California AB 273 Passed in senate.....
- Thread starter JimDiver
- Start date
Leave. I am. Give Davis and Willie Brown and Perata and Finkstein exactly what they deserve. Namely a state full of non-producing malcontents.
In the past defense spending put CA on top economically. That and tourism. Today its the technology sector. Techies seem to like it here but I think the day of reckoning is coming for these companies. Right now the Tech Sector is driven by visionaries who really like the bay area and the ocean and the whole California scene. What will happen is the Capitalist bean-counters will eventually take over (just as they took over the automaking industry from the 'visionaries' in the 50s). How do you think the bean-counters will feel about paying through the nose for office space in Silicon Valley when that same office is 1/3 as much in Iowa? And how long do you think they'll continue to manufacture chips in a state where electricity costs 3-4X as much as Idaho's?
California's going to go downhill, fast, as soon as the tech boom dies down and the tech sector moves to parts less-expensive. Then the state will have to support all of those non-producers w/o all the revenues they're used to. Could get real ugly. JMHO.
In the past defense spending put CA on top economically. That and tourism. Today its the technology sector. Techies seem to like it here but I think the day of reckoning is coming for these companies. Right now the Tech Sector is driven by visionaries who really like the bay area and the ocean and the whole California scene. What will happen is the Capitalist bean-counters will eventually take over (just as they took over the automaking industry from the 'visionaries' in the 50s). How do you think the bean-counters will feel about paying through the nose for office space in Silicon Valley when that same office is 1/3 as much in Iowa? And how long do you think they'll continue to manufacture chips in a state where electricity costs 3-4X as much as Idaho's?
California's going to go downhill, fast, as soon as the tech boom dies down and the tech sector moves to parts less-expensive. Then the state will have to support all of those non-producers w/o all the revenues they're used to. Could get real ugly. JMHO.
Unless I totally can't read the web site, ALL THE REPUBLICANS voted for this thing! My two are getting a nastygram along the lines of "Dear Dingleberry: thanks a heap for shredding what remains of the Constitution and wiping your superior posterior with it. You can count on my vote next time ------ NOT!"
Jim:
As the bill now stands, when does it become law? I know that the ASSembly must pass it..a given. The governor will sign it, reluctantly. Assuming that all of this goes quickly, when does it go into force? It will take time to set up the testing and record keeping, so I doubt that it will activate this year. How much time do we have to buy without license? It is clear that this was rushed through in order to keep opposition of guard. It worked.. I just got my NRA warning in the mail ten minutes ago.
As the bill now stands, when does it become law? I know that the ASSembly must pass it..a given. The governor will sign it, reluctantly. Assuming that all of this goes quickly, when does it go into force? It will take time to set up the testing and record keeping, so I doubt that it will activate this year. How much time do we have to buy without license? It is clear that this was rushed through in order to keep opposition of guard. It worked.. I just got my NRA warning in the mail ten minutes ago.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruegger:
Unless I totally can't read the web site, ALL THE REPUBLICANS voted for this thing! [/quote]
Here is the roll call on the bill:
Voting “yes” were 22 Democrats.
Voting “no” were 2 Democrats and 13 Republicans.
DEMOCRATS VOTING YES
Alarcon(San Fernando); Alpert(Coronado); Bowen(Marina del Rey); Burton(San Francisco); Chesbro(Arcata); Dunn(Laguna Niguel); Escutia(Commerce); Figueroa(Fremont); Hayden(Los Angeles); Hughes(Inglewood); Karnette(Long Beach); Murray(Culver City); O’Connell(San Luis Obispo); Ortiz(Sacramento); Perata(Oakland); Polanco(Los Angeles); Schiff(Burbank); Sher(Stanford); Solis(El Monte); Soto(Pomona); Speier(Daly City); Vasconcellos(Santa Clara).
DEMOCRATS VOTING NO
Costa(Fresno); Peace(El Cajon).
DEMOCRATS NOT VOTING
Johnston(Stockton).
REPUBLICANS VOTING NO
Brulte(Rancho Cucamonga); Haynes(Temecula); Johannesen(Redding); Johnson(Irvine); Kelley(Idyllwild); Knight(Palmdale); Leslie(Roseville); Lewis(Orange); Monteith(Modesto); Morrow(Oceanside); Mountjoy(Monrovia); Poochigian(Fresno); Wright(Simi Valley).
REPUBLICANS NOT VOTING
McPherson(Santa Cruz); Rainey(Walnut Creek).
Unless I totally can't read the web site, ALL THE REPUBLICANS voted for this thing! [/quote]
Here is the roll call on the bill:
Voting “yes” were 22 Democrats.
Voting “no” were 2 Democrats and 13 Republicans.
DEMOCRATS VOTING YES
Alarcon(San Fernando); Alpert(Coronado); Bowen(Marina del Rey); Burton(San Francisco); Chesbro(Arcata); Dunn(Laguna Niguel); Escutia(Commerce); Figueroa(Fremont); Hayden(Los Angeles); Hughes(Inglewood); Karnette(Long Beach); Murray(Culver City); O’Connell(San Luis Obispo); Ortiz(Sacramento); Perata(Oakland); Polanco(Los Angeles); Schiff(Burbank); Sher(Stanford); Solis(El Monte); Soto(Pomona); Speier(Daly City); Vasconcellos(Santa Clara).
DEMOCRATS VOTING NO
Costa(Fresno); Peace(El Cajon).
DEMOCRATS NOT VOTING
Johnston(Stockton).
REPUBLICANS VOTING NO
Brulte(Rancho Cucamonga); Haynes(Temecula); Johannesen(Redding); Johnson(Irvine); Kelley(Idyllwild); Knight(Palmdale); Leslie(Roseville); Lewis(Orange); Monteith(Modesto); Morrow(Oceanside); Mountjoy(Monrovia); Poochigian(Fresno); Wright(Simi Valley).
REPUBLICANS NOT VOTING
McPherson(Santa Cruz); Rainey(Walnut Creek).
Actually, it looks like NO Republicans voted for this thing!
Joe
------------------
NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
Joe
------------------
NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
Well, well, well...
I refuse.
I have finally had enough.
I am starting my personal rebelion by refusing to EVER get a license in the state of California for Gun Ownership.
I refuse to PAY the state of California to EVER own a gun.
I will purchase all my firearms outside the State and claim that I bought them YEARS ago...
People talk about this type of stuff in California and say "leave!"
Well, thats what got us in this damn mess in the first place. Not enough people in CA that give a damn in order to stop this type of legislation.
You know what's going to happen?
Lots of Gun Stores are going to go under. If this bill catches on Nationwide, it will mean that Gun Manufacturers will go under as well.
Looks like disarmament by incremental legislation takes yet another step forward.
I Refuse, and you should too.
J.T.
I refuse.
I have finally had enough.
I am starting my personal rebelion by refusing to EVER get a license in the state of California for Gun Ownership.
I refuse to PAY the state of California to EVER own a gun.
I will purchase all my firearms outside the State and claim that I bought them YEARS ago...
People talk about this type of stuff in California and say "leave!"
Well, thats what got us in this damn mess in the first place. Not enough people in CA that give a damn in order to stop this type of legislation.
You know what's going to happen?
Lots of Gun Stores are going to go under. If this bill catches on Nationwide, it will mean that Gun Manufacturers will go under as well.
Looks like disarmament by incremental legislation takes yet another step forward.
I Refuse, and you should too.
J.T.
oberkommando
New member
You already need a safety certificaiton issued by CAL DOJ to purchase handguns in this state. Just a pile of other crap to have to accomplish to purchase. Will not license here ever if I can help it, and as I need to sell some stuff I got already, dont plan on buying anything soon, especially in this state.
Here's the full story from iwon.com
California Senate Passes Handgun License Bill
August 29, 2000 5:50 am EST
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The California Senate narrowly voted to require hundreds of thousands of handgun buyers to obtain licenses, setting the stage for a potential collision with Gov. Gray Davis on gun control, Tuesday's Los Angeles Times reported.
The vote represented a victory for the Legislature's most far-reaching gun control bill of the election year session, but its outlook is uncertain at best, the paper said.
The bill must still pass the Assembly, where its prospects are too close to call, and Gov. Davis is unlikely to sign it into law, his aides have indicated.
The paper said his aides said he had not backed away from his warning against creating new gun controls until wide-ranging reforms enacted last year are given the time needed for implementation.
The Senate, which has a large Democratic majority, has on several occasions this year taken positions opposed by the Democratic governor.
The bill, which is opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun owner organizations, would require Californians to buy a special license in order to purchase a pistol or revolver from a dealer or to exchange or transfer handguns in private-party transactions. It would take effect on July 1, 2002. Californians would not be required to obtain licenses for handguns they already own.
Handgun buyers would be required to pass existing background checks, pass a safety test on handling a gun and demonstrate proficiency in firing live ammunition, the paper said.
Supporters of the handgun licensing bill, passed by a vote of 22-15 in the 40-member Senate, contend that licensing handgun owners would make California safer.
"If we do it for operation of a motor vehicle, we should do the same for operation of an equally dangerous piece of equipment," The Times quoted Democrat Sen. Don Perata, floor manager for the bill, as saying.
California Senate Passes Handgun License Bill
August 29, 2000 5:50 am EST
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The California Senate narrowly voted to require hundreds of thousands of handgun buyers to obtain licenses, setting the stage for a potential collision with Gov. Gray Davis on gun control, Tuesday's Los Angeles Times reported.
The vote represented a victory for the Legislature's most far-reaching gun control bill of the election year session, but its outlook is uncertain at best, the paper said.
The bill must still pass the Assembly, where its prospects are too close to call, and Gov. Davis is unlikely to sign it into law, his aides have indicated.
The paper said his aides said he had not backed away from his warning against creating new gun controls until wide-ranging reforms enacted last year are given the time needed for implementation.
The Senate, which has a large Democratic majority, has on several occasions this year taken positions opposed by the Democratic governor.
The bill, which is opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun owner organizations, would require Californians to buy a special license in order to purchase a pistol or revolver from a dealer or to exchange or transfer handguns in private-party transactions. It would take effect on July 1, 2002. Californians would not be required to obtain licenses for handguns they already own.
Handgun buyers would be required to pass existing background checks, pass a safety test on handling a gun and demonstrate proficiency in firing live ammunition, the paper said.
Supporters of the handgun licensing bill, passed by a vote of 22-15 in the 40-member Senate, contend that licensing handgun owners would make California safer.
"If we do it for operation of a motor vehicle, we should do the same for operation of an equally dangerous piece of equipment," The Times quoted Democrat Sen. Don Perata, floor manager for the bill, as saying.
I also refuse to pay....I am in a countdown, three years and one day and it is goodby California, hello Idaho. In fact when my wife and I purchased our retirement property in the Coeur D'Alene area the title company lady said to me "Looks like all of the Bill payers are leaving California!" the next sentence from her was..."welcome to Idaho, bring your family, your money, and especially your guns!...My wife and I found a home.
------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.
------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.
Elker_43,
About 10 more months and I'm outa here also.
I own a few acres of land about 12 miles east of Gatlinburg, Tennessee that will, in all probability, be my retirement home, and Tennessee is a shall issue state.
------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
About 10 more months and I'm outa here also.
I own a few acres of land about 12 miles east of Gatlinburg, Tennessee that will, in all probability, be my retirement home, and Tennessee is a shall issue state.
------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
JimDiver & nralife - thanks for straightening me out! DUH! I see from JimDiver's post that my senator actually voted against. And when I go to the senate web page and poke around, I can see my rep did, too!
Sure glad I didn't fire off that email (was waiting for confirmation of the vote)!
What the heck was I looking at?
I went to this link http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_273&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
and scrolled to the bottom, and all but one of 78 knuckleheads had their names as voting yes. What is that?
Sure glad I didn't fire off that email (was waiting for confirmation of the vote)!
What the heck was I looking at?
I went to this link http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_273&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
and scrolled to the bottom, and all but one of 78 knuckleheads had their names as voting yes. What is that?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ArmySon:
Here's the full story from iwon.com
"If we do it for operation of a motor vehicle, we should do the same for operation of an equally dangerous piece of equipment," The Times quoted Democrat Sen. Don Perata, floor manager for the bill, as saying.
[/quote]
Last time I bought my truck, I didn't need a California drivers license. I needed a license to drive my truck on PUBLIC property. I am more than willing to get a license to shoot my handgun on PUBLIC property I.E. a CCW license. Does Sen. Perata propose that California become a shall issue state, with regard to CCW, JUST LIKE IT IS WITH MOTOR VEHICLES!
Here's the full story from iwon.com
"If we do it for operation of a motor vehicle, we should do the same for operation of an equally dangerous piece of equipment," The Times quoted Democrat Sen. Don Perata, floor manager for the bill, as saying.
[/quote]
Last time I bought my truck, I didn't need a California drivers license. I needed a license to drive my truck on PUBLIC property. I am more than willing to get a license to shoot my handgun on PUBLIC property I.E. a CCW license. Does Sen. Perata propose that California become a shall issue state, with regard to CCW, JUST LIKE IT IS WITH MOTOR VEHICLES!
"Does Sen. Perata propose that California become a shall issue state, with regard to CCW, JUST LIKE IT IS WITH MOTOR VEHICLES!"
amen aerodog. if they want us to jump through all these dmv style hoops to purchase a gun, then this should provide the qualifications for us responsible gun owners to carry our guns in public with our shiny gun owner's licenses.
amen aerodog. if they want us to jump through all these dmv style hoops to purchase a gun, then this should provide the qualifications for us responsible gun owners to carry our guns in public with our shiny gun owner's licenses.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruegger:
I went to this link http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_273&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen[/UR L]
and scrolled to the bottom, and all but one of 78 knuckleheads had their names as voting yes. What is that?[/quote]
Those are the votes for the bill in the origional form before Perata went on a power trip and started re-writing it. It was origionaly a bill for stiffer punishments for crimes on students or some crap like that.
I went to this link http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_273&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen[/UR L]
and scrolled to the bottom, and all but one of 78 knuckleheads had their names as voting yes. What is that?[/quote]
Those are the votes for the bill in the origional form before Perata went on a power trip and started re-writing it. It was origionaly a bill for stiffer punishments for crimes on students or some crap like that.