Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CA SB1140 and SB 1152 VETOED!!!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Ewok, Sep 20, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ewok

    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    and rejected by the federal government when they repealed a substantially similar law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
     
  2. joe sixpack

    joe sixpack Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    Los Angeles Ca
    I'm pleasantly surprised.

    cheers, ab
     
  3. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    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:
     
  4. El Rojo

    El Rojo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,541
    Location:
    The People's Republik of **********
    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.
     
  5. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    So he's only in favor of clear, workable forms of oppression. That's something, I suppose.
     
  6. deej

    deej Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    449
    Location:
    (Occupied) California Republic
    I'm surprised as well; I thought his early signing of AB50 was a one-fingered salute to the entire gun-owning community.
     
  7. Sergeant Sabre

    Sergeant Sabre Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,202
    Location:
    Michigan
    Hello! I'm right here. Sink that thing into the sea. The only way to fix it is to flush it all away...
     
  8. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,470
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    Gotta be aware of the boat people, though. If they shoot back, let'em land.
     
  9. atek3

    atek3 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,024
    Location:
    SW CT
    thats great news
     
  10. mcmoyer

    mcmoyer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    332
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Finally some good news from California!!
     
  11. BradN

    BradN Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    127
    Location:
    Kentucky
    AB 50 was a blow. But remember that Gray Davis would have signed these bills in a second. There has been progress.
     
  12. MaceWindu

    MaceWindu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    :D :D :D :D

    Keep da AMMO comin!!!!


    MaceWindu
     
  13. CGofMP

    CGofMP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    CCCPalifornia
    *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.

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

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Drjones

    Drjones member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,803
    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?
     
  15. Drjones

    Drjones member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,803
    And who are the boat people?:scrutiny: :confused:
     
  16. stv

    stv Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    407
    Location:
    SF CA
    Pleasantly surprised here, too. Time to write the man another letter.
     
  17. S_O_Laban

    S_O_Laban Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    858
    Location:
    near Independence MO
    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
     
  18. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    If there was reasoned protest over signing AB50, maybe it did some good.
     
  19. Sergeant Bob

    Sergeant Bob Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Swamps of Goldwater, MI
    Calling this a win is like putting $100 in a slot machine, and getting $66 back.
     
  20. Langenator

    Langenator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    Ft Belvoir, VA
    I wonder if the sh*tstorm I'm sure he caught from the gun-owning public over AB50 had anything to do with him vetoing these bills?
     
  21. El Rojo

    El Rojo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,541
    Location:
    The People's Republik of **********
    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!
     
  22. redhead

    redhead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    Pleasant Hill, CA
    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.
     
  23. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    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.
     
  24. GhostRider-Nine

    GhostRider-Nine member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Messages:
    71
    Location:
    Undisclosed. Somewhere West Of The Rockies.
    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. ;)
     
  25. rl2669

    rl2669 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    140
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page