7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
You better keep moving. Nevada is also being California. I stopped in Utah.
Ca Ammo Tax (ab 992) On The Assembly Floor
- Thread starter MikeHaas
- Start date
- Status
erem
Member
Hey Jim-
Doesn't this "Victim's Reimbursement Fund" go straight into the pockets of the Trauma Foundation, which STARTED the Million Mom March, and has repeatedly gotten in trouble for abusing tax dollars to fund gun control initiatives? If so, will bringing this up help kill the bill, or help get the fee raised to a quarter? Perhaps bringin up the point that we're not trying to force people to fund the NRA?
Others-
Here is a link to the CA legislature. You can enter your email address, and when the bill's status changes you'll get notified. I did for this one. As long as it's going to be coming around again and again and again, I might as well know when to start writing letters again.
Finally- is there a way to kill this forever? Could we possibly get a bill through that bans taxing each individual round period?
bah. At least when I go to the range tomorrow, It shouldn't be too tough to convince a group of bullseye shooters to write lettters.
-erem
Doesn't this "Victim's Reimbursement Fund" go straight into the pockets of the Trauma Foundation, which STARTED the Million Mom March, and has repeatedly gotten in trouble for abusing tax dollars to fund gun control initiatives? If so, will bringing this up help kill the bill, or help get the fee raised to a quarter? Perhaps bringin up the point that we're not trying to force people to fund the NRA?
Others-
Here is a link to the CA legislature. You can enter your email address, and when the bill's status changes you'll get notified. I did for this one. As long as it's going to be coming around again and again and again, I might as well know when to start writing letters again.
Finally- is there a way to kill this forever? Could we possibly get a bill through that bans taxing each individual round period?
bah. At least when I go to the range tomorrow, It shouldn't be too tough to convince a group of bullseye shooters to write lettters.
-erem
stevelyn
Member
Well, yes there is, but I don't think we're quite ready to go there yet.
>>>According to Gun Owners of California the following on multi year bills have been defeated for this year...
---
>>I assure, you those are LAST YEAR's defeated bills. See my report at:
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml
---
> I'm just going on their most recent update on their page
http://www.gunownersca.com/
I can see why you might be confused. Think how frustrating that is for those of us who are simply trying to get the right information out - to have someone saying "No, don't worry about it - it's all taken care of..." WELL, IT'S NOT!
The state web site is up-to-date in this instance:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_992_bill_20040122_status.html
MEASURE : A.B. No. 992
...
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 01/22/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION : From inactive file. To third reading.
FILE : ASM THIRD READING
FILE DATE : 01/26/2004
ITEM : 67
I'm sure that most here would agree that it's preposterous that all the anti-gun bills would die just days after the legislature starts it's 2004 session, but your average non-activist gun-owner doesn't follow legislative cycles and depends on the "pro-gun groups" for valid information. Now, we are actually getting really good response to the AB 992 alerts - in fact, it would be great response for a weekday, but we only heard of the issue late Friday! I mean REALLY GOOD response - over 5 thousand emails delivered to the legislature over the ONE-CLICK system between late Friday and Sunday morning!)
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/legs/asm.shtml
2 of the best websites for contacting the Assembly about AB992.
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU THAT HAVE CONTACTED THE ASSEMBLY ABOUT AB 992!
Mike Haas
---
>>I assure, you those are LAST YEAR's defeated bills. See my report at:
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml
---
> I'm just going on their most recent update on their page
http://www.gunownersca.com/
I can see why you might be confused. Think how frustrating that is for those of us who are simply trying to get the right information out - to have someone saying "No, don't worry about it - it's all taken care of..." WELL, IT'S NOT!
The state web site is up-to-date in this instance:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_992_bill_20040122_status.html
MEASURE : A.B. No. 992
...
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 01/22/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION : From inactive file. To third reading.
FILE : ASM THIRD READING
FILE DATE : 01/26/2004
ITEM : 67
I'm sure that most here would agree that it's preposterous that all the anti-gun bills would die just days after the legislature starts it's 2004 session, but your average non-activist gun-owner doesn't follow legislative cycles and depends on the "pro-gun groups" for valid information. Now, we are actually getting really good response to the AB 992 alerts - in fact, it would be great response for a weekday, but we only heard of the issue late Friday! I mean REALLY GOOD response - over 5 thousand emails delivered to the legislature over the ONE-CLICK system between late Friday and Sunday morning!)
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/legs/asm.shtml
2 of the best websites for contacting the Assembly about AB992.
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU THAT HAVE CONTACTED THE ASSEMBLY ABOUT AB 992!
Mike Haas
Jim March
Member
Erem: No, the money is supposed to go to hospital trauma *units*, I assume mainly at county hospitals. The "Trauma Foundation" in SF isn't a recipient (dang ).
See also:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_992&sess=CUR&house=B&author=ridley-thomas - all info on the bill. Check the "latest version" (the top-most entry under the "amended" list).
).See also:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_992&sess=CUR&house=B&author=ridley-thomas - all info on the bill. Check the "latest version" (the top-most entry under the "amended" list).
redhead
Member
Email sent to my assembly representative (so-called). I'm working on a letter this evening to fax.
Jim March
Member
The current variant covers ONE reloading component: primers. They got smart, and realized that charging for EVERY component might be stopped in the courts (equal protection basis, some people can recycle shells while others can't, some will make their own bullets out of old wheelweights, different powder charges, etc).
redhead
Member
I emailed and faxxed my "representative", Loni Hancock, but I don't have high hopes. I'll call tomorrow, as well. If this travesty passes, I can't very complain if I didn't contact my "representative".
:banghead:
:banghead:
erem
Member
I was going to Mail my letter at the post office tomorrow. All this talk of faxes and calls makes me curious. Is there time for a letter to get there?
-erem
-erem
Bump...
Please do write to "all" representatives. It does not matter if he/she is in your district or not.
It does not have to be elaborated. A simple "Please oppose to AB992 - Ammo Tax" should be enough.
E-mail works well, but IMHO, post-cards work best.
-Pat
Please do write to "all" representatives. It does not matter if he/she is in your district or not.
It does not have to be elaborated. A simple "Please oppose to AB992 - Ammo Tax" should be enough.
E-mail works well, but IMHO, post-cards work best.
-Pat
shooten
Member
Those 
! I sent my emails and I'm working on a fax. Does anyone have a list of the committee members that we can send a message to? I used one-click to get the whole assembly.
thanks,
Scott
! I sent my emails and I'm working on a fax. Does anyone have a list of the committee members that we can send a message to? I used one-click to get the whole assembly.thanks,
Scott
Jim March
Member
At this point it's out of the Assembly committees (and yes, this puppy IS live again).
The only place to stop it at the Assembly is on the Assembly floor. I'll have a better idea what that looks like soon.
Some good news: it then has to do the Senate, where the picture is...less grim. I know for a fact it can't make a veto-proof majority, but it *might* pass. It CAN also be stopped there though, the Senate Safety Committee in particular isn't half bad.
But hold off on the Senate until we see what happens next on the Assembly floor. More updates tonight.
Then there's Arnold. Your guess is as good as mine, though there's a lot of reason to hope. Not sure, but I *think* what the grabbers in the legislature are doing is throwing every possible gun grab they can his way, in the hopes that he won't take a hardline stance and veto *everything*. So they resurrect even brainfarts like 992.
The only place to stop it at the Assembly is on the Assembly floor. I'll have a better idea what that looks like soon.
Some good news: it then has to do the Senate, where the picture is...less grim. I know for a fact it can't make a veto-proof majority, but it *might* pass. It CAN also be stopped there though, the Senate Safety Committee in particular isn't half bad.
But hold off on the Senate until we see what happens next on the Assembly floor. More updates tonight.
Then there's Arnold. Your guess is as good as mine, though there's a lot of reason to hope. Not sure, but I *think* what the grabbers in the legislature are doing is throwing every possible gun grab they can his way, in the hopes that he won't take a hardline stance and veto *everything*. So they resurrect even brainfarts like 992.
Thumper
Member
Ten cents tax per primer? Unbelievable. Good luck to you guys out there.
Jim March
Member
Thumper: I swear to God, that's an *improvement*.
The original plan was ten cents PER COMPONENT - shell, bullet, primer, "powder charge". No, I have NO idea how they'd figure out how to tax a pound of gunpowder, and they didn't say.
So the primer tax is them "backing down" to where reloading at least isn't taxed WORSE than retail loaded ammo sales.
Anyways. The good news is, the pressure y'all are putting on IS BEING HEARD. Just got back from the capital all gussied up. They're listening. Keep it up. You can even politely contact the author (Ridley-Scott) as they're feeling the heat and may pull it themselves. Pressure on the rest, even the "friendlies", causes them to contact Ridley-Scott and/or the Dem leadership and go "hey, is this REALLY a good idea?"
Look, even if we can count on Arnold 100%, we want to keep the pressure on him by killing these before he sees 'em. He'll have an easier time vetoing one or two bad gun bills versus six or more.
The original plan was ten cents PER COMPONENT - shell, bullet, primer, "powder charge". No, I have NO idea how they'd figure out how to tax a pound of gunpowder, and they didn't say.
So the primer tax is them "backing down" to where reloading at least isn't taxed WORSE than retail loaded ammo sales.
Anyways. The good news is, the pressure y'all are putting on IS BEING HEARD. Just got back from the capital all gussied up. They're listening. Keep it up. You can even politely contact the author (Ridley-Scott) as they're feeling the heat and may pull it themselves. Pressure on the rest, even the "friendlies", causes them to contact Ridley-Scott and/or the Dem leadership and go "hey, is this REALLY a good idea?"
Look, even if we can count on Arnold 100%, we want to keep the pressure on him by killing these before he sees 'em. He'll have an easier time vetoing one or two bad gun bills versus six or more.
inventory0297
Member
Letters and e-mail sent, but being as my Assemblyman is Doug LaMalfa, he wouldn't have been voting for this tripe anyway.......WRITE THOSE LETTERS EVERYONE!!!
marklbucla
Member
According to the NRA Members' Councils of California, the AB 992 issue was put in the "inactive file" today!
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml
1/23/04 - AB992 ON THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR
1/26/04 - AB992 MOVED BACK TO INACTIVE FILE
During today's Assembly floor session, file item 67, known to us as AB992 (ammo tax) was moved back onto the "Inactive file." Legislators, and their staffs, report that a heavy volume of calls, faxes, and emails were waiting for them when they arrived at their offices this morning. It seems that your activities this past weekend have had the desired affect. Thank you. This bill is not yet dead so we need to continue to call, fax, and email, through the end of this week. Things appear to be positive, but we cannot rest until this is gone. Please keep up the pressure.
In May of 2003, Amended to direct revenues to a "Victim Reimbursement Fund."
Last year, AB992 failed the requirement for legislation to pass out of it's "house of origin" by the deadline.
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml
1/23/04 - AB992 ON THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR
1/26/04 - AB992 MOVED BACK TO INACTIVE FILE
During today's Assembly floor session, file item 67, known to us as AB992 (ammo tax) was moved back onto the "Inactive file." Legislators, and their staffs, report that a heavy volume of calls, faxes, and emails were waiting for them when they arrived at their offices this morning. It seems that your activities this past weekend have had the desired affect. Thank you. This bill is not yet dead so we need to continue to call, fax, and email, through the end of this week. Things appear to be positive, but we cannot rest until this is gone. Please keep up the pressure.
In May of 2003, Amended to direct revenues to a "Victim Reimbursement Fund."
Last year, AB992 failed the requirement for legislation to pass out of it's "house of origin" by the deadline.
Jim Diver
Member
Untill NRA changes it's tactics and plays offence for a while, this bill will be back over and over and over till it passes.
Jim March
Member
Uh, not so fast.
I talked to Priscilla Ocen, the staffer for Ridley-Thomas who's handling AB992. She says that they're not "pushing" AB992 so that matches what Mike says re: inactive file, but she would NOT commit to the bill being utterly dead this year...even when I offered to repeat such a committment by her to the Internet to take some heat off.
So we can't quite consider this one dead. I'd continue doing POLITE pressure, folks.
In talking to Ms. Ocen on the matter, she says Ridley-Thomas was motivated primarily by a desire to fund trauma centers (esp. county hospitals). And it's true that they lose a ton of money, often to victims of violence of one sort or another.
I explained that the average crook shoots about a dozen rounds a year, while the serious target shooter can crank out 10,000 or more rounds a month (which means $1,000 a month or more to what will be seen as a "fine'). The people shooting those volumes are the LEAST likely people to do violence of any sort, never mind shoot somebody.
I countered by saying that if the goal is to fund trauma centers, the people to go after are drug dealers. At present, when cops do asset forfeiture it's seen as a "conflict of interest" - divert that money from the cops to the hospitals, and you'll be a LOT closer to "billing the people that really cause the violence" versus going after competitive shooters.
That got her attention.
(Yes, we know that asset forfeiture needs massive reforms, as does the "war on (some) drugs". Fine. Let 'em go wrassle with that. The first issue is that most asset forfeiture goes through the Feds, specifically BECAUSE the Feds have rules that pass a "bounty" back to the local agencies...in effect, the Feds have bribed local law enforcement, therefore the money goes to Feds and local cops. Even short of major reforms to drug/asset laws, we need to get this Federal bribery under control...we can halt that whole bribery scam, for starters.)
Anyways. Hats off to Ms. Ocen for at least listening - we had a very pleasant conversation.
So even with her boss's office: BE POLITE.
We have to at least be able to talk to these people.
I talked to Priscilla Ocen, the staffer for Ridley-Thomas who's handling AB992. She says that they're not "pushing" AB992 so that matches what Mike says re: inactive file, but she would NOT commit to the bill being utterly dead this year...even when I offered to repeat such a committment by her to the Internet to take some heat off.
So we can't quite consider this one dead. I'd continue doing POLITE pressure, folks.
In talking to Ms. Ocen on the matter, she says Ridley-Thomas was motivated primarily by a desire to fund trauma centers (esp. county hospitals). And it's true that they lose a ton of money, often to victims of violence of one sort or another.
I explained that the average crook shoots about a dozen rounds a year, while the serious target shooter can crank out 10,000 or more rounds a month (which means $1,000 a month or more to what will be seen as a "fine'). The people shooting those volumes are the LEAST likely people to do violence of any sort, never mind shoot somebody.
I countered by saying that if the goal is to fund trauma centers, the people to go after are drug dealers. At present, when cops do asset forfeiture it's seen as a "conflict of interest" - divert that money from the cops to the hospitals, and you'll be a LOT closer to "billing the people that really cause the violence" versus going after competitive shooters.
That got her attention.
(Yes, we know that asset forfeiture needs massive reforms, as does the "war on (some) drugs". Fine. Let 'em go wrassle with that. The first issue is that most asset forfeiture goes through the Feds, specifically BECAUSE the Feds have rules that pass a "bounty" back to the local agencies...in effect, the Feds have bribed local law enforcement, therefore the money goes to Feds and local cops. Even short of major reforms to drug/asset laws, we need to get this Federal bribery under control...we can halt that whole bribery scam, for starters.)
Anyways. Hats off to Ms. Ocen for at least listening - we had a very pleasant conversation.
So even with her boss's office: BE POLITE.
We have to at least be able to talk to these people.
twoblink
Member
Jim,
I talked to a few LA city "morons" (read: elected/selected officials) and they were thinking about the "25 cent per primer" bill... way in the past, about 2001.. And so as disgusting as it sounds, yeah, things can be a lot worse..
As far as I can read it; California is trying to steal the "We have the most gun laws and the most ineffective gun laws" title from DC...
I talked to a few LA city "morons" (read: elected/selected officials) and they were thinking about the "25 cent per primer" bill... way in the past, about 2001.. And so as disgusting as it sounds, yeah, things can be a lot worse..
As far as I can read it; California is trying to steal the "We have the most gun laws and the most ineffective gun laws" title from DC...
- Status
