Hello - :help:
PLEASE SHARE THE LINK TO THIS POST IN YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNELS! (Facebook, twitter, e-mail lists...)
As goes California, so goes the nation. If we can't hold the line here, what we see happening is going to spread like wildfire.
We are going to need a lot of help from outside the state too to pull through this. Please read on - and prepare for battle!
As has been well-documented in a couple threads I've generated and added to over time in this forum, there have been from October 2013 through October 2014, 20 gun control bills in California that ended up getting signed into law (by the State alone, not counting any local laws), leading many people without recourse except to challenge the state in the courts or hope that the laws would be overturned by organizations that take legal action to defend the 2nd amendment in a more general sense. Fortunately, 2015 went pretty well, and most of California's newly proposed gun control bills stalled out or were vetoed. However, two more bills (SB 707, AB 1134) were signed into law during that year. One of those (SB 707 (2015)) is now the subject of Link Removed.
Unfortunately, we now are contending with the prospect of not just the twenty-two unconstitutional bills that we have already seen get passed in the recent legislative sessions (as I've described in my prior posts both here and also here, but with another 16 bills, which if passed would amount to a sum total of thirty-eight unconstitutional anti-gun bills that we would have to live with (measuring from October 2013 to the present). Given the nature of the bans of ammunition, bans on guns, and registration and serialization requirements that would be imposed by the new bills, as well as the ongoing introduction of more and more bills, it is clear that California Legislators will not stop until guns are completely banned in the State. :blink:
Therefore I urge all reading this post to join me in communicating to your legal counsel (lawyer or legal group) as well as to other persons who may be able to act to defend yourself or a group of plaintiffs legally (such as FPC, NRA, Michel and Associates, P.C., Calguns Foundation, etc.,) right away, that you wish to begin developing a plan to stop implementation of any of these bills (shown below) by challenging them in court, should they become law.
I believe we need to draw a clear line in the sand, as has been pointed out before in this forum. Remaining in this state only is logical if we are willing to strike down the unconstitutional attacks on people's constitutional rights. "Not One More" needs to be our motto. We are long past the time when we have given them an inch, and surely it has now been learned that "if you give them an inch, they will take a mile." Every one of these bills, if signed into law, needs to be challenged in court.
AB 156 – The Gutted and Amended Ammo Restriction Bill: like the defeated AB 962 (2009-2010) and SB 53 (2013-2014), proposes useless crime creation against ammo owners or buyers.
AB 857 – The Gutted and Amended Restriction On Curios, Relics and Home-Built Firearms: Would require retroactive serialization and registration of firearms from the past 50 years.
AB 1135 – The Gutted and Amended “Assault Weapons” Ban: Part of a bill package that would ban 70 percent of all firearms in CA.
AB 1511 – The Gutted and Amended Bill that Criminalizes Loaning Firearms
AB 1663 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban, Adds “Bullet Button” Semi-Auto Firearms and Curios and Relics: Part of bill package that would ban 70 percent of all firearms in CA
AB 1664 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban to Include “Bullet Button” Firearms: Part of bill package that would ban 70 percent of all firearms in CA
SB 880 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban to Include “Bullet Button” Semi-Auto Rifles, Pistols: Part of bill package that would ban 70 percent of all firearms in CA
AB 1673 – Expands Definition of “Firearm” to Include Non-Firearm Materials: Would make a steel block or a shovel meet the definition of a firearm
AB 1674 – Expands the 30-day purchase limit to all firearms; deletes the “private party” exemption, you would only be able to buy one rifle or shotgun per month.
SB 894 – Mandatory Law Enforcement Reports for Lost or Stolen Firearms: Criminalizes victims who don't fill out the right form within a certain timeline
SB 1446 – Ban on ALL Magazines that were Designed to Hold More than 10 Rounds, even those already legal under CA law
SB 1407 – Retroactive ‘Ghost Gun’ Registration and Regulation ('Retro' bill attempts to require serialization and registration of guns that aren't required to be serialized or registered)
AB 2607 – Expanding Gun Violence Restraining Orders (would allow anyone in the workplace to accuse you of speaking improperly and have restraining orders launched to quell routine speech)
AB 2510 – Eliminates Uniformity of CCWs
AB 1695 – Expansion of Prohibitions and Threatening Letters from DOJ to Gun Owners
SB 1006 – UCs anti-2nd Amendment centers (Note: California has so far refused to participate in NVDRS (the National Violent Death Reporting System at the CDC) which would be a logical place to submit data, but instead wants to create anti-2nd amendment centers under SB 1006 and claim that they are valid "research" centers).
While I absolutely encourage you to oppose these bills now (numerous of them were, as of Thursday May 19 2016 on the Senate Floor for a vote where they were approved, and now are moving onto the Assembly for a vote as well so be sure to oppose those headed to the Assembly floor with one easy form here), it is likely that most of these bills will in fact make it to Governor's desk where he will be faced with a decision to sign or veto the bills.
The best thing therefore that you can do is:
1) Use the form at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/ to individually oppose each of the bills shown.
2) Copy all of the bills (shown above in this forum post and also shown at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/) and send a message opposing all of the bills
to the Governor ASKING HIM TO VETO EACH ONE. In your message, make sure to state that none of the bills are consistent with the Revised Budget priorities and that the State does not need to add further restrictions on law-abiding persons attempting to exercise a Constitutional right. (You may also wish to add that in the Governor's message for similar gun bills which he vetoed in the prior legislative session, he stated, “Over the last several decades, California’s criminal code has grown to more that 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior….Before we keep going down this road,” Brown said, “I think we should pause and reflect on how our system of criminal justice could be made more human, more just and more cost effective.”)
The Governor can be contacted at: Link Removed
3) Prepare to sue the State of California, individually or as one of various plaintiffs. Ask around for possibilities of how you could support a case if there is one already in process that you hear about that (if there is a group preparing to challenge these bills shown above, should they become law). Contact different groups.. California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Coalition for Civil Liberties, FPC, NRA-ILA, CRPA, Calguns Foundation, especially if you are a member of one of those groups, Michel and Associates, as they've done quite a bit of good work too. Or maybe there's a good lawyer you know who's willing to evaluate it seriously.
Do your homework - before you post a suggestion to this thread for someone (or an organization) that you think is viable who can do this, please do yourself and the other readers a favor, make sure you have contacted the organization first about it and ask them to evaluate the possibility, and get their honest response first.
4) Coordinate, organize! If there is a way for you to take on the State in court without going it alone, so much the better. Court battles are expensive. Crowdfunding is one way to raise funds for such an endeavor... It strikes me that the more of us are involved in a case to stop this (and are willing to support it) the better a chance the case will have.
The above bills could be passed and signed into law anytime between now and sometime in October, so you just have to keep your eyes on them and track them. If you know any statutory deadlines for challenging a bill once it's been signed into law in California, or other relevant factors that are limiting, or have other suggestions for how to effectively use the legal system to stop any of the above bills from being implemented should they be signed into law, please feel free to post those suggestions here in this thread for discussion. (Please suggest away.)
-------------------------------
Finally, regarding Gavin Newsom's proposed initiative statute for the November ballot, this would be a different case to challenge that. Obviously that needs to be challenged in court too if it were to pass. However, I think that Newsom's proposal actually would be easy to defeat in court for a variety of reasons, one being that it is made up of things that were already either defeated in the Legislature, vetoed, or ruled on by a court as matters that are considered unconstitutional (AB 962 of 2009, very similar to a portion of Newsom's proposal, was deemed unconstitutional as a result of Parker v. California which was funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation).
There is no question of course that we need to show up at the polls in November (or cast our mail-in ballots) to oppose Newsom's FIREARMS. AMMUNITION SALES initiative and
we should also donate to the effort to oppose Newsom's initiative. Find out more about what it is (and Link Removed.
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016, there was a Joint Hearing of the Assembly Public Safety And Senate Public Safety Committee(s), on the proposed Initiative Statute "FIREARMS. AMMUNITION SALES." (#1756)
The proponent for the Initiative Statute, Gavin Newsom, didn't even show up for the Joint Hearing.
However, there were many people that did show up.
The California Rifle & Pistol Association, National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of California, and other members of the Coalition for Civil Liberties showed up for the Joint Hearing and offered testimony about the many problems with Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom’s so-called “Safety for All” ("FIREARMS. AMMUNITION SALES") Initiative. The CRPA & Coalition of Civil Liberties was responsible for bringing together these defenders of liberty. Some of those who spoke on the behalf of California gun owners included Michele Hanisse, who is President of the LA Association of Deputy District Attorneys, Cory Salzillo, California State Sheriff’s Association, and Joe Silvoso from the law firm of Michel & Associates.
Like the authors of the failed bills (AB 962 (2009-2010) which was declared unconstitutional by the courts as a result of Parker v. CA, the NRA / CRPAF case, and SB 53 (2013-2014)), the proponent of this Initiative included provisions that would subject ammunition sale to the limitation that it would force people who are buying ammunition “online” to have to pick it up in person at the business site of a licensed buyer and to be subjected to pervasive identity requirements. (This would prohibit online sales which allow ammunition to be shipped to one's door.)
The Initiative Statute constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on commerce (see Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, Edwards v California (1941), and consolidated cases of Granholm v Heald and Swedenburg v Kelly [in which U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, found state laws that prohibited out-of-state wineries from selling wine over the Internet directly to consumers violated the Commerce Clause]).
To wit: “Held: (...) This Court has long held that, in all but the narrowest circumstances, state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate “differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.” (Granholm v. Heald (2005)), (Swedenburg v. Kelly (2005))
I have sent my objections on these grounds about this Initiative Statute to the CA Office of the Attorney General and to the Secretary of State. I have asked that they remove the Initiative Statute from consideration, as it is not legally sound and directly conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on interstate commerce.
Furthermore, I have sent my recommendation that the FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition, of which i am a member), NRA, and CRPAF, sue to overturn the Initiative should it pass, and that they target not only Gavin Newsom but the State of California in the lawsuit. (I have received a kind response recently from the NRA-ILA to my suggestion.) If the State of California refuses to acknowledge that the Initiative is patently unconstitutional and an assault on our Second Amendment right as well as being directly in conflict with U.S. Supreme Court decisions on interstate commerce, then we will have no choice.
The Coalition of Civil Liberties opposes the Initiative, and we all should. In fact, I have also recommended to the Governor that he rein in Gavin Newsom, direct him to cease his political games, and direct him to withdraw his initiative.
Much as Governor Brown recently stated in a written message on his website to Governor Scott, "Governor Brown to Governor Scott: "Time to Stop the Silly Political Stunts and Start Doing Something About Climate Change," Governor Brown could easily state the same to Gavin Newsom: "Governor Brown to Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom: Time to Stop the Silly Political Stunts and Withdraw the "Safety for All" Initiative." It would be the right thing to do, even if it would be politically difficult.
The Coalition of Civil Liberties has many supporters, and some of the organizations which are part of the Coalition are:
CalGuns Shooting Sports Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California Rifle & Pistol Association
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Congress of Racial Equality
FFLGuard
Gun Owners of California
Jews Can Shoot
Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys
National Shooting Sports Foundation
NRA Members' Council
Pink Pistols (Armed Gays)
San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association
Women Against Gun Control
and many more. This list will only grow larger in the months ahead.
I strongly suspect that if Newsom's initiative does pass there will be no shortage of organizations ready and willing to challenge it in court and they will do so successfully.
PLEASE SHARE THE LINK TO THIS POST IN YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNELS! (Facebook, twitter, e-mail lists...)
As goes California, so goes the nation. If we can't hold the line here, what we see happening is going to spread like wildfire.
We are going to need a lot of help from outside the state too to pull through this. Please read on - and prepare for battle!
As has been well-documented in a couple threads I've generated and added to over time in this forum, there have been from October 2013 through October 2014, 20 gun control bills in California that ended up getting signed into law (by the State alone, not counting any local laws), leading many people without recourse except to challenge the state in the courts or hope that the laws would be overturned by organizations that take legal action to defend the 2nd amendment in a more general sense. Fortunately, 2015 went pretty well, and most of California's newly proposed gun control bills stalled out or were vetoed. However, two more bills (SB 707, AB 1134) were signed into law during that year. One of those (SB 707 (2015)) is now the subject of Link Removed.
Unfortunately, we now are contending with the prospect of not just the twenty-two unconstitutional bills that we have already seen get passed in the recent legislative sessions (as I've described in my prior posts both here and also here, but with another 16 bills, which if passed would amount to a sum total of thirty-eight unconstitutional anti-gun bills that we would have to live with (measuring from October 2013 to the present). Given the nature of the bans of ammunition, bans on guns, and registration and serialization requirements that would be imposed by the new bills, as well as the ongoing introduction of more and more bills, it is clear that California Legislators will not stop until guns are completely banned in the State. :blink:
Therefore I urge all reading this post to join me in communicating to your legal counsel (lawyer or legal group) as well as to other persons who may be able to act to defend yourself or a group of plaintiffs legally (such as FPC, NRA, Michel and Associates, P.C., Calguns Foundation, etc.,) right away, that you wish to begin developing a plan to stop implementation of any of these bills (shown below) by challenging them in court, should they become law.
I believe we need to draw a clear line in the sand, as has been pointed out before in this forum. Remaining in this state only is logical if we are willing to strike down the unconstitutional attacks on people's constitutional rights. "Not One More" needs to be our motto. We are long past the time when we have given them an inch, and surely it has now been learned that "if you give them an inch, they will take a mile." Every one of these bills, if signed into law, needs to be challenged in court.
AB 156 – The Gutted and Amended Ammo Restriction Bill: like the defeated AB 962 (2009-2010) and SB 53 (2013-2014), proposes useless crime creation against ammo owners or buyers.
AB 857 – The Gutted and Amended Restriction On Curios, Relics and Home-Built Firearms: Would require retroactive serialization and registration of firearms from the past 50 years.
AB 1135 – The Gutted and Amended “Assault Weapons” Ban: Part of a bill package that would ban 70 percent of all firearms in CA.
AB 1511 – The Gutted and Amended Bill that Criminalizes Loaning Firearms
AB 1663 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban, Adds “Bullet Button” Semi-Auto Firearms and Curios and Relics: Part of bill package that would ban 70 percent of all firearms in CA
AB 1664 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban to Include “Bullet Button” Firearms: Part of bill package that would ban 70 percent of all firearms in CA
SB 880 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban to Include “Bullet Button” Semi-Auto Rifles, Pistols: Part of bill package that would ban 70 percent of all firearms in CA
AB 1673 – Expands Definition of “Firearm” to Include Non-Firearm Materials: Would make a steel block or a shovel meet the definition of a firearm
AB 1674 – Expands the 30-day purchase limit to all firearms; deletes the “private party” exemption, you would only be able to buy one rifle or shotgun per month.
SB 894 – Mandatory Law Enforcement Reports for Lost or Stolen Firearms: Criminalizes victims who don't fill out the right form within a certain timeline
SB 1446 – Ban on ALL Magazines that were Designed to Hold More than 10 Rounds, even those already legal under CA law
SB 1407 – Retroactive ‘Ghost Gun’ Registration and Regulation ('Retro' bill attempts to require serialization and registration of guns that aren't required to be serialized or registered)
AB 2607 – Expanding Gun Violence Restraining Orders (would allow anyone in the workplace to accuse you of speaking improperly and have restraining orders launched to quell routine speech)
AB 2510 – Eliminates Uniformity of CCWs
AB 1695 – Expansion of Prohibitions and Threatening Letters from DOJ to Gun Owners
SB 1006 – UCs anti-2nd Amendment centers (Note: California has so far refused to participate in NVDRS (the National Violent Death Reporting System at the CDC) which would be a logical place to submit data, but instead wants to create anti-2nd amendment centers under SB 1006 and claim that they are valid "research" centers).
While I absolutely encourage you to oppose these bills now (numerous of them were, as of Thursday May 19 2016 on the Senate Floor for a vote where they were approved, and now are moving onto the Assembly for a vote as well so be sure to oppose those headed to the Assembly floor with one easy form here), it is likely that most of these bills will in fact make it to Governor's desk where he will be faced with a decision to sign or veto the bills.
The best thing therefore that you can do is:
1) Use the form at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/ to individually oppose each of the bills shown.
2) Copy all of the bills (shown above in this forum post and also shown at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/) and send a message opposing all of the bills
to the Governor ASKING HIM TO VETO EACH ONE. In your message, make sure to state that none of the bills are consistent with the Revised Budget priorities and that the State does not need to add further restrictions on law-abiding persons attempting to exercise a Constitutional right. (You may also wish to add that in the Governor's message for similar gun bills which he vetoed in the prior legislative session, he stated, “Over the last several decades, California’s criminal code has grown to more that 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior….Before we keep going down this road,” Brown said, “I think we should pause and reflect on how our system of criminal justice could be made more human, more just and more cost effective.”)
The Governor can be contacted at: Link Removed
3) Prepare to sue the State of California, individually or as one of various plaintiffs. Ask around for possibilities of how you could support a case if there is one already in process that you hear about that (if there is a group preparing to challenge these bills shown above, should they become law). Contact different groups.. California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Coalition for Civil Liberties, FPC, NRA-ILA, CRPA, Calguns Foundation, especially if you are a member of one of those groups, Michel and Associates, as they've done quite a bit of good work too. Or maybe there's a good lawyer you know who's willing to evaluate it seriously.
Do your homework - before you post a suggestion to this thread for someone (or an organization) that you think is viable who can do this, please do yourself and the other readers a favor, make sure you have contacted the organization first about it and ask them to evaluate the possibility, and get their honest response first.
4) Coordinate, organize! If there is a way for you to take on the State in court without going it alone, so much the better. Court battles are expensive. Crowdfunding is one way to raise funds for such an endeavor... It strikes me that the more of us are involved in a case to stop this (and are willing to support it) the better a chance the case will have.
The above bills could be passed and signed into law anytime between now and sometime in October, so you just have to keep your eyes on them and track them. If you know any statutory deadlines for challenging a bill once it's been signed into law in California, or other relevant factors that are limiting, or have other suggestions for how to effectively use the legal system to stop any of the above bills from being implemented should they be signed into law, please feel free to post those suggestions here in this thread for discussion. (Please suggest away.)
-------------------------------
Finally, regarding Gavin Newsom's proposed initiative statute for the November ballot, this would be a different case to challenge that. Obviously that needs to be challenged in court too if it were to pass. However, I think that Newsom's proposal actually would be easy to defeat in court for a variety of reasons, one being that it is made up of things that were already either defeated in the Legislature, vetoed, or ruled on by a court as matters that are considered unconstitutional (AB 962 of 2009, very similar to a portion of Newsom's proposal, was deemed unconstitutional as a result of Parker v. California which was funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation).
There is no question of course that we need to show up at the polls in November (or cast our mail-in ballots) to oppose Newsom's FIREARMS. AMMUNITION SALES initiative and
we should also donate to the effort to oppose Newsom's initiative. Find out more about what it is (and Link Removed.
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016, there was a Joint Hearing of the Assembly Public Safety And Senate Public Safety Committee(s), on the proposed Initiative Statute "FIREARMS. AMMUNITION SALES." (#1756)
The proponent for the Initiative Statute, Gavin Newsom, didn't even show up for the Joint Hearing.
However, there were many people that did show up.
The California Rifle & Pistol Association, National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of California, and other members of the Coalition for Civil Liberties showed up for the Joint Hearing and offered testimony about the many problems with Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom’s so-called “Safety for All” ("FIREARMS. AMMUNITION SALES") Initiative. The CRPA & Coalition of Civil Liberties was responsible for bringing together these defenders of liberty. Some of those who spoke on the behalf of California gun owners included Michele Hanisse, who is President of the LA Association of Deputy District Attorneys, Cory Salzillo, California State Sheriff’s Association, and Joe Silvoso from the law firm of Michel & Associates.
Like the authors of the failed bills (AB 962 (2009-2010) which was declared unconstitutional by the courts as a result of Parker v. CA, the NRA / CRPAF case, and SB 53 (2013-2014)), the proponent of this Initiative included provisions that would subject ammunition sale to the limitation that it would force people who are buying ammunition “online” to have to pick it up in person at the business site of a licensed buyer and to be subjected to pervasive identity requirements. (This would prohibit online sales which allow ammunition to be shipped to one's door.)
The Initiative Statute constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on commerce (see Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, Edwards v California (1941), and consolidated cases of Granholm v Heald and Swedenburg v Kelly [in which U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, found state laws that prohibited out-of-state wineries from selling wine over the Internet directly to consumers violated the Commerce Clause]).
To wit: “Held: (...) This Court has long held that, in all but the narrowest circumstances, state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate “differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.” (Granholm v. Heald (2005)), (Swedenburg v. Kelly (2005))
I have sent my objections on these grounds about this Initiative Statute to the CA Office of the Attorney General and to the Secretary of State. I have asked that they remove the Initiative Statute from consideration, as it is not legally sound and directly conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on interstate commerce.
Furthermore, I have sent my recommendation that the FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition, of which i am a member), NRA, and CRPAF, sue to overturn the Initiative should it pass, and that they target not only Gavin Newsom but the State of California in the lawsuit. (I have received a kind response recently from the NRA-ILA to my suggestion.) If the State of California refuses to acknowledge that the Initiative is patently unconstitutional and an assault on our Second Amendment right as well as being directly in conflict with U.S. Supreme Court decisions on interstate commerce, then we will have no choice.
The Coalition of Civil Liberties opposes the Initiative, and we all should. In fact, I have also recommended to the Governor that he rein in Gavin Newsom, direct him to cease his political games, and direct him to withdraw his initiative.
Much as Governor Brown recently stated in a written message on his website to Governor Scott, "Governor Brown to Governor Scott: "Time to Stop the Silly Political Stunts and Start Doing Something About Climate Change," Governor Brown could easily state the same to Gavin Newsom: "Governor Brown to Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom: Time to Stop the Silly Political Stunts and Withdraw the "Safety for All" Initiative." It would be the right thing to do, even if it would be politically difficult.
The Coalition of Civil Liberties has many supporters, and some of the organizations which are part of the Coalition are:
CalGuns Shooting Sports Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California Rifle & Pistol Association
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Congress of Racial Equality
FFLGuard
Gun Owners of California
Jews Can Shoot
Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys
National Shooting Sports Foundation
NRA Members' Council
Pink Pistols (Armed Gays)
San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association
Women Against Gun Control
and many more. This list will only grow larger in the months ahead.
I strongly suspect that if Newsom's initiative does pass there will be no shortage of organizations ready and willing to challenge it in court and they will do so successfully.
