TEAM SASS - 14..count 'em 14 bills in CA

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml

 

Courtesy of CALGUNS. Only ONE of the 14 is worth supporting.

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml

 

Courtesy of CALGUNS. Only ONE of the 14 is worth supporting.

Stunning, isn't it?

 

As I said in another post (my intention was wry sarcasm) just send my mail to the county jail. Honestly... the collective impact of these bills would instantly convert the vast majority of legal, law-abiding, good citizen firearm owners into felons.

 

A tangential thought that occurred to me yesterday morning while thinking of AB231 (Liability Insurance...) what would be the reaction to a proposed bill which would require "members of the media" to PAY for "libel insurance" before they'd be allowed to practice their first amendment rights...?

 

And then there's the other eight...

[Utah Johnny Montana]

Sorry to be the one to say it but as far as I know there are NO anti-2A bills worth supporting and that is the only kind you'll find coming from Steinberg, et al in Sac. They're in a pi$$ing contest with Cuomo in NY to see who can tear the Constitution into smaller pieces. Its up to us to show them the error of their ways by sticking together and fighting this.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Amazing that a legislative body that has already passed so many Draconian antigun laws could come up with 14 more.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Sorry to be the one to say it but as far as I know there are NO anti-2A bills worth supporting and that is the only kind you'll find coming from Steinberg, et al in Sac. They're in a pi$$ing contest with Cuomo in NY to see who can tear the Constitution into smaller pieces. Its up to us to show them the error of their ways by sticking together and fighting this.

 

Well, I'm not saying to support any anti-2nd. Here is the run down of the one that I say is worth supporting:

 

Issue: CCW PRIVACY (Logue/Mansoor)

 

Description: AB 134, as introduced, Logue. The California Public Records Act: applications for licenses and licenses to carry firearms.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency that retains those records, and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. However, existing law provides that nothing in the act shall be construed to require disclosure of information contained in an application for a license to carry a firearm that indicates when or where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant's medical or psychological history or that of members of his or her family. Existing law also provides that the provisions shall not be construed to require disclosure of the home address and telephone number of prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in applications for licenses or in licenses to carry firearms, as specified.

This bill would instead provide that the California Public Records act shall not be construed to require the disclosure of the home address and telephone number of applicants that are set forth in applications to carry firearms or of licensees that are set forth in licenses to carry firearms, as specified. Because this bill would increase the duties of county sheriffs and the chiefs or other heads of police departments that issue firearms license applications, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

 

See here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_134_bill_20130116_introduced.html for the text of AB 134.

 

Go here to search for the text of the others, not just the Legislative Analysis: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html

 

Every once in a while something comes down that actually supports us.

 

Upshot is READ THE STUFF AT THE LINKED SITE.

[Blasted Cap]

While in Delaware over christmas I saw in the first couple of pages in the Classifieds, people's names addresses and phone numbers seeking permission for concealed carry permits. FIL said yep, if you want a CCP in Delaware you have to make it public that you have applied and all that info has to go in the newspaper for all to read. Nuts.

[Utah Johnny Montana]

Well, I'm not saying to support any anti-2nd. Here is the run down of the one that I say is worth supporting:

 

Issue: CCW PRIVACY (Logue/Mansoor)

 

Description: AB 134, as introduced, Logue. The California Public Records Act: applications for licenses and licenses to carry firearms.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency that retains those records, and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. However, existing law provides that nothing in the act shall be construed to require disclosure of information contained in an application for a license to carry a firearm that indicates when or where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant's medical or psychological history or that of members of his or her family. Existing law also provides that the provisions shall not be construed to require disclosure of the home address and telephone number of prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in applications for licenses or in licenses to carry firearms, as specified.

This bill would instead provide that the California Public Records act shall not be construed to require the disclosure of the home address and telephone number of applicants that are set forth in applications to carry firearms or of licensees that are set forth in licenses to carry firearms, as specified. Because this bill would increase the duties of county sheriffs and the chiefs or other heads of police departments that issue firearms license applications, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

 

See here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_134_bill_20130116_introduced.html for the text of AB 134.

 

Go here to search for the text of the others, not just the Legislative Analysis: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html

 

Every once in a while something comes down that actually supports us.

 

Upshot is READ THE STUFF AT THE LINKED SITE.

Sorry, I had not seen reference to that one on CGN...everybody's in a tizzy over the "Steinberg and friends" press conference.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Gratuitous bump to top. We need to keep up the pressure on them. And add the governor to the list of those to contact if you haven't already.