Jittery Jim Jonah, SASS #64913L Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 This week is our last chance to protect our sport in California..... Please send a message to Governor Brown to VETO AB169 Single action revolvers are NOT on the approved handgun list. This bill bans any handgun that IS NOT on the current approved list. The wording eliminates the exceptions and makes our revolvers UNSAFE. They cannot be be purchased, sold, or transferred in California if this becomes law. All Californians MUST make their voices heard. 09/10/2013 - AB 169 has passed the Assembly 46 YES to 30 NO and is now on its way to the Governor.Please contact the Governor and politely urge that he actively VETO AB 169.(If he signs or ignores the bill, it becomes law.) AB 169 (Dickinson) bans the sale and transfer of all lawfully acquired firearms that were never, or are no longer, on the California roster of approved handguns. Action needed: Join your local NRA Members' CouncilSend a message to the GOVERNOR against USED HANDGUN BAN (AB 169) Description: AB 169, as amended, Dickinson. Unsafe handguns. (1) Existing law provides for the testing of handguns and requires the Department of Justice to maintain a roster listing all handguns that are determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, to manufacture, import into the state for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give, or lend an unsafe handgun. Existing law provides that the provisions defining and governing unsafe handguns do not apply to the sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm in a transaction that requires the use of a licensed dealer or to the delivery of a firearm to a licensed dealer for purposes of a consignment sale or as collateral for a pawnbroker loan. This bill would limit these exemptions to a maximum of 2 firearms per person, per calendar year, andwould make the provisions defining and governing unsafe handgunsinapplicable to the surrender of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person to a local law enforcement agency. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law makes the provisions defining and governing unsafe handguns inapplicable to a single-shot pistol, as specified. This bill would instead make the provisions defining and governing unsafe handguns inapplicable to a single-shot pistol with a break top or bolt action. The bill would make this exemption inapplicable to a semiautomatic pistol that has been temporarily or permanently altered so that it will not fire in a semiautomatic mode. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law exempts the purchase of a handgun from the above prohibition on manufacturing, importing, selling, giving, or lending an unsafe handgun if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol,begin delete anyend deletebegin insert aend insert district attorney’s office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. This bill would prohibit a person exempted under the above provision from selling or otherwise transferring the ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted under the same provision unless the transaction is exempt from the requirement to complete the transaction through a licensed dealer. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would also make nonsubstantive, technical corrections.begin insert (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 32000 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 363 that would become operative if this bill and SB 363 are both enacted and this bill is enacted last.end insertbegin delete (5)end deletebegin insert(6)end insert 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. JJJ-D :angry: Link to comment
Grizzly Dave Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 That is insane. Best of luck CA. pards. Link to comment
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (sigh)... GG ~ Link to comment
Judge Lewis Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 This is one of the many reasons I left California many years ago after seeing the handwriting on the wall. Vermont is pretty liberal, but they know better than mess with our gun rights. Good luck to our California pards. Link to comment
Calamity Kris Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I love my home state but I fear it left me years ago. Good luck my friends. You are in my prayers. C'mon honey, I'm waitin for you................. Link to comment
Badlands Bob #61228 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 You really think Moonbeam is going to veto any gun control law? Not likely. Link to comment
Jittery Jim Jonah, SASS #64913L Posted September 13, 2013 Author Share Posted September 13, 2013 Maybe if we promise to give him back his love bug...... JJJ-D :ph34r: Link to comment
Prof. Fuller Bullspit Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Maybe if we promise to give him back his love bug...... JJJ-D :ph34r: Linda Ronstadt? Link to comment
Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Keeping my fingers crossed, keep up the fight. KK Link to comment
Jittery Jim Jonah, SASS #64913L Posted September 21, 2013 Author Share Posted September 21, 2013 Linda Ronstadt? She was the reason he wouldn't live in the Governors mansion and declined to be chauffeured around town, hence the "Love" bug. He didn't want publicity about he and Linda..... I don't think she'd be interested anymore.... JJJ-D :ph34r: Link to comment
Jittery Jim Jonah, SASS #64913L Posted October 10, 2013 Author Share Posted October 10, 2013 Just completed my daily emailll and phone call to the governors office...... only takes 10 minutes or so. JUST DO IT! JJJ-D :ph34r: Link to comment
Jittery Jim Jonah, SASS #64913L Posted October 10, 2013 Author Share Posted October 10, 2013 Just completed my daily emailll and phone call to the governors office...... only takes 10 minutes or so. JUST DO IT! JJJ-D :ph34r: Link to comment
Cliff Hanger #3720LR Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Latest info: On 10/11/13 - Today, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Vetoed this bill. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.