CA SB1140 and SB 1152 VETOED!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ewok

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
187
Location
Los Gatos, CA, USA, Earth
To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 1152 without my signature.
This bill proposes an ammunition registration process that has already been considered
and rejected by the federal government when they repealed a substantially similar law
citing it was simply unworkable and offered no public safety benefit. In addition, no
other state collects information on ammunition sales or purchasers. Forensic testing of
ammunition used in a crime is the most effective way of tracing criminal activity.
For these reasons I am returning this bill without my signature.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

-----

To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 1140 without my signature.
California’s laws already impose strict liability on gun owners who allow a child to
access their firearm. Ensuring firearms are stored properly is an important public health
goal and that is why I support the current criminal storage laws. The additional firearm
storage restrictions proposed by SB 1140 are vague and unnecessary to our criminal
justice system.
Strict liability is the most stringent legal liability theory available and only five other
states beside California currently impose such a harsh penalty. This bill would further
expand the liability to situations that cannot be easily defined and thereby provides no
guidance to a person as to how to avoid criminal penalties. Such ambiguity in the law
invites arbitrary enforcement and judicial review.
Unfortunately, this bill does more to confuse an already complicated area of the law than
to protect children. Before a government exercises its power to take away one’s liberty,
it should be clear to every person what actions will cause them to forfeit their freedom.
Instead of adding to the lengthy and complex area of firearm laws, a reorganization of the
current laws should be undertaken to ensure that statutes that impose criminal penalties
are easily understandable.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
 
Those are reasonable decisions, and good news. Now, where are all the kneejerk reactionaries who were screaming "nazi" and "I hope Kalifornistan slides into the ocean" after he signed the .50 legislation? :rolleyes:
 
I sort of figured he would let AB50 go through so he could retain his "assault weapons" stance, but I had a feeling he would at least reject the ammo bill. Sure if he was great he would have vetoed AB50, but at least we got 2 of 3. This is indeed good news for Kalifornians. Time to write a semi-thank you.
 
Those are reasonable decisions, and good news. Now, where are all the kneejerk reactionaries who were screaming "nazi" and "I hope Kalifornistan slides into the ocean" after he signed the .50 legislation? :rolleyes:

Hello! I'm right here. Sink that thing into the sea. The only way to fix it is to flush it all away...
 
AB 50 was a blow. But remember that Gray Davis would have signed these bills in a second. There has been progress.
 
*AMAZED*

Well I'll be a son of a B...female dog.. In heat!

I do not even believe this... wow. I am so astonished I can not put words to it... Guess he is only 1/2 RINO.

Gotta be aware of the boat people, though. If they shoot back, let'em land.

Lets make a pact, first shots are not to be shot AT the person... ie: You miss me, I'll miss you.

gunincase.jpg
 
Good lord, that is so awesome.

At least the man hasn't totally lost it.

I really do have HUGE amounts of respect for him because of what he's made of himself, having started from NOTHING, but he sure took himself down more than a few notches with AB50.

Since he is clearly open to reasoned arguments about gun control laws, why couldn't he apply similar brain power to AB 50?

Why does it make a molecule of sense to ban something that has never been directly used in the commission of a crime??? :confused: :banghead:


Question: Can he repeal bills that he's signed, or is that up to the legislature and that whole commie-fest?
 
There are obviously reasons why he signed the 50 bill and vetoed the others. Pehaps someone like Jim March can comment on the polictical immpact of what Arnold has done and why he did what he did. It seems like common sense to have also returned the 50 bill so why didn't he. Many of his arguments for not signing the others would have fit it also. There is more here than mets the eye:D
 
Very good theory Langenator. It is possible some people got really mad at him and he listened and decided the other bills would most certainly sink him.

I think it is something else. We have a guy who said he supports the AWB. So he gets a new gun he can add to it and be consistent with his thing about the AWB. Keep in mind he is still in California and most Californians think AWs are very, very bad. He has to give them a little something or they are going to boot him out of office, plus he wants to maintain what he said about AWs. He has to pass AB50. He doesn't have a choice.

Now the conservative side of him takes hold, plus the fact that if the ammo thing would have passed, I think it would have been the straw that broke the camels back. So he vetos those bills. Sure the .50 BMG owners of the PRK are upset and their purist brothers, but a vast majority of Californians are not like us, so he can afford to piss off the AW crowd while keeping the shotgunning community indifferent to those big expensive rifles.

This is just my analysis. It doesn't mean I like it, but that is the way politics work. We knew what Arnold had said about AWs before we elected him. No one should be surprised about AB50. I think the veto of these other two is a good sign. In this state this is a major triumph.

We need the .50 FUCA now more than ever!
 
Question: Can he repeal bills that he's signed, or is that up to the legislature and that whole commie-fest?

No, the governor cannot repeal a law that's been passed by the legislature and signed by him (or a previous governor). The legislature has to do it, and given the make-up of this legislature, it ain't gonna happen.

I'd called my senator prior to his vote on SB1152 and expressed by wish for him to vote against it, knowing that it was a futile gesture. I got a letter from his office, thanking me for calling, saying he voted aye, and pointing out that we disagreed on the issue (big "duh" and putting it mildly) and he hoped that I would continue to contact his office in the future with my viewpoints. Um hm. For all the good it will do, and as if he cared. I will do it, however, just so that I can't complain about gun owners sitting on their posteriors, and just to let the duly elected jerks know that not all of us are in lock-step out here.
 
The ban on .50 caliber firearms has nothing to do with crime. There is only one thing the government has to fear from such weapons and that is the possibility that such weapons would be turned on government forces in the event of an insurrection. In normal conditions a .50 caliber firearm is nothing but a very expensive piece of sporting equipment. In the event of an insurrection a .50 caliber gun is a very formidable piece of weaponry.

Because of this I would argue that bans on .50 caliber firearms do more to undermine the intent of the Second Amendment than the late AWB.
 
Those are reasonable decisions, and good news. Now, where are all the kneejerk reactionaries who were screaming "nazi" and "I hope Kalifornistan slides into the ocean" after he signed the .50 legislation?

I did not call him a Nazi, BUT....I guess in your mind this makes it OK that he signed the 50 ban? A ban passed by an illegal "ghost vote." This is just all part of the slippery slope. I doubt that the other two bills were even important to the anti's. They just wanted to throw out 3 bills to Arnold, knowing that he would probably sign the one that would offend the least amount of gun owners. Now, how can I say "screw them all" while taking the High Road? And BTW, I still hope southern KA slides into the Pacific. ;)
 
good news, but I wonder...

Its a nice gesture on Ahnold's part, but from what I see of PRK politics a veto override will be trivial to accomplish.

With respect to AB50, has anyone actually read the thing? It looks to me like it bans the 50 BMG cartridge by its measurements, but not any 50 "calibre", not 50AE, and not shall-we-say a wildcat alternative. Is anybody thinking about an appropriate "adaptation" :evil:

Rob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top