Quoted:
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

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.

Quoted:
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/

Quoted:
Damn it looks like this is on the floor right now for a vote!

Quoted:

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)

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.

Quoted:


Nicely written.

Quoted:
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

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

Mailing Address:

State Capitol
Room 2031
Sacramento, CA 95814

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

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

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.

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, [email protected], (916) 651-4039, (916) 327-2188
Senator Ellen Corbett,        [email protected], (916) 651-4010, (916) 327-2433
Senator Loni Hancock,    [email protected], (916) 651-4009, (916) 327-1997
Senator Jenny Oropeza,   [email protected], (916) 651-4028, (916) 323-6056
Senator Curren Price,        [email protected], (916) 651-4026, (916) 445-4026
Senator Lois Wolk,        [email protected], (916) 651-4005, (916) 323-2304
Senator Leland Yee, [email protected], (916) 651-4008, (916) 327-2186

Quoted:
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.

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

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:


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.
__________________

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.

Name Email Phone Fax
Senator Christine Kehoe [email protected] (916) 651-4039 (916) 327-2188
Senator Ellen Corbett [email protected] (916) 651-4010 (916) 327-2433
Senator Loni Hancock [email protected] (916) 651-4009 (916) 327-1997
Senator Jenny Oropeza [email protected] (916) 651-4028 (916) 323-6056
Senator Curren Price [email protected]` (916) 651-4026 (916) 445-8899
Senator Lois Wolk [email protected] (916) 651-4005 (916) 323-2304
Senator Leland Yee [email protected] (916) 651-4008 (916) 327-2186

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




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.

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.

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.

.
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 Kehoe[email protected](916) 651-4039(916) 327-2188
Senator Ellen Corbett       [email protected](916) 651-4010(916) 327-2433
Senator Loni Hancock   [email protected](916) 651-4009(916) 327-1997
Senator Jenny Oropeza  [email protected](916) 651-4028(916) 323-6056
Senator Curren Price       [email protected]`(916) 651-4026(916) 445-8899
Senator Lois Wolk       [email protected](916) 651-4005(916) 323-2304
Senator Leland Yee[email protected](916) 651-4008(916) 327-2186

Quoted:
Passed with no debate....
I can't believe this state!

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

[email protected],(916) 651-4008,(916) 327-2186
[email protected],(916) 651-4038,(916) 446-7382
[email protected],(916) 651-4025,(916) 445-3712
[email protected],(916) 651-4005,(916) 323-2304
[email protected],(916) 651-4002,(916) 323-6958
[email protected],(916) 651-4033,(916) 445-9754
[email protected],(916) 651-4019,(916) 324-7544
[email protected],(916) 651-4006,(916) 323-2263
[email protected],(916) 651-4011,(916) 323-4529
[email protected],(916) 651-4017,(916) 445-4662
[email protected],(916) 651-4024,(916) 445-0485
[email protected],(916) 651-4026,916) 445-8899
[email protected],(916) 651-4023,(916) 324-4823
[email protected],(916)-651-4020,(916)-324-6645
[email protected],(916) 651-4028,(916) 323-6056
[email protected],(916) 651-4032,(916) 445-0128
[email protected],(916) 651-4015,(916) 445-8081
[email protected],(916) 324-7543,(916) 327-9113
[email protected],(916) 651-4021,(916) 324-7543
[email protected],(916) 651-4003,(916) 445-4722
[email protected],(916) 651-4039,(916) 327-2188
[email protected],(916) 651-4029,(916) 324-0922
[email protected],(916) 651-4036,(916) 447-9008
[email protected],(916) 651-4035,(916) 445-9263
[email protected],(916) 651-4009,(916) 327-1997
[email protected],(916) 651-4016,(916) 327-5989
[email protected],(916) 651-4031,(916) 327-2272
[email protected],(916) 651-4040,(916) 327-3522
[email protected],(916) 651-4007,(916) 445-2527
[email protected],(916) 651-4012,(916) 445-0773
[email protected],(916) 651-4001,(916) 324-2680
[email protected],(916) 651-4034,(916) 323-2323
[email protected],(916) 651-4010,(916) 327-2433
[email protected],(916) 651-4014,(916) 327-3523
[email protected],(916) 651-4022,(916) 327-8817
[email protected],(916) 651-4030,(916) 327-8755
[email protected],(916) 651-4037,(916) 327-2187
[email protected],(916) 651-4018,(916) 322-3304
[email protected],(916) 651-4013,(916) 324-0283
[email protected],(916) 651-4004,(916) 445-7750