Jim March
Member
I'll be supporting AB2218 on 4/20. I'm not going to debate this bill with y'all here, as it's been thrashed out sufficiently well in this thread and if more is needed we can do it there:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75668
I've got two different support letters written and I'm not sure which one to go with. I'll also be asking the advice of Joe Waldron, Dave Workman and Alan Gottlieb of course, but I'd like to see what y'all think:
Letter 1:
-----------------
AB2218 (La Suer): Statement of Support
Prepared by:
Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms – 4/8/04
Jim March – California Field Rep, 916-370-0347 / [email protected]
“A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting its boots on.â€
- unknown, possibly Mark Twain
Assemblyman La Suer is to be commended for giving the legislature a critical opportunity to put a halt to a lie.
The lie is that firearms patterned loosely after military-grade weapons but configured as semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) and having a standard 10-round magazine are any more “dangerous†or “evil†than traditionally-styled weapons.
Beginning around 1988, the radical victim disarmament lobby realized they could take guns that “look evil†and demonize them via an all-too-willing media. Pistol grip stocks were described as “hip firing tools†when they’re no such thing – hip firing is completely useless unless you’ve got full auto and even then it’s a bad idea.
To a victim disarmament activist, ANY gun ban is a good gun ban, even powered by a lie. The truth takes a while to get rolling but once it starts, it’s unstoppable.
California’s voting public is exhibiting a new degree of scrutiny of state functions. $30billion in the hole does tend to have that effect. Old lies are coming unglued.
AB2218 recognizes that reality and treats all semi-auto firearms (and their owners) the same SO LONG as they’re strictly limited to 10rd capacity magazines and follow the near-total prohibition on fully automatic weapons in play nationally since 1934.
Illogical legislation based on a gun’s “looks†has convinced many gun owners that California’s weapons laws will never have any connection to reality or sanity. Persecuted and angry, they’ve left the state in droves. The difference is actually noticeable at local NRA Member’s Council chapter meetings and the like…and while we’re sure that radical elements of the legislature are glad to hear it, their fanaticism against self defense and self reliance doesn’t take into account the average incomes of the people literally driven from the tax rolls.
California can’t afford fanaticism. The legislature can’t afford to continue lying via the penal codes to appease a radical victim-disarmament minority.
It’s time to end the war on harmless law-abiding gun owners, and focus on actual criminal threats to public safety. Thank you all for your willingness to consider it.
Page 2 is attached and shows examples of the firearms banned and legal.
-----------------
Letter 2:
-----------------
AB2218 (La Suer): Statement of Support
Prepared by:
Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms – 4/8/04
Jim March – California Field Rep, 916-370-0347 / [email protected]
To understand our support for this bill, the committee should imagine a situation some years from now when the legislature decides to ban the sale and regulate the ownership of cars that eat too much gas. We aren’t proposing any such thing, and our Governor and his Hummers would have something to say about it regardless, but we want to show you what has been happening in gun law by way of comparison.
Imagine that the “gas hog bill†wasn’t based on objective standards such as miles per gallon or emissions. Imagine that instead, it focused on “evil automotive performance features†such as wide rims, hood scoops, rear spoilers, pinstripes and the like. A car with performance rims couldn’t also have retractable headlights.
Automotive enthusiasts all over the state would look at each other in panic, and collectively decide that the legislature has gone bonkers on anything related to cars. The only sane reaction would be to flee the state, turbos screaming at full boost.
This has been the law abiding gun owner reaction when the legislature swallowed the deceptions of the victim disarmament lobby on the subject of “assault weaponsâ€.
Semi-auto guns of a given caliber, normal size range and limited to 10 round magazines are not “military assault weapons†no matter what they look like. “Pistol grips†do not allow anything as silly as firing from the hip. “Flash hiders/suppressors/etc.†serve a purpose in making the gun slightly more “sport utility looking†but their main effect is to prevent dings to the end of the barrel when you’re chasing deer. Plastic stocks survive when dropped in a swamp chasing pigs.
We are aware of hundreds of our organization’s members who have literally fled the state because they lack trust in the legislature to treat them fairly in any area of law concerning legal self defense or firearms. We’ve been tracking the reductions in attendance at California NRA Member’s Council meetings. It isn’t that they’re leaving the movement, we hear from them all the time. Their new Email addresses are with ISPs in NV, ID, NH and the like. When they post on Internet firearms forums, they often put labels to the end of their messages such as “California escapeeâ€.
While this trend might warm the hearts of that small section of the legislature devoted strongly to victim disarmament, the majority in both parties with sane views on self defense must realize the financial toll on the state. These are high-income taxpayers being driven off to support a radical victim disarmament agenda.
Our organization asks that California’s weapons control laws be based on objective performance standards versus cosmetics, and asks for your support for AB2218.
Page 2 is attached and shows examples of the firearms banned and legal.
-----------------
Note that both will have the same "second page" of a technical nature which can be seen here:
http://www.equalccw.com/AB2218.pdf
Suggestions on the second page, or either letter above welcome.
The first page in the PDF is "letter one" but minus some subtle improvements present in the version above.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75668
I've got two different support letters written and I'm not sure which one to go with. I'll also be asking the advice of Joe Waldron, Dave Workman and Alan Gottlieb of course, but I'd like to see what y'all think:
Letter 1:
-----------------
AB2218 (La Suer): Statement of Support
Prepared by:
Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms – 4/8/04
Jim March – California Field Rep, 916-370-0347 / [email protected]
“A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting its boots on.â€
- unknown, possibly Mark Twain
Assemblyman La Suer is to be commended for giving the legislature a critical opportunity to put a halt to a lie.
The lie is that firearms patterned loosely after military-grade weapons but configured as semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) and having a standard 10-round magazine are any more “dangerous†or “evil†than traditionally-styled weapons.
Beginning around 1988, the radical victim disarmament lobby realized they could take guns that “look evil†and demonize them via an all-too-willing media. Pistol grip stocks were described as “hip firing tools†when they’re no such thing – hip firing is completely useless unless you’ve got full auto and even then it’s a bad idea.
To a victim disarmament activist, ANY gun ban is a good gun ban, even powered by a lie. The truth takes a while to get rolling but once it starts, it’s unstoppable.
California’s voting public is exhibiting a new degree of scrutiny of state functions. $30billion in the hole does tend to have that effect. Old lies are coming unglued.
AB2218 recognizes that reality and treats all semi-auto firearms (and their owners) the same SO LONG as they’re strictly limited to 10rd capacity magazines and follow the near-total prohibition on fully automatic weapons in play nationally since 1934.
Illogical legislation based on a gun’s “looks†has convinced many gun owners that California’s weapons laws will never have any connection to reality or sanity. Persecuted and angry, they’ve left the state in droves. The difference is actually noticeable at local NRA Member’s Council chapter meetings and the like…and while we’re sure that radical elements of the legislature are glad to hear it, their fanaticism against self defense and self reliance doesn’t take into account the average incomes of the people literally driven from the tax rolls.
California can’t afford fanaticism. The legislature can’t afford to continue lying via the penal codes to appease a radical victim-disarmament minority.
It’s time to end the war on harmless law-abiding gun owners, and focus on actual criminal threats to public safety. Thank you all for your willingness to consider it.
Page 2 is attached and shows examples of the firearms banned and legal.
-----------------
Letter 2:
-----------------
AB2218 (La Suer): Statement of Support
Prepared by:
Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms – 4/8/04
Jim March – California Field Rep, 916-370-0347 / [email protected]
To understand our support for this bill, the committee should imagine a situation some years from now when the legislature decides to ban the sale and regulate the ownership of cars that eat too much gas. We aren’t proposing any such thing, and our Governor and his Hummers would have something to say about it regardless, but we want to show you what has been happening in gun law by way of comparison.
Imagine that the “gas hog bill†wasn’t based on objective standards such as miles per gallon or emissions. Imagine that instead, it focused on “evil automotive performance features†such as wide rims, hood scoops, rear spoilers, pinstripes and the like. A car with performance rims couldn’t also have retractable headlights.
Automotive enthusiasts all over the state would look at each other in panic, and collectively decide that the legislature has gone bonkers on anything related to cars. The only sane reaction would be to flee the state, turbos screaming at full boost.
This has been the law abiding gun owner reaction when the legislature swallowed the deceptions of the victim disarmament lobby on the subject of “assault weaponsâ€.
Semi-auto guns of a given caliber, normal size range and limited to 10 round magazines are not “military assault weapons†no matter what they look like. “Pistol grips†do not allow anything as silly as firing from the hip. “Flash hiders/suppressors/etc.†serve a purpose in making the gun slightly more “sport utility looking†but their main effect is to prevent dings to the end of the barrel when you’re chasing deer. Plastic stocks survive when dropped in a swamp chasing pigs.
We are aware of hundreds of our organization’s members who have literally fled the state because they lack trust in the legislature to treat them fairly in any area of law concerning legal self defense or firearms. We’ve been tracking the reductions in attendance at California NRA Member’s Council meetings. It isn’t that they’re leaving the movement, we hear from them all the time. Their new Email addresses are with ISPs in NV, ID, NH and the like. When they post on Internet firearms forums, they often put labels to the end of their messages such as “California escapeeâ€.
While this trend might warm the hearts of that small section of the legislature devoted strongly to victim disarmament, the majority in both parties with sane views on self defense must realize the financial toll on the state. These are high-income taxpayers being driven off to support a radical victim disarmament agenda.
Our organization asks that California’s weapons control laws be based on objective performance standards versus cosmetics, and asks for your support for AB2218.
Page 2 is attached and shows examples of the firearms banned and legal.
-----------------
Note that both will have the same "second page" of a technical nature which can be seen here:
http://www.equalccw.com/AB2218.pdf
Suggestions on the second page, or either letter above welcome.
The first page in the PDF is "letter one" but minus some subtle improvements present in the version above.
