Governor Arnold vetoed AB2714 & SB 59


PDA






Can'thavenuthingood
September 30, 2006, 12:42 AM
The Governator Vetoed 2 anti gun bills.
To all those who wrote or emailed or called the Governor, a great big THANK YOU.

Vick

Copied this from calguns.net

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=40167

AB59 and 2714 vetoed!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good job guys. The governator refused to sign the bills and gave danged good reasons for it...

To the Members of the California State Senate:



I am returning Senate Bill 59 without my signature. While I share the Legislature's concern about the criminal use of lost or stolen weapons, the ambiguous manner in which this bill was written would make compliance with the law confusing for legitimate gun-owners and could result in cases where law-abiding citizens face criminal penalties simply because they were the victim of a crime, which is particularly troubling given the unproven results of other jurisdictions in California that have passed similar measures. In addition, this bill may have undesirable legal consequences as it allows local governments to pass ordinances that differ from State law, thereby leaving law-abiding citizens with the task of navigating through a maze of different or conflicting local laws depending upon the jurisdiction they are in. A patchwork of inconsistent local ordinances creates compliance and enforcement problems that erode the State's ability to effectively regulate handguns statewide. For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.



Sincerely,



Arnold Schwarzenegger





To the Members of the California State Assembly:



I am returning Assembly Bill 2714 without my signature. It is important to ensure that minors do not use mail-order or internet sales to obtain access to items prohibited under current law that could be dangerous if used improperly. However, current law already requires sellers to verify the age of a purchaser who wishes to buy ammunition at the time of sale. By adding a new requirement that retailers ensure third party verification of the identity of the purchaser at time of delivery, this bill could inadvertently subject legitimate retailers to criminal penalties for actions that they have no control over. As a result, this bill could be counter productive by providing a negligible benefit to public safety while concurrently discouraging legitimate business. In addition, this bill would allow local governments to enact their own measures governing the sale of ammunition if they are stricter than state law. Statewide uniformity of the laws regulating firearms is critical to public safety. By allowing local governments to proliferate local measures regarding the sale of ammunition that significantly differ from state law, this bill could result in inconsistent regulation, interpretation, and enforcement of firearms laws by businesses, law enforcement, and the public. For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.



Sincerely,



Arnold Schwarzenegger

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you enjoyed reading about "Governor Arnold vetoed AB2714 & SB 59" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rangermonroe
September 30, 2006, 01:03 AM
sanity from California?

Green Lantern
September 30, 2006, 01:03 AM
Go AH-NOLD!!! :cool: :D :)

CypherNinja
September 30, 2006, 01:06 AM
He just went up a notch or two on my Respect-o-Meter.........

.38 Special
September 30, 2006, 01:13 AM
Too bad he allowed the .50 ban...

ArmedBear
September 30, 2006, 01:28 AM
Like it or not, Arnold's about the best thing we got in Sacto.

There are a few good legislators, but they are nearly powerless.

.38 Special
September 30, 2006, 01:30 AM
IMO, Arnold's best action was to scare the hell out of the local leftists by dethroning that complete boob Grey Davis. It was downhill from there.

ArmedBear
September 30, 2006, 01:32 AM
He vetoed a few other significant pieces of gun legislation, actually. Things in CA would be different right now, had he not.

He's not going to save us. It's really all over for CA unless there's a major sea change, and I'm not just talking about guns. But from a practical standpoint, he's been a helluva lot better for gun owners than any governor in my memory.

.38 Special
September 30, 2006, 01:35 AM
Well, you're probably right. Like a fool, I got sucked in by what he said he was going to do and was then dissapointed by what he did do.

Considering what are apparently the views of the average Californian, he's done a fine job for the gunners.

Mr.V.
September 30, 2006, 01:50 AM
The failure to pass any of the props in the special election killed what little conservative there was in him

ArmedBear
September 30, 2006, 01:51 AM
Personally, I'd just as soon have OC and SD counties join with the mountain counties and break off from the rest of the state.

We could have Red Cal and Blue Cal. Let the moonbats pay for their own BS.

Creeping Incrementalism
September 30, 2006, 03:01 AM
VICTORY
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1543&d=1152064285

... for now

carpediem
September 30, 2006, 03:25 AM
Go Arnold! Right decision for the right reason. A smart political move on his part: the leftist anti-gunners aren't going to vote for him anyway; while he potentially gains votes that would have otherwise gone to the libertarian party.

mike101
September 30, 2006, 09:59 AM
I have an almost new, lightly used, Governor Corzine, that I would be willing to trade. It's in excellant condition, and has only been driven on Sundays.

To sweeten the deal, I'll even throw in a :barf: Senator Lautenburg :barf: . It's old, and the paint is a little oxodized, but it won't quit. It just keeps running, and running, and running.;)

Ed Ames
September 30, 2006, 11:55 AM
To my fellow Californians: :D I't been a while, hasn't it?

To everyone else:

A lot of people make jokes about, or seriously dislike, Arnold.... but he's done a better job than anyone else I can remember recently. The .50 signing was inevitable... nobody in the gun world has managed to send a cohesive and sensible positive message about the .50BMG yet and that means the public will go along with any sort of stupidity. No politico is going to veto a bill without a good justification. Just saying the rifles haven't been used in crime or are expensive isn't a cohesive positive message BTW. Dont' take it as a sign of CA foolishness or Arnold's betrayal of gun owners. Take it as a warning.

More importantly....

All too often you hear people saying that the solution to anti-gun legislation is to vote out the anti-gun polits... but there is a problem: pro-gun people often quite literally can't... why not? Because we don't live in Santa Monica, San Francisco, Santa Anna, or any of the other districts where these anti-gun people are from. We literally have no voice in their election, any more than someone in Texas has a vote in Boxer's election. If that's the only answer you put forward you are going to lose... as we have lost so many times in the past.

The victories in California this year... and as odd as it sounds gun owners have had a huge number of victories this year... aren't the result of voting out anti-gun politicians. They are the result of thousands of individual gun owners actually waking up and taking a role in politics. Calls, letters, emails, even getting in their cars and going to Sacramento, going to the public comment sessions, working with the NRA to present an organized and positive face... becoming a bigger part of the day-to-day process instead of an election year fringe special interest. It was grassroots in the classic sense. Not just getting involved, but getting other people involved. Telling friends, telling family members, even taking the time to personally convince individual fence-sitters that they should get involved on OUR side. It was an amazing process to watch, and a gratifying process to be even a tiny part of.

There is a lesson there for all of us... all of you... especially those of you in currently gun-friendly states, and those of you who have left anti-gun states. You can live in Arizona or Alaska or any of the "currently won" states, and still make a difference in New York, California, D.C., etc... you won't get Boxer thrown out (well, you might in the long run but that shouldn't be the immediate goal) but you might just help return a bit of sanity to Illinois gun laws, or help the people of Massachusetts reclaim some of the rights they've lost. Don't retreat to safer territory (move to a gun-friendly state), and don't entrench for safety (trying to hold off new anti-gun laws in Alaska and other pro-gun states).. TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE ENEMY. If you can't win hearts and minds where the enemy is strongest, you will lose eventually. The kids of CA will grow up in a less gun-friendly world, and their kids in an even less friendly world, and they'll move into your world and bring their culture and ideas with them... and their standards will spread until finally nobody will have any 2A rights at all... and those rights will have been stripped before the voters of that time were ever born. California alone has the population to make that nightmare a reality.

Stand up... not to be counted, but to bring victory.

LAR-15
September 30, 2006, 02:05 PM
I have to agree with Arnolds reasoning for vetoing those bills.

Would Angelides sign them???

joe4702
October 1, 2006, 01:09 AM
I believe Arnold has vetoed every gun control bill presented to him except AB50. However, wasn't Pete Wilson a friend to gun owners? IIRC, most of the gun control laws passed during the reign of Grey Dufus had been previously vetoed by Wilson, had they not? It's been a while, maybe I'm not remembering correctly.

progunner1957
October 1, 2006, 01:53 AM
First, he signs the .50 ban, now this. Either he can't make up his mind or he's fishing for votes, IMHO.:confused:

Autolycus
October 1, 2006, 02:39 AM
He sounds reasonable. Perhaps you could slip a shall issue CCW bill through?:D

MrTuffPaws
October 1, 2006, 03:05 AM
Wow, this from the guy that banned the 50. Sorry, but I can't vote for him for that, and for other reasons.

Third party vote for me.

CAnnoneer
October 1, 2006, 02:01 PM
I am generally the last guy to advocate "the lesser of two evils". However, in this case I must say that it is CRITICAL that free Californians reelect Arnold. If there is to be any future for California other than a neosocialist hellhole, it passes through governers like Arnold.

As it stands, every vote counts. He will certainly lose votes due to association with GWB, but he might still win. It will be very close though. Hopefully, the dumbasses in the middle had their proxy revenge in the special election (way to cut off one's nose) and now will think more rationally.

The 50 ban was inevitable - the 50 is an unsalvageable PR disaster. Get over it and do the smart thing.

Eightball
October 1, 2006, 02:08 PM
Wow. I'm impressed. AH-NOLD is turning out to be an interesting politician to watch.

ArmedBear
October 1, 2006, 04:14 PM
However, wasn't Pete Wilson a friend to gun owners?

Not as far as I know.

I believe it was under him that FTF transactions were banned, and much of California's early "AW" legislation was enacted. Maybe it was Deukmajian, though.

And I agree with CAnnoneer.

xd9fan
October 1, 2006, 10:00 PM
Like it or not, Arnold's about the best thing we got in Sacto.

There are a few good legislators, but they are nearly powerless.

what about Tom McClintock?? He should have been the GOP picked canidate not Mr Hollywood.

Hugo
October 2, 2006, 08:04 PM
To all in California.

Freedom won this battle. Keep working to win the war. It will be long and slow, but slow and steady wins the race. Plus the jerks don't expect it. :)

ryoushi
October 2, 2006, 08:24 PM
I have to tell you the NRA is working hard in California. I have been very hard on them in the past, but watching all this go down this year opened my eyes to the importance of the NRA especially in California.

silliman89
October 2, 2006, 08:54 PM
ArmedBear -- #11
Personally, I'd just as soon have OC and SD counties join with the mountain counties and break off from the rest of the state.

We could have Red Cal and Blue Cal. Let the moonbats pay for their own BS.


Is anyone talking about this sort of thing? I've seriously always wondered why California hasn't split into two or more states by now.

ArmedBear
October 2, 2006, 09:00 PM
what about Tom McClintock?? He should have been the GOP picked canidate not Mr Hollywood.

I like Tom McClintock. I don't know him personally; I know people who do.

However, Tom McClintock made a glaring political error in the last gubernatorial election. He made a big deal about being "the only pro-life candidate."

That was dumb, for two reasons:

1. California's governor has little say in the matter.
2. California is not a pro-life state. Democrats are often pseudo-hippie, committed hedonists, and Republicans are often suburban parents, who want their teenage daughters to be able to abort. Like it or not, that's who the voters are.

Does that mean I think he should deny his personal convictions? No. I just don't think he should have made that a big point of his campaign, since it really wasn't something that interested a lot of Californians, and it had nothing to do with the election, or the reasons for the recall.

Personally, I am laissez-faire. Like Boston T. Party and the late Harry Browne, I think that the government needs to stay out of issues like abortion. Interestingly, both men are/were personally against abortion, but politically laissez-faire. So McClintock's statement didn't impress me. I didn't care. He should have spent the time he spent at the debate telling me about something I wanted to know. I think many other Californians felt the same way.

The California GOP would rather win than lose.

Remember: California Republicans often lean libertarian, both fiscally and socially. This is not the "heartland." Tom McClintock works with Libertarians (big L), so he's not far from that. That's why presenting himself as "the only pro-life candidate" in California showed a lack of political savvy: he really gave the wrong impression of himself to many.

riverdog
October 2, 2006, 09:59 PM
The 50 ban was inevitable - the 50 is an unsalvageable PR disaster. Get over it and do the smart thing.Agree. Everytime a gun bill comes up someone starts talking about Arnold and the .50 Ban. I don't like bans much, but how many votes would Arnold have lost from the middle if had vetoed the .50 ban instead of signing? Do you want Angelides to take those votes?

Right now Arnold is the best we have in Sacramento.

CAnnoneer
October 2, 2006, 10:33 PM
Is anyone talking about this sort of thing? I've seriously always wondered why California hasn't split into two or more states by now.

Hehehehe. And which would those be? People's Confederated Republic of San Francisco & Berkeley, on the one hand, and ALL THE REST OF US on the other? I predict a fiscal implosion for the PCRSFB.

No, the commie trick is to get everybody else to work to pay for the commie's paradise. A lazy hungry parasite needs a host.

Zundfolge
October 3, 2006, 12:44 AM
what about Tom McClintock?? He should have been the GOP picked canidate not Mr Hollywood.
And he'd have lost and California would have a governor who would have just signed the two bills Arnold vetoed.

The most principled candidate in the world isn't worth anything if he's not going to actually get elected ... hell Ron Paul ran for President once ... great guy and would be a great president but the only way he's getting into the White House is if he takes one of the guided tours.

usmarine0352_2005
October 3, 2006, 12:54 AM
Go ARNOLD. Always like him.

If you enjoyed reading about "Governor Arnold vetoed AB2714 & SB 59" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!