JIM MARCH...check this!! Imp't!
- Thread starter DC
- Start date
Bookie...
On another thread you mentioned some emergency gun control legislation passed by the Assembly yesterday...do you have anymore info or something more for me to go on? I've been rooting around the CA Leg site and haven't found anything
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
On another thread you mentioned some emergency gun control legislation passed by the Assembly yesterday...do you have anymore info or something more for me to go on? I've been rooting around the CA Leg site and haven't found anything
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
DC,
The legislation was to limit handgun purchases to one per month. I believe it was AB 202. The vote was very close. Here are the results:
VOTES - ROLL CALLMEASURE: AB 202AUTHOR: KnoxTOPIC: Firearms.DATE: 04/22/1999
LOCATION: ASM. FLOORMOTION: AB 202 KNOX THIRD READING
(AYES 42. NOES 30.) (PASS) AYES ****Alquist Aroner Bock Calderon
Cardenas Cedillo Corbett CorreaDavis Dutra Firebaugh Floyd
Gallegos Hertzberg Honda JacksonKeeley Knox Kuehl Lempert
Longville Lowenthal Mazzoni MigdenNakano Papan Reyes Romero
Scott Shelley Soto SteinbergStrom-Martin Thomson Torlakson Vincent
Washington Wayne Wesson WigginsWildman Villaraigosa
NOES ****
Aanestad Ackerman Ashburn BaldwinBates Battin Baugh Briggs
Campbell Cardoza Cox DickersonFlorez Frusetta Granlund Havice
House Kaloogian Leonard MaldonadoMargett McClintock Olberg Oller
Robert Pacheco Runner Strickland ThompsonWright Zettel
ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING *********************************
Brewer Cunneen Ducheny LeachMachado Maddox Rod Pacheco Pescetti
[This message has been edited by Mendocino (edited April 23, 1999).]
The legislation was to limit handgun purchases to one per month. I believe it was AB 202. The vote was very close. Here are the results:
VOTES - ROLL CALLMEASURE: AB 202AUTHOR: KnoxTOPIC: Firearms.DATE: 04/22/1999
LOCATION: ASM. FLOORMOTION: AB 202 KNOX THIRD READING
(AYES 42. NOES 30.) (PASS) AYES ****Alquist Aroner Bock Calderon
Cardenas Cedillo Corbett CorreaDavis Dutra Firebaugh Floyd
Gallegos Hertzberg Honda JacksonKeeley Knox Kuehl Lempert
Longville Lowenthal Mazzoni MigdenNakano Papan Reyes Romero
Scott Shelley Soto SteinbergStrom-Martin Thomson Torlakson Vincent
Washington Wayne Wesson WigginsWildman Villaraigosa
NOES ****
Aanestad Ackerman Ashburn BaldwinBates Battin Baugh Briggs
Campbell Cardoza Cox DickersonFlorez Frusetta Granlund Havice
House Kaloogian Leonard MaldonadoMargett McClintock Olberg Oller
Robert Pacheco Runner Strickland ThompsonWright Zettel
ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING *********************************
Brewer Cunneen Ducheny LeachMachado Maddox Rod Pacheco Pescetti
[This message has been edited by Mendocino (edited April 23, 1999).]
Thanks Mendo..
That will likely insure the passage of that bill making it a misdem/felony if you attempt to buy another one within that 30 days.
AB17 is another one that will makes us criminals.....requiring a license/permit to have a handgun even in your own residence
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
That will likely insure the passage of that bill making it a misdem/felony if you attempt to buy another one within that 30 days.
AB17 is another one that will makes us criminals.....requiring a license/permit to have a handgun even in your own residence
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
DC, AB1040 isn't any major news.
It started life as a "shall-issue for judges and reserve cops" system and has been gutted down to making the training standards good for four years.
Either way, it's really not a big deal. With or without it in either form, it doesn't allow new fees or harsher training than what AB2022 already specifies (and it's fairly reasonable). It doesn't make the issuing authorities exempt from obeying the existing issuance laws, it doesn't invalidate Salute vs. Pitchess, and they still have to obey "equal protection" principles.
Now, it bears monitoring in case anybody tacks anything really nasty onto it but as is, it's a yawn.
There's another bill entirely that would make holders of restraining orders eligible for a "shall issue" permit, and that's got a strong chance at passage. There's another bill that would make concealed carry sans permit a felony if you're not in "otherwise lawful possession" of the gun in question, which is bad in that it's an incremental loss but...it would only kick in for certain in "stolen gun cases" so...it really wouldn't affect any of us if we pack pieces we legally own.
All of these bear monitoring but at present, they're not "total toxin" and worth freaking out over.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say I'm GLAD the shall-issue for judges and certain cops is gone from AB1040. Why? Because with these people not declared "special classes of citizen by the legislature", other areas of law say that unequal treatment is illegal. And *that* in turn is what I'm trying to use as a prybar to blow this whole sucky system wide open.
Jim March
It started life as a "shall-issue for judges and reserve cops" system and has been gutted down to making the training standards good for four years.
Either way, it's really not a big deal. With or without it in either form, it doesn't allow new fees or harsher training than what AB2022 already specifies (and it's fairly reasonable). It doesn't make the issuing authorities exempt from obeying the existing issuance laws, it doesn't invalidate Salute vs. Pitchess, and they still have to obey "equal protection" principles.
Now, it bears monitoring in case anybody tacks anything really nasty onto it but as is, it's a yawn.
There's another bill entirely that would make holders of restraining orders eligible for a "shall issue" permit, and that's got a strong chance at passage. There's another bill that would make concealed carry sans permit a felony if you're not in "otherwise lawful possession" of the gun in question, which is bad in that it's an incremental loss but...it would only kick in for certain in "stolen gun cases" so...it really wouldn't affect any of us if we pack pieces we legally own.
All of these bear monitoring but at present, they're not "total toxin" and worth freaking out over.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say I'm GLAD the shall-issue for judges and certain cops is gone from AB1040. Why? Because with these people not declared "special classes of citizen by the legislature", other areas of law say that unequal treatment is illegal. And *that* in turn is what I'm trying to use as a prybar to blow this whole sucky system wide open.
Jim March
Thanks Mendo for posting the info. I had just heard it out of passing this morning on the radio. Saves me having to look it up again.
Those gutless wonders in our state capital don't even have the nerve to give us a chance to fight back.
Egads, how am I ever going to be able to afford it. After all on my salary one handgun a month is going to break me.
Seriously, I'll get on the phone tonight to contact all the club members here to get them to call their senators. Slim chance, but maybe we can head this off.
Richard
------------------
Those gutless wonders in our state capital don't even have the nerve to give us a chance to fight back.
Egads, how am I ever going to be able to afford it. After all on my salary one handgun a month is going to break me.
Seriously, I'll get on the phone tonight to contact all the club members here to get them to call their senators. Slim chance, but maybe we can head this off.
Richard
------------------
It's OK. I still appreciate the link.
Note to all: remember that the text that's not italics and not overstruck is the existing law (penal code 12050). The overstruck stuff is what was proposed in earlier versions of the bill, and the italics is what the bill is still trying to add at this point. Once you've got that clear, it's easier to understand. I'm personally used to having to pick through these.
Remember: these suckers can change in a heartbeat to something really draconian. The CA-Firearms mailing list is the key place to keep up with that sort of thing, there's people in the GOA and NRA that broadcast such alterations.
Also: you can't understand PC12050-54 without also reading the Salute vs. Pitchess decision in my "documents list":
http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw
Salute is the highest-level court decision on how the CCW discretion is to be applied. It is firm precedent and 90% of all CA Chiefs/Sheriffs are violating it, BIGTIME.
Jim March
Note to all: remember that the text that's not italics and not overstruck is the existing law (penal code 12050). The overstruck stuff is what was proposed in earlier versions of the bill, and the italics is what the bill is still trying to add at this point. Once you've got that clear, it's easier to understand. I'm personally used to having to pick through these.
Remember: these suckers can change in a heartbeat to something really draconian. The CA-Firearms mailing list is the key place to keep up with that sort of thing, there's people in the GOA and NRA that broadcast such alterations.
Also: you can't understand PC12050-54 without also reading the Salute vs. Pitchess decision in my "documents list":
http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw
Salute is the highest-level court decision on how the CCW discretion is to be applied. It is firm precedent and 90% of all CA Chiefs/Sheriffs are violating it, BIGTIME.
Jim March