Please send in oppositions ASAP against this bill. Businesses and official titles are highly desired! Get a copy to Alany to be hand delivered next week prior to hearing 4/12 9am room 126 at the State Capitol
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/74984568/2011-03-29-2-Opposition-template-AB-144
2011-03-29 2 Opposition template AB 144
2011-03-29 Opposition template AB 144 -
Stay informed and stay involved.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Hearing Cancelled/ Hidden Agenda AB 144
AB 144 hearing has been cancelled. The Author has until May to have the bill heard by committee. This bill affects every common gun owner not just open carry by creating crimes of common firearm uses.
The hidden agenda of this bill is dangerous to all gun owners who enjoy shooting as a family sport. This will affect businesses that include shooting ranges and will cost our state millions unnecessarily. The petition against AB 144 can be found here: http://www.petitiononline.com/CalOCPet/petition.html
Please sign the petition and have your friends sign too.
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110324_status.html
MEASURE : A.B. No. 144
AUTHOR(S) : Portantino.
TOPIC : Firearms.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/03/2011
LAST HIST. ACTION : Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM PUBLIC SAFETY
COMM. ACTION DATE : 04/05/2011
COMM. ACTION : Set, first hearing. Hearing cancelled at the request of
author.
HEARING DATE : 04/05/2011
TITLE : An act to amend Sections 7574.14 and 7582.2 of the
Business and Professions Code, and to amend Sections
626.9, 16520, 17510, 25595, 25605, and 29805 of, to add
Sections 17040, 17295, and 25590 to, and to add Chapter
6 (commencing with Section 26350) to Division 5 of Title
4 of Part 6 of, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.
The hidden agenda of this bill is dangerous to all gun owners who enjoy shooting as a family sport. This will affect businesses that include shooting ranges and will cost our state millions unnecessarily. The petition against AB 144 can be found here: http://www.petitiononline.com/CalOCPet/petition.html
Please sign the petition and have your friends sign too.
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110324_status.html
MEASURE : A.B. No. 144
AUTHOR(S) : Portantino.
TOPIC : Firearms.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/03/2011
LAST HIST. ACTION : Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM PUBLIC SAFETY
COMM. ACTION DATE : 04/05/2011
COMM. ACTION : Set, first hearing. Hearing cancelled at the request of
author.
HEARING DATE : 04/05/2011
TITLE : An act to amend Sections 7574.14 and 7582.2 of the
Business and Professions Code, and to amend Sections
626.9, 16520, 17510, 25595, 25605, and 29805 of, to add
Sections 17040, 17295, and 25590 to, and to add Chapter
6 (commencing with Section 26350) to Division 5 of Title
4 of Part 6 of, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Open Carry Support Petition
Please take the time to sign the petition. Last year we were able to gather around 6000 signatures against AB 1934. Please pass on the link and have as many people as you know sign this petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?CalOCPet
To: California State Legislature & Governor Jerry Brown
We urge you to oppose both Assemblyman Anthony Portantino’s AB 144 (banning the open carry of handguns in public places) and Senator Ted Lieu’s SB 661 (expanding the California gun free school zone radii from 1,000 to 1,500 feet) for the following reasons:
1. The open carry of holstered handguns has always been legal in California - it is an old right, not a new threat. In fact, 43 states allow the increasingly common "open carry" of handguns in public, in most cases at age 18 without any permit - and only California forbids openly carried guns to be loaded in cities.
2. The US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the Second Amendment’s right to "bear arms" guarantees "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." In 2010 the Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that states must also respect Second Amendment rights.
3. California greatly restricts concealed carry by granting Sheriffs complete discretion in issuing permits and requiring the applicant to show “cause” to exercise their right to discreetly bear arms; therefore the open carry of handguns is most Californians' only viable option to exercise their right to bear arms.
4. AB 144 effectively bans open carry of handguns even on private property - under California law, all private property is presumptively considered a "public place." As Justice Richard Aldrich of the California Appeals Court ruled in People v. Strider (2009), “[p]laces of business and parking lots on private property, open to the general public, have consistently been held to be public places . . . [as is] the area outside a home in which a stranger is able to walk without challenge. . . . The term public place generally means a location readily accessible to all those who wish to go there . . . . The key consideration is whether a member of the public can access the place without challenge.” And while AB 144 does exempt owners and possessors of private property from the open carry ban, all other persons remained banned from open carrying on such private property unless explicitly given permission by an owner or possessor who is not prohibited under law from possessing firearms. This “safe harbor” by permission exception is illusory because a person would have to prove that they had such permission and take the word of the grantor of the permission that she was not a prohibited person – risks that no gun owner can afford to take.
5. Hunters, fishers, hikers, target shooters, and other travelers would be effectively banned under AB 144 from open carrying even on private land for lawful purposes as explained above in #4 – no prudent gun owner would take the risk that the police or court would accept their word that they had permission to open carry on private land, nor could they trust the word of any grantor of permission that she was not a prohibited person.
6. Hunters, fishers, hikers, target shooters, and other travelers would be effectively banned under AB 144 from open carrying a handgun, even unloaded, in unincorporated areas of California where the County has not banned all shooting, because such persons could not prudently risk accidentally entering an area of the County where shooting (and thus under AB 144 even unloaded open carry) is banned.
7. AB 144 would bizarrely force citizens who currently open carry properly holstered handguns in public places, e.g., Starbucks in downtown Los Angeles, to carry rifles or shotguns instead for their own personal protection. We agree with the US Supreme Court which said in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that bearing a handgun has a key advantage over bearing long guns, i.e., that it can be held "with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
8. And SB 661 is just a camouflaged AB 144 for urban areas, effectively banning open carry by extending so-called “gun free school zones” from 1,000 to 1,500 feet to choke off freedom of armed movement, including in vehicles on public roads, and, according to the California Appeals Court in People v. Tapia (2005), even on a sidewalk which lies on your own property.
9. Open carry is not a risk to public safety – but it does sometimes deter crime. A recent FBI study that essentially concludes that bad guys don't open carry (see Anthony Pinizzotto, et al., Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, FBI (2006) (finding that violent criminals carefully "conceal" their guns and "eschew holsters") at http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62). Additionally, police in Georgia recently confirmed an instance of open carriers deterring an armed robbery of a Wafflehouse just by open carrying while eating some chicken fried steak and short stacks. See “Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw” at http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-atlanta/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw (“Captain Jerry Quan, the Commander for Precinct One, where the Wafflehouse is located, confirmed Matt Brannan's story as one in which the open display of a pistol deterred a well-armed robbery crew”).
10. California police officials have acknowledged that open carriers do not threaten law and order. For example, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Sgt. Dave Phelps told the San Bernadino Sun that "gang members aren't known to open carry" (September 6, 2010). And Palo Alto, CA police Lt. Sandra Brown told the Mercury News that "we don't suggest that people panic, because there hasn't been a problem with open-carry demonstrations in other cities” (March 5, 2010).
11. And finally, proponents of AB 144 and SB 661 are being disingenuous when they claim they support trained and licensed gun carry – if they truly supported trained and licensed gun carry their bills would establish a state-wide “shall issue” open or concealed carry permit system like the vast majority of states provide their residents.
For the foregoing reasons, we residents of the State of California affirm and assert our opposition to AB 144 and SB 661 and urge the Legislature and Governor Brown to reject them both. We further call on the Legislature and Governor Brown to work together to greatly reform and simplify California's gun laws to be more like those of the vast majority of states which uphold the right to bear arms by allowing both open and concealed carry, and issuing any permits which might be needed to bear arms on a "shall issue" basis.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?CalOCPet
To: California State Legislature & Governor Jerry Brown
We urge you to oppose both Assemblyman Anthony Portantino’s AB 144 (banning the open carry of handguns in public places) and Senator Ted Lieu’s SB 661 (expanding the California gun free school zone radii from 1,000 to 1,500 feet) for the following reasons:
1. The open carry of holstered handguns has always been legal in California - it is an old right, not a new threat. In fact, 43 states allow the increasingly common "open carry" of handguns in public, in most cases at age 18 without any permit - and only California forbids openly carried guns to be loaded in cities.
2. The US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the Second Amendment’s right to "bear arms" guarantees "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." In 2010 the Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that states must also respect Second Amendment rights.
3. California greatly restricts concealed carry by granting Sheriffs complete discretion in issuing permits and requiring the applicant to show “cause” to exercise their right to discreetly bear arms; therefore the open carry of handguns is most Californians' only viable option to exercise their right to bear arms.
4. AB 144 effectively bans open carry of handguns even on private property - under California law, all private property is presumptively considered a "public place." As Justice Richard Aldrich of the California Appeals Court ruled in People v. Strider (2009), “[p]laces of business and parking lots on private property, open to the general public, have consistently been held to be public places . . . [as is] the area outside a home in which a stranger is able to walk without challenge. . . . The term public place generally means a location readily accessible to all those who wish to go there . . . . The key consideration is whether a member of the public can access the place without challenge.” And while AB 144 does exempt owners and possessors of private property from the open carry ban, all other persons remained banned from open carrying on such private property unless explicitly given permission by an owner or possessor who is not prohibited under law from possessing firearms. This “safe harbor” by permission exception is illusory because a person would have to prove that they had such permission and take the word of the grantor of the permission that she was not a prohibited person – risks that no gun owner can afford to take.
5. Hunters, fishers, hikers, target shooters, and other travelers would be effectively banned under AB 144 from open carrying even on private land for lawful purposes as explained above in #4 – no prudent gun owner would take the risk that the police or court would accept their word that they had permission to open carry on private land, nor could they trust the word of any grantor of permission that she was not a prohibited person.
6. Hunters, fishers, hikers, target shooters, and other travelers would be effectively banned under AB 144 from open carrying a handgun, even unloaded, in unincorporated areas of California where the County has not banned all shooting, because such persons could not prudently risk accidentally entering an area of the County where shooting (and thus under AB 144 even unloaded open carry) is banned.
7. AB 144 would bizarrely force citizens who currently open carry properly holstered handguns in public places, e.g., Starbucks in downtown Los Angeles, to carry rifles or shotguns instead for their own personal protection. We agree with the US Supreme Court which said in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that bearing a handgun has a key advantage over bearing long guns, i.e., that it can be held "with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
8. And SB 661 is just a camouflaged AB 144 for urban areas, effectively banning open carry by extending so-called “gun free school zones” from 1,000 to 1,500 feet to choke off freedom of armed movement, including in vehicles on public roads, and, according to the California Appeals Court in People v. Tapia (2005), even on a sidewalk which lies on your own property.
9. Open carry is not a risk to public safety – but it does sometimes deter crime. A recent FBI study that essentially concludes that bad guys don't open carry (see Anthony Pinizzotto, et al., Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, FBI (2006) (finding that violent criminals carefully "conceal" their guns and "eschew holsters") at http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62). Additionally, police in Georgia recently confirmed an instance of open carriers deterring an armed robbery of a Wafflehouse just by open carrying while eating some chicken fried steak and short stacks. See “Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw” at http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-atlanta/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw (“Captain Jerry Quan, the Commander for Precinct One, where the Wafflehouse is located, confirmed Matt Brannan's story as one in which the open display of a pistol deterred a well-armed robbery crew”).
10. California police officials have acknowledged that open carriers do not threaten law and order. For example, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Sgt. Dave Phelps told the San Bernadino Sun that "gang members aren't known to open carry" (September 6, 2010). And Palo Alto, CA police Lt. Sandra Brown told the Mercury News that "we don't suggest that people panic, because there hasn't been a problem with open-carry demonstrations in other cities” (March 5, 2010).
11. And finally, proponents of AB 144 and SB 661 are being disingenuous when they claim they support trained and licensed gun carry – if they truly supported trained and licensed gun carry their bills would establish a state-wide “shall issue” open or concealed carry permit system like the vast majority of states provide their residents.
For the foregoing reasons, we residents of the State of California affirm and assert our opposition to AB 144 and SB 661 and urge the Legislature and Governor Brown to reject them both. We further call on the Legislature and Governor Brown to work together to greatly reform and simplify California's gun laws to be more like those of the vast majority of states which uphold the right to bear arms by allowing both open and concealed carry, and issuing any permits which might be needed to bear arms on a "shall issue" basis.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Monday, March 21, 2011
AB 1645 Protections Removed under AB 144
Who remembers Hurricane Katrina?Hurricane Katrina Aug. 28, 2005 had devastating effects on the citizens in Louisiana. During this time police were not available and emergency services could not reach residents for weeks. Those who were trapped in locations relied on each other for protection from looting, crime and wildlife. The protection was essential enough most residents who were evacuating needed to arm themselves to safely leave and get to a safe location with their families. Suddenly many residents found themselves to be victims of the government and gun confiscation. Here in California we recognized the necessity to keep and bear arms during states of emergency so Assembly Member La Malfa introduced a protective measure AB 1645 here in California so residents can protect themselves during states of emergency and while police are not available.Constant impacts to emergency services have left a hole in citizen protection yet nothing is being done by the state to prevent cuts to our emergency services. To add to the damage being done to the citizens protections legislation have been introduced to drive up the costs and availability of ammunition by Senator DeLeon (SB 124 and SB 427) and legislation to remove the rights to bear arms for reasons of self-protection under Assemblymember Anthony Portantino AB 144. These measures if allowed to continue will effectively damage citizens ability to protect themselves under duress, states of emergency and under direct threat. If we could carry a police officer with us I am sure we all would until restricted by our government.Removals of emergency services and citizens protections under our Constitutions and Laws enacted for our protection must be defended by all those who value human life. No matter the political affiliation these essential components must be protected by all citizens and all elected officials. We elect these officials to protect us and to look out for our rights yet some elected officials have made a direct attack on the Constitution they promise to uphold and the citizens affected by this.To stop gun confiscations during states or duress and states of emergency whether private or nationally recognized AB 144, SB 427 and SB 124 must be stopped. We cannot afford this damage. FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE OCTOBER 14, 2007 APPROVED BY GOVERNOR OCTOBER 14, 2007 PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PASSED THE ASSEMBLY MAY 17, 2007"AB 1645, La Malfa. Emergency powers: firearms. Existing law authorizes the Governor to invoke various powers in the event of an emergency, as specified. This bill would provide that these powers do not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition, as specified."
ANALYSIS : Existing law states that California has long recognized its responsibility to mitigate the effects of natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies which result in conditions of disaster or in extreme peril to life, property, and the resources of the state, and generally to protect the health and safety and preserve the lives and property of the people of California. To ensure that preparations within California will be adequate to deal with such emergencies, it is hereby found and declared to be necessary:1.To confer upon the Governor and upon the chief executives and governing bodies of political subdivisions of California the emergency powers provided herein; and to provide for state assistance in the organization and maintenance of the emergency programs of such political subdivisions.2.To provide for a state agency to be known and referred to as the Office of Emergency Services, within the Governor's office; and to prescribe the powers and duties of the director of that office. 3.To provide for the assignment of functions to state agencies to be performed during an emergency and for the coordination and direction of the emergency actions of such agencies. 4.To provide for the rendering of mutual aid by the state government and all its departments and agencies and by the political subdivisions of California in carrying out the purposes of this chapter. 5.To authorize the establishment of such organizations and the taking of such actions as are necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this chapter. Existing law defines "state of war emergency" as the condition which exists immediately, with or without a proclamation thereof by the Governor, whenever California or the nation is attacked by an enemy of the United States,or upon receipt by the state of a warning from the Federal Government indicating that such an enemy attack is probable or imminent. This bill amends the California Emergency Services Act to state "Nothing in this article [dealing with the powers of the Governor in an emergency] shall authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition, or authorize any order to that effect, provided however, that a peace officer who is acting in his or her official capacity may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual. The officer shall return the firearm to the individual before discharging the individual, unless the officer arrests that individual or seizes the firearm as evidence pursuant to an investigation for the commission of a crime." FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No SUPPORT :(Verified 7/12/07)National Rifle Association (source)California Outdoor Heritage Alliance Peace Officer Research Association of California ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,"Current law is unclear about the authority of the executive branch to order the disbarment of California citizens that are lawfully possessing firearms during a time of crisis. It is a constitutional right for law-abiding citizens of our great country to legally own, possess and utilize firearms, and the laws must continue to protect and reflect this. "Moreover, it is essential to protect California's federal funding of disaster assistance, by making sure California meets the requirements set out by the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006." ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 5/17/07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)