Another head's up for Californians
CSRPA's Alert is in extended entry, below. The bill to microstamp guns has apparently had an amendment added that would require serial numbers on bullets.
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION LEGISLATIVE ALERT!
AB352 & AB2714
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!!!
AB 352 (Koretz, D-West Hollywood)
Originally would have required that semiautomatic handguns imprint on fired cartridge cases at the time of discharge identifying marks that would allow law enforcement to determine from an empty case the make, model, serial number, and thus the registered owner, of the firearm. IT HAS NOW BEEN AMENDED TO ADD PROVISIONS THAT MAKE IT EVEN WORSE!!!!!
SB 357 (Dunn), bullet serialization, has been stopped in its tracks and amended to be used for a totally different non-firearms related purpose. HOWEVER, BULLET SERIALIZATION HAS COVERTLY BEEN SNEAKED INTO AB 352!!!!! The backers of bullet serialization apparently think that FIREARMS OWNERS ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO NOTICE!!!!! As now amended, AB 352 would give the State Attorney General the power to simply mandate bullet serialization by regulation. TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, THE BILL DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MUST FIRST HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE MANDATING THAT BULLET SERIALIZATION BE REQUIRED!!!!!
AB 352 would add substantially to the cost of a new semiautomatic pistol and, since most handguns used in crime are stolen, law enforcement would use up valuable resources in tracking down the innocent victim of a firearm theft instead of the real criminal. The backers of AB 352 claim that placing "microstamping" on handgun firing pins would only add pennies to the cost of a new semiautomatic handgun. Yet, they have charged the University of California, which is currently conducting research on the microstamping technology, $150.00 per firing pin. ANYONE WHO THINKS THE PUBLIC WOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY SIMPLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION!!!!! The innocent victim of a handgun theft may well be wrongly charged with the crime and forced to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees defending himself or herself!!!!!.
Ammunition manufacturers have clearly stated that they cannot incorporate bullet serialization into their current manufacturing processes. Neither can they afford to build the new manufacturing plants that it would take to do so (assuming that they could even obtain all of the required permits; an impossible task!). IF AB 352 PASSES AND BULLET SERIALIZATION IS REQUIRED (ONE OF THE BILLS OBJECTIVES!), MANUFACTURERS WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO WITHDRAW THEIR HANDGUN AMMUNITION PRODUCTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING AMMUNITION SALES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. THEY WILL SIMPLY HAVE NO OTHER OPTION. GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICES AND THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO THEIR STOCK HOLDERS WOULD DEMAND IT. TO THINK OTHERWISE WOULD BE NAIVE !!!!!
AB 352 is currently on the Assembly Floor where it will have a hearing almost immediately. CRPA continues to be strongly opposed to AB 352 and is asking its members and other firearms enthusiasts to make immediate contact with legislators and the Governor in opposition to the bill.
AB 2714 (Torrico, D-Newark)
AB2714 was introduced with the intent of preventing under age persons from buying handgun ammunition via the internet and U.S. Mail. Though simple in concept, it turned out to be a virtually impossible task to properly draft the bill into legislative language without having at least some unintended consequences. Assemblyman Jay La Suer, CRPA and others attempted to help Mr. Torrico achieve his objective without infringing on the rights of legal purchasers to use the internet and mail service. It was hoped that eventually CRPA and others could remove their opposition and actually even support the bill. This was reported upon in The Firing Line with optimism. However, in the final days of negotiations, Mr. Torrico notified CRPA that he would not be able to address all of the concerns with the bill. In response, CRPA notified him that it would not be able to remove its opposition to the bill and would continue to lobby against it. That is the purpose of this alert.
As now drafted in final form (the deadline for any further amendments this year has already gone by), the bill contains the following three major provisions opposed by CRPA:
1). Requires that the shipper (seller) of ammunition be responsible for ensuring that the carrier (UPS, FedEx, etc.) delivers the ammunition to the correct person, that the carrier inspects the recipients identification to verify that he or she is at least 21 years of age, and that the carrier returns a signed copy of the delivery receipt to the shipper! This is obviously impossible for any shipper to accomplish!!;
2). Exempts carriers from liability (punishment) for illegally delivering ammunition in violation of AB 2714!; and
3). Specifically allows local governments to regulate ammunition sales in a "manner that is more strict" than that specified by AB 2714. This is a very vague and confusing provision of the bill because it does not deal with ammunition "deliveries" by carriers to purchasers as the rest of AB 2714 does, but instead deals only with ammunition "sales", a subject matter not even addressed by the bill! Thus, local governments will likely construe AB 2714 to mean that they are authorized by state statute to regulate all ammunition sales in any manner they choose. This would include not just those sales made via the internet and mail service, but also the over the counter sales at retail establishments. To do this, though, they would have to go to the limits of credibility by defining "deliveries" by carriers of ammunition that has already been purchased from sellers to be the same thing as over the counter "sales" made at a retail store. The courts would probably find that deliveries by carriers are not the same thing as over the counter sales by retailers, but it would be a very time consuming and costly thing for firearms owners to have to straighten out! This is a good example of the incredibly poor thinking that went into AB 2714 as it exists in its presently amended form!!
AB 2714 is currently on the the Senate Floor where it will have a hearing almost immediately. CRPA continues to be strongly opposed to AB 2714 and is asking its members and other firearms enthusiasts to make immediate contacts with legislators (both Senators and Assembly Members) and the Governor in opposition to the bill.
TIME IS CRITICAL!!!!! ACTION MUST BE TAKEN TODAY!!!!! THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME LEFT IN THIS YEARS LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO WRITE LETTERS. PHONE CALLS AND FAXES TO THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE MEMBERS SACRAMENTO CAPITOL OFFICES ARE THE ONLY REALISTIC MEANS OF IMMEDIATE COMMUNICATION LEFT (E-MAILS TEND TO BACK UP AT THIS TIME OF YEAR AND MAY NOT BE READ UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE)!!!! AN ASSEMBLY MEMBERS CAPITOL OFFICE CAN BE REACHED BY PHONE BY DIALING (916) 319-20XX AND/OR FAXING (916) 319-21XX; A SENATOR CAN BE REACHED BY PHONE BY DIALING (916) 651-40XX; (XX=THE INDIVIDUAL ASSEMBLY MEMBER OR SENATORS LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT NUMBER). UNLIKE THE ASSEMBLY, THE SENATORS EACH HAVE INDIVIDUAL, NON-SYSTEMATIC, FAX NUMBERS. THE FAX NUMBER CAN BE OBTAINED WHEN THE SENATORS OFFICE IS CALLED TO VOICE OPPOSITION. THE GOVERNORS PUBLIC NUMBERS ARE: PHONE (916) 445-2841, FAX (916) 445-4633.
THE TIME TO GET INVOLVED AND TO TAKE ACTION IS RIGHT NOW! PLEASE, DO NOT DELAY!!!!!!
*** CRPA ***
For a list of Assembly&/or Senate members and their contact information, please access them via
www.sen.ca.gov and www.assembly.ca.gov/acs
Possible, but the on-line link to the bill text at AB352 shows only the 6/19/06 amendments - and the Legislature was on vacation for July - and no language meaning that is in any version linked.
Perhaps that page is out of date.
Posted by: JohnS at August 29, 2006 07:51 PM
For those who think that tracking the gun to its last registered owner is going to put someone (who deserves it) in jail, I say - do a web search on "Marin County Courthouse shooting" and "Angela Davis".
In short, the only thing this law is good for is to harrass the ordinary gun-owner. The high-profile guilty will walk.
Posted by: bud at August 29, 2006 08:08 PM
Last I heard there wasn't a LEO exception in the bill. If still true, then I say let it pass!
That's just the sort of incentive the industry needs for them to all give CA the 'Ronnie Barrett' treatment - NO GUNS FOR YOU!
Posted by: KCSteve at August 30, 2006 01:00 PM
Of course, the misplaced apostrophe is a clear sign that... (head's up) fail's the checkout chick literacy test. ;-)
Posted by: ChrisPer at August 31, 2006 06:03 PM