AB462: pro-gun bill, probable hearing on 3/20 - FULL COURT PRESS, GUYS!

[Jim March]

Arright, who's willing to put it on the line and come up to Sacramento to support a PRO-gun bill?

Here's the situation:

AB462 is a mild California CCW reform package. It declares that people who are past victims of domestic violence or hate crimes automatically have "good cause for issuance" for a CCW permit.

Sponsor Ray Haynes tried this same thing last year, and it died in the first committee. But in a surprise move, Senator Vasconsellas abstained from voting, despite being right there - previously, this Dem had never met a gun control bill he didn't like. I was one of the four main pro-bill speakers, and gave a litany of the various abuses in the CCW process. When I started reading the Colafrancesco Papers where a drunk crony personally admits to bribery to score the permit, Vasconsellas got agitated and interrupted, asking me what this had to do with the subject at hand. I replied that I was showing them WHY the various beat-up and/or threatened people who'd already spoken couldn't score CCW: because they hadn't paid the appropriate bribes. Vasconsellas shut up, and looked very visibly disturbed.

Well, due to term limits, Senator Ray Haynes is now Assemblyman Ray Haynes, so this bill will be heard first in the Assembly Safety Committee versus the Senate Safety Committee. So we've got a whole new panel to confront this year.

And the "dirt" I've got on CCW is off-scale WORSE than what I had this time last year. There's stuff still being investigated that I can't discuss online yet, but it's HOT. Incitement-to-riot grade stuff, clear threats to public safety, the stuff of which lynch mobs are made of if us gunnies weren't so civilized.

We're going to just flat-out PLASTER these morons.

How many people are willing to show up for that hearing, currently scheduled for March 20th (Thursday)? We'll probably have a couple people from the Second Amendment Sisters taking lead proponent roles, with me playing "cleanup", then public comments. Which don't have to be very specific - we need to give these people the clear impression that we are just FURIOUS over how CCW is being abused. We need to make it so clear, they'll ask Ray Haynes to modify the bill to full shall-issue.

Long shot? Of course. But if we don't speak up, we're screwed regardless.

Understand, Ray Haynes is still the one in charge here, I'm only going to be handling the "current abuses in the process" part. But I don't think Haynes understands how insanely powerful that part has gotten of late! I'm going to try and get him the message ahead of time.

Who's with me for a Sacramento party to remember?

I'll post updated info on the hearing date/time as it comes available in this thread.

Oh ya: Bill information...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_462&sess=CUR&house=B&author=haynes

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_462_bill_20030224_history.html

 

[Blackhawk]

Way to go, Jim!

 

[Airwolf]

 

[Drjones]

I live in Sac, so I'm there!!!

I'll let everyone else in the area know as well!!!

Thank you Jim for posting this, and keep us posted, k?

Email me if you want....


Drjones
[email protected]

 

[Drjones]

Interesting.....

I've seen some ammo that will be used in the hearing.

It will be interesting at that hearing for sure, if not downright messy!!!

 

[Jim March]

Yup. Showed him some goodies in EMail.

We're going to make some very bad people VERY unhappy.

 

[Frohickey]

What time on March 20th? Or should I plan on not being in to work at all?

I think I can swing a little bit of time out of work, since they owe me for working on some weekends.

Count me in as a definite-maybe.

 

[Airwolf]

PLEASE, someone post a full report of the aftermath for those of us who can't make it. Does the state keep/publish transcripts of hearings like this?

 

[Jim March]

Airwolf: I'll find a way to record it. This is gonna be off-scale funny even if it doesn't work.

======================================

UPDATES

OK, just got off the phone with Jeff Greene, the staffer for Assemblyman Ray Haynes who is most connected to pro-gun efforts in Haynes' office and the California GOP in general. (Jeff publishes the "bill list and updates" for the ca-firearms mailing list and elsewhere.)

Per Jeff, Assemblyman Haynes sponsored this bill because "watching the Senate Safety Committee squirm like crazy during last year's presentation was the most fun he had all year" .

Well we're gonna do it again all right. We'll probably lead off with a black civil rights figure, Roy Innis if we can get him, maybe Shannon Reeves or somebody like that. Then we'll have the parade of those actually in danger from the Second Amendment Sisters, Pink Pistols and the like, then run me in as "cleanup batter", then "pissed off audience comments" (short of threats/profanity, please!).

We want a BIG audience. When the dirt starts to fly, we want a roomful of grunts and sharp breath intakes . We want to give a STRONG "public is watching" thing going on.

By the time we get to audience comments, the main message should be "this whole system is UTTERLY SCREWED UP but if we can at least fix this one thing (good cause for battered/abused) it's a start". Take that basic thrust and do riffs off it in the one or two minutes you'll get if we have a usefully large enough crowd. (50 people at a minute each are more valuable than 10 with five minutes each!!!) If you absolutely must get into the 2nd Amendment, fine, keep it short...but it won't work NEAR as well as getting honked off over the racism and corruption will. Elegant speaking skills NOT required, if you can just get across the impression you're pissed beyond words, cool.

Finally: you can bet that 3/20 will NOT be the date! Watch this space for when the real date/time will be. If possible, we'll get this heard the same day as the 50cal thing and/or Knight's modest CCW reform (bans the practice of requiring training prior to the "good cause analysis"). With luck we'll get all three...and hopefully we'll get 462 heard first.

 

[Drjones]

50 cal and CCW reform????

I'm THERE!!!

I cannot wait!!!!!

Everyone else better make their BEST effort to show up!!!!

 

[Jim March]

WE HAVE A HEARING DATE/TIME.

Tue. March 25th at 9am in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Be there, or be square . Seriously, despite the trip and the mid-week day, this will be MAJOR entertainment if nothing else. I mean off-scale, bring-the-popcorn, best theatre in town .

Other bills - here's the complete list of gun bills for this year:

CA: List of hunting and gun bills for 2003

AB-50 - .50 Caliber ban
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_50&sess=CUR&house=B&author=koretz

AB-342 - Bans training and use of hunting dogs.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0301-0350/ab_342_bill_20030211_introduced.html

AB-396 - Bill would allow land use of private property contracted by the state for other activities other than hunting. (This bill must be watched as it may reduce the amount of land available for hunting in California.)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_396_bill_20030214_introduced.html

AB-462 - Would expand the definition of "good cause" for issuance of a concealed carry permit to include victims of hate crime and domestic violence.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_462&sess=CUR&house=B&author=haynes

AB602 - 10 cent tax on each round, primer, bullet or casing sold in Cal.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0601-0650/ab_602_bill_20030218_introduced.html

AB992 - 10 cent tax on each round, primer, bullet or casing sold in Cal.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_992_bill_20030220_introduced.html

AB-1190 - Bans dove hunting.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1190&sess=CUR&house=B&author=nation

SB-190 - Would require all semi-auto handguns to have a chamber load indicator as well as an automatic trigger disconnect so the handgun cannot fire with the magazine removed.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0151-0200/sb_190_bill_20030212_introduced.html

SB-35 - Ballistics testing of all firearms.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_35_bill_20021210_introduced.html

SB-824 - Requires employees of gun shops to each obtain a California dealers license.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_824_bill_20030221_introduced.html

SB-435 - Would change the training requirements for CCW applicants.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_435&sess=CUR&house=B&author=knight

---------

Jim's comments: AB-462 is where we're going to do our MAIN pro-CCW push, but SB-435 has potential too. I just got finished talking to Dan Jones, staffer for Sen. Pete Knight who's sponsoring 435 (no hearing date/time on that one yet), and we're going to try and amend it to ban the practice of "up-front CCW fee loading" in all it's forms. The present language forces sheriffs/chiefs to analyze people's "good cause" before requiring training; we also need to ban up-front DOJ fees, fingerprint fees or any other fee other than the $20 they can charge to "analyze good cause". They don't need that money until after your "good cause" is cleared, they're asking now in order to dissuade applicants and punish those stubborn enough to try anyways.

Lookit: either of these two (462 and 435) can be turned into a shall-issue bill. It's normal practice for a committee to take pro/anti comments, kick it around amongst themselves and the authoring legislator(s), and pass it out of committee so long as certain changes are made. Happens with most bills, often more than once in multiple committees. So the committee members CAN come to the conclusion that Ray Haynes' proposed reform isn't enough, the whole thing is going to get creamed in court or in the media, so they need to go farther.

Is that likely? No. BUT strong enough evidence of corruption, illegality and racism could in theory do it.

It gets better. AB-50 and AB-602/992 haven't yet gotten hearing dates. They COULD turn up on 462's day, or they could turn up later. While it would be annoying to make another trip, one of the key points we're going to ram home at the 462 hearing before the Asm. Safety Committee is this: "y'all cannot possibly pretend to be passing "sensible gun control laws" while leaving something as wildly UNsensible as the current CCW system on the books".

We're going to leave 'em so disturbed after the 462 hearing, even if we lose, that all subsequent bills may have a tougher row to hoe - and they ALL have to clear that committee.

So if 462 ends up going first, that's not all bad news.

But guys? Exposing all this horrific crap on CCW at the 462 hearing won't do a damned bit of good unless the committee realizes people are paying attention to this stuff! Ya dig? We need BODIES. We need a "roomful o' pissed". We need shocked intakes of breath when the lid comes off...and trust me, y'all won't have to fake it. We need ordinary people coming to the podium *barely* able to contain their anger, just getting the message across: fix this madness! NOW!

If you can make it, post here.

 

[Drjones]

I will be there!!!

I will miss class, I don't care....

Too Important!

Come on Californians!!!

We need you!!!

Remember that thread about how CA gunners are our own worst enemy because of our complacency?

IT IS TRUE.

BE THERE.

 

[45R]

I'll try and make it!!!!

 

[Topgun]

Need some info.

I have been to Capitol hearings before on different bills, but only as a group or association.

What is the plan? If it is to show up and be counted, I doubt we will be. The stiffs sit up there and are not interested in polling or showing hands and in fact don't even ask for that.

Are we going as a group with a spokesman and an agenda?

I went as a pawnbroker association group and the only reason they would listen to us was that we had a LAWYER and a LOBBYIST, both of whom "they" knew.

I am in favor of participation, but have seen this machine in action and they just TOLERATE individuals standing up to speak.

They are not interested in whether we support the bills or not. Letters and phone calls seem to get more response in that respect.

Do we have an organization that we are going as?

 

[Mowsgun]

Hello all,

This is my first time posting to this forum, so please bear with me. My hubby is a regular member of this site and showed me this thread and I just wanted to respond to some of the comments made about this bill.

I testified at the first hearing last year on behalf of battered women and for the Second Amendment Sisters (I'm the CA Press Coord). I thought it went well, but I think we all knew it didn't have a snowball's chance of ever getting out of that committee alive - and we were right.

Now, Assem. Haynes is bringing it again (which is great), but with no changes to the language to narrow the focus of the bill and no plan to preempt the arguments from the opposition (which is not great). His office called me yesterday asking if I will testify again at the March 25th meeting and of course I said yes; but all I see coming is a dog and pony show that will do nothing to further a battered woman's chance of effectively protecting herself outside her home.

This bill might actually have a chance if Mr. Haynes would narrow the focus to include only victims of domestic violence and leave out the vague and overly broad hate crime provision and all this stuff about how corrupt the system is. Of course the system is corrupt - it's a "may issue" state run by Democrats!!

I understand the desire to expose this system for what it is and I know how fun it is to make anti-gunners squirm, but when we have an opportunity like this, shouldn't we try to make the best of it? Of course we will not get it passed as written, but maybe by focusing on ONE issue at a time (battered women, for example) it would be harder for the opposition to lobby against it. After all, who wants to stand up and say that they don't want battered women to be able to effectively defend themselves outside of their homes? Then if we get that passed and it's successful, we can bring up another bill that allows another group of victims to have "good cause", and if that's successful, we can bring another until finally this state is "shall issue".

It's called incrementalism. The Left has been using it against us for years. It's time for us to turn it around and show them that dirty tricks work both ways. Only this time, freedom will prosper instead of oppression.

 

[Jim March]

Right, several points:

The bill's author (Assemblyman Ray Haynes) will be the lead proponent speaker. That will be followed by a panel to include one, eh..."transgendered" I guess you call it PRO-gunner to speak on problems of being gay-bashed while disarmed, a couple of Second Amendment Sisters, a pro-gun black civil rights figure if we can book Roy Innis, Shannon Reeves or someone of that stature, and with myself last discussing problems with the current law.

Dionne's point about stripping the issue down to JUST domestic violence issues (versus adding "hate crimes") has some merit. That would be simpler and harder for them to argue against.

On the other hand, the committee chair (Mark Leno) is a San Franciscan with a long history of gay-rights support, and a pro-gun transgendered type might hit a home run.

Hmmmm. We'll huddle more on that point. It's perfectly possible for Ray Haynes to announce to the committee right up front that he's going to modify it down to domestic violence only. There's arguments both for and against that, and I'm not real sure which way I lean myself. It'll be up to Haynes in the end.

But let's stop and think about what ELSE we're doing. By a fluke, this bill will be among the first (if not THE first) gun bills this year to go through the Assembly safety committee. All kinds of stuff will follow; some good and a LOT bad.

If we can "shake their convictions" as to the legitimacy of California gun control, we'll have an effect down the road, and that alone is worth doing.

I agree that guaranteed CCW "good cause" for domestic violence victims would be a good thing. One option: if Hayne's bill tanks, which seems likely, we could splice that into SB435. 435 is going to get tweaked at least once regardless, because in addition to banning up-front training costs we want to ban all other forms of "up front fee loading". Passing THIS is almost a dead certainty. Dunno if Pete Knight will go for an amendment to 435 adding DV good cause but he might...he will NOT go for any sort of "guns for gays" plan, Knight has some kind of a really weird homophobic thing goin' on, unfortunately.

Over the next few days we'll huddle more with the staff at Knight's and Haynes' offices and shake all this out. Dionne, you have mail containing the points I want to try and make, which needs to stay confidential.

What else...lobbying support is being worked out right now...I can't say much yet but I'll have more info next week. We've definately got the California GOP solidly behind it.

When we did this last year at the Senate Safety Committee, they did NOT ignore us. We shook 'em to their CORE. And Vasconsellas never "fully recovered", he's not nearly as rabidly grabber now as he was before. That alone made last year's little party worth it.

 

[Jim March]

Hearing Date Change!

Just got the following in from Jeff Greene, staffer for Ray Haynes:

---------------
We just got the memo below via e-mail minutes ago. All hearings the week of the 24-28th have been cancelled--including ours.

I just called the Public Safety Committee consultant and they don't know whether they will all be heard the next scheduled meeting (the 31st) or not. They said they will know next week, so we will check with them early and often and let you know the new date as soon as humanly possible.

Just so you know, I didn't identify myself, my boss or our bill when I talked to the consultant, so the non-responsive answers were in no way related to our issue. They were as surprised by the memo as we were.

I'll be in touch.

Jeff

JTG
[email protected]
"No government is better than our government"
----------------

Jim again. In other news, Jeff thinks the hearing, when it does happen, will go down quick so he's asked me to prepare a formal written report covering more ground than I'll have time for in orals. A first draft in Acrobat of that is at:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/AB462.PDF

 

[50 Shooter]

Jim,
I heard from John today, AB50 isn't even being considered yet! I think they are doing this for one reason, to keep us off guard. They will spring a date on us at the last minute, I expect to only get 24-48 hours notice on any hearing.

Keeping my fingers crossed that all the Bills are heard on the same day. Do you happen to know when the cutoff date is for all new Bills to be heard? Isn't it sometime around the end of May?

 

[Jim March]

"All the gun stuff in one day" sounds like dreaming .

I don't know the deadlines. People from both Knight's and Haynes' offices are saying it's just a HUGE flood of bills this year on all issues, PLUS we've got the "Frankenbudget" coming.

The hearings are going to be brutally short. We need to make 'em brutal for the other side .

 

[Jim March]

This is IN PLAY ON THE 8TH OF APRIL - see also this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17032