Jim March
April 5, 2003, 03:06 AM
The following comes from Ed Worley, the NRA's head lobbyist in Sacramento and one VERY effective gent:
------------
These will all be heard in committee on Tues April 8th.
Two are sponsored by Anti-Hunting Animal Rights groups:
AB1190 BANS DOVE HUNTING IN CALIF
AB342 BANS USING DOGS TO HUNT ANY FUR BEARING MAMMAL
(See also this THR thread for more info:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14565 )
These 2 will be heard in the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife committee: http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/legs/asmwaterparkswildlife.shtml
The following FOUR bills will be heard in the Assembly Safety Committee:
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/legs/asmpubsafety.shtml
AB992 THE $.10 PER ROUND AMMO TAX > WE OPPOSE
The following 3 bills we support:
AB201 VETERANS EXEMPTION
AB336 HANDGUN CERTIFICATION FOR LIFE
AB462 AMEND GOOD CAUSE FOR CCWs
---------------
Jim again. What I recommend we do is head for the Assembly SAFETY Committee right at opening time, 9:00am. Don't be late and if possible, gather out front of the hearing chamber early.
Then, those people whose primary interest is in the hunting bill should head over to the Assembly WPW committee to deal with those. The moment the bills in question are done in EITHER committee, everybody there should head for the other and join in the fun. WPW will probably be done first, so those guys would come over to Safety but it might work out in reverse.
Talking points for each, my opinions only; speakers from the public will probably get a minute or so up at a microphone:
AB1190 - BANS DOVE HUNTING IN CALIF - this bill is really about whether hunting will continue in California. It's a "trial balloon" to see if hunting one particular critter with "good PR" can be banned based purely on emotions. Hunting pays for MOST of California's conservation efforts, which is why the Department of Fish & Game is pro-hunting and against this bill.
If hunters are convinced that a "crackdown" against them is starting, they'll leave the state - denying us a very wealthy tax base and crippling conservation funding. The state can ill afford either affect.
AB342 - BANS USING DOGS TO HUNT ANY FUR BEARING MAMMAL - this bill is much like the dove bill, but even stupider. Most of the hunts banned will be against wild boar, a highly destructive non-native pest species with no natural predators. Yes, it's possible to hunt boar without dogs but only when the populations are so high there is major ecological damage.
PETA and company are run by emotions, not practical realities - it may be HOPED that the California legislature is smarter than that on both these bills.
AB992 - THE $.10 PER ROUND AMMO TAX - gangbangers rarely shoot more than a dozen rounds a year. The competitive shooters who shoot thousands of rounds a month will be crippled by this bill, despite posing absolutely no public safety threat to anybody. It's pure madness.
AB201 - VETERANS EXEMPTION - our veterans KNOW gun safety. Insulting them in later years is simply mean-spirited and ungrateful.
AB336 - HANDGUN CERTIFICATION FOR LIFE - This bill eliminates ongoing harassment - once one knows how to handle guns, it's rather hard to forget.
AB462 - AMEND GOOD CAUSE FOR CCWs - I'll be speaking in favor of this in some detail, arranged by Assemblyman Haynes' office. The committee will already have a written report by myself, which can be viewed here:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/AB462.PDF
(See also this THR thread for more info:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11561 )
-------------
Members of the committee, my name is Jim March. In 1997 my life was threatened by criminals, and I applied for a CCW permit. I expected to be treated fairly and professionally, and was most emphatically not. I've spent many years since then studying this system, and I run the Equal Rights for CCW website.
We are now able to document gender bias, racial bias of at least three types and different types of economic bias. The latter happens when the wealthy or business owners have exclusive access to the permits, or by a "dirty trick" we call "front loaded fees". The costs to obtain a CCW permit are considerable, but those funds need not be paid until the "good cause analysis" is performed by a sheriff or police chief. Most urban agencies that issue at all do some form of "front loaded fees" whereby up-front money is demanded despite it not being needed unless the applicant is going to progress through the system. If one's "good cause" isn't adequate, one doesn't need to pay $150 for training, $150 for a psychological evaluation, etc.
Racism: at least three sheriffs have been identified discriminating against the residents of towns in their own counties with high minority populations. In the counties with high Latino demographics, permit issuance to people with names like "Santiago" never comes even remotely close to the census percentage. And across the state, those counties with high black populations have the lowest rates of permit issuance; comparing counties above and below the state average black percentage shows a five to one disparity in favor of the "whiter counties".
Gender bias: in the states handling this sort of law on a non-discriminatory basis, ladies tend to hold close to 20% of the permits. In Contra Costa County, there is one female permitholder out of 179 - and she's a judge. Contra Costa is not abnormal among urban counties.
AB462 is sadly necessary to protect access to self defense by those who need it the most, and who are almost universally blocked from access.
You have all been given a report titled:
AB462: Report to the Assembly Safety Committee:
Economic, Racial and Gender Barriers To Lawful Self Defense
I am the author of that report, and can answer any questions. Thank you.
------------
Anyone commenting on AB462 simply needs to express concern/disgust (politely) with how the CCW system is being administered, and express support for at least this minimal reform.
Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw
------------
These will all be heard in committee on Tues April 8th.
Two are sponsored by Anti-Hunting Animal Rights groups:
AB1190 BANS DOVE HUNTING IN CALIF
AB342 BANS USING DOGS TO HUNT ANY FUR BEARING MAMMAL
(See also this THR thread for more info:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14565 )
These 2 will be heard in the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife committee: http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/legs/asmwaterparkswildlife.shtml
The following FOUR bills will be heard in the Assembly Safety Committee:
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/legs/asmpubsafety.shtml
AB992 THE $.10 PER ROUND AMMO TAX > WE OPPOSE
The following 3 bills we support:
AB201 VETERANS EXEMPTION
AB336 HANDGUN CERTIFICATION FOR LIFE
AB462 AMEND GOOD CAUSE FOR CCWs
---------------
Jim again. What I recommend we do is head for the Assembly SAFETY Committee right at opening time, 9:00am. Don't be late and if possible, gather out front of the hearing chamber early.
Then, those people whose primary interest is in the hunting bill should head over to the Assembly WPW committee to deal with those. The moment the bills in question are done in EITHER committee, everybody there should head for the other and join in the fun. WPW will probably be done first, so those guys would come over to Safety but it might work out in reverse.
Talking points for each, my opinions only; speakers from the public will probably get a minute or so up at a microphone:
AB1190 - BANS DOVE HUNTING IN CALIF - this bill is really about whether hunting will continue in California. It's a "trial balloon" to see if hunting one particular critter with "good PR" can be banned based purely on emotions. Hunting pays for MOST of California's conservation efforts, which is why the Department of Fish & Game is pro-hunting and against this bill.
If hunters are convinced that a "crackdown" against them is starting, they'll leave the state - denying us a very wealthy tax base and crippling conservation funding. The state can ill afford either affect.
AB342 - BANS USING DOGS TO HUNT ANY FUR BEARING MAMMAL - this bill is much like the dove bill, but even stupider. Most of the hunts banned will be against wild boar, a highly destructive non-native pest species with no natural predators. Yes, it's possible to hunt boar without dogs but only when the populations are so high there is major ecological damage.
PETA and company are run by emotions, not practical realities - it may be HOPED that the California legislature is smarter than that on both these bills.
AB992 - THE $.10 PER ROUND AMMO TAX - gangbangers rarely shoot more than a dozen rounds a year. The competitive shooters who shoot thousands of rounds a month will be crippled by this bill, despite posing absolutely no public safety threat to anybody. It's pure madness.
AB201 - VETERANS EXEMPTION - our veterans KNOW gun safety. Insulting them in later years is simply mean-spirited and ungrateful.
AB336 - HANDGUN CERTIFICATION FOR LIFE - This bill eliminates ongoing harassment - once one knows how to handle guns, it's rather hard to forget.
AB462 - AMEND GOOD CAUSE FOR CCWs - I'll be speaking in favor of this in some detail, arranged by Assemblyman Haynes' office. The committee will already have a written report by myself, which can be viewed here:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/AB462.PDF
(See also this THR thread for more info:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11561 )
-------------
Members of the committee, my name is Jim March. In 1997 my life was threatened by criminals, and I applied for a CCW permit. I expected to be treated fairly and professionally, and was most emphatically not. I've spent many years since then studying this system, and I run the Equal Rights for CCW website.
We are now able to document gender bias, racial bias of at least three types and different types of economic bias. The latter happens when the wealthy or business owners have exclusive access to the permits, or by a "dirty trick" we call "front loaded fees". The costs to obtain a CCW permit are considerable, but those funds need not be paid until the "good cause analysis" is performed by a sheriff or police chief. Most urban agencies that issue at all do some form of "front loaded fees" whereby up-front money is demanded despite it not being needed unless the applicant is going to progress through the system. If one's "good cause" isn't adequate, one doesn't need to pay $150 for training, $150 for a psychological evaluation, etc.
Racism: at least three sheriffs have been identified discriminating against the residents of towns in their own counties with high minority populations. In the counties with high Latino demographics, permit issuance to people with names like "Santiago" never comes even remotely close to the census percentage. And across the state, those counties with high black populations have the lowest rates of permit issuance; comparing counties above and below the state average black percentage shows a five to one disparity in favor of the "whiter counties".
Gender bias: in the states handling this sort of law on a non-discriminatory basis, ladies tend to hold close to 20% of the permits. In Contra Costa County, there is one female permitholder out of 179 - and she's a judge. Contra Costa is not abnormal among urban counties.
AB462 is sadly necessary to protect access to self defense by those who need it the most, and who are almost universally blocked from access.
You have all been given a report titled:
AB462: Report to the Assembly Safety Committee:
Economic, Racial and Gender Barriers To Lawful Self Defense
I am the author of that report, and can answer any questions. Thank you.
------------
Anyone commenting on AB462 simply needs to express concern/disgust (politely) with how the CCW system is being administered, and express support for at least this minimal reform.
Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw