CA tryranny takes another giant step forward

[Deleted]

California: Anti-Gun Language Amended into Budget Bill

Assembly Bill 103, a budget trailer bill, was recently amended to include substantial policy changes that could remove your Second Amendment rights without due process. AB 103 is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, June 13. Please use our TAKE ACTION button below to contact the members of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee and also CALL the Committee Members and urge them to OPPOSE AB 103. Committee member phone numbers are listed below.



Current law prohibits a person from owning, purchasing, receiving, possessing, or having under his/her custody or control a firearm upon conviction of a felony or for ten years upon conviction of a specified misdemeanor (29085 pc).

AB 103 would make a substantial change to current law by significantly expanding the prohibiting categories to include persons who have a warrant for a felony or disqualifying misdemeanor. This drastic policy change will violate an individual’s right to due process as warrants can be issued without notice or hearing. Furthermore, this policy is not germane to the budget and would circumvent the normal legislative process for policy measures.

AB 103 also contains additional money and a time for the Department of Justice to implement and allow for the registration of newly classified “assault weapons.” To read more on the recently submitted “assault weapon” regulations click here.

Committee Members:

Senator Holly J. Mitchell (Chair) - [phone]

Senator Jim Nielsen (Vice Chair) - (916) 651- 4004

Senator Joel Anderson - (916) 651- 4038

Senator Jim Beall - [phone]

Senator Steven M. Glazer - [phone]

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson - [phone]

Senator Mike McGuire - (916) 651- 4002

Senator Tony Mendoza - (916) 651- 4032

Senator Bill Monning - [phone]

Senator John M. W. Moorlach - (916) 651- 4037

Senator Richard Pan - [phone]

Senator Anthony J. Portantino - [phone]

Senator Richard D. Roth- (916) 651- 4031

Senator Nancy Skinner – [phone]

Senator Jeff Stone - (916) 651- 4028

Senator Bob Wieckowski - [phone]

Senator Scott Wilk - (916) 651- 4021

Please continue to check your inbox and www.StandandFightCalifornia.com for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.

[Deleted]

What's a Tryranny?  Is that a f-lbg-word in training?

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2017 18:41:26 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

California: Anti-Gun Language Amended into Budget Bill

Assembly Bill 103, a budget trailer bill, was recently amended to include substantial policy changes that could remove your Second Amendment rights without due process. AB 103 is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, June 13. Please use our TAKE ACTION button below to contact the members of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee and also CALL the Committee Members and urge them to OPPOSE AB 103. Committee member phone numbers are listed below.



Current law prohibits a person from owning, purchasing, receiving, possessing, or having under his/her custody or control a firearm upon conviction of a felony or for ten years upon conviction of a specified misdemeanor (29085 pc).

AB 103 would make a substantial change to current law by significantly expanding the prohibiting categories to include persons who have a warrant for a felony or disqualifying misdemeanor. This drastic policy change will violate an individual’s right to due process as warrants can be issued without notice or hearing. Furthermore, this policy is not germane to the budget and would circumvent the normal legislative process for policy measures.

AB 103 also contains additional money and a time for the Department of Justice to implement and allow for the registration of newly classified “assault weapons.” To read more on the recently submitted “assault weapon” regulations click here.

Committee Members:

Senator Holly J. Mitchell (Chair) - [phone]

Senator Jim Nielsen (Vice Chair) - (916) 651- 4004

Senator Joel Anderson - (916) 651- 4038

Senator Jim Beall - [phone]

Senator Steven M. Glazer - [phone]

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson - [phone]

Senator Mike McGuire - (916) 651- 4002

Senator Tony Mendoza - (916) 651- 4032

Senator Bill Monning - [phone]

Senator John M. W. Moorlach - (916) 651- 4037

Senator Richard Pan - [phone]

Senator Anthony J. Portantino - [phone]

Senator Richard D. Roth- (916) 651- 4031

Senator Nancy Skinner – [phone]

Senator Jeff Stone - (916) 651- 4028

Senator Bob Wieckowski - [phone]

Senator Scott Wilk - (916) 651- 4021

Please continue to check your inbox and www.StandandFightCalifornia.com for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.

A warrant is also NOT a conviction, which definitely violates an individual's rights.   This one will not hold up to court scrutiny.

[daleko]

Jun 11, 2017 0:14:04 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jun 10, 2017 18:41:26 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

California: Anti-Gun Language Amended into Budget Bill

Assembly Bill 103, a budget trailer bill, was recently amended to include substantial policy changes that could remove your Second Amendment rights without due process. AB 103 is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, June 13. Please use our TAKE ACTION button below to contact the members of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee and also CALL the Committee Members and urge them to OPPOSE AB 103. Committee member phone numbers are listed below.

Current law prohibits a person from owning, purchasing, receiving, possessing, or having under his/her custody or control a firearm upon conviction of a felony or for ten years upon conviction of a specified misdemeanor (29085 pc).

AB 103 would make a substantial change to current law by significantly expanding the prohibiting categories to include persons who have a warrant for a felony or disqualifying misdemeanor. This drastic policy change will violate an individual’s right to due process as warrants can be issued without notice or hearing. Furthermore, this policy is not germane to the budget and would circumvent the normal legislative process for policy measures. 

A warrant is also NOT a conviction, which definitely violates an individual's rights.   This one will not hold up to court scrutiny.

I believe you already can be rejected w/o a conviction, at least until it is resolved. See batf form 4473 11 b. This is an extension for sure but a temporary one if it's does not lead to an indictment. With an indictment, he's prevented under Fed law.

[Deleted]

Jun 11, 2017 23:28:27 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jun 11, 2017 0:14:04 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

A warrant is also NOT a conviction, which definitely violates an individual's rights.   This one will not hold up to court scrutiny.

I believe you already can be rejected w/o a conviction, at least until it is resolved. See batf form 4473 11 b. This is an extension for sure but a temporary one if it's does not lead to an indictment. With an indictment, he's prevented under Fed law.

Yes, and that is a clear violation of one's right of presumed innocence.  I have no idea how it has never been ruled unconstitutional, but the anti-gun nuts DO have a certain amount of power.

[Walter]

Jun 12, 2017 0:16:25 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jun 11, 2017 23:28:27 GMT -5 daleko said:

I believe you already can be rejected w/o a conviction, at least until it is resolved. See batf form 4473 11 b. This is an extension for sure but a temporary one if it's does not lead to an indictment. With an indictment, he's prevented under Fed law.

Yes, and that is a clear violation of one's right of presumed innocence.  I have no idea how it has never been ruled unconstitutional, but the anti-gun nuts DO have a certain amount of power.

That is an interesting constitutional question, actually. I'd guess it's sort of like when awaiting trial. You're innocent until proven guilty, but the government gets to take away your passport, issue restrictions about where you can go and stuff like that as a condition of bail, etc. All those are violations of constitutional rights prior to a conviction, no?

[Deleted]

Jun 12, 2017 14:38:17 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jun 12, 2017 0:16:25 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Yes, and that is a clear violation of one's right of presumed innocence.  I have no idea how it has never been ruled unconstitutional, but the anti-gun nuts DO have a certain amount of power.

That is an interesting constitutional question, actually. I'd guess it's sort of like when awaiting trial. You're innocent until proven guilty, but the government gets to take away your passport, issue restrictions about where you can go and stuff like that as a condition of bail, etc. All those are violations of constitutional rights prior to a conviction, no?

Those are for the purpose of ensuring the accused comes to trial, above and beyond a standard bond.  Is the accused prevented from buying a car, which could theoretically be driven to Canada or Mexico?

Acquiring personal property does not make someone a flight risk.  

[Walter]

Jun 12, 2017 17:18:34 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jun 12, 2017 14:38:17 GMT -5 Walter said:

That is an interesting constitutional question, actually. I'd guess it's sort of like when awaiting trial. You're innocent until proven guilty, but the government gets to take away your passport, issue restrictions about where you can go and stuff like that as a condition of bail, etc. All those are violations of constitutional rights prior to a conviction, no?

Those are for the purpose of ensuring the accused comes to trial, above and beyond a standard bond.  Is the accused prevented from buying a car, which could theoretically be driven to Canada or Mexico?

Acquiring personal property does not make someone a flight risk.  

Agreed, but the constitutional principle remains, does it not?
An unconvicted person has rights taken away. Whether or not they are stripped of rights for good reason or bad is less relevant to the constitutionality, I would think.

Someone whose probation officer writes up our gun-loving hero and sends it off to court to get a warrant for the guy's arrest does it for some just cause. By that standard, just as with the original arrest for the crime that got the guy probation in the first place, that person stands accused and thus conditions are installed to guard the safety of society by restricting his rights until it can be determined if a violation has occurred.

...and he ain't "acquiring" donuts and coffee. He is acquiring a product that the government, in many situations, won't allow the guy to possess legally because of his past history.

A good parallel example might be random drug testing of those convicted of DUI and out on probation.
Having a beer isn't dangerous, except in the context of the drinker's past history.

[Deleted]

Jun 12, 2017 17:50:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jun 12, 2017 17:18:34 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Those are for the purpose of ensuring the accused comes to trial, above and beyond a standard bond.  Is the accused prevented from buying a car, which could theoretically be driven to Canada or Mexico?

Acquiring personal property does not make someone a flight risk.  

Agreed, but the constitutional principle remains, does it not?
An unconvicted person has rights taken away. Whether or not they are stripped of rights for good reason or bad is less relevant to the constitutionality, I would think.

Someone whose probation officer writes up our gun-loving hero and sends it off to court to get a warrant for the guy's arrest does it for some just cause. By that standard, just as with the original arrest for the crime that got the guy probation in the first place, that person stands accused and thus conditions are installed to guard the safety of society by restricting his rights until it can be determined if a violation has occurred.

...and he ain't "acquiring" donuts and coffee. He is acquiring a product that the government, in many situations, won't allow the guy to possess legally because of his past history.

A good parallel example might be random drug testing of those convicted of DUI and out on probation.
Having a beer isn't dangerous, except in the context of the drinker's past history.

Both of your examples use CONVICTIONS.  The first guy didn't get probation because he was arrested.  He is on probation for the CONVICTION.
The 2nd guy is subject to random drug tests because of a CONVICTION.

I'm tellin' ya Walt ......... you ain't too good at this lawyerin' stuff.

[Walter]

Jun 12, 2017 17:57:24 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jun 12, 2017 17:50:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

Agreed, but the constitutional principle remains, does it not?
An unconvicted person has rights taken away. Whether or not they are stripped of rights for good reason or bad is less relevant to the constitutionality, I would think.

Someone whose probation officer writes up our gun-loving hero and sends it off to court to get a warrant for the guy's arrest does it for some just cause. By that standard, just as with the original arrest for the crime that got the guy probation in the first place, that person stands accused and thus conditions are installed to guard the safety of society by restricting his rights until it can be determined if a violation has occurred.

...and he ain't "acquiring" donuts and coffee. He is acquiring a product that the government, in many situations, won't allow the guy to possess legally because of his past history.

A good parallel example might be random drug testing of those convicted of DUI and out on probation.
Having a beer isn't dangerous, except in the context of the drinker's past history.

Both of your examples use CONVICTIONS.  The first guy didn't get probation because he was arrested.  He is on probation for the CONVICTION.
The 2nd guy is subject to random drug tests because of a CONVICTION.

I'm tellin' ya Walt ......... you ain't too good at this lawyerin' stuff.

The proposed statute in question deals with purchasing guns while on probation.

[Deleted]

Jun 12, 2017 19:12:50 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jun 12, 2017 17:57:24 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Both of your examples use CONVICTIONS.  The first guy didn't get probation because he was arrested.  He is on probation for the CONVICTION.
The 2nd guy is subject to random drug tests because of a CONVICTION.

I'm tellin' ya Walt ......... you ain't too good at this lawyerin' stuff.

The proposed statute in question deals with purchasing guns while on probation.

Ummmmmmm .................  NO.

"AB 103 would make a substantial change to current law by significantly expanding the prohibiting categories to include persons who have a warrant for a felony or disqualifying misdemeanor. This drastic policy change will violate an individual’s right to due process as warrants can be issued without notice or hearing. Furthermore, this policy is not germane to the budget and would circumvent the normal legislative process for policy measures."

www.nraila.org/articles/20170610/california-anti-gun-language-amended-into-budget-bill


Do you understand that a warrant is only an accusation, and NOT a conviction?  
And why is this attempted abortion of law being sneaked into a BUDGET bill?

[Walter]

Jun 12, 2017 19:51:46 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jun 12, 2017 19:12:50 GMT -5 Walter said:

The proposed statute in question deals with purchasing guns while on probation.

Ummmmmmm .................  NO.

"AB 103 would make a substantial change to current law by significantly expanding the prohibiting categories to include persons who have a warrant for a felony or disqualifying misdemeanor. This drastic policy change will violate an individual’s right to due process as warrants can be issued without notice or hearing. Furthermore, this policy is not germane to the budget and would circumvent the normal legislative process for policy measures."

www.nraila.org/articles/20170610/california-anti-gun-language-amended-into-budget-bill


Do you understand that a warrant is only an accusation, and NOT a conviction?  
And why is this attempted abortion of law being sneaked into a BUDGET bill?

I've read the bill and not relied on the NRA propaganda.
My bad, I guess.
The warrants noted are for violation of probation.

EDIT! MY BAD....I had to recheck. It applies to people already convicted of felonies or that certain, now enlarging class of misdemeanors who have new warrants for arrest issued, which includes probation violation.

The law already applies to felonies. This law extends it to certain classes of misdemeanors....(misdemeanors that Fred probably regularly engages in, which I guess is why he worried).

[Deleted]

Jun 12, 2017 20:05:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jun 12, 2017 19:51:46 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Ummmmmmm .................  NO.

"AB 103 would make a substantial change to current law by significantly expanding the prohibiting categories to include persons who have a warrant for a felony or disqualifying misdemeanor. This drastic policy change will violate an individual’s right to due process as warrants can be issued without notice or hearing. Furthermore, this policy is not germane to the budget and would circumvent the normal legislative process for policy measures."

www.nraila.org/articles/20170610/california-anti-gun-language-amended-into-budget-bill


Do you understand that a warrant is only an accusation, and NOT a conviction?  
And why is this attempted abortion of law being sneaked into a BUDGET bill?

I've read the bill and not relied on the NRA propaganda.
My bad, I guess.
The warrants noted are for violation of probation.

EDIT! MY BAD....I had to recheck. It applies to people already convicted of felonies or that certain, now enlarging class of misdemeanors who have new warrants for arrest issued, which includes probation violation.

The law already applies to felonies. This law extends it to certain classes of misdemeanors....(misdemeanors that Fred probably regularly engages in, which I guess is why he worried).

Keep those misdemeanors we committed that night on the down low, bud...

[Deleted]

Jun 12, 2017 20:05:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jun 12, 2017 19:51:46 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Ummmmmmm .................  NO.

"AB 103 would make a substantial change to current law by significantly expanding the prohibiting categories to include persons who have a warrant for a felony or disqualifying misdemeanor. This drastic policy change will violate an individual’s right to due process as warrants can be issued without notice or hearing. Furthermore, this policy is not germane to the budget and would circumvent the normal legislative process for policy measures."

www.nraila.org/articles/20170610/california-anti-gun-language-amended-into-budget-bill


Do you understand that a warrant is only an accusation, and NOT a conviction?  
And why is this attempted abortion of law being sneaked into a BUDGET bill?

I've read the bill and not relied on the NRA propaganda.
My bad, I guess.
The warrants noted are for violation of probation.

EDIT! MY BAD....I had to recheck. It applies to people already convicted of felonies or that certain, now enlarging class of misdemeanors who have new warrants for arrest issued, which includes probation violation.

The law already applies to felonies. This law extends it to certain classes of misdemeanors....(misdemeanors that Fred probably regularly engages in, which I guess is why he worried).

The bill was written to include ANYONE who has a warrant in those categories that CA lawmakers do not like.  It is NOT limited to people already convicted who have new warrants.  Therefore it is a violation of innocent people's rights if it us used against a person who has NO convictions.  It is unconstitutional.

A warrant is NOT a conviction.

[daleko]

Jun 12, 2017 20:34:50 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Jun 12, 2017 20:05:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

Keep those misdemeanors we committed that night on the down low, bud...

Did you send Walt flowers the next morning?