Carnitas
July 19, 2005, 01:33 PM
A couple weeks ago I sent my Assemblyman a letter reguqrding SB 357. My particular concerns were reguarding the "Bill Analysis" prepared by the public safety comittee.
The text from my original email is presented below and was posted to THR here. http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143204&page=3
"I'm writing reguarding SB357.
In reading the Assembly Commitee Bill Analysis I found several errors which overstate the feasibility and attractiveness of the legislation.
1)On page 11, first paragraph, it states that costs to manufacturers would be minimal ($300 to $500k) for the engraving material. While this may be a reasonable cost of the engraving equipment, it ignores the fact that they would have to change their process to create lots of 50 instead of 10's of throusands. It also ignores the fact that for the information to be usable for crime fighting chain-of-custody would have to be maintained through the whole process. Also, with criminal prosecution in the wind for any mistakes in manufacture or distribution its reasonable to expect that higher profits would be expected by all persons in the distribution chain.
2) Also on page 11. There is a comment relating to Fifth Amendment "Takings" clause problems which may be associated with this bill. Glaringly absent is any mention of a 2nd Amendment problem. Proposing a Second Amendment that didnt include ammo is like proposing a First Amendment that doesnt include paper for the printing press.
3) On page 14 under the "Arguements Against". Representative of all the major ammunition manufactures have made statements in opposition to this legislation. Their comments are nicely summarised at www.saami.org. If the comments of the people who would actually be charged with complying with this legislation are not germain I cant imagine what is.
4) The document ignores the fact that numbered ammunition has never been commercially produced. The proponents of this bill cannot place in your hand a single box of comercially produced serialized ammo. This point should be made in the analysis.
I dont know how to, or who to write to correct these defficiencies.... Since you're my Assemblyman, I'm bringing it to you. I trust you'll forward my concerns to the proper persons.
Sincerely,"
Today I recieved a leter that actually addresses the content of my letter. This is a first for me. Here's what my assemblyman had to say.
Dear Carnitas–
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with the analysis of SB 357, which requires the serialization of ammunition. I appreciate hearing your concerns.
As is typical of the committee process, the consultants who write the analysis are generally members of the majority party. Since California’s Legislature is dominated by Democrats, the committee consultants are almost all Democrats as well. As such, analyses are usually skewed to the left and are very often not objective in their remarks. The specific analysis you refer to in your letter to me was written by the Assembly Public Safety Committee, which is notorious for taking a soft position on criminals and a very hard line on law abiding gun owners.
For example, just this past March, every single Democrat in the Public Safety Committee voted against a measure that would have prevented persons convicted of a sexually violent felony from lessoning their time in prison through work credits. One month later, these same Democrats voted to criminalize the cropping of dog ears. It is ironic and very sad that the committee would put the protection of dog ears higher on their list of priorities than children.
The only way to really change this anti-gun owner attitude so prevalent on the left is to elect new members who respect the 2nd Amendment. Until then, I am afraid you will keep reading analyses such as this one. Fortunately, the Republican caucus writes their own analyses so that Republican members can see arguments that the committee leaves out.
I will vote against this measure should I have the opportunity to do so. Since the analysis will not be changed, it is important that you contact the Governor and let him know your feelings on this subject. Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Assemblyman Tim Leslie
The text from my original email is presented below and was posted to THR here. http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143204&page=3
"I'm writing reguarding SB357.
In reading the Assembly Commitee Bill Analysis I found several errors which overstate the feasibility and attractiveness of the legislation.
1)On page 11, first paragraph, it states that costs to manufacturers would be minimal ($300 to $500k) for the engraving material. While this may be a reasonable cost of the engraving equipment, it ignores the fact that they would have to change their process to create lots of 50 instead of 10's of throusands. It also ignores the fact that for the information to be usable for crime fighting chain-of-custody would have to be maintained through the whole process. Also, with criminal prosecution in the wind for any mistakes in manufacture or distribution its reasonable to expect that higher profits would be expected by all persons in the distribution chain.
2) Also on page 11. There is a comment relating to Fifth Amendment "Takings" clause problems which may be associated with this bill. Glaringly absent is any mention of a 2nd Amendment problem. Proposing a Second Amendment that didnt include ammo is like proposing a First Amendment that doesnt include paper for the printing press.
3) On page 14 under the "Arguements Against". Representative of all the major ammunition manufactures have made statements in opposition to this legislation. Their comments are nicely summarised at www.saami.org. If the comments of the people who would actually be charged with complying with this legislation are not germain I cant imagine what is.
4) The document ignores the fact that numbered ammunition has never been commercially produced. The proponents of this bill cannot place in your hand a single box of comercially produced serialized ammo. This point should be made in the analysis.
I dont know how to, or who to write to correct these defficiencies.... Since you're my Assemblyman, I'm bringing it to you. I trust you'll forward my concerns to the proper persons.
Sincerely,"
Today I recieved a leter that actually addresses the content of my letter. This is a first for me. Here's what my assemblyman had to say.
Dear Carnitas–
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with the analysis of SB 357, which requires the serialization of ammunition. I appreciate hearing your concerns.
As is typical of the committee process, the consultants who write the analysis are generally members of the majority party. Since California’s Legislature is dominated by Democrats, the committee consultants are almost all Democrats as well. As such, analyses are usually skewed to the left and are very often not objective in their remarks. The specific analysis you refer to in your letter to me was written by the Assembly Public Safety Committee, which is notorious for taking a soft position on criminals and a very hard line on law abiding gun owners.
For example, just this past March, every single Democrat in the Public Safety Committee voted against a measure that would have prevented persons convicted of a sexually violent felony from lessoning their time in prison through work credits. One month later, these same Democrats voted to criminalize the cropping of dog ears. It is ironic and very sad that the committee would put the protection of dog ears higher on their list of priorities than children.
The only way to really change this anti-gun owner attitude so prevalent on the left is to elect new members who respect the 2nd Amendment. Until then, I am afraid you will keep reading analyses such as this one. Fortunately, the Republican caucus writes their own analyses so that Republican members can see arguments that the committee leaves out.
I will vote against this measure should I have the opportunity to do so. Since the analysis will not be changed, it is important that you contact the Governor and let him know your feelings on this subject. Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Assemblyman Tim Leslie