California Residents, call your Assembly member!


PDA






eflatminor
April 9, 2008, 06:15 PM
I'm hoping any CA residents will call their assembly member to OPPOSE AB2062, a motion that would significantly diminish our ability to purchase "handgun" ammunition. Of course, since ANY ammo that can be fired in a rifle can also be fired in a handgun, this is nothing more than a back door attempt to ban guns by banning ammo. Call or write to OPPOSE AB2062 now!!!

If you enjoyed reading about "California Residents, call your Assembly member!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
brighamr
April 9, 2008, 06:21 PM
eflatminor - you might want to post a transcript of the bill here for all the legal guys to view. Good luck in your fight!

CountGlockula
April 9, 2008, 06:23 PM
Yes, and please include the direct city council members that we can influence our opinions on this bill.

eflatminor
April 9, 2008, 06:31 PM
Here's what I could find on the exact wording of AB2062:

Assembly Bill 2062 (De Leon) imposes (1) an ammunition purchasers permit requirement for Californians to purchase handgun ammo, (2) a fee for each Handgun ammo purchase and (3) requires a state license to sell ammunition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 2062, as amended, De Leon. Ammunition.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain records pertaining to firearms transactions.

This bill would require the department to maintain additional information relating to ammunition transfers, handgun ammunition permittees, and licensed handgun ammunition vendors, as specified.

Existing law establishes the Prohibited Armed Persons File, which lists persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms, as specified.

This bill would expand those provisions to include persons prohibited from possessing ammunition.

Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.

This bill would establish a program administered by the Department of Justice for licensing handgun ammunition vendors, as specified. The bill would also authorize the issuance of a handgun ammunition permit, to be used by purchasers of handgun ammunition, as specified.

The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to incorporate the permit information into a permittee's California driver's license, as specified.

The bill would establish a database maintained by the department to serve as a registry of handgun ammunition vendors. The bill would also establish a database of handgun ammunition permittees.

This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2009, unless specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless they are registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined. The bill would also require these vendors to obtain a background clearance for those employees who would handle ammunition in the course and scope of their employment. The bill would require the Department of Justice to maintain a registry of registered handgun ammunition vendors, as specified. Violation of these provisions, as specified, would be subject to civil fines, as specified a misdemeanor .

By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would also provide that no retail seller of ammunition shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the retailer or employee thereof. Violation of these provisions would be subject to civil fines, as specified.

The bill would further provide that handgun ammunition may only be purchased in a face-to-face transaction and only if certain conditions exist.

Existing law generally regulates what information is required to be obtained in connection with the transfer of ammunition.

This bill would, subject to exceptions, commencing July 1, 2009, require certain ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers, and would require submission of that information to the Department of Justice, as specified. A violation of these provisions would be subject to civil fines, as specified a misdemeanor .

This bill would provide that a person enjoined from engaging in activity associated with a criminal street gang, as specified, would be prohibited from having under his or her possession custody or control, any ammunition. Violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.

The bill would prohibit supplying or delivering, as specified, handgun ammunition to prohibited persons, as described, by persons or others who know or have cause to believe the recipient is a persons prohibited from possessing ammunition. Violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor with specified penalties.

By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no yes .

eflatminor
April 9, 2008, 06:40 PM
Here's a link to all CA Assembly Members:
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs/asm.shtml

If you don't know the district you're in, an internet search will help you determine. Our assembly member HERO for the day is Greg Aghazarian, who stopped the motion from going on by pointing out that the motion violates Joint Rule 54(c), which prohibits a legislator from authoring a bill that is substantially the same as a bill that he or she previously authored in the same two-year session. Assemblyman Aghazarian moved to refer AB2062 to the Assembly Rules Committee for a formal determination of it's fate.

So...you might also call the Assembly Rule Committee in addition to the assembly member for your district. The Rules Committee's number is (916) 319-2800. Tell them you oppose AB2062 and support Aghazarian's motion that it violates Joint Rule 54(c). I also called Greg Aghazarian to thank him, though he doesn't represent my district. His number is (916) 319-2026.

dvcrsn
April 9, 2008, 07:51 PM
NRA members council web site can also be used to send emails to the appropriate lawcritters in Sacramento. Let us all make a point to completely clog their email system (for those that don't live in Kali--any help would be appreciated:D:what:)
DJC

glockman19
April 9, 2008, 07:58 PM
Yesterday, Tuesday, April 8, Assembly Bill 2062 was passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee. Assembly Member Greg Aghazarian (R-26) objected, noting that AB2062 violates Joint Rule 54 (c) which prohibits a legislator from authoring a bill that is substantially the same as a bill that he or she previously authored in the same two-year session. Assembly Member Aghazarian moved to refer AB2062 to the Assembly Rules Committee for a formal determination of its fate.

Zoogster
April 9, 2008, 08:47 PM
Don't just complain (which is important), call and thank Greg Aghazarian for holding them accountable. They cannot keep introducing the same bill as a new bill multiple times in a short time span because it does not get the result they wanted.

We just fought this fight recently, and won. Greg Aghazarian is reminding them of that! It takes a lot of integrity to stand up against bills targeting "evil guns" in CA. Be sure to let him know you didn't miss that he is holding legislatures to the law themselves.

steverjo
April 10, 2008, 03:24 AM
Why not create a state-wide procedure to handle ccw the same way as the DMV? Proof of ID, take a written test, take a range test, and if you pass then pay a fee and get a permit to carry. Make it uniform across the state, no more rural vs urban counties. If the fee was high enough, it could go a long way towards reducing the state's budget crisis. I don't care if they even add an insurance requirement. Just let us excercise our rights equally across the state. We should not be discriminated against just because of what county we live in. The auto insurance companies ran into trouble this way a few years ago.

Tyris
April 10, 2008, 05:16 AM
Why not create a state-wide procedure to handle ccw the same way as the DMV? Proof of ID, take a written test, take a range test, and if you pass then pay a fee and get a permit to carry. Make it uniform across the state, no more rural vs urban counties. If the fee was high enough, it could go a long way towards reducing the state's budget crisis. I don't care if they even add an insurance requirement. Just let us excercise our rights equally across the state. We should not be discriminated against just because of what county we live in. The auto insurance companies ran into trouble this way a few years ago.

Im not sure if this is a joke or not, but I'll respond.

1. California is not shall-issue, no need for a DMV like structure if you're just going to deny most people anyhow.
2. a high CCW tax/fee to handle the deficit? I take it you vote democrat often. Cali's deficit it in the 10s of billions, you'd have to tax each CCW license upwards of $100,000 to make a dent in that. A better solution would be to stop giving free school and medical to illegals, and cut other expenditures until money spent = money taken in. Unlimited taxation is not the path to prosperity that the collectivists will have you believe.

-T

Zoogster
April 10, 2008, 06:17 PM
If the fee was high enough, it could go a long way towards reducing the state's budget crisis.
Ha. Yeah that is a democrat.

The budget crisis is because close to 90% of the funds are locked, and cannot be moved by the governor or the legislature to balance the budget and requires new legislation just to allow some of that.
Every time a citizen sees a bill to "help education" or "provide something for schools" they blindly vote it in, lock it in the budget, because it "sounds good" at the polls or on commercials and create a new deficit that cannot be moved or balanced without a new bill which will make any sponsor become the bad guy attacking education.
So no politician wants to be that sponsor, and even when someone like the current governor tries to do something, suddenly he is the enemy of every teacher, or every corrections officer or every nurse etc Which then demonize them in the media, and are bad for thier future as a politician.

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/images/FG-SUM-01C.gif

Now look where it is spent:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/images/FG-SUM-02C.gif
That is the governors balanced budget. Currently the expenses are significantly higher.

A big part of the problem is those recieving government funds do not have incentive to run it like a business, eliminating unnecessary expenses, positions and employees, unnecessary resources, and focus on increasing the important results. They get less effecient each year, get used to what they get for nothing and want to expand and get even more for other things.

Those figures are just the state taxes, there is additional local road and school taxes and other things for most residents at the local level.

The state alone has over $3500 a year per person in the state of around 30 million people, including every man woman and child. Many of them will only require a mere fraction of that, and some others several times that.

If you look around the nation you will find many states with less to spend per person with balanced and functioning budgets and even less taxes.
The problem is not the funds, its the way the funds are spent. Increasing the amount of funds available to spend does not fix the solution it just allows them to ignore the real problem for longer and simply throw more money at it, while further reducing liberty of the citizens.

Most of the state funds, over 41% goes to schools including the k-12 and higher education, even in the governors balanced budget, with teachers lining the streets and picketing him.
5.5% goes to just paying for the state government to distribute the funds and create new legislation!!! A whopping $7,749,000,000 just to pay for them!
Almost 8 billion dollars for people to sit around and pass legislation, and decide how to spend the rest of the taxes.
I know what will fix the problem, lets create more government in the form of additional agencies and personel to oversee spending! :rolleyes:

Keep in mind this is the balanced budget, the actual expenses are even worse.
73.9% of the budget goes to schools k-12 and higher education, health services, and corrections. Yet people must pay for much of that themselves anyways in the form of health insurance, local education taxes, etc So its not like those figures cover those expenses or even come close, most of it comes out of the pockets in figures not expressed here.

Increased taxes really is not the asnwer. People want to increase taxes on cigarettes, nobody needs those. On alcohol, nobody needs that. On ammunition, nobody needs that. The list goes on and on. The majority wants to tax anything only a minority use, because they can outvote them on the issue. It is tyranny of the majority.
You know what would help people understand it? If rather than the taxes being included in the purchase cost, if you went through a toll booth that charged you for the taxes of everything at the entrance of every store, and every road, etc. Then you would see just how much is taken for how little is returned.

Do you know what the level of taxation was on the American colonies when they went to war with England and then became America? English taxes were in the range of 1% of income in most colonies, and as high as 2.5% in the plantation colonies.
Less than 3%!!! and that includes all of the taxes. Do you know what the taxes are in CA when combining federal and state taxes, not just income or property etc taxes, but sales taxes on all goods and various other taxes?

I can assure you for even the citizens in the lowest percentage of tax payers it is significantly higher than 3%.

Yes lets tax our way to freedom. :banghead:

Then you still have to pay for most things with various fees that taxes pay for anyways.
Want a clear example? To use national forest in southern CA requires and adventurer's pass. Yet you pay for that land and the preservation of it already with state and federal taxes, and it is already fully paid for. It exists because you already pay for it in full, yet you still have to pay just to use it! Admittance to use something already paid in full by taxes, just because those fees can be used for state income.

Let me just have some of your money, and I will build you something, charge you annualy to maintain it, and then I will charge you an admission price to come use it even though all expenses are already covered. That sounds like a really sweet deal. I promise to make you something nice :neener:

steverjo
April 11, 2008, 03:48 AM
It is funny how you all jump in thinking i am a democrat. Nothing can be further from the truth.

I live in Los Angeles county. There is absolutely no possibility of me getting a concealed carry permit. I pay a couple of hundred dollars each year to register my car. I can then legally drive it anywhere i want to. I would be happy to pay a couple hundred bucks to carry legally. It beats the alternative.

eflatminor
April 11, 2008, 12:43 PM
I too live in LA and know you'll have to pay a lot more than a couple hundred bucks...to the re-election campaign of Sheriff Baca...if you want a CCW. The issue in LA is the 14th ammendment. CCWs are not given evenly.

Pilgrim
April 12, 2008, 01:01 AM
California Residents, call your Assembly member!
Sorry, I left the state in disgust four years ago.

Pilgrim

If you enjoyed reading about "California Residents, call your Assembly member!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!