Sacramento,CA Second Amendment Rally at the Capitol, Feb. 13. Photo by Nancy Larned

Governor Brown has until this Sunday to Decide the Fate OCT 13

of California’s Thousands of Law-Abiding Gun Owners and Sportsmen

LAST DITCH TO STOP BROWN FROM SIGNING UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILLS BEFORE IT GOES TO COURT. call, write, go to rally- tell others

 

By this Sunday, October 13, Governor Jerry Brown must decide whether to sign or veto several onerous anti-gun bills and one egregious anti-hunting bill.  Although many in the media often grossly underreport the amount of opposition to these misguided bills, Governor Brown needs to understand that California has millions of law-abiding gun owners, sportsmen and Second Amendment supporters as residents and voters.

It is CRITICAL that every law-abiding citizen call AND e-mail Governor Brown DAILY through Sunday respectfully urging him to stand up for our constitutional rights.

Reassure Governor Brown that Californians do not support outrageous anti-gun and anti-hunting legislation.  Also, mention to the Governor that criminals are not thwarted by gun control laws, either current law or newly enacted.  Those intent on misusing firearms and committing crimes, also known as violent criminals, will obtain firearms through theft or illegal transfers.  The firearms-related bills that are currently on his desk will ONLY affect and punish law-abiding citizens.

Listed below are all of the anti-gun/anti-hunting bills that you need to call AND

e-mail to urge Governor Brown to veto.  He can be contacted at (916) 445-2841 and http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php.

Your NRA has also announced our intention to file lawsuits against some of these bills if they are enacted into law.  Although litigation challenging some of these bills is unavoidable if the Governor does not veto them and they become law, the likelihood of litigation will almost certainly not influence the Governor’s decision on whether to veto these bills.  There are many sound policy and constitutional reasons that these bills should be vetoed, and they should be made known to the Governor.  The NRA has conveyed these reasons to the Governor through veto letters, and we ask that you also convey them in your messages to the Governor.  The NRA’s planned legal challenges are simply part of its prudent contingency plan to do everything possible to protect the rights of Californians who choose to own a gun to protect themselves and their families.  California NRA members and gun owners should know that the NRA is prepared to continue to lead grassroots, legislative and legal efforts to stop ill-conceived and unconstitutional gun bans in California.

The following anti-gun/anti-hunting bills have passed in the California Legislature and are now before Governor Brown for his consideration and action:

Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner) bans the sale of parts and repair kits capable of creating or converting a magazine to a capacity to hold greater than ten rounds.

Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson) limits the sale and transfer of all lawfully acquired firearms that were never, or are no longer, on the California roster of approved handguns to two a year and redefines the technical provisions of single short pistols.

Assembly Bill 180 (Bonta) repeals state firearms preemption by allowing the City of Oakland to enact ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws concerning the registration or licensing of firearms.

Assembly Bill 231 (Ting) expands the law relating to the storage of firearms.

Assembly Bill 711 (Rendon) makes California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.  (Several labor unions have also joined with the NRA, conservation associations and other organizations in opposing AB 711.  We appreciate these efforts to stop this ill-advised law, and ask that if you are a member of a union, please let the Governor know this when you submit your veto requests to him.)

Senate Bill 299 (DeSaulnier) makes it a crime if a victim of firearm theft does not report the theft within seven days.

Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) bans the future sale or transfer of and classify ALL semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine or holding more than ten rounds of ammunition as "assault weapons" and the continued legal possession of these newly classified semi-automatics as “assault weapons” would require that you REGISTER and pay a FEE (TAX) on ALL of them.

Senate Bill 475 (Leno) effectively bans gun shows at the Cow Palace by requiring approval of the board of supervisors of the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco prior to any gun shows.

Senate Bill 567 (Jackson) redefines shotguns to include any firearm that may be fired through a rifled bore or a smooth bore, regardless of whether it is designed to be fired from the shoulder.  SB 567 also bans the sale of shotguns encompassed by the revised definitions that have a revolving cylinder, and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns.

Senate Bill 683 (Block) expands California’s handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and prohibits anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate.

Senate Bill 755 (Wolk) expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm, including persons who have operated cars and boats while they are impaired commonly referred to as DUI.

 

What Can YOU Do To Preserve Our Constitutional and Natural Rights???

Going to protests, carrying signs, etc., is fun, gratifying and helps draw attention to the issues. But, your help is also needed to further influence official and public opinion to preserve our rights. Please contact legislators about pending gun bills, ask their position, tell them what you want them to do, cite supporting facts, law, statistics. Also, send messages, links to friends and public, via email, web posts, blogging, submitted articles, letters to editor and reader comments. This forum is used to hold various activism tools to fight for our Second Amendment Rights, and may contain:


-  2nd Amendment News/Views Forum, containing useful info.

Help Assemblyman Tim Donnelly Save the Second Amendment in CA

- Tutorials 

   -- How to make your calls matter

   -- Overview of the State Legislative Process (CA)

   -- How Do I Have My Voice Heard on Gun Control Legislation? (CA)

- Lists of Legislators, (committees above)

  -- Contact Congress Reps & Governors

  -- http://weneedtovote.com/  General voter education

  --  http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/index.htm General Congress info, contacts

  -- http://conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm Congressional and Governor contact info

  -- http://contactingthecongress.org/  Congressional contacts

- Procedures

- Petitions  FPC_ca-petition.pdf

- Firearms Policy Coalition http://www.firearmspolicy.org/

- Proposed Legislation  CA & Federal

  -- Current Bill Status- Current year

  -- California, from COALITION  

  -- California OpenGovernment  Track California bills

--   Search Bills (California)

  -- Federal, from COALITION

  --  http://www.opencongress.org

  --  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/

- Gun Associations

- Important Court Rulings

- Congressional Research Service papers (beware)

- Links to other Pro-Gun Organizations

More 2nd Amendment NewsPlease add (join site free to post) additional comments, info, RELEVANT to our mission of Second Amendment preservation activism below ....

Views: 579

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

California Call to Action: Two Anti-Gun Bills are Expected to be Heard Next Tuesday

Posted on March 29, 2013

Contact members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee Today

On Tuesday, April 2, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety will consider two drastic and sweeping restrictions on the sale of lawful firearms and ammunition in California.

Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner), would ban the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than ten cartridges, it would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed firearms dealer and would require that every single ammunition transfer be reported to the state.  Under this unprecedented attack on ammunition, millions of law-abiding gun owners would become criminals.

If enacted, a gun owner who “furnishes” ammunition to a friend at the shooting range, and a father who hands his son ammunition while teaching him how to properly and safely use a firearm, would become criminals.  Under AB 48, sporting goods stores, general stores, and shooting ranges that do not sell firearms would be BANNED from selling ammunition on a widespread basis throughout the state.  This would effectively put many ranges out of business!  What is more, AB 48's sales registration requirements have already been tried, and failed, at the federal level.  In 1986, the BATFE scrapped this requirement because it had no substantial law enforcement value!  But the bill’s problems don’t end there.  AB 48 is utterly vague in its attempt to ban parts kits, prohibiting the sale of “devices capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine.”  To the extent this provision might be deciphered to ban common magazine parts kits violates, the law is unconstitutional.  And by criminalizing the transfer of ammunition by all but licensed firearm dealers, AB 48 further violates the Second Amendment.

The other bill is, Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson), which would ban the sale and transfer of firearms that are not currently on California's roster of handguns approved for sale in the state.  In doing so, this bill would prohibit the transfer of millions of lawfully-owned handguns and jeopardize their continued ownership.

Currently, California law allows handguns that are not on the approved roster to be sold or otherwise transferred to another individual either on consignment or as a private party transfer, provided that the sale is completed through a licensed firearms retailer, where the purchaser is subjected to a background check.  If enacted, AB 169 would leave gun owners who lawfully purchased a handgun that previously appeared on the State's approved roster with no means to sell or transfer their handgun, if that firearm is no longer listed on the roster.

Call AND e-mail members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee today and remind them that these bills will NOT deter violent criminals intent on committing crimes and will unconstitutionally restrict the ability of law-abiding Californians to purchase, transfer and use firearms and ammunition on an unprecedented scale.  Let them know that passage of these bill will result in additional unnecessary expenses for the state, continue to drive legitimate business owners out of California and force the taxpayers to pick up the tab for costly litigation against the state!  Contact information for members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee is provided below:

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-17), Chairman

(916) 319-2017

E-mail here

 

Assemblyman Melissa Melendez (R-67), Vice-Chairman

(916) 319-2067

E-mail here

 

Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-59)

(916) 319-2059

E-mail here

 

Assemblyman Holly Mitchell (D-54)

(916) 319-2054

E-mail here

 

Assemblyman Bill Quirk (D-20)

(916) 319-2020

E-mail here

 

Assemblyman Nancy Skinner (D-15)

(916) 319-2015

E-mail here

 

Assemblyman Marie Waldron (R-75)

(916) 319-2075

E-mail here 

You can write your representative here urging them to OPPOSE the anti-gun bills listed above.  Please feel free to also copy and paste all the bill information to ensure your state legislators know which bills to OPPOSE.

You can also send a letter to all elected officials in California here.  Please feel free to copy and paste all the bill information above to ensure the elected officials of California know which bills to OPPOSE.

You can also find information about anti-gun and pro-gun legislation in California at http://www.calnra.com/.

Help NRA Get Californian’s Connected With NRA’s California Resources

Help the NRA expand its California network to keep all pro-Second Amendment Californians better informed about legislation in Congress, Sacramento, and locally that threatens your right to keep and bear arms, as well as developments in Second Amendment litigation and regulatory enforcement actions.  Please forward this email to your family, friends and fellow gun owners, whether they belong to the NRA or not!  Encourage them to sign up for California NRA’s Stayed Informed e-mails here. And follow NRA through these additional connections:

Websites:

NRA-ILANRA-ILA CaliforniaNRA – ILA Legal UpdateCalNRA.comCRPA.orgCalGunLaws.com,HuntforTruth.org

Facebook PagesNRA’s Facebook pageCalGunLaws.com Facebook pageNRA Members' Councils' Facebook pageHunt for Truth Facebook page

LinkedIn: NRA’s LinkedIn page, YouTube: NRA YouTube, Twitter: NRA TwitterNRA-ILA Twitter,CalNRATwitterCalGunLaws Twitter

The NRA recognizes that California is one of the most active Second Amendment "battleground states," so for decades NRA has devoted substantial resources to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms for Californians. The NRA has full-time legislative advocates in its Sacramento office fighting ill-conceived gun ban proposals. NRA coordinates a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local gun bans and regulations. And NRA has been litigating cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment for many years. NRA’s California legal team continues to work pro-actively to strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and to protect the Second Amendment rights of California firearms owners. For information about NRA’s litigation efforts, see www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx

To donate to help support the NRA’s California efforts, please click here.

ALERT: The UN just adopted landmark treaty to regulate multibillion-dollar global arms trade

This could also allow it to regulate U.S. gun laws, but is likely in conflict with the Constitution. Senate ratification highly questionable.


read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/un-general-assembly-to-vote-...

Draft of the treaty:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E...

Sad, that the Gun Owners ASSOC has to do this to wake up the NRA!!!  BLOW UP THEIR PHONES AND EMAIL!
GOA to NRA Leadership
Monday, 01 April 2013 15:28 Written by Gun Owners of America
Please Urge Senators to Support the Paul-Cruz-Lee Filibuster
We are going into a battle which will determine the future of gun control for the next decade - and perhaps for the rest of our lifetime.
Here's the status: On or around April 8, Harry Reid will move to proceed to S. 649. That "base bill" contains the Veterans Gun Ban, which could send you to prison for 15 years if you sell a gun to a veteran, without realizing he has PTSD. The bill will also contain the Schumer version of Universal Gun Registries.
S. 649 does not have the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster on final passage. However, if Reid can get the motion to proceed adopted - and get on the bill itself - he will play let's-make-a-deal and use bribes and kickbacks to buy the 60 votes he needs.
In particular, Reid and Schumer will probably try to prune the universal registry bill to buy off the vote of Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn. They may pretend to prohibit recordkeeping by the FBI, but you can bet their "compromise" will contain a big, juicy loophole.
In addition, they may pare it back to gun shows and internet sales, although the most recent "gun show" bill we have seen would effectively ban gun shows.
The media has been reporting that the NRA leadership is working with West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin to craft these compromises, although NRA vehemently denies it.
http://gunowners.org/images/stories/id/3069/nraila-a.jpg
As a result of anti-gun rules changes, there are two ways to proceed to a bill in the Senate. One requires 60 votes, which we have. The second requires 50 votes (plus Biden), but requires Reid to give up some of his control of the floor.
The point is this: Our efforts will be tremendously helped if the NRA leadership publicly calls on Senators to oppose the motion to proceed, opposes cloture on the motion to proceed, and scores both votes.
If it does this, the motion to proceed will die. Reid will be unable to move to any gun control legislation. Gun control will die.
We believe that, because of the strength and fervor of our membership, we are very close to winning this battle - but it would be so much easier if we were both singing off the same page.
ACTION: If, you are an NRA member, contact them. Urge them to join with us in supporting the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster. That means they should tell Senators to oppose the motion to proceed to any gun control vehicle, and to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to any gun control vehicle.
CONTACT: You can use the message below to direct your comments to NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.
Call  chrome://skype_ff_extension/skin/numbers_button_skype_logo.png1-800-392-8683  
or send him a message at www.nraila.org/secure/contact-us.aspx
 
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Mr. LaPierre:
We are going into a battle which will determine the future of gun control for the next decade - and perhaps for the rest of our lifetime.
As you know, Harry Reid will soon move to proceed to S. 649. That "base bill" contains the Veterans Gun Ban, which could send you to prison for 15 years if you sell a gun to a veteran, without realizing he has PTSD. The bill will also contain the Schumer version of Universal Gun Registries.
As you also know, S. 649 does not have the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster on final passage. However, if Reid can get the motion to proceed adopted - and get on the bill itself - he will play let's-make-a-deal and use bribes and kickbacks to buy the 60 votes he needs.
In particular, Reid and Schumer will probably try to prune the universal registry bill to buy off the vote of Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn. They may pretend to prohibit recordkeeping by the FBI, but you can bet their "compromise" will contain a big, juicy loophole. In addition, they may pare it back to gun shows and Internet sales, although the most recent "gun show" bill would effectively ban gun shows.
There are reports in the press that you are working with West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin to craft these compromises, although I hope this information is wrong.
As a result of anti-gun rules changes, there are two ways to proceed to a bill in the Senate. One requires 60 votes, which we have. The second requires 50 votes (plus Biden), but requires Reid to give up some of his control of the floor.
The point is this: I hope that you will support the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster and tell Senators that the NRA opposes the motion to proceed to S. 649 ... opposes cloture on the motion to proceed ... and will score both votes.
If you do this, the motion to proceed will die. Reid will be unable to move to any gun control legislation. Gun control will die.
I would therefore ask you to please oppose the motion to proceed to any gun control vehicle, and oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to any gun control vehicle, and to score both votes.
Please let me know if you will do this.
Sincerely,
 
YOUR NAME HERE!
 
 
Victoria Baer
Description: LogoBAEREDGE
4320 Deerwood Lake Pkwy #101-222
Jacksonville, FL 32216
Give your business the Competive Edge…
When the defense of liberty becomes a crime, tyranny is already in force. At that point, failure to defend liberty makes slavery a certainty.

Trouble viewing this email? Read it online?
1-800-392-8683 | www.nraila.com
The NRA Supports California Litigation

The NRA has been fighting for your right to keep and bear arms in California courts for decades.  Below is a list of some of the recent cases that the NRA is supporting.  Several other potential lawsuits are pending, including one against Glendale for a gun show ban, a case against Los Angeles for a proposed ban on possession of magazines that hold over ten rounds, a case against San Francisco for a potential hollow-point ammunition possession ban and a case against California DOJ for unjustifiably delaying lawful firearm purchases.  In addition to these cases in California courts, NRA has dozens of other cases in courts throughout the country that may be used as precedent in California, including several attacking the constitutionality of “assault weapon” bans. For more information on these suits visit NRAILA.org/legalupdate.
 
Parker v. State of California - Lawsuit successfully striking down main portions of California’s AB 962, that would have banned mail order ammunition purchases and required registration and thumbprinting for in-store purchases.  The State’s appeal of the 2011 decision is now fully briefed before the California Court of Appeals and we are waiting for oral argument to be scheduled by the Court.
 
Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority - Lawsuit successfully challenged San Francisco’s ban on possessing firearms in public housing.  This ban was rescinded and the NRA negotiated a formal settlement agreement to prevent adoption of similar restrictions in the future.  This case has recently been used as precedent to help NRA lawyers fight similar bans in Washington, D.C. and in Delaware.
 
Peruta v. County of San Diego - Lawsuit challenges San Diego County’s requirement of a special need (i.e. "good cause") for obtaining a license to carry a firearm in public.  Though the trial court did not grant plaintiffs the specific relief they sought, the court’s opinion was the first to recognize post-Heller that the Second Amendment right "to bear arms" secures a right to carry arms in public for self-defense -- not a complete victory yet, but positive progress in Second Amendment jurisprudence.  Plaintiffs have fully briefed and argued their appeal.  We are currently awaiting a decision that could come any day.
 
McKay v. Sheriff Hutchens - Lawsuit challenges Orange County’s requirement of a special need for obtaining a license to carry a firearm in public.  This case was filed after the California legislature banned the "unloaded open carry" of firearms.  This case is a follow-up to the Peruta and Richards cases which relied (partially) on the plaintiffs’ ability to openly carry an unloaded firearm --an option that is no longer available under state law.  Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s denial of their motion for preliminary injunction is fully briefed before the Ninth Circuit.  We are currently waiting for oral argument to be scheduled by the court.
 
Assenza v. City of Los Angeles - Successfully enforced an 18-year old consent decree against the LAPD and Police Chief Beck to ensure that all members of the public were properly receiving the requisite CCW application and CCW policy upon request at station houses.  Each LAPD station must now conspicuously post a sign explaining where the application and policy can be found.
 
Davis v. City of Los Angeles - Lawsuit challenges Police Chief Beck’s failure to adhere to an 18-year old consent decree in processing CCW applications and determining what constitutes good cause to issue CCWs to LA residents.
 
Bauer v. Harris - Lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the fees the California DOJ requires in order to purchase firearms in California and the use of those fees’ revenues for purposes unrelated to lawful firearm purchasers exercising their right to acquire a firearm.
 
Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco- Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring that handguns be locked up while in the home, banning the discharge of firearms (lawsuit already forced amendment authorizing lawful defensive discharges), and prohibiting sales of common self-defense ammunition. Plaintiffs (including NRA) received a favorable published opinion in opposing the City’s challenge to their standing, paving the way for other plaintiffs to bring Second Amendment challenges in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs are currently appealing denial of their preliminary injunction and have filed their opening brief before the Ninth Circuit.
 
Pizzo v. Newsom - Obtained amicus status and defeated ill-conceived and poorly prepared claims threatening to undermine efforts in Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco. In dismissing those claims on legal "standing" (and avoiding a damaging merits ruling), the district court followed the favorable standing analysis suggested by NRA attorneys in their amicus brief and disregarded the watered-down standing argument pushed for by the City.
 
Mehl v. Blanas - Submitted an amicus brief and participated in oral argument in Ninth Circuit review of this ill-conceived and poorly prepared case challenging CCW laws and policies.  Explained defects in the case and that better cases existed for deciding the CCW issues, in an attempt to avoid bad case law that would impact other better prepared CCW cases.
 
Richards v. Prieto - Filed amicus brief in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals supporting appellants who sued Yolo County, challenging CCW issuance laws and policies.
 
People v. Nguyen - Filed a request for depublication with the California Supreme Court of a decision that is currently dangerous binding legal precedent for California firearm owners.  The current opinion opens the door to prosecutions for possession of mere firearm parts.  If the request is granted, the misguided and dangerous decision could not be cited as legal precedent.
 
 
Help NRA Get Californian’s Connected With NRA’s California Resources

Help the NRA expand its California network to keep all pro-Second Amendment Californians better informed about legislation in Congress, Sacramento, and locally that threatens your right to keep and bear arms, as well as developments in Second Amendment litigation and regulatory enforcement actions.  Please forward this email to your family, friends and fellow gun owners, whether they belong to the NRA or not!  Encourage them to sign up for California NRA’s Stayed Informed e-mails here. And follow NRA through these additional connections:
 
Websites:
 
 
 
The NRA recognizes that California is one of the most active Second Amendment "battleground states," so for decades NRA has devoted substantial resources to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms for Californians. The NRA has full-time legislative advocates in its Sacramento office fighting ill-conceived gun ban proposals. NRA coordinates a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local gun bans and regulations. And NRA has been litigating cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment for many years. NRA’s California legal team continues to work pro-actively to strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and to protect the Second Amendment rights of California firearms owners. For information about NRA’s litigation efforts, see www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx
 
To donate to help support the NRA’s California efforts, please click here.
 

Write your RepsGet InvolvedRegister to VoteContibute
Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response. This email is a broadcast email generated by an automated system. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683. Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 In order to ensure you receive NRA-ILA email alerts in a timely manner, please adjust your SPAM settings to accept bulk emails from admin@nramedia.org and NRA_ILA@nramedia.org domains. Otherwise, there is a possibility that our email alerts will not make it to your inbox.

This bill just approved by CA Public Safety Committee- call to stop it from going further

Bill: SB 374

Author: Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D- Sacramento)

Summary: Ban and forced registration of all semi-automatic rifles (including rimfire)

Requires gun owners to register every semi-automatic rifle, including rimfire.
Requires gun owners of existing semi-auto rifles to submit fingerprints and forms to DOJ, which will be tracked in a government database.
Bans sales and transfers of virtually all semi-automatic rifles after Jan 1, 2014.
“Bullet button” and similarly “mag-locked” off-list (OLL) rifles would be considered banned “assault weapons”.

Position: OPPOSE
http://peopleprotectingfreedom.ning.com/forum/topics/second-amendme...

Visit venturacountyteaparty at: http://venturacountyteaparty.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

Chris W. Cox's Message to Gun Owners on Their Victory in the Senate

Posted on April 19, 2013

While both sides in the gun control debate regroup after our victory in the Senate earlier this week, I want to give credit where credit is due. The credit for Wednesday’s defeat of gun control goes to the countless gun owners and other Americans who drew a line in the sand--who sent emails and letters and made phone calls to their U.S. senators, urging them to protect private firearm transfers, semi-automatic firearms, and the magazines that millions of Americans own for self-defense.

There is no question that you shocked the enemies of liberty two days ago. Going into Wednesday’s votes, they thought victory was within reach. Many in the media had pushed the idea that resistance to the gun control agenda was futile, and some of our more aggressive adversaries may have started to believe their own propaganda. I’m sure some had convinced themselves that the intensity of their anger toward gun owners was all that was necessary to assure victory.

But you and your fellow gun owners proved them wrong. As you know, the best Americans do what they have to do, not for personal praise, but because it’s the right thing to do. They do what has to be done not only for themselves, but for their fellow Americans today and for generations of Americans to come. Nevertheless, on behalf of all of us at NRA headquarters, I want to thank you for answering the call. 

As you know, however, we can take only measured comfort from this week’s success. In his bitter response to the Senate’s votes, President Obama said that this fight is far from over, and that’s the one thing that he is right about. 

Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), sponsor of the gun control bill debated this week, has promised to bring his bill up at a more opportune moment. Obama’s “Organizing for America,” billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Gun Guns,” and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ “Americans for Responsible Solutions” will focus their efforts on defeating pro-Second Amendment senators in 2014.

I say to those groups and their leaders, that pro-Second Amendment senators stood with us and we will stand with them, as we have with other elected representatives who have supported the Second Amendment before them. 

Over the last generation, gun owners have had tremendous success advancing our cause. The refusal of the Obama administration and anti-gun radicals in Congress to attack us during Obama’s first term is a testament to our strength. They became emboldened by Obama’s reelection and over the last four months, we have weathered an anti-gun public relations campaign as severe as any we have experienced. And we have won the first legislative battle at the national level. 

Our adversaries are well-funded, though, and as determined as any we have seen before. The fight ahead will be as difficult as this organization and the gun owning community has ever faced. Prepare for what’s ahead. Every gun owner will be needed on the team. Elected officials who support the Second Amendment will be subjected to a well-financed, cleverly conceived campaign designed to convince them that they are on the wrong side of history. Our job and yours will be to expose that claim for the fraud that it is. Please find strength in the knowledge that the victories best savored are those that are hardest fought, and encourage our friends in Congress to do the same. 

Thank you for all you did to win this fight, and for your readiness to win the fights that will come.

The Calguns Foundation

Mehl v. Blanas: An Important Decision
In A Now-Irrelevant Handgun Carry Case


Ninth Circuit - Pasadena CourthouseWe at CGF are working hard to have the right to carry a firearm recognized in California through various legal actions and other efforts, not the least of which is our Second Amendment lawsuit on carry outside the home [now] entitled Richards v. Prieto. That case is particularly notable not only because it was the first of its kind, filed in 2009 (pre-McDonald v. Chicago, thanks to the Second Amendment’s incorporation [for a time] in the Ninth Circuit through an April 2009 decision in the Nordyke v. King case and, previously, 2008′s landmark victory in D.C. v. Heller), but also because it has the unique characteristic of challenging both the “good cause” and “good moral character” components of the California statutes on carry licensing and Yolo Sheriff Ed Prieto’s policy “as applied”. Alan Gura, the lead attorney on Richards, argued the case before a panel of Ninth Circuit judges on December 6, 2012, after which it was submitted for decision (which, we hope, comes soon – more on this below).

However, as some of you are aware, there are those who don’t have the full breadth of resources and capabilities to bring well-considered Second Amendment litigation. Unfortunately [for all of us], those deficits do not dissuade them from bringing their lawsuits anyway.

One such instance was the case of Mehl v. Blanas, brought by attorney Gary Gorski against a much earlier sheriff of Sacramento County (Lou Blanas). Mr. Gorski is somewhat notorious for being on the wrong end of the Dunning–Kruger effect regarding firearms litigation. (On a related note, Second Amendment scholar Dave Kopel published his email interview with Mr. Gorski here.) We’ll refrain from throwing too many stones as some people have accused us of the same from time to time; we think CGF’s totality of wins and advancements for the actual, practical ability of Californians to own firearms (and, in many jurisdictions where it was previously impossible — like Sacramento County — carry them) speak to our success. Mr. Gorski’s “gun rights claim to fame” to date has been that he effectively disarmed retired law enforcement officers of their semi-automatic rifles (like AR-15s) while otherwise losing an assault weapons case at the Ninth Circuit. Going back to the long-running and voluminous Mehl case, Mr. Gorski’s earlier lawsuit that challenged Sheriff Blanas’ carry license policies and practices in Sacramento County, we should contrast the results there against the clearly positive outcome that was secured by us in just months when CGF and our litigation partners (and individual plaintiffs) sued then-Sacramento Sheriff John McGinness and came to a mutually-acceptable settlement which changed Sacramento County from..., but one that has seen record and newsworthy growth of handgun carry licensees since (see this July 2011 CBS Sacramento report and this February 2012 ABC News 10 report, just two of many such news items on this subject).

Many have worried, perhaps justifiably, that Mr. Gorski’s continuing case against a now virtually-”shall issue” agency would block (or worse) decisions in the superior Richards v. Prieto and Peruta v. Gore cases. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit panel in Mehl issued a non-published and non-precedential opinion dismissing Mr. Gorski’... on standing grounds. The court found that because plaintiff Mehl didn’t file a complete application after being asked to re-apply he didn’t have standing to sue over the alleged policy issues. Of course, should Mr. Mehl apply today, he stands a very good chance of being issued his license to carry absent the Sacramento sheriff’s office finding some articulable reason to the contrary in their background check investigation.

There does remain one more case against Sacramento helmed by Mr. Gorski, a Racketeering Act/RICO lawsuit named Rothery v. Blanas centering on handgun carry license issuance. However, that case is stayed by the Court until the very end of Mehl or September 3, 2013. Additionally, it has not been fully briefed, argued, or submitted for decision — unlike Richards and Peruta. As such, we think Rothery is unlikely to affect how or when the Ninth Circuit will rule in Richards and Peruta.

We are certainly not guaranteed a positive result in Richards and Peruta but we are very encouraged that Mehl was disposed of on grounds that do not injure those critical cases or, most importantly, the precious civil rights and millions of law-abiding people they represent. As we live to watch the Seventh Circuit force handgun carry by non-prohibited people upon Illinois and anti-gun rights municipalities like Chicago, we believe that the ultimate outcome — up to, and potentially including, a United States Supreme Court decision — will respect and protect our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside the thresholds of our homes as the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights intended.

We now look forward to a decision from the Richards panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and whatever judicial “next steps” are required to vindicate Californians’ fundamental individual right to effective self defense in public.

donate_button





CA Legislature Takes a Summer Vacation
 

The Legislature may be taking a break, but those who want to ban your guns most definitely aren't. Please help us by SENDING A LETTER OPPOSING GUN CONTROL BILLS AT FPC NOW. We need to keep the pressure on our elected members -- make them come back to a mountain of pro-gun rights letters, faxes, and emails.

Don't forget to take advantage of FPC's Stop The Gun Control Madness contest -- be entered to win a very cool new firearm just for sending letters opposing gun control atFirearmsPolicy.org/The-Issues!


Win a gun from FPC!




** Groundbreaking Gun Rights Film "Assaulted" In Theaters Now **
Get Tickets To Go See This Movie !!

Pro-Gun Movie





SHOP AT AMAZON AND SUPPORT YOUR GUN RIGHTS!


Up to 25% of Every Order Through Shop42A.com Supports CGF's Pro-Gun Lawsuits, Education, and Other Efforts!

Shop at Amazon using www.Shop42a.com and up to 25% of every order goes to support CGF!
Copyright © 2013 The Calguns Foundation, All rights reserved.
We send news and alerts to those who've connected with us on our websites, at our online store, and through various social networks.
Our mailing address is:
The Calguns Foundation
751 Laurel Street Suite 935
San CarlosCA 94070-3113



People Protecting Freedom said:

Attachments:
The Calguns Foundation Follow on Twitter Friend of Facebook
** GUN RIGHTS ALERT **

WE CAN STOP SB 396 (Mag Ban)

GET ON THE PHONE!

 
Friends,

We have some reason for hope that SB 396 can be killed off before the end of session on Friday. (SB 396 is an OUTRIGHT BAN on "large capacity" magazines and magazines that simply look like they are bigger than 10 round magazines.)
 

Tomorrow (Thurs. 9/12), everyone needs to do three things:


1. Go to DemandRights.com and urge Gov. Brown to VETO the gun control laws heading his way.

2. Call Assembly Speaker John Perez (916-319-2053) 
and THANK HIM for not supporting SB 396. Ask him to OPPOSE SB 396 when it comes up for another vote because it steals personal property from law-abiding Californians and does NOTHING to prevent crime.

3. Call your Assembly Member (better yet, all of them) and TELL THEM TO OPPOSE SB 396.You can find the phone number for every Assembly Member at http://assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers?order=field_member_lname_val... (sortable by last name and district). LIGHT UP THE PHONES!
 

FPC's Demand Rights campaign has tens of thousands of Californians standing together in opposition to extremist Senator Darrell Steinberg's ill-named "LIFE" Act and all of the other gun control bills. But we need many, many more standing with us. Please make sure every member of your family, friend, and gun owner you know SIGNS OUR LETTER at DemandRights.com, then post the link to DemandRights.com on Facebook and Twitter every day.

-Brandon

Brandon Combs
Executive Director
The Calguns Foundation

Governor Brown has until this Sunday to Decide the Fate

of California’s Thousands of Law-Abiding Gun Owners and Sportsmen

LAST DITCH TO STOP BRWON FROM SIGNING UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILLS BEFORE IT GOES TO COURT.

 

By this Sunday, October 13, Governor Jerry Brown must decide whether to sign or veto several onerous anti-gun bills and one egregious anti-hunting bill.  Although many in the media often grossly underreport the amount of opposition to these misguided bills, Governor Brown needs to understand that California has millions of law-abiding gun owners, sportsmen and Second Amendment supporters as residents and voters.

It is CRITICAL that every law-abiding citizen call AND e-mail Governor Brown DAILY through Sunday respectfully urging him to stand up for our constitutional rights.

Reassure Governor Brown that Californians do not support outrageous anti-gun and anti-hunting legislation.  Also, mention to the Governor that criminals are not thwarted by gun control laws, either current law or newly enacted.  Those intent on misusing firearms and committing crimes, also known as violent criminals, will obtain firearms through theft or illegal transfers.  The firearms-related bills that are currently on his desk will ONLY affect and punish law-abiding citizens.

Listed below are all of the anti-gun/anti-hunting bills that you need to call AND

e-mail to urge Governor Brown to veto.  He can be contacted at (916) 445-2841 andhttp://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php.

Your NRA has also announced our intention to file lawsuits against some of these bills if they are enacted into law.  Although litigation challenging some of these bills is unavoidable if the Governor does not veto them and they become law, the likelihood of litigation will almost certainly not influence the Governor’s decision on whether to veto these bills.  There are many sound policy and constitutional reasons that these bills should be vetoed, and they should be made known to the Governor.  The NRA has conveyed these reasons to the Governor through veto letters, and we ask that you also convey them in your messages to the Governor.  The NRA’s planned legal challenges are simply part of its prudent contingency plan to do everything possible to protect the rights of Californians who choose to own a gun to protect themselves and their families.  California NRA members and gun owners should know that the NRA is prepared to continue to lead grassroots, legislative and legal efforts to stop ill-conceived and unconstitutional gun bans in California.

The following anti-gun/anti-hunting bills have passed in the California Legislature and are now before Governor Brown for his consideration and action:

Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner) bans the sale of parts and repair kits capable of creating or converting a magazine to a capacity to hold greater than ten rounds.

Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson) limits the sale and transfer of all lawfully acquired firearms that were never, or are no longer, on the California roster of approved handguns to two a year and redefines the technical provisions of single short pistols.

Assembly Bill 180 (Bonta) repeals state firearms preemption by allowing the City of Oakland to enact ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws concerning the registration or licensing of firearms.

Assembly Bill 231 (Ting) expands the law relating to the storage of firearms.

Assembly Bill 711 (Rendon) makes California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.  (Several labor unions have also joined with the NRA, conservation associations and other organizations in opposing AB 711.  We appreciate these efforts to stop this ill-advised law, and ask that if you are a member of a union, please let the Governor know this when you submit your veto requests to him.)

Senate Bill 299 (DeSaulnier) makes it a crime if a victim of firearm theft does not report the theft within seven days.

Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) bans the future sale or transfer of and classify ALL semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine or holding more than ten rounds of ammunition as "assault weapons" and the continued legal possession of these newly classified semi-automatics as “assault weapons” would require that you REGISTER and pay a FEE (TAX) on ALL of them.

Senate Bill 475 (Leno) effectively bans gun shows at the Cow Palace by requiring approval of the board of supervisors of the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco prior to any gun shows.

Senate Bill 567 (Jackson) redefines shotguns to include any firearm that may be fired through a rifled bore or a smooth bore, regardless of whether it is designed to be fired from the shoulder.  SB 567 also bans the sale of shotguns encompassed by the revised definitions that have a revolving cylinder, and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns.

Senate Bill 683 (Block) expands California’s handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and prohibits anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate.

Senate Bill 755 (Wolk) expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm, including persons who have operated cars and boats while they are impaired commonly referred to as DUI.

 
Copyright © 2013 CA Tea Party Groups Coalition, All rights reserved.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

2nd Amendment Defense Center 

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2017   Created by David M Stewart.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service