Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 5/5/2009 8:58:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2009 8:19:31 AM EST by ColdboreDreamer]
This bill will spell the end of mail order ammo in CA, among other things including getting fingerprinted with every ammo purchase.

"To the Members of the California State Assembly: I am signing Assembly Bill 962.

This measure would require vendors of handgun ammunition to keep a log of information on handgun ammunition sales, store ammunition in a safe and secure manner, and require the face to-
face transfer of ammunition sales.

Although I have previously vetoed legislation similar to this measure, local governments have demonstrated that requiring ammunition vendors to keep records on ammunition sales improves public safety. These records have allowed law enforcement to arrest and prosecute persons who have no business possessing firearms and ammunition: gang members, violent parolees, second and third strikers, and even people previously serving time in state prison for murder.

Utilized properly, this type of information is invaluable for keeping communities safe and preventing dangerous fe/lons from committing crimes with firearms.

Moreover, this type of record keeping is no more intrusive for law abiding citizens than similar laws governing pawnshops or the sale of cold medicine. Unfortunately, even the most successful
local program is flawed; without a statewide law, felons can easily skirt the record keeping requirements of one city by visiting another. Assembly Bill 962 will fix this problem by
mandating that all ammunition vendors in the state keep records on ammunition sales.

As Governor, I have sought the appropriate balance between public safety and the right to keep and bear arms. I have signed important public safety measures to regulate the sale and transfer of .50 caliber rifles, instituted the California Firearms License Check program, and promoted the use of microstamping technology in handguns. I have also vetoed many pieces of legislation that sought to place unreasonable restrictions and burdens on firearms dealers and ammunition vendors.

Assembly Bill 962 reasonably regulates access to ammunition and improves public safety without placing undue burdens on consumers. For these reasons, I am pleased to sign this bill."




Timeline:
02/01/2011- Law takes effect.

09/12/2009- Bill is signed by Governor.

08/27/2009- Passed Senate Appropriations Committee.

07/20/2009 - AB962 postponed in Sentate Appropriations Committe. This means it is "stuck" in that committee at least until after the summer recess.

07/07/2009 - AB962 Handgun Ammo sales restriction passed the Senate Public Safety Committee. It will now go to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

06/20/2009 - Assembly Bill 962 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, 6/30/2009.

06/11/2009 - AB 962. Ammo Restrictions, is currently before the Senate Public Safety Committee.

06/03/2009 - Today, Assembly Bill 962 passed off the Assembly floor, 42 Yes - 31 No. It now moves to Senate.

Assembly Bill 962 is currently on the Assembly floor and facing a deadline - the bill must pass the full Assembly by Friday, 6/5/2009, or it becomes a "two year bill". This means that AB 962 would have to wait until 2010 before it could be considered again.

05/29/2009 - Yesterday, AB 962 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a Party Line Vote. The bill is being amended, details not available at this time. Standby for the next committee assignment for the bill.

05/22/2009 - Assembly Bill 962 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on 5/28/2009.

05/01/2009 - Assembly Bill 962 is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations on Wednesday, May 6.

04/21/2009 - Today, AB 962 passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

04/17/2009 - AB 962 will be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on 4/21/2009.

04/14/2009 - Today's AB 962 hearing before the Assembly Public Safety Committee has been canceled. However, the bill could still be heard as early as 4/21.

03/28/2009 - AB 962 will be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on 4/14/2009.

CALGUNS Thread
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=176297
Link Posted: 5/5/2009 9:36:36 AM EST
A suggested letter to the committee members





Dear Committee Member,

I am writing to ask respectfully that you OPPOSE AB962, The Ammunition Bill.

The restriction of access to ammunition by law abiding citizens is yet another infringement on the People's right of self defense as secured by the second amendment in the Bill of Rights under the fallacy of providing for the security of the People.

AB 962 is unnecessary and is a burden to lawful retailers and lawful ammunition buyers. Those who would use firearms and ammunition illegally can, and do, easily obtain them from out of state sources or the local illegal underground marketplace. This bill would affect only lawful businesses and individuals. It would have no impact on criminals.

Its supporters are misinformed in their belief that criminals cannot easily and illegally buy handgun ammunition and weapons from non-dealer sources. They think that by requiring government issued permits to buy or sell ammunition there will be less violence and other crimes involving the illegal use of firearms. They are wrong.

The bill's requirement to fingerprint lawful purchasers and to prohibit sales by mail adds insult to injury.

We have enough laws currently to address criminal handgun usage and should enforce those laws to their full effect.

Let us focus our attention on the State's economic debacle and strive to reach consensus on fiscal responsibility, not on bills that do nothing for the public safety and prosperity.

With Sincere Thanks for Your Attention and Service,
Link Posted: 5/5/2009 12:22:13 PM EST
This back from DIANE L. HARKEY
Assemblywoman, 73rd District


Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding our mutual
gun rights in California. First, let me be clear - I am an ardent
supporter of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I do not support
AB 962 and will oppose it in Appropriations Committee.

I believe AB 962 puts more limitations on the rights of legal gun
owners. This bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals or dangerous people living in our communities. Limiting the
transfer or sale of ammunition to 50 rounds per month, the equivalent of
one box of handgun ammunition, will have a devastating impact on legal
firearms retailers. Average sales volumes regularly exceed the proposed
limit, which would subject the majority of firearms business owners to a
new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations regarding licensure,
storage and sale procedures. This would force many small businesses
that rely on ammunition sales as their primary revenue to incur
additional costs in order to comply with the provisions of AB 962. As
one may guess, such costs would definitely be passed along to the
consumer. This burdensome and unnecessary regulation would drive a
sizable number of retailers out of business altogether.

Further, AB 962 would hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to
transfer ownership of ammunition between private parties such as family
members by requiring individuals to be licensed by the Department of
Justice if the 50-round thresholds are exceeded.

This outrageous proposal adds yet another layer of red tape where
appropriate regulation already exists and infringes further upon
individual freedoms of every California citizens' Right to Bear Arms.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to make your voice heard - I
stand with you on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or
my staff at (949) 347-7301 if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,
DIANE L. HARKEY
Assemblywoman, 73rd District
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 10:17:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/7/2009 10:18:06 AM EST by obeygiant]
Originally Posted By ColdboreDreamer:
This back from DIANE L. HARKEY
Assemblywoman, 73rd District


Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding our mutual
gun rights in California. First, let me be clear - I am an ardent
supporter of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I do not support
AB 962 and will oppose it in Appropriations Committee.

I believe AB 962 puts more limitations on the rights of legal gun
owners. This bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals or dangerous people living in our communities. Limiting the
transfer or sale of ammunition to 50 rounds per month, the equivalent of
one box of handgun ammunition, will have a devastating impact on legal
firearms retailers. Average sales volumes regularly exceed the proposed
limit, which would subject the majority of firearms business owners to a
new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations regarding licensure,
storage and sale procedures. This would force many small businesses
that rely on ammunition sales as their primary revenue to incur
additional costs in order to comply with the provisions of AB 962. As
one may guess, such costs would definitely be passed along to the
consumer. This burdensome and unnecessary regulation would drive a
sizable number of retailers out of business altogether.

Further, AB 962 would hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to
transfer ownership of ammunition between private parties such as family
members by requiring individuals to be licensed by the Department of
Justice if the 50-round thresholds are exceeded.

This outrageous proposal adds yet another layer of red tape where
appropriate regulation already exists and infringes further upon
individual freedoms of every California citizens' Right to Bear Arms.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to make your voice heard - I
stand with you on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or
my staff at (949) 347-7301 if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,
DIANE L. HARKEY
Assemblywoman, 73rd District


I received the same letter from Harkey within a few days of sending her an email and I'm not even in her district. FWIW, there is a good thread on Calguns about AB962 here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=176297
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 3:05:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/7/2009 3:06:07 PM EST by caseypj]
If this passes maybe I'll be able to get ammo in Florida. There's a lot of people in CA, I'm sure many buy ammo. Good luck.
Link Posted: 6/10/2009 12:14:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/10/2009 11:57:57 AM EST by obeygiant]
For those members that do live in California please consider contacting your state Senator to voice your opinion. As of right now the bill is not dead as it is currently before the CA Senate. Here's the link for the updated bill status.

COMPLETE BILL HISTORY


BILL NUMBER : A.B. No. 962
AUTHOR : De Leon
TOPIC : Ammunition.

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

BILL HISTORY
2009
June 4 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
June 3 Read third time, passed, and to Senate.
June 2 Read second time. To third reading.
June 1 Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second
reading.
May 29 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes
5.)(May 28).
May 6 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Apr. 22 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR.
Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 21).
Apr. 14 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the
request of author.
Mar. 26 Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Feb. 27 From printer. May be heard in committee March 29.
Feb. 26 Read first time. To print.


To make life easier I put together all of the contact information - [phone,fax,address and email] for the CA Senate and Assembly into formats that can be imported into your addressbooks.

You can get the contact info for Outlook in *.PST here

or *.CSV here

In vCard (.vcf) format here

Directions for using vCards here

In an Excel spreadsheet to copy and paste from here
Link Posted: 6/10/2009 7:42:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/10/2009 7:43:42 AM EST by 951bulldog]
Links don't work


ETA: Here is a link to the Senate homepage. Go to the map and find your district and you can get all the contact info for your Senator.


http://www.sen.ca.gov/
Link Posted: 6/10/2009 11:58:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By 951bulldog:
Links don't work


ETA: Here is a link to the Senate homepage. Go to the map and find your district and you can get all the contact info for your Senator.


http://www.sen.ca.gov/


Thank you for letting me know. I fixed the links in my previous post so they should work for everyone now.
Link Posted: 6/12/2009 11:07:47 AM EST
Damn it looks like this is on the floor right now for a vote!
Link Posted: 6/12/2009 11:36:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/12/2009 12:03:24 PM EST by obeygiant]
Originally Posted By Esq1118:
Damn it looks like this is on the floor right now for a vote!


It appears that it will not be heard this coming Tuesday but is ready and able to be heard at any of the future Public Safety meetings.

California Anti-Gun Bills Advancing in Sacramento Please Contact Your State Legislators Today!

On June 3, the Assembly passed Assembly Bill 962 by a 42-31 vote. AB962 now heads to the Senate where it has been assigned to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Also on June 3, Senate Bill 585 passed the Senate by a vote of 21-18. It now moves to the Assembly where it will be considered by the Assembly Public Safety Committee. No hearing dates have been scheduled for either bill.

Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

SB585, introduced by State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace. In short, SB585 is a stepping-stone to banning gun shows on all publicly-owned property in California.

It is imperative that you stand-up and respectfully make your voices heard! Please contact the members of the Senate Public Safety Committee and urge them to oppose AB962. Also, please contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and insist that they defeat SB585. Contact information can be found below.


SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3) – Chair
(916) 651-4003
Senator.Leno@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37) - Vice-Chair
(916) 651-4037
Senator.Benoit@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22)
(916) 651-4022
Senator.Cedillo@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9)
(916) 651-4009
Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Robert Huff (R-29)
(916) 651-4029
Senator.Huff@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
(916) 651-4006
Senator.Steinberg@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25)
(916) 651-4025
Senator.Wright@SENATE.CA.GOV

Just got off the phone with each of their offices and here are the responses that I got.

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3) – Chair ? - hasnt looked at it yet
State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37) - Vice-Chair opposed
State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22) ? - hasnt looked at it yet
State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9) ? - hasnt looked at it yet
State Senator Robert Huff (R-29) opposed
State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6) ? - hasnt looked at it yet
State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25) ? - hasnt looked at it yet
Link Posted: 6/12/2009 12:36:18 PM EST
Their emails are all bullshit man. Just emailed them individually. Huffman actually blocked his emails. The rest come back as please go to another webpage and email me as I only talk to my people...and no one else.
Link Posted: 6/12/2009 2:27:13 PM EST
For/against/hasn't read? - I guess if I was a legislator and got hit by a fire mission from Arfcom or DU or anyplace else and got thousands of e-mails, many incoherent and/or laced with profanity, to the point where my actual constituents couldn't get comments through, I'd probably not be happy either.

Like the old thousands of identical form letters certain providers would provide. They didn't get a lot of attention either.
Link Posted: 6/13/2009 10:35:39 AM EST
Hey Guys,

There have been two bills in the California State Senate and Assembly that have passed and are going up for another vote that will impose ridiculous limits on gun owners. One of the bills, AB 962, prevents you from being able to buy more than 50 rounds of ammo per month and subjects you to an electronic fingerprinting system each time you buy ammo. These fingerprints are then sent to the CA DOJ. The cost alone for these electronic fingerprinting devices will be exhorbitant and will, more than likely be paid for by retailers who sell ammo. This requirement alone will drive many ammo retailers out of business as they will sell less ammo because of this law and spend more money doing it––in purchasing the fingerprinting machines and possible service fees to subscribe to this service with the CA DOJ. Please write to your State Senator to oppose this bill. I have included a form letter below that you can feel free to use. Just copy and paste and insert the appropriate State Politician's Name and Your Name where appropriate. Your State Politician's name can be found on the email below. Please let me know if you have any questions and please forward this email to anyone you might know who might be interested in making sure this bill does not become law. Thanks!

ESQ


June 13, 2009



Hello California State Senator (Insert Name Here):

I am writing to you to ask you to vote “NO” on AB 962. As Californians, we are already unfairly subjected to stricter gun laws than most states in the rest of this great country and AB 962 only further limits our rights as law abiding gun owners. Limiting our ability to transfer no more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month will do nothing to reduce gun crime and will only adversely affect law abiding citizens who enjoy shooting sports.

Furthermore, the fingerprinting requirement in AB 962 infringes on each law abiding gun owner’s privacy in this state and will be a prohibitive cost to the State of California at a time when our state budget is already in such extreme deficit, turmoil, and crisis.

As a law abiding gun owner, I will be watching the voting patterns for AB 962 very closely and my own vote, come re-election time, will reflect how you have voted on this very important bill.

The priority at this point in our state’s great history should be on balancing the budget and not on imposing unfair laws against a very large and law abiding cross section of our state’s population. Given the condition of our state’s financial situation, the majority of voters in this state have already expressed their frustrations at the way our state’s lawmakers seem unable to come to a consensus regarding something as basic as balancing our state budget. This frustration will only further turn to anger when unfair laws such as AB 962 impose heavier costs through its costly electronic fingerprinting process on an already grossly overburdened state budget that is in a drastic deficit. Furthermore, AB 962 does nothing to reduce gun crime and only punishes law abiding gun owners in this state.

Although there may be many State Senators who may be gun control advocates here in the State of California , please keep in mind that the state population does have a large conservative voting base as well; as was well demonstrated with the passage of Proposition 8. This conservative voter base will rise, once again, to vote out lawmakers who cannot seem to balance the state budget and even further imposes additional costs to its already precarious state of extreme deficit while unfairly punishing a cross section of law abiding citizens interested only in preserving their own safety and Second Amendment Rights. For the good of the great State of California and its people, please vote “NO” on AB 962. Thank you for your time and I hope you have a great day.



Sincerely,



(Your Name Here)



Link Posted: 6/13/2009 7:14:24 PM EST
Originally Posted By Esq1118:

June 13, 2009



Hello California State Senator (Insert Name Here):

I am writing to you to ask you to vote “NO” on AB 962. As Californians, we are already unfairly subjected to stricter gun laws than most states in the rest of this great country and AB 962 only further limits our rights as law abiding gun owners. Limiting our ability to transfer no more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month will do nothing to reduce gun crime and will only adversely affect law abiding citizens who enjoy shooting sports.

Furthermore, the fingerprinting requirement in AB 962 infringes on each law abiding gun owner’s privacy in this state and will be a prohibitive cost to the State of California at a time when our state budget is already in such extreme deficit, turmoil, and crisis.

As a law abiding gun owner, I will be watching the voting patterns for AB 962 very closely and my own vote, come re-election time, will reflect how you have voted on this very important bill.

The priority at this point in our state’s great history should be on balancing the budget and not on imposing unfair laws against a very large and law abiding cross section of our state’s population. Given the condition of our state’s financial situation, the majority of voters in this state have already expressed their frustrations at the way our state’s lawmakers seem unable to come to a consensus regarding something as basic as balancing our state budget. This frustration will only further turn to anger when unfair laws such as AB 962 impose heavier costs through its costly electronic fingerprinting process on an already grossly overburdened state budget that is in a drastic deficit. Furthermore, AB 962 does nothing to reduce gun crime and only punishes law abiding gun owners in this state.

Although there may be many State Senators who may be gun control advocates here in the State of California , please keep in mind that the state population does have a large conservative voting base as well; as was well demonstrated with the passage of Proposition 8. This conservative voter base will rise, once again, to vote out lawmakers who cannot seem to balance the state budget and even further imposes additional costs to its already precarious state of extreme deficit while unfairly punishing a cross section of law abiding citizens interested only in preserving their own safety and Second Amendment Rights. For the good of the great State of California and its people, please vote “NO” on AB 962. Thank you for your time and I hope you have a great day.



Sincerely,



(Your Name Here)





Nicely written.
Link Posted: 6/13/2009 7:37:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/13/2009 7:39:04 PM EST by obeygiant]
You can also use the CalNRA One Click Message System to contact all of them with one email Here
Link Posted: 6/13/2009 10:02:18 PM EST
A few highlights of the future to come if we are unable to defeat this bill.

AMMO RESTRICTIONS - AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a "handgun ammunition vendor" in the Department of Justice’s database.

The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice.

Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to maintain additional information relating to ammunition transfers and licensed handgun ammunition vendors, as specified.

This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2010, unless specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless he or she is registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined.

The bill would further provide that handgun ammunition may only be purchased in a face-to-face transaction and only if certain conditions exist.

This bill would, subject to exceptions, commencing July 1, 2010, require certain ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers, and would require submission of that information to the Department of Justice, as specified.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 8:12:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/15/2009 8:13:38 AM EST by Esq1118]
Originally Posted By obeygiant:
Originally Posted By Esq1118:

June 13, 2009



Hello California State Senator (Insert Name Here):

I am writing to you to ask you to vote “NO” on AB 962. As Californians, we are already unfairly subjected to stricter gun laws than most states in the rest of this great country and AB 962 only further limits our rights as law abiding gun owners. Limiting our ability to transfer no more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month will do nothing to reduce gun crime and will only adversely affect law abiding citizens who enjoy shooting sports.

Furthermore, the fingerprinting requirement in AB 962 infringes on each law abiding gun owner’s privacy in this state and will be a prohibitive cost to the State of California at a time when our state budget is already in such extreme deficit, turmoil, and crisis.

My buddy wrote it. I told him that as well.
As a law abiding gun owner, I will be watching the voting patterns for AB 962 very closely and my own vote, come re-election time, will reflect how you have voted on this very important bill.

The priority at this point in our state’s great history should be on balancing the budget and not on imposing unfair laws against a very large and law abiding cross section of our state’s population. Given the condition of our state’s financial situation, the majority of voters in this state have already expressed their frustrations at the way our state’s lawmakers seem unable to come to a consensus regarding something as basic as balancing our state budget. This frustration will only further turn to anger when unfair laws such as AB 962 impose heavier costs through its costly electronic fingerprinting process on an already grossly overburdened state budget that is in a drastic deficit. Furthermore, AB 962 does nothing to reduce gun crime and only punishes law abiding gun owners in this state.

Although there may be many State Senators who may be gun control advocates here in the State of California , please keep in mind that the state population does have a large conservative voting base as well; as was well demonstrated with the passage of Proposition 8. This conservative voter base will rise, once again, to vote out lawmakers who cannot seem to balance the state budget and even further imposes additional costs to its already precarious state of extreme deficit while unfairly punishing a cross section of law abiding citizens interested only in preserving their own safety and Second Amendment Rights. For the good of the great State of California and its people, please vote “NO” on AB 962. Thank you for your time and I hope you have a great day.



Sincerely,



(Your Name Here)





Nicely written.



My buddy wrote it.
Link Posted: 6/24/2009 6:36:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/24/2009 6:38:31 PM EST by obeygiant]
sorry, this was accidentally posted twice
Link Posted: 6/24/2009 6:37:37 PM EST
Latest Info: 06/20/2009 -

Assembly Bill 962 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, 6/30/2009

Please contact the members of the committee and urge a NO vote on AB 962.

Action needed:

Join your Local NRA Members Council


Use the ONE-CLICK MESSAGE CENTER to easily address policy makers on this issue


Contact as many members of the SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE INDIVIDUALLY as possible


Update provided by CalNRA
Link Posted: 6/25/2009 7:44:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/25/2009 7:49:22 AM EST by 951bulldog]
First off, I agree that this is total bullshit, useless and will do nothing to help stop crime. Second, at a time when the state is about to declare bankruptcy, it seems like the legislators would have better stuff to do. One more example of why we should have a part time legislature, these people have too much time on their hands.

However, people need to stop w/ the misinformation. I had a buddy call me yesterday all panicked and going from store to store to buy all the ammo he could. he told me that the guys at a local gun store told him that the state was about to pass a law that would make it illegal to buy more than 50 rounds of ammo per month and that this could go into effect at any time. That is not true. What this will do IF it is passed is make it illegal to transfer more than 50 rounds of HANDGUN ammo, UNLESS you have a state license. So any store that sells ammo now I would guess would get that license and would be able to sell you as many rounds as you want. It will also make it so the employees have to get a certificate of eligibility, ammo has to be behind the shelf or locked up and the buyer has to give a thumbprint in order to make sure that felons aren't buying ammo. Also, if it were to pass it won't take effect until 7-1-2010.

Again, this is rediculous and a waste of time and money and will do nothing but make it a pain in the ass for legal buyers. However, it will NOT make it illegal to buy more than 50 rounds in a month. How these people think that making it illegal for felons to buy ammo will help anything is laughable. Don't they understand that making stuff illegal doesn't make it go away? Heroin, cocaine and meth are all illegal and have been for decades. How's that working out? Just sayin'.

ETA: Link to the text of the bill

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_962
Link Posted: 6/25/2009 6:23:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/25/2009 6:24:16 PM EST by obeygiant]
Originally Posted By 951bulldog:
First off, I agree that this is total bullshit, useless and will do nothing to help stop crime. Second, at a time when the state is about to declare bankruptcy, it seems like the legislators would have better stuff to do. One more example of why we should have a part time legislature, these people have too much time on their hands.

However, people need to stop w/ the misinformation. I had a buddy call me yesterday all panicked and going from store to store to buy all the ammo he could. he told me that the guys at a local gun store told him that the state was about to pass a law that would make it illegal to buy more than 50 rounds of ammo per month and that this could go into effect at any time. That is not true. What this will do IF it is passed is make it illegal to transfer more than 50 rounds of HANDGUN ammo, UNLESS you have a state license. So any store that sells ammo now I would guess would get that license and would be able to sell you as many rounds as you want. It will also make it so the employees have to get a certificate of eligibility, ammo has to be behind the shelf or locked up and the buyer has to give a thumbprint in order to make sure that felons aren't buying ammo. Also, if it were to pass it won't take effect until 7-1-2010.

Again, this is rediculous and a waste of time and money and will do nothing but make it a pain in the ass for legal buyers. However, it will NOT make it illegal to buy more than 50 rounds in a month. How these people think that making it illegal for felons to buy ammo will help anything is laughable. Don't they understand that making stuff illegal doesn't make it go away? Heroin, cocaine and meth are all illegal and have been for decades. How's that working out? Just sayin'.

ETA: Link to the text of the bill

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_962


Very true. There are a few things that bother me about this bill:


* Thumb print [each time you purchase]
* DL [each time you purchase]
* All of the above information being stored in a central database
* Being unable to purchase ammo online
* Being unable to sell/trade unused or unwanted ammunition without being a licensed ammunition dealer.
* Even if you are a licensed ammunition dealer you still have to have a business license and your ability to sell that ammunition is tied to the location of your business.
Link Posted: 6/29/2009 8:08:16 PM EST
Latest Info:

06/26/2009 - Assemblymember DeLeon's office has pulled AB 962 from the Senate Public Safety hearing on June 30 and reset it for July 7. Please contact the members of the committee and urge a NO vote on AB 962.

Use the ONE-CLICK MESSAGE CENTER to easily address policy makers on this issue

Contact as many members of the SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE as possible INDIVIDUALLY


Update provided by CalNRA.com
Link Posted: 7/6/2009 9:25:11 AM EST
Bumped... this is now going into Senate committees. Updated title to reflect current status.
Link Posted: 7/6/2009 4:14:49 PM EST
AB962 will be heard before the Senate Public Safety Committee tomorrow! You can view the agenda
here


Please fax and call the Senate Public Safety Committee


PH: (916)651-4118
FAX: (916) 445-4688

Mailing Address:

State Capitol
Room 2031
Sacramento, CA 95814

Link Posted: 7/7/2009 8:05:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/7/2009 8:07:45 PM EST by obeygiant]
Latest Info:

07/07/2009 - Today, AB962 Handgun Ammo sales restriction passed the Senate Public Safety Comminttee. It will now go to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please contact the members of the committee and urge a NO vote on AB 962.

Action needed:

Use the ONE-CLICK MESSAGE CENTER to easily address policy makers on this issue

Contact as many members of the SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE as possible INDIVIDUALLY

Update provided by CalNRA.com
Link Posted: 7/8/2009 10:00:36 PM EST
I set up this "copy and paste" letter on FreedomSpeaks if anyone is interested. They will email and fax to all of the members that you select for free,registration is required though. It will also allow you to resend your letter, or mine if you choose to use it, multiple times.

Wednesday, 07/08/2009 @ 11:43 PM
To whom it may concern:

I am writing to express my opposition to AB 962 which would require that all lawful purchases of handgun ammunition be registered to the buyer by the ammunition seller who must keep the records on the premises for review by law enforcement.

It would also require that ammunition buyers must make their purchases in person, not by mail order or the internet, that handgun ammunition not be displayed by retailers in a location where customers can have access to it, thus necessitating that the retailer obtain it from storage upon the specific request of a potential buyer, and other related provisions.

AB 962 is unnecessary, costly and would be a burden to lawful dealers and lawful ammunition buyers. If its purpose is to prevent crimes involving the use or possession of a handgun, it would be ineffective.

Those who would use firearms and ammunition illegally can, and do, easily obtain them from out of state sources or from the local underground marketplace. This bill would affect only lawful businesses and individuals. It would have no deterrent effect on criminals.

The damage it would do to retailers and their customers is substantial and unjustifiable. Accordingly,I am strongly opposed to the enactment of AB 962.

Please also consider that the Department of Finance Bill Analysis has already reviewed AB962 and is opposed to it being enacted. Please see their conclusions below:

_________________________________________________________________
Position of the Department of Finance Bill Analysis
_________________________________________________________________

Original Link: http://www.dof.ca.gov/legislative_analyses/LIS_PDF/09/AB-962-20090504035415PM-AB00962.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE BILL ANALYSIS
AMENDMENT DATE: Original BILL NUMBER: AB 962
POSITION: Oppose AUTHOR: K. De Leon


BILL SUMMARY: Ammunition

This bill would establish a database maintained by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to serve as a registry of handgun ammunition vendors. Additionally, the bill would require that, beginning July 1, 2010, no person shall sell or transfer specified rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless he or she is licensed as a handgun ammunition vendor.

FISCAL SUMMARY

Although DOJ has not provided a fiscal estimate for this bill, Finance believes creating a new database and registration program would require significant staff and contract resources. The bill would allow for a fee to be charged to cover DOJ’s costs, but caps that fee at $50. It is not clear that this program can be implemented at that fee level. If it cannot, DOJ would have to seek additional funding, creating pressure on
other special funds and possibly the General Fund.

COMMENTS

Finance is opposed to this bill given the likely cost pressures it would impose and the significant resources it likely would require. Although the bill would provide for a fee to be charged for this purpose, absent specific information from DOJ, it is not clear the fee would be sufficient to fully fund this effort. Additionally, it may not be appropriate to impose additional workload during this time of limited state resources.

Furthermore, given that the licensing restriction would be in effect on July 1, 2010, and this bill, if chaptered, would be effective on January 1, 2010, DOJ would have only months to prepare and implement this database. Also, no appropriation authority is provided in the bill, so it is unlikely DOJ would have additional appropriations to draw from when developing this new program in time for the July 1, 2010 date.

Currently, DOJ maintains a database related to firearms transactions, which is supported by fees.

The bill would create a new handgun ammunition tracking database and registration program for handgun ammunition vendors. The bill would allow for a fee of up to $50 to reimburse DOJ for its costs of administering the license program, maintaining the registry of handgun ammunition vendors and other regulatory functions, including enforcement.
_________________________________________________________________

AB962 infringes on the rights of every law abiding American to privacy and the 2nd Amendment. I respectfully request that you oppose this bill.

Please vote NO on AB 962.

Your Constituent
Link Posted: 7/10/2009 7:31:50 PM EST
I spoke with Brandi at Senator Price's office and she happens to be the aide that is responsible for putting together the Senators brief on the Appropriations committee!

I asked if the Senator had an opportunity to review the Department of Finance Bill Analyses' report on AB962 and she said that she has been so busy that she has not yet had time to get and prepare it for the Senator. I asked if she would like me to send her a copy and she said "Yes, that would save me a lot of time trying to locate it." I then asked if she would like me to fax or email it and she gave me her email address. Just called and confirmed that she did receive my email. She was very thankful for the report and assured me that Senator Price would read it before he voted.

With all of that said, I can't stress enough how important it is for each of us to call and in a polite and respectful way let our opinion be known as you never know who you might influence.
Link Posted: 7/10/2009 7:49:26 PM EST
Earlier this evening I called each of the members of the Senate Appropriations committee and got the following responses:

    Senator Cox - Opposed
    Senator Corbett - over a 100 calls in opposition,added my name to the list
    Senator Leno - left a message
    Senator Oropeza - added my name to the list
    Senator Price - emailed Department of Finance Bill Analysis Report to Brandi the Senators Aide.
    Senator Runner - Opposed
    Senator Mimi Walters - Opposed
    Senator Wyland - Opposed
    Senator Yee - added my name to the list

Keep it up guys!
Link Posted: 7/11/2009 6:09:04 AM EST
Here is the email I received from Senator Cox's office in response to my opposition email. It contains some interesting other nuggets that are wroth sharing:

Thank you for contacting my office to express your opposition to gun control legislation. I appreciate hearing from you.

My stance on additional gun control legislation has been clear. I have consistently opposed efforts to restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and legally use firearms.

Several key bills relating to gun control or ownership rights have been introduced or re-introduced during this legislative session.

Assembly Bill 357 (Knight) would revise state law as it relates to obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. Current law authorizes the sheriff of a county, "...upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists, and that the person applying satisfies any one of certain conditions..." to issue a license for the person to carry a concealed handgun. AB 357 would delete the good cause requirement, and require the sheriff to issue the license if the other criteria described above are met. As anticipated, AB 357 failed passage in its first hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 21 by a vote of 1-5. Although the bill was granted reconsideration, it is unlikely that the bill will receive a sufficient number votes for passage.

Assembly Bill 962 (De Leon), a bill relating to ammunition, is virtually identical to the final language contained in Assembly Bill 2062 (2008) and Assembly Bill 362 (2007) by the same author. AB 962 passed the full Assembly on June 3 by a vote of 42-31. The bill subsequently passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 2 by a vote of 4-3 and is now awaiting a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 962 is a far-reaching measure which would prohibit any person not licensed as a gun dealer to transfer, sell or buy more than 50 pieces of ammunition in a month. The bill also implements extensive reporting and record-keeping requirements for all licensed gun dealers who wish to sell ammunition. The requirements listed in this measure are impractical and would do more to inconvenience lawful gun owners more than deter criminals. For this reason, I am opposed to AB 962 as it is currently written.

Assembly Bill 1167 (Nielsen) "...would deem persons who have a valid permit or license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state or a political subdivision of another state to be authorized to carry a concealed handgun pursuant to provisions of California law...." and would similarly "direct the Department of Justice to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states so that persons licensed in this state to carry concealed or loaded firearms would be authorized to do so in those other states." AB 1167 is awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, although no hearing date has been set.
It is likely that this bill will not secure enough votes for passage out of committee.

Senate Bill 41 (Lowenthal) would impose additional requirements on firearms dealers to track sales, returns and other transactions and report them to the California Department of Justice. Additional fees on dealers are also included in the bill which would likely be passed on to consumers. SB 41 passed the full Senate on June 1 by a vote of 21-14.
The bill was approved by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on June 30 by a vote of 4-2 and is now awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. I voted in opposition to this bill when it came before me.

Senate Bill 585 (Leno), a bill which would prohibit firearms sales at the Cow Palace in San Francisco. The language in SB 585 is virtually identical to the final language contained in Assembly Bill 2498 (Leno) from the 2007-08 legislative session and would prohibit firearms sales at the Cow Palace in San Francisco.

SB 585 is an effort to allow the City and/or County of San Francisco to discriminate against legitimate gun show participants and vendors who must comply with stringent state regulations affecting licensing, sales, background checks, liability and other provisions of state law governing gun shows, although the property in question is owned by the state, not the county. SB 585 passed the full Senate on June 3 by a vote of 21-18.
SB 585 subsequently passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on June 30 by a vote of 4-3 and is awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. I voted against this bill when it came before me.

Senate Bill 697 (DeSaulnier) is a re-introduction of Assembly Bill 2235 a bill from the 2007-08 legislative session by the same author relating to "owner-authorized" handguns. AB 2235 passed the Assembly but was held under submission in the Senate Appropriations Committee and died without further action. SB 697 was scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee; however, the author has decided to defer action on the bill until next year.

"Smart gun" technology may be perfected in the future, and "owner authorized" weapons may one day secure a niche in the marketplace.
However, the potential availability of such weapons for those who wish to purchase them should not preclude the legal possession, purchase or transfer of other traditional firearms. For this reason, I am opposed to SB 697 as written.

Senate Bill 776 (Hancock) would require owners of large-capacity magazines to register them with the Department of Justice. This bill is now a two-year bill and will not be acted upon until the Legislature re-convenes in 2010. I am opposed to this bill as written.

During the 2007-08 legislative session, other gun control-related bills were approved by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor
Schwarzenegger:

Assembly Bill 821 (Nava) would require the use of non-lead rifle and handgun ammunition for hunting in certain areas as to reduce the risk of lead poisoning to the endangered California Condor. While the goal of protecting the endangered California Condor has merit, in my view the provisions contained in this bill were excessive and of dubious value.
AB 821 passed from the Senate on September 4, 2007 by a vote of 23 to 15. I voted against the bill at that time. The bill was signed into law by the Governor on October 13, 2007.

Assembly Bill 1471 (Feuer) would require all handguns sold after January 1, 2010 to include micro-stamped identifying information that would be transferred to each dispensed bullet cartridge as it was fired.
Technical issues aside, it is my opinion that such a program will not lead to any significant reduction in gun violence, nor will it increase conviction rates of gun-related crimes. Moreover, the bill has the potential to inconvenience and even implicate lawful gun owners whose guns were stolen and used in the commission of a crime. AB 1471 passed the Senate on September 6, 2007 by a vote of 21 to 17. I voted in opposition to the bill at that time. In addition to voting against the bill, along with my Senate Republican Colleagues I urged the Governor to veto the bill. Despite our efforts, the Governor signed the legislation on October 13, 2007.

If you are interested in tracking the progress of current legislation, you may access the status, votes, bill text and analyses of this and other legislation from my Senate home page at www.senate.ca.gov/cox.

Again, thank you for taking the time to relay your views. Please feel free to communicate with me in the future on other issues of interest.

Sincerely,

DAVE COX
Senator, First District
Link Posted: 7/11/2009 7:29:33 AM EST
We also need to push for a part time legislature. These people have entirley too much time on their hands and in their boredom seem to come up with all kinds of absurd bills and new taxes. Oh, I'm sorry, I mean revenue enhancements. They could get done what they actually NEED to get done in 1/3 the time they have. Not to mention it would save us a ton of money on all the perks they get like cars, gas, per diem, blah, blah, blah.
Link Posted: 7/11/2009 7:30:52 AM EST
We also need to push for a part time legislature. These people have entirley too much time on their hands and in their boredom seem to come up with all kinds of absurd bills and new taxes. Oh, I'm sorry, I mean revenue enhancements. They could get done what they actually NEED to get done in 1/3 the time they have. Not to mention it would save us a ton of money on all the perks they get like cars, gas, per diem, blah, blah, blah.
Link Posted: 7/11/2009 9:00:24 PM EST
Called the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday and I was told that AB962 has been scheduled for the 20th.

Please consider sending a fax,calling the appropriations committee, even if you have already done so, asking them to oppose AB962.

Call them and ask if the Senators have read the report by the Department of Financial Bill Analysis. Also make sure to ask them to put your name down on the Opposition list. Here's the phone number (916)651-4101 and a copy of the Report.


Original Link

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE BILL ANALYSIS
AMENDMENT DATE: Original BILL NUMBER: AB 962
POSITION: Oppose AUTHOR: K. De Leon



BILL SUMMARY: Ammunition

This bill would establish a database maintained by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to serve as a registry of handgun ammunition vendors. Additionally, the bill would require that, beginning July 1, 2010, no person shall sell or transfer specified rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless he or she is licensed as a handgun ammunition vendor.

FISCAL SUMMARY

Although DOJ has not provided a fiscal estimate for this bill, Finance believes creating a new database and registration program would require significant staff and contract resources. The bill would allow for a fee to be charged to cover DOJ’s costs, but caps that fee at $50. It is not clear that this program can be implemented at that fee level. If it cannot, DOJ would have to seek additional funding, creating pressure on
other special funds and possibly the General Fund.

COMMENTS

Finance is opposed to this bill given the likely cost pressures it would impose and the significant resources it likely would require. Although the bill would provide for a fee to be charged for this purpose, absent specific information from DOJ, it is not clear the fee would be sufficient to fully fund this effort. Additionally, it may not be appropriate to impose additional workload during this time of limited state resources.

Furthermore, given that the licensing restriction would be in effect on July 1, 2010, and this bill, if chaptered, would be effective on January 1, 2010, DOJ would have only months to prepare and implement this database. Also, no appropriation authority is provided in the bill, so it is unlikely DOJ would have additional appropriations to draw from when developing this new program in time for the July 1, 2010 date.

Currently, DOJ maintains a database related to firearms transactions, which is supported by fees.

The bill would create a new handgun ammunition tracking database and registration program for handgun ammunition vendors. The bill would allow for a fee of up to $50 to reimburse DOJ for its costs of administering the license program, maintaining the registry of handgun ammunition vendors and other regulatory functions, including enforcement.
Link Posted: 7/13/2009 7:33:16 PM EST
Here's a quick summary of where we stand with the Senators that are on the Appropriation Committee.

For
Senator Mark Leno

Unknown
Senator Christine Kehoe
Senator Ellen Corbett
Senator Loni Hancock
Senator Jenny Oropeza
Senator Curren Price
Senator Lois Wolk
Senator Leland Yee

Opposed
Senator Dave Cox
Senator Jeff Denham
Senator George Runner
Senator Mimi Walters
Senator Mark Wyland

Please focus your efforts on the "Unknown Senators" listed below:

Name Email Phone Fax
Senator Christine Kehoe, Senator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4039, (916) 327-2188
Senator Ellen Corbett, Senator.Corbett@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4010, (916) 327-2433
Senator Loni Hancock, Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4009, (916) 327-1997
Senator Jenny Oropeza, Senator.Oropeza@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4028, (916) 323-6056
Senator Curren Price, Senator.Price@senate.ca.gov, (916) 651-4026, (916) 445-4026
Senator Lois Wolk, Senator.Wolk@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4005, (916) 323-2304
Senator Leland Yee, Senator.Yee@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4008, (916) 327-2186
Link Posted: 7/13/2009 8:42:02 PM EST
Emails sent.
Link Posted: 7/16/2009 8:47:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/16/2009 8:50:08 PM EST by obeygiant]
AB962 is scheduled to be heard this Monday, July 20th! We've got 4 days to make sure that our voices are heard. Please consider contacting the Senators below that have an Unknown / Undecided position on this bill.

Here's a quick summary of where we stand with the Senators that are on the Appropriation Committee.

For
Senator Mark Leno

Unknown
Senator Christine Kehoe
Senator Ellen Corbett
Senator Loni Hancock
Senator Jenny Oropeza
Senator Curren Price
Senator Lois Wolk
Senator Leland Yee


Opposed
Senator Dave Cox
Senator Jeff Denham
Senator George Runner
Senator Mimi Walters
Senator Mark Wyland


Please focus your efforts on the "Unknown Senators" listed below:

Name Email Phone Fax
Senator Christine Kehoe, Senator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4039, (916) 327-2188
Senator Ellen Corbett, Senator.Corbett@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4010, (916) 327-2433
Senator Loni Hancock, Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4009, (916) 327-1997
Senator Jenny Oropeza, Senator.Oropeza@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4028, (916) 323-6056
Senator Curren Price, Senator.Price@senate.ca.gov, (916) 651-4026, (916) 445-4026
Senator Lois Wolk, Senator.Wolk@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4005, (916) 323-2304
Senator Leland Yee, Senator.Yee@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4008, (916) 327-2186
Link Posted: 7/19/2009 7:35:09 AM EST
Originally Posted By obeygiant:
AB962 is scheduled to be heard this Monday, July 20th! We've got 4 days to make sure that our voices are heard. Please consider contacting the Senators below that have an Unknown / Undecided position on this bill.

Here's a quick summary of where we stand with the Senators that are on the Appropriation Committee.

For
Senator Mark Leno

Unknown
Senator Christine Kehoe
Senator Ellen Corbett
Senator Loni Hancock
Senator Jenny Oropeza
Senator Curren Price
Senator Lois Wolk
Senator Leland Yee


Opposed
Senator Dave Cox
Senator Jeff Denham
Senator George Runner
Senator Mimi Walters
Senator Mark Wyland


Please focus your efforts on the "Unknown Senators" listed below:

Name Email Phone Fax
Senator Christine Kehoe, Senator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4039, (916) 327-2188
Senator Ellen Corbett, Senator.Corbett@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4010, (916) 327-2433
Senator Loni Hancock, Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4009, (916) 327-1997
Senator Jenny Oropeza, Senator.Oropeza@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4028, (916) 323-6056
Senator Curren Price, Senator.Price@senate.ca.gov, (916) 651-4026, (916) 445-4026
Senator Lois Wolk, Senator.Wolk@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4005, (916) 323-2304
Senator Leland Yee, Senator.Yee@SENATE.CA.GOV, (916) 651-4008, (916) 327-2186



Tomorrow is the day AB962 will be heard before the Senate Appropriations Committee!

If you haven't called or faxed the Senators yet please do so today. I realize they will most likely not be answering phones today but that does not stop you from leaving your name and number and requesting that they add you to the OPPOSED list.

For any of you that are not inclined to get involved, please consider the fact that if this bill passes, and you are a resident of California, you will no longer be able to purchase ammunition online or through the mail.

To those that have contacted the Senators on the Appropriations Committee, Thank you. I would urge you to consider calling or faxing again today so that there is no doubt in their minds that the sportsmen of California will not put up with this attack on our privacy and 2nd Amendment rights.
Link Posted: 7/19/2009 10:45:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/19/2009 10:45:58 PM EST by obeygiant]
One minor correction, Senator Curren Price's fax number is (916) 445-8899 not (916) 445-4026
Link Posted: 7/20/2009 5:22:10 PM EST
From Calguns.net

the entire committee hearing was postponed, not just the reading of this bill.... it's quite doubtful that the postponement has anything directly to do w/ AB 962.
Link Posted: 7/20/2009 5:32:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/20/2009 5:35:22 PM EST by obeygiant]
The new hearing date could possibly be tomorrow or sometime after the budget bill(s) are considered
- one of those indeterminate times in the future.


Daily File currently says


APPROPRIATIONS
KEHOE, Chair
12 m. - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
(Please note time change)
PENDING DELAY IN SUMMER RECESS
PENDING RULE WAIVER


Considering that the Govenator has said that he will veto anything that comes before him that is not
budget related they could do us all a favor and go on recess. That would be July 17 - August 17, if
they were to keep their schedule.
Link Posted: 7/20/2009 6:16:35 PM EST
Quick Summary of where the votes stand from Goober_0 on Calguns.net



Originally Posted by bomb_on_bus:
Ideally speaking does anyone have an idea which way the vote is going to turn out for this bill? I know there are some oppossing senators of the bill, but I'm only sure of a couple of senators are for this bill correct?


We have 5 who have expressed their opposition outright:
Cox
Denham
Runner
Walters
Wyland


There are 2, from my recent phone interactions (with their staff), that might be leaning against:
Corbett
Wolk


IF we can get those two on our side, we'll have 7, which is just enough to beat this thing in Appropriations.


There are a couple more that have not been completely anti-2A in the past, at least for Dems (both received "D" grades from NRA):
Oropeza
Yee


One or both of these could really seal the deal or fill in for Wolk or Corbett if they go the other way.

On the other side, we can basically count the following as supporting AB 962:
Leno
Hancock
Kehoe


That leaves Price, and with nothing better to go on than the fact that he's a Dem, I'd guess he might support it (he also has an NRA "F" grade). So right now I'd call it 5-4, with us winning. We really need 2 more, and I think we're probably close on 1 of them. So keep it up!

Concentrate on:

Name Email Phone Fax
Senator Christine Kehoe Senator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4039 (916) 327-2188
Senator Ellen Corbett Senator.Corbett@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4010 (916) 327-2433
Senator Loni Hancock Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4009 (916) 327-1997
Senator Jenny Oropeza Senator.Oropeza@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4028 (916) 323-6056
Senator Curren Price Senator.Price@senate.ca.gov` (916) 651-4026 (916) 445-8899
Senator Lois Wolk Senator.Wolk@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4005 (916) 323-2304
Senator Leland Yee Senator.Yee@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4008 (916) 327-2186

How cool would it be if we end up with 10-3 against? (yeah right)

ETA corrections regarding Price vs Oropeza... somehow I had them mixed up. Also added NRA grades.
__________________

Link Posted: 7/22/2009 7:15:02 PM EST
NRA ILA Update


California: AB962 Could be Heard as Early as Thursday, July 23 in Sacramento

Please Contact the Senate Appropriations Committee Today!

On Monday, July 20 the Senate Appropriations Committee canceled its meeting, delaying a vote on Assembly Bill 962. It is very possible that AB962 could be taken up at its next meeting, which is currently scheduled for Thursday, July 23. It is important that you continue to contact the committee members in opposition to this bill.



CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE: A.B. No. 962
AUTHOR(S): De Leon (Coauthor: Bonnie Lowenthal).
TOPIC: Ammunition.
HOUSE LOCATION: SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 06/22/2009


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 07/08/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR.
Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 3.) (July 7).
COMM. LOCATION: SEN APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE: 07/23/2009


TITLE: An act to amend Sections 11106 and 12316 of, to add
Sections 12317 and 12318 to, to add Article 3.5
(commencing with Section 12060) to Chapter 1 of, to add
a heading for Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section
12316) to, and to repeal the heading of Chapter 2.6
(commencing with Section 12320) of, Title 2 of Part 4
of, the Penal Code, relating to ammunition.



Concentrate on Hammer these guys!

Name Email Phone Fax
Senator Christine Kehoe Senator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4039 (916) 327-2188
Senator Ellen Corbett Senator.Corbett@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4010 (916) 327-2433
Senator Loni Hancock Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4009 (916) 327-1997
Senator Jenny Oropeza Senator.Oropeza@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4028 (916) 323-6056
Senator Curren Price Senator.Price@senate.ca.gov` (916) 651-4026 (916) 445-8899
Senator Lois Wolk Senator.Wolk@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4005 (916) 323-2304
Senator Leland Yee Senator.Yee@SENATE.CA.GOV (916) 651-4008 (916) 327-2186
Link Posted: 7/23/2009 11:24:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/23/2009 11:25:45 AM EST by obeygiant]
Audio here at 2pm

Video here at 2pm
Link Posted: 7/23/2009 7:01:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/23/2009 7:18:49 PM EST by obeygiant]
Thank you to Librarian over at Calguns for putting this summary together.

Just to summarize:


DeLeon waived his presentation on 962.

Alameda County Board of Supervisors and City of Sacramento appeared with 2-sentence opposed comments.

Ed Worley of NRA appears, points out that use of DROS funds for ammo enforcement take money away from other law enforcement efforts - like undercover agents at gun shows (a good button to push); opposed

Tom Pederson of CRPA agrees; opposed

Sam Paredes of Gun Owners of California appears; nice economic analysis of $652 million in handgun ammo sales; other items, like spray paint behind counters experience 25% sales drop - $12 million in sales tax if handgun ammo sales drops like that. opposed

Finance says 'no position'. Whaaat? ETA: Just rechecked, their June 22 analysys is still up at The Department of Finance



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE BILL ANALYSIS
AMENDMENT DATE: June 22, 2009 BILL NUMBER: AB 962
POSITION: Oppose AUTHOR: K. De Leon


FISCAL SUMMARY

To implement this bill, DOJ estimates costs of $306,000 in 2009-10, $1.351 million in 2010-11, and $616,000 in 2011-12. The bill would allow for a fee to be charged to cover DOJ’s costs, but caps that fee at $50. Fee revenues, from the bill’s new fee as well as the existing fingerprint fee, would generate $1.489 million in 2010-11 and $801,000 in 2011-12. Although fee revenues would be sufficient to operate the program on an ongoing basis, the first year’s costs would be unfunded. DOJ would have to seek additional funding, creating pressure on other special funds and possibly the General Fund.
...
COMMENTS

Finance is opposed to this bill given the cost pressures it would impose and the unfunded resources it would require in the first year of implementation. Although the bill would provide for a fee to be charged for this purpose, the fee would not be sufficient to fully fund this effort in the first year. Additionally, it may not be appropriate to impose additional workload during this time of limited state resources.

Furthermore, given that the licensing restriction would be in effect on July 1, 2010, and this bill, if chaptered, would be effective on January 1, 2010, DOJ would have only months to prepare and implement this database. Also, no appropriation authority is provided in the bill, so it is unlikely DOJ would have additional appropriations to draw from when developing this new program in time for the July 1, 2010 date. The latest version includes language to make a fund available, but does not actually provide an appropriation that DOJ could use in 2009-10.


It was sent to the suspense file; it can come off after the recess, August 17.

For those with an interest in the gory details, the 'suspense file' is described in the committee rules:

9. SUSPENSE FILE

The committee, by a majority of the members present and voting, shall refer to the Suspense File all bills that would have a fiscal impact in any single fiscal year from the General Fund or from private funds of $50,000 or more. Bills that establish a pilot project or program shall be referred to the Suspense File if the statewide implementation of the project or program would result in a fiscal impact of $50,000 or more in any single fiscal year from the General Fund or private funds.

The committee, by a majority of the members present and voting, shall refer to the Suspense File all bills that would have a fiscal impact in any single fiscal year from any account(s) or fund(s) of $150,000 or more. Bills that establish a pilot project or program shall be referred to the Suspense File if the statewide implementation of the project or program would result in a fiscal impact of $150,000 or more in any single fiscal year from any account(s) or fund(s).


So: take the rest of the week off. Legislators and staff should be working on budget, so they won't be paying attention to 962 just now. Back at them Monday - don't let them think we've forgotten.
Link Posted: 8/5/2009 7:46:30 PM EST
Update provided by Librarian at Calguns.net

The interesting date to come is indeed Monday, August 17, when the Legislature comes back into session from Summer recess, and 962 may come OFF the Suspense file.

Until then, please send polite letters to the Senate Appropriations Committee itself, as well as the members, pointing out that we can't afford any more spending and that the Department of Finance opposes the bill, because the cost estimates are too low and no funding for the enforcement has been appropriated.

Link Posted: 8/25/2009 9:21:37 PM EST
UPDATE: CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ALERT

AB 962 Handgun Ammunition Registration Bill
Position: Oppose
AB 962 is set for reconsideration in the Senate Committee on Appropriations on Thursday, 8/27. The bill is currently in the Senate Appropriations suspense file. Please ask our members to contact the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and their local Senator to urge a NO VOTE.


Send a ONE-CLICK Email to the SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

.
Posted by Obeygiant at Calguns.net

For
Senator Mark Leno

Unknown
Senator Christine Kehoe
Senator Ellen Corbett
Senator Loni Hancock
Senator Jenny Oropeza
Senator Curren Price
Senator Lois Wolk
Senator Leland Yee

Opposed
Senator Dave Cox
Senator Jeff Denham
Senator George Runner
Senator Mimi Walters
Senator Mark Wyland

Please focus your efforts on the Unknown Senators listed below:

Name Email Phone Fax
Senator Christine KehoeSenator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV(916) 651-4039(916) 327-2188
Senator Ellen Corbett Senator.Corbett@SENATE.CA.GOV(916) 651-4010(916) 327-2433
Senator Loni Hancock Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV(916) 651-4009(916) 327-1997
Senator Jenny Oropeza Senator.Oropeza@SENATE.CA.GOV(916) 651-4028(916) 323-6056
Senator Curren Price Senator.Price@senate.ca.gov`(916) 651-4026(916) 445-8899
Senator Lois Wolk Senator.Wolk@SENATE.CA.GOV(916) 651-4005(916) 323-2304
Senator Leland YeeSenator.Yee@SENATE.CA.GOV(916) 651-4008(916) 327-2186
Link Posted: 8/27/2009 9:57:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2009 10:41:52 AM EST by ColdboreDreamer]
It doesn't look like Leno is attending...this might be a good thing. I didn't hear him answer to the roll call.

EDIT... no he's there.
Link Posted: 8/27/2009 11:13:58 AM EST
7-4... looks like it passed. No discussion.

Amazing.
Link Posted: 8/27/2009 8:36:56 PM EST
Passed with no debate....
I can't believe this state!
Link Posted: 8/28/2009 5:34:14 AM EST
on Calguns they are reporting that now the entire Senate must vote to pass it, then Schwartzenegger must sign it.

Contact your senators - if they pass it anyway, hope that the Govenator vetos it because the state can not afford it.


Seriously, it's a mess. It causes us to buy ammo out of state, so the state will lose revenue from sales tax; plus they just decided to release a large amount of criminals from jails because they could not afford to keep them detained and now they are creating a new law to put other people in jail for purchasing more than 50 rounds of Handgun ammunition within 30 days.
Link Posted: 8/28/2009 8:22:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By sharkman6:
Passed with no debate....
I can't believe this state!


The demoncrap masters have spoken. The demoncrap sheep followed.
Link Posted: 9/4/2009 9:03:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/4/2009 9:23:57 AM EST by obeygiant]
If anyone hasn't contacted their Senator yet, now would be the time to do so!

comma separated list of emails:

Senator.Yee@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Wyland@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Wright@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Wolk@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Wiggins@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Walters@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Strickland@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Steinberg@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Simitian@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Runner@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Romero@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Price@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Pavley@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Padilla@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Oropeza@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.McLeod@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Maldonado@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Lowenthal@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Liu@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Leno@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Huff@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Hollingsworth@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Harman@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Florez@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Dutton@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Ducheny@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.DeSaulnier@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Denham@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Cox@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Correa@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Corbett@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Cogdill@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Calderon@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Benoit@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Ashburn@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Alquist@SENATE.CA.GOV,Senator.Aanestad@SENATE.CA.GOV


The email address for Senator Gil Cedillo is no longer valid but anyone who would like to contact him via email may do so here just remember to put in a zip code that is within his district or it will not accept the email. the one I used was the zip for his local office which is 90014



Primary Email,Work Phone,Fax Number

Senator.Yee@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4008,(916) 327-2186
Senator.Wyland@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4038,(916) 446-7382
Senator.Wright@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4025,(916) 445-3712
Senator.Wolk@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4005,(916) 323-2304
Senator.Wiggins@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4002,(916) 323-6958
Senator.Walters@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4033,(916) 445-9754
Senator.Strickland@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4019,(916) 324-7544
Senator.Steinberg@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4006,(916) 323-2263
Senator.Simitian@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4011,(916) 323-4529
Senator.Runner@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4017,(916) 445-4662
Senator.Romero@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4024,(916) 445-0485
Senator.Price@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4026,916) 445-8899
Senator.Pavley@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4023,(916) 324-4823
Senator.Padilla@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916)-651-4020,(916)-324-6645
Senator.Oropeza@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4028,(916) 323-6056
Senator.McLeod@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4032,(916) 445-0128
Senator.Maldonado@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4015,(916) 445-8081
Senator.Lowenthal@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 324-7543,(916) 327-9113
Senator.Liu@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4021,(916) 324-7543
Senator.Leno@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4003,(916) 445-4722
Senator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4039,(916) 327-2188
Senator.Huff@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4029,(916) 324-0922
Senator.Hollingsworth@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4036,(916) 447-9008
Senator.Harman@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4035,(916) 445-9263
Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4009,(916) 327-1997
Senator.Florez@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4016,(916) 327-5989
Senator.Dutton@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4031,(916) 327-2272
Senator.Ducheny@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4040,(916) 327-3522
Senator.DeSaulnier@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4007,(916) 445-2527
Senator.Denham@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4012,(916) 445-0773
Senator.Cox@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4001,(916) 324-2680
Senator.Correa@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4034,(916) 323-2323
Senator.Corbett@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4010,(916) 327-2433
Senator.Cogdill@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4014,(916) 327-3523
Senator.Cedillo@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4022,(916) 327-8817
Senator.Calderon@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4030,(916) 327-8755
Senator.Benoit@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4037,(916) 327-2187
Senator.Ashburn@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4018,(916) 322-3304
Senator.Alquist@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4013,(916) 324-0283
Senator.Aanestad@SENATE.CA.GOV,(916) 651-4004,(916) 445-7750
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top