"Ghost Gun" bill (AB 1673) defeated but one more still remains to be killed. Act now!

[freethink]

"Ghost Gun" bill (AB 1673) defeated but one more still remains to be killed. Act now!

Although AB 1673 (Gipson's "ghost-gun" bill) was defeated, Governor Brown left the country before he acted on AB 857, which passed the Legislature.

I spoke to the Governor's office today about AB 857 and what would be done about it due to my concerns that it might be sent to Gavin Newsom for signature. Due to my concerns about this, the staff of the Governor's office suggested that I contact the office of engrossing and enrolling directly.

As of July 1, 2016, the AB 857 "ghost gun" bill, which would not only apply to ARs you build in your home but also to curios and relics you already own, is in the office of Assembly engrossing and enrolling. Because Governor Brown has left the State on his European vacation, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is now Acting Governor. The danger is real that Gavin Newsom might ask for this bill to be pulled from Assembly engrossing and enrolling and be sent to the Governor's office for signature.

Please call the office of engrossing and enrolling (Assembly) and demand that they not send AB 857 to the Governor's office for action until Governor Brown returns from vacation. Please also ask your friends and colleagues to call the office of engrossing and enrolling (Assembly) and demand that they not send AB 857 to the Governor's office for action until Governor Brown returns from vacation. To do this, please call:
916-319-2856 Ask to be connected to Chief Clerk of Assembly Engrossing and Enrolling or to Sue Parker - she can be called at 916-319-2362.

When you call, explain that:
1) Governor Brown vetoed, in the past, SB 808 (2013-2014) as well as AB 1673 (2015-2016) - both bills contained proposals which are just like AB 857.
2) Governor Brown is the elected Governor of the State and it would be inappropriate for Newsom to counteract Brown's vetoes by signing AB 857.
3) AB 857 must not be sent from engrossing and enrolling to the Governor's office, even if Newsom asks for it to be sent there, until Governor Brown returns from vacation.

Thank you.

 

[freethink]

There is another action on this issue you can take too.

This can be done whether or not you live in the district of the bill's author (Cooper, who is the primary author of AB 875, along with the vile anti-gun extremist de Leon, who is a co-author).

Simply to to the bill page: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB857

Then click on the "log in" link at the top right hand side of page. (If you haven't signed up at the California legislative site to receive a username and password, it will prompt you to do so.)

Once you've managed to log in, make sure you are at this link (the bill page): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB857

You can also get there by searching for AB 857 in the Bill Number field.

Finally, when you see the bill details, click on the "Comments to Author" tab.

You will then be able to send comments to the author directly no matter where you are in the world. (If you were using the bill author's website, Cooper's website prevents people outside his district from commenting using the webform, but using this method, anyone anywhere in the world can comment.)

Suggested text for the comment to send to Cooper (primary author of AB 857) is as follows:

--------------------------

1) Governor Brown vetoed, in the past, SB 808 (2013-2014) as well as AB 1673 (2015-2016) - both bills contained proposals which are just like AB 857.
2) Governor Brown is the elected Governor of the State and it would be inappropriate for Newsom to counteract Brown's vetoes by signing AB 857.
3) AB 857 must not be sent from engrossing and enrolling to the Governor's office, even if Newsom asks for it to be sent there, until Governor Brown returns from vacation.
4) Consult with the Office of Legislative Counsel regarding this issue (see Rule 34 of the Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly (2015-2016 Regular Session)).

---------------------------------

Finally, you can also contact the Governor's office regarding this bill, it is suggested you call the Legislative unit at 916-445-4341 to voice your opposition to AB 857.

Thanks!

 

[freethink]

One More Thing Remains to Do to Oppose AB 857

ALERT, ALERT

One more thing remains to be done to oppose AB 857, the latest "ghost gun" bill!

It's just been sent to the Governor's desk as of July 12, 4:30 PM. But it hasn't been signed by Governor Brown yet and it's thought that he has just recently returned from his vacation.

There's still time for you to oppose it directly by asking for a veto!

You can do this one of two ways (I suggest doing both):

1) Go here https://www.firearmspolicy.org/alerts/the-clock-is-ticking-on-this-anti-gun-bill/ Fill out the form and hit send. Easy.

2) The below is just under the 6000 characters so it fits on the letter form on the Governor's website: - you can contact him yourself here:
Link Removed
It was worth writing up a real letter. (Feel free to copy from the below letter if you like.)

Dear Governor Brown,

AB 857 is an unconstitutional bill. In part, this bill would require any person who, as of July 1, 2018, owns a firearm that does not bear a serial number to likewise apply to the (DoJ) for a unique serial number or other mark of identification. It is internally inconsistent, as this bill claims to exempt antiques and curio and relics (see Section 29181 as proposed), but ultimately actually would even apply this requirement for owners of antiques and curio and relic firearms that have been owned legally but are unmarked (see Section 23910 as proposed). AB 857 was also written arguably in violation of the registration prohibitions of FOPA (a federal law) as well as violating the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Registration is among several gun control measures that are being challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds in the wake of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms (District of Columbia v. Heller (128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010)). Though Heller v. District of Columbia, 698 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.C. 2010) upheld a form of registration, this was not at the U.S. Supreme Court level, and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) at U.S. Supreme Court never tackled the issue of whether registration itself is unconstitutional.

As you know, licensing schemes, which were assumed to be legal in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), are different than today's proposed registration schemes which would cause the state to retain owner data and which have the object of prohibition.

In the case of D. Anthony Heller, Et. Al., Appellants v. District of Columbia, Et. Al., Appellees, on Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case number No. 1:08-cv01289, the gun registration requirement proposed by the jurisdiction was actually defeated in a September 18, 2015 decision.

Some claims have been made that (regarding Justice v. Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009) if Heller applied to the states and local governments, the town's mandatory registration requirement would still be constitutional because, unlike law struck down in Heller, the Cicero ordinance supposedly regulates, but does not prohibit, gun possession. However, it is plain that the registration requirements in California are developed for the purpose of ultimate prohibition, as has been seen by the development of SB 880 and AB 1135, which have the ultimate intent of actual prohibition following registration, prohibition of transfer, and prohibition of purchase (with the ultimate effect of large numbers and types of weapons in common use being prohibited).

Thus, there can be no logical claim that a registration requirement in the state of Californa is constitutional using the Justice v. Cicero argument or any argument at all.

I also believe AB 857 to be a violation of the 1st Amendment. California is not legally allowed to impose certain types of expression (such as a serialization and registration mark) and deny others or demand that the user apply to the DoJ for a mark that only the State can provide. This is unconstitutional and violates the 1st Amendment. (See, for example, The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test), from the Brandenburg v. Ohio (US Supreme Court) decision.)

I understand you had visited with Dr. Elena Lagadinova on July 8, 2016 during your visit to Bulgaria, and that she was the youngest female partisan fighting against Bulgaria's Nazi-allied monarchy during WWII.

During the spring of 1943, the Bulgarian government (only after protests led by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and Dimitar Peshev M.P.) saved Bulgarian Jews from being sent to Nazi concentration camps. However, later on, the German troops were allowed to pass through Bulgaria, round up most of the Jews in Greek Macedonia and Vardar Macedonia and sent them to concentration camps.

You probably know this history:
In 1932, Alfred Flatow registered his handguns, as decreed by the harsh gun control laws of the Weimar Republic drawn up amid the chaos of aftermath of WWI.
The first assault on the Republic came not from the right but from the communist left. German Communists attempted to overthrow the government by armed struggle. The government mobilized the Freikorps, which murdered the Communist leaders.
Hoping to stem further attacks on the state, the Weimar Republic imposed draconian gun control laws that made it punishable by death to carry a gun.
The Weimar Ministry of the Interior made gun registration mandatory. Although the Weimar Ministry of the Interior worked to assure registrants that their information would remain safe, this proved to be an empty promise. When Nazis took over in 1933, the information was culled for registrants who were deemed "enemies of the state," a euphemism for Jews, communists, and other political opponents.
Gestapo legal adviser Werner Best proposed to execute Jews who were found in possession of firearms.
In 1938, in preparation for Kristallnacht (November 9-10, 1938), the Gestapo used Weimar gun registration records to disarm Jews and focused on Jewish gun owners for deportation to concentration camps. Alfred Flatow fled Germany for the Netherlands, but when Nazis invaded the Netherlands, in May 1940, Flatow was on the Gestapo's list.
Flatow was arrested and sent to Theresienstadt Concentration Camp, where he died from starvation on December 28, 1942. His cousin Gustav died in the same camp three years later.
If you believe it is impossible for these kinds of things to happen here, you are wrong. It has happened before – 1942-1946 with Japanese-American internment, for example – and it could easily happen again, given today's political conversations and attempts in Washington to attempt to put gun owners on so-called “terrorist watchlists.”
I urge you to veto this clearly unconstitutional, dangerous bill.

 

[freethink]

This bill, AB 857, was signed into law on July 22, 2018 by Governor Brown and there are now efforts underway to overturn it and other bills recently signed into law, in the courts. There is also an effort to overturn these laws directly by referendum.

It does not go into effect until sometime in 2018. I urge people to not comply with this or any other registration bill. More to come in another post.