transfer ammunition between themselves at any place or any time including within the privacy of their own homes.

No reasonable argument can be made that this Bill is in effort to reduce crime. Existing law already provides for penalties for the possession of or provision to prohibited persons. This Bill is in effect a Bill to further encroach on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. The proposed registry containing the names of law abiding citizens who would purchase ammunition serves only to chill the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has recently stated that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an existing right to possess and carry weapons for self-defense and as a defense against tyranny. AB 962 on its face is a veiled effort to take away the right of self-defense by hindering the means that make that right effective.

The U.S. Supreme Court also stated in that opinion that the same people whom the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is accorded are the very same people who enjoy the protection of the First and Fourth Amendments. I am of the opinion that no constitutional right is less important than another nor that the constitution can be “modified” to comport with anything other than the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms.

I oppose AB 962 and would strongly encourage you to do the same.

Very truly yours,



Poogsdad

Concerned California Citizen

I recieved the following response from Assembly Member Diane Harkey today:

Dear Poogsdad,

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding our mutual gun rights in California. First, let me be clear - I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I do not support AB 962 and opposed it on the Assembly Floor.

I believe AB 962 puts more limitations on the rights of legal gun owners. This bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or dangerous people living in our communities. Limiting the transfer or sale of ammunition to 50 rounds per month, the equivalent of one box of handgun ammunition, will have a devastating impact on legal firearms retailers. Average sales volumes regularly exceed the proposed limit, which would subject the majority of firearms business owners to a new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations regarding licensure, storage and sale procedures. This would force many small businesses that rely on ammunition sales as their primary revenue to incur additional costs in order to comply with the provisions of AB 962. As one may guess, such costs would definitely be passed along to the consumer. This burdensome and unnecessary regulation would drive a sizable number of retailers out of business altogether.

Further, AB 962 would hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to transfer ownership of ammunition between private parties such as family members by requiring individuals to be licensed by the Department of Justice if the 50-round thresholds are exceeded.

This outrageous proposal adds yet another layer of red tape where appropriate regulation already exists and infringes further upon individual freedoms of every California citizens’ Right to Bear Arms.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to make your voice heard – I stand with you on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff at (949) 347-7301 if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,

DIANE L. HARKEY

Assemblywoman, 73rd District

I was somewhat surprised since she is a democrat and has never responded to any of my previous letters.

Thanks,

Poogsdad

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by Poogsdad

Assembly Member Diane Harkey

I was somewhat surprised since she is a democrat and has never responded to any of my previous letters.

Actually, she's a Republican.

Diane Harkey

And, incidentally, she's a supporter of Sheriff Hutchens.

Hutchens Building Establishment Support | Red County

[coq]

In lieu of the usual generic letter about how busy they are, Senator Cox actually was prepared and provided useful information:

Thank you for contacting my office to express your opposition to gun
control legislation. I appreciate hearing from you.

My stance on additional gun control legislation has been clear. I have
consistently opposed efforts to restrict the ability of law-abiding
citizens to purchase and legally use firearms.

Several key bills relating to gun control or ownership rights have been
introduced or re-introduced during this legislative session.

Assembly Bill 357 (Knight) would revise state law as it relates to
obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. Current law authorizes
the sheriff of a county, "...upon proof that the person applying is of
good moral character, that good cause exists, and that the person
applying satisfies any one of certain conditions..." to issue a license
for the person to carry a concealed handgun. AB 357 would delete the
good cause requirement, and require the sheriff to issue the license if
the other criteria described above are met. As anticipated, AB 357
failed passage in its first hearing in the Assembly Public Safety
Committee on April 21 by a vote of 1-5. Although the bill was granted
reconsideration, it is unlikely that the bill will receive a sufficient
number votes for passage.

Assembly Bill 962 (De Leon), a bill relating to ammunition, is virtually
identical to the final language contained in Assembly Bill 2062 (2008)
and Assembly Bill 362 (2007) by the same author. AB 962 passed the full
Assembly on June 3 by a vote of 42-31 and is currently awaiting a floor
vote before the full Senate.

AB 962 is a far-reaching measure which would prohibit any person not
licensed as a gun dealer to transfer, sell or buy more than 50 pieces of
ammunition in a month. The bill also implements extensive reporting and
record-keeping requirements for all licensed gun dealers who wish to
sell ammunition. The requirements listed in this measure are
impractical and would do more to inconvenience lawful gun owners more
than deter criminals. For this reason, I am opposed to AB 962 as it is
currently written.

Assembly Bill 1167 (Nielsen) "...would deem persons who have a valid
permit or license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state
or a political subdivision of another state to be authorized to carry a
concealed handgun pursuant to provisions of California law...." and
would similarly "direct the Department of Justice to enter into
reciprocity agreements with other states so that persons licensed in
this state to carry concealed or loaded firearms would be authorized to
do so in those other states." AB 1167 is awaiting a hearing in the
Assembly Public Safety Committee, although no hearing date has been set.
It is likely that this bill will not secure enough votes for passage out
of committee.

Senate Bill 41 (Lowenthal) would impose additional requirements on
firearms dealers to track sales, returns and other transactions and
report them to the California Department of Justice. Additional fees on
dealers are also included in the bill which would likely be passed on to
consumers. SB 41 passed the full Senate on June 1 by a vote of 21-14
and is currently awaiting a floor vote in the Assembly. I voted in
opposition to this bill when it came before me.

Senate Bill 585 (Leno), a bill which would prohibit firearms sales at
the Cow Palace in San Francisco. The language in SB 585 is virtually
identical to the final language contained in Assembly Bill 2498 (Leno)
from the 2007-08 legislative session and would prohibit firearms sales
at the Cow Palace in San Francisco.

SB 585 is an effort to allow the City and/or County of San Francisco to
discriminate against legitimate gun show participants and vendors who
must comply with stringent state regulations affecting licensing, sales,
background checks, liability and other provisions of state law governing
gun shows, although the property in question is owned by the state, not
the county. SB 585 passed the full Assembly on September 9 by a vote of
45-33 and is currently awaiting a floor vote in the Senate. I oppose
the bill as currently drafted.

Senate Bill 697 (DeSaulnier) is a re-introduction of Assembly Bill 2235
a bill from the 2007-08 legislative session by the same author relating
to "owner-authorized" handguns. AB 2235 passed the Assembly but was
held under submission in the Senate Appropriations Committee and died
without further action. SB 697 was scheduled for a hearing in the
Senate Public Safety Committee; however, the author has decided to defer
action on the bill until next year.

"Smart gun" technology may be perfected in the future, and "owner
authorized" weapons may one day secure a niche in the marketplace.
However, the potential availability of such weapons for those who wish
to purchase them should not preclude the legal possession, purchase or
transfer of other traditional firearms. For this reason, I am opposed
to SB 697 as written.

Senate Bill 776 (Hancock) would require owners of large-capacity
magazines to register them with the Department of Justice. This bill is
now a two-year bill and will not be acted upon until the Legislature
re-convenes in 2010. I am opposed to this bill as written.

During the 2007-08 legislative session, other gun control-related bills
were approved by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor
Schwarzenegger:

Assembly Bill 821 (Nava) would require the use of non-lead rifle and
handgun ammunition for hunting in certain areas as to reduce the risk of
lead poisoning to the endangered California Condor. While the goal of
protecting the endangered California Condor has merit, in my view the
provisions contained in this bill were excessive and of dubious value.
AB 821 passed from the Senate on September 4, 2007 by a vote of 23 to
15. I voted against the bill at that time. The bill was signed into
law by the Governor on October 13, 2007.

Assembly Bill 1471 (Feuer) would require all handguns sold after January
1, 2010 to include micro-stamped identifying information that would be
transferred to each dispensed bullet cartridge as it was fired.
Technical issues aside, it is my opinion that such a program will not
lead to any significant reduction in gun violence, nor will it increase
conviction rates of gun-related crimes. Moreover, the bill has the
potential to inconvenience and even implicate lawful gun owners whose
guns were stolen and used in the commission of a crime. AB 1471 passed
the Senate on September 6, 2007 by a vote of 21 to 17. I voted in
opposition to the bill at that time. In addition to voting against the
bill, along with my Senate Republican Colleagues I urged the Governor to
veto the bill. Despite our efforts, the Governor signed the legislation
on October 13, 2007.

If you are interested in tracking the progress of current legislation,
you may access the status, votes, bill text and analyses of this and
other legislation from my Senate home page at Home - CA State Senator Dave Cox.

Again, thank you for taking the time to relay your views. Please feel
free to communicate with me in the future on other issues of interest.

Sincerely,

DAVE COX
Senator, First District



Most others gave a form letter like this:

Thank you for your email.
This e-mail address receives thousands of emails each month. While it is not always possible to respond to each message personally, please be assured that all messages are read and taken under consideration.

If you would like to my office to respond to your email, or you would like to comment on a particular bill or issue, please visit my website at Senator Ellen Corbett -- and select “Contact Me.”
If you are unsure in which Senate District you reside, you may go to California State Senate .

If you would like to schedule an appointment or invite me to an event the 10th Senate District, please call 510-577-2310 or fax 510-577-2308.

If you would like to schedule an appointment or invite me to an event in the Capitol, please call 916-651-4010 or fax 916-327-2433.

If you are seeking assistance resolving an issue with a governmental agency, please call my District Office at 510-577-2310.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you

Sincerely,


Ellen M. Corbett
Senator, District 10

[Poogsdad]

Originally Posted by coq

In lieu of the usual generic letter about how busy they are, Senator Cox actually was prepared and provided useful information:

Thank you for contacting my office to express your opposition to gun
control legislation. I appreciate hearing from you.

My stance on additional gun control legislation has been clear. I have
consistently opposed efforts to restrict the ability of law-abiding
citizens to purchase and legally use firearms.

Several key bills relating to gun control or ownership rights have been
introduced or re-introduced during this legislative session.

Assembly Bill 357 (Knight) would revise state law as it relates to
obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. Current law authorizes
the sheriff of a county, "...upon proof that the person applying is of
good moral character, that good cause exists, and that the person
applying satisfies any one of certain conditions..." to issue a license
for the person to carry a concealed handgun. AB 357 would delete the
good cause requirement, and require the sheriff to issue the license if
the other criteria described above are met. As anticipated, AB 357
failed passage in its first hearing in the Assembly Public Safety
Committee on April 21 by a vote of 1-5. Although the bill was granted
reconsideration, it is unlikely that the bill will receive a sufficient
number votes for passage.

Assembly Bill 962 (De Leon), a bill relating to ammunition, is virtually
identical to the final language contained in Assembly Bill 2062 (2008)
and Assembly Bill 362 (2007) by the same author. AB 962 passed the full
Assembly on June 3 by a vote of 42-31 and is currently awaiting a floor
vote before the full Senate.

AB 962 is a far-reaching measure which would prohibit any person not
licensed as a gun dealer to transfer, sell or buy more than 50 pieces of
ammunition in a month. The bill also implements extensive reporting and
record-keeping requirements for all licensed gun dealers who wish to
sell ammunition. The requirements listed in this measure are
impractical and would do more to inconvenience lawful gun owners more
than deter criminals. For this reason, I am opposed to AB 962 as it is
currently written.

Assembly Bill 1167 (Nielsen) "...would deem persons who have a valid
permit or license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state
or a political subdivision of another state to be authorized to carry a
concealed handgun pursuant to provisions of California law...." and
would similarly "direct the Department of Justice to enter into
reciprocity agreements with other states so that persons licensed in
this state to carry concealed or loaded firearms would be authorized to
do so in those other states." AB 1167 is awaiting a hearing in the
Assembly Public Safety Committee, although no hearing date has been set.
It is likely that this bill will not secure enough votes for passage out
of committee.

Senate Bill 41 (Lowenthal) would impose additional requirements on
firearms dealers to track sales, returns and other transactions and
report them to the California Department of Justice. Additional fees on
dealers are also included in the bill which would likely be passed on to
consumers. SB 41 passed the full Senate on June 1 by a vote of 21-14
and is currently awaiting a floor vote in the Assembly. I voted in
opposition to this bill when it came before me.

Senate Bill 585 (Leno), a bill which would prohibit firearms sales at
the Cow Palace in San Francisco. The language in SB 585 is virtually
identical to the final language contained in Assembly Bill 2498 (Leno)
from the 2007-08 legislative session and would prohibit firearms sales
at the Cow Palace in San Francisco.

SB 585 is an effort to allow the City and/or County of San Francisco to
discriminate against legitimate gun show participants and vendors who
must comply with stringent state regulations affecting licensing, sales,
background checks, liability and other provisions of state law governing
gun shows, although the property in question is owned by the state, not
the county. SB 585 passed the full Assembly on September 9 by a vote of
45-33 and is currently awaiting a floor vote in the Senate. I oppose
the bill as currently drafted.

Senate Bill 697 (DeSaulnier) is a re-introduction of Assembly Bill 2235
a bill from the 2007-08 legislative session by the same author relating
to "owner-authorized" handguns. AB 2235 passed the Assembly but was
held under submission in the Senate Appropriations Committee and died
without further action. SB 697 was scheduled for a hearing in the
Senate Public Safety Committee; however, the author has decided to defer
action on the bill until next year.

"Smart gun" technology may be perfected in the future, and "owner
authorized" weapons may one day secure a niche in the marketplace.
However, the potential availability of such weapons for those who wish
to purchase them should not preclude the legal possession, purchase or
transfer of other traditional firearms. For this reason, I am opposed
to SB 697 as written.

Senate Bill 776 (Hancock) would require owners of large-capacity
magazines to register them with the Department of Justice. This bill is
now a two-year bill and will not be acted upon until the Legislature
re-convenes in 2010. I am opposed to this bill as written.

During the 2007-08 legislative session, other gun control-related bills
were approved by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor
Schwarzenegger:

Assembly Bill 821 (Nava) would require the use of non-lead rifle and
handgun ammunition for hunting in certain areas as to reduce the risk of
lead poisoning to the endangered California Condor. While the goal of
protecting the endangered California Condor has merit, in my view the
provisions contained in this bill were excessive and of dubious value.
AB 821 passed from the Senate on September 4, 2007 by a vote of 23 to
15. I voted against the bill at that time. The bill was signed into
law by the Governor on October 13, 2007.

Assembly Bill 1471 (Feuer) would require all handguns sold after January
1, 2010 to include micro-stamped identifying information that would be
transferred to each dispensed bullet cartridge as it was fired.
Technical issues aside, it is my opinion that such a program will not
lead to any significant reduction in gun violence, nor will it increase
conviction rates of gun-related crimes. Moreover, the bill has the
potential to inconvenience and even implicate lawful gun owners whose
guns were stolen and used in the commission of a crime. AB 1471 passed
the Senate on September 6, 2007 by a vote of 21 to 17. I voted in
opposition to the bill at that time. In addition to voting against the
bill, along with my Senate Republican Colleagues I urged the Governor to
veto the bill. Despite our efforts, the Governor signed the legislation
on October 13, 2007.

If you are interested in tracking the progress of current legislation,
you may access the status, votes, bill text and analyses of this and
other legislation from my Senate home page at Home - CA State Senator Dave Cox.

Again, thank you for taking the time to relay your views. Please feel
free to communicate with me in the future on other issues of interest.

Sincerely,

DAVE COX
Senator, First District



Most others gave a form letter like this:

Thank you for your email.
This e-mail address receives thousands of emails each month. While it is not always possible to respond to each message personally, please be assured that all messages are read and taken under consideration.

If you would like to my office to respond to your email, or you would like to comment on a particular bill or issue, please visit my website at Senator Ellen Corbett -- and select “Contact Me.”
If you are unsure in which Senate District you reside, you may go to California State Senate .

If you would like to schedule an appointment or invite me to an event the 10th Senate District, please call 510-577-2310 or fax 510-577-2308.

If you would like to schedule an appointment or invite me to an event in the Capitol, please call 916-651-4010 or fax 916-327-2433.

If you are seeking assistance resolving an issue with a governmental agency, please call my District Office at 510-577-2310.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you

Sincerely,


Ellen M. Corbett
Senator, District 10

I recieved the same response from Senator Cox today as well as a number of boiler plate responses similar to the one from Senator Corbett.

Thanks,

Poogsdad

[darkwater]

AB 962 (handgun ammo) passed in the Senate near the end of the day today, it just barely got the 21 votes needed. Now it goes back to the Assembly to be confirmed since it was amended in the Senate. Arnold is our last hope, as the Assembly is likely to pass it again.

SB 585 (Cow Palace gun shows) passed in the Assembly and is headed to the govenator's desk for signature.

[Firestar]

Quick not out to Arnold, hope he gets MANY respectful "VETO" his darned thing notes from all of us.