HOME
BLACK POWDER & COWBOY
FIREARMS
GUN SAFES
ACCESSORIES
CONTACT US
MAP
Legislation Update
It's the repeating criminal, not the repeating rifle!
Liberal legislators have declared war on law-abiding gun owners. As you read this,
our current gun laws routinely result in the confiscation of property and prosecution
and incarceration of law-abiding citizens for non-violent administrative violations.
Proposed legislation is even worse.
This isn't about controlling crime; it's about controlling law-abiding Americans! It's
about dismantling the 2nd Amendment! Crime is merely the excuse. Here's how you can tell.
Laws that regulate, prohibit, outlaw, and control inanimate objects are aimed at the law
abiding citizen. Laws that punish behavior or actions that harm others are aimed at criminals.
Instead of tracking criminals on parole, we track people who legally own guns. Instead of
writing a law that punishes the use of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime, we get
laws that punish otherwise law-abiding gun owners for administrative violations such as not
registering themselves and their firearm. Oh yes! When you register something you are most
assuredly registering yourself!
Liberals prefer to track gun owners instead of parolees and violent offenders. Care to
guess who they fear more? The liberal goal is to prevent private gun ownership, not crime.
This goal is accomplished in part by making the red tape so overwhelming that many prospective
gun owners simply give up on the idea of exercising the right to keep and bear arms. Don't
surrender without a vote! This page lists some of the current legislative and, when applicable,
election highlights as they relate to this conflict.
| CA Legislative Alert Shortcuts | Federal Legislative Alert | OSHA Ammo Alert (Federal) |
| New Handgun Ammo Restrictions | ||
| AB 2062 Opposition Constituent Letter | AB 2062 Opposition Flyer | AB 2062 Opposition Petition |
| ASSEMBLY BILL 2062 REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE A PERMIT TO BUY HANDGUN AMMO AND
RETAILERS TO RECORD AND TRANSMIT THE TRANSACTION AND YOUR PERSONAL DATA TO THE STATE. UNDER
2062 DEALERS MUST CREATE AN EXPENSIVE STORAGE SCHEME TO STORE HANDGUN AMMO… WHERE YOU CAN'T
HANDLE IT. THAT'S JUST FOR STARTERS. 2062 IS AN OVERT ATTACK ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
IT HAS NO EFFECT ON CRIMINALS, IT ONLY AFFECTS YOU, THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.
WE HAVE A VERY TINY WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO INFLUENCE THE LEGISLATURE. THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FIREARMS RETAILERS IS SPONSORING A PETITION AND THE EL CAJON GUN EXCHANGE INVITES YOU TO SIGN UP NOW FOR THE FIGHT TO PRESERVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT. IF THE EL CAJON GUN EXCHANGE IS TOO FAR, THEN CALL (619) 579 - 51- 52, THAT'S 579 - 51 - 52 FOR THE LOCATION OF A MEMBER DEALER NEAR YOU. DID I MENTION THAT HANDGUN AMMO MUST BE PURCHASED IN PERSON? 2062 OUTLAWS MAIL ORDER AND INTERNET SALES. THE STAFF OF THE EL CAJON GUN EXCHANGE IS STANDING BY. PLEASE. FIND THE TIME TO SIGN THE PETITION. BY THE WAY, HOW'S YOUR SUPPLY OF HANDGUN AMMO? |
Comments & Analyses By Ron Godwin, Mgr, El Cajon Gun Exchange We had the rare privilege of meeting with Larry Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for NSSF, at Shot Show 2008. The meeting was arranged through the good offices of James Broering, President and COO of Acusport Corporation for the purpose of discussing the concerns that various CAFR members have with H.R. 4900. Attendees were Mr. Broering (Acusport), Mark Halcon (CAFR & CFDA President & Owner of the American Shooting Center), Lou Baldridge (El Cajon Gun Exchange - President & Owner), Ron Godwin (El Cajon Gun Exchange - manager), Mr. Keane (NSSF) and Mr. Keane's associate whose name I failed to capture. It was an exciting meeting which resulted in a very small window of opportunity for dealers to recommend some changes to NSSF for H.R. 4900. CFDA has established a committee and the recommendations will be forthcoming in the near future. When they are submitted I will post them on this site. Any interested parties or dealers with helpful suggestions is invited to e-mail me directly at ron@elcajongun.com All of us that are concerned about H.R. 4900 do appreciate Mr. Keane meeting with us during Shot. While it was a convenient time for us dealers, it has not escaped me that Shot is probably the most inconvenient time for Mr. Keane, given all the demands on his time. Plus he knew going in that we weren't there to socialize and he still graciously agreed to the meeting. I also appreciate Mr. Keane's impassioned support and defense of H.R. 4900 while at the same time refusing to concede the battle. Please remember that while we disagree on H.R. 4900, we agree with NSSF on much more and while NSSF is a very strong opponent, NSSF is also an ably led strong ally. For my part I will try harder to keep in mind that when the battle over H.R. 4900 is over that we do need to be able to work together on other issues. That said, after having had some time to digest Mr. Keane's arguments in favor of H.R. 4900, I am more convinced than ever that H.R. 4900 is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation that must be modified or defeated. Without rehashing the entire argument against H.R. 4900, we now know that the AG will be appointed by one of three Presidential candidates. Start with John McCain who, if memory serves, is rated "F" by Gun Owners of America and then look at the two alternatives, Obama & Clinton. Ask yourself if giving an AG, appointed by any of these three, the ability to set guidelines for ATF, is a good idea. Ask the the sponsors, the NRA or the NSSF about H.R. 4900 and they'll tell you that H.R. 4900 is intended to reign in an out of control federal agency; the ATF. They will tell you that the ATF can only slap a gun dealer's hand or revoke his license and that H.R. 4900 will prevent revocations by providing alternatives to revoking a license. This rationale is no less flawed then saying we are going to teach a wife beater to kick and punch so he has "alternative choices" between verbal abuse and a baseball bat! Read Section 101 and you'll find out that it doesn't limit revocations at all but actually may make it easier to revoke a license with only one major violation! (Section 101(ii)(III)) I encourage you to read the bill and my analyses critically and to do your own thinking. I sincerely hope that your intellect and, for you dealers, your sense of self preservation will immunize you from the NRA and NSSF propaganda surrounding H.R. 4900. You can contact the sponsors of this bill directly at: THE GOOD & THE BAD: H.R. 4900 has some good in it and addresses issues beyond the ones that just affect dealers. (My analyses and comments are concerned with those portions of H.R. 4900 that directly or indirectly affect licensed gun dealers.) For example, it sets the definition of "willful" to the highest legal standard (Section 103); but in Section 101, right out of the gate, H.R. 4900 allows a political appointee, the Attorney General, to determine if the violation meets the new higher standard. It gives many legal alternatives to Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL's) besides just surrendering to ATF (Section 101). Unfortunately, H.R. 4900 also creates the situations most likely to make these alternatives necessary (fines, suspensions, & revocations also in Section 101). In addition, these legal alternatives cost a lot of money and time... as in attorney's fees and court time, so don't expect your average FFL to take advantage. Many will be forced to surrender their FFL rather than spend money they simply don't have. The really bad part is that H.R. 4900 gives ATF brand new powers to harass dealers with (fines & suspensions in Section 101) and it gives a political appointee, the Attorney General, the ability to set - or remove - limits on the ATF according to the AG's personal bias on the 2nd Amendment (Section 104). Get the wrong AG and a likely result is FFL's being put out of business in wholesale lots. If you think FFL's are endangered under the current system wait until H.R. 4900 becomes law! Here's a thought that came from some of the dealers I have spoken with at the 4 trade shows I have attended so far this year (2008). A couple have said that they would happily trade the current ongoing effort by BATF & E to revoke their license for the fines and suspensions in H.R. 4900. Sounds like a good trade until you think about it. Question: Does anybody really believe that BATF & E will be appeased in their quest by a fine or suspension? I believe that they will use fines and suspensions as tools in the process to force a dealer out of business. Dealers won't be trading fines and suspensions for revocations - they'll be fined and suspended on the way to the revocation! So... what exactly will you do with your overhead, employees, and vendors while you are suspended? Assuming you survive 1, 2, or 3 months with no firearm income, how long to get your customers and your good name back? The three primary reasons H.R. 4900 needs to be amended or defeated: First the AG: The AG is not limited to just defining guidelines. The AG gets to decide who can even have an FFL (Section 102 (a)). For many of those legal options that H.R. 4900 gives FFL's, the AG gets to decide if your case has merit. Who do you think will be advising the AG? Want to bet against ATF being the main if not the only advisor for a Clinton or Obama appointed AG? We should never give the AG, a political appointee, the power to exercise their personal prejudices against the 2nd Amendment but that's exactly what H.R. 4900 does! On the other hand this bill does allow for lots of appeals and court remedies... I would be interested in hearing how well you think that will work for you. Second the fines, suspensions, and revocations: The amount of a fine or the length of a suspension under H.R. 4900 will hinge on whether a violation is considered to be major or minor (Section 101(C)(I) & (II)). Generally, a "major violation" is loss of accountability of a firearm or something that would prevent prosecution of a prohibited person or a criminal act by the FFL such as knowingly delivery a firearm or ammunition to a minor or prohibited person. Major violations could result in a $2,500 fine per each violation up to $15,000 -or- up to a 90 day FFL suspension -or- license revocation. Hey! I thought we were trying to avoid revocations!!??!. Everything else would likely fall under the "minor violation" definition. Minor violations would include an incredible number of nitpicky clerical errors like a "Y" instead of "YES" in answer to a question, putting "SD" in the county block instead of spelling out "San Diego", misspelling a city name, leaving height or weight blank in error, and more. The fines for minor violations would be from $1,000 per violation up to a total of $5,000 per inspection -or- you could face a 30 day suspension. (Section 101) Third, your exposure: There are about 54 data fields on a federal 4473 form that apply to most firearm transactions on the Federal 4473 form alone. Call it 50 for a round number. On 24 of these the gun dealer is forced to rely on the gun purchaser; who generally has no idea how an honest error (or even poor penmanship) on his or her part can really screw the dealer. Multiply 50 times the number of guns the dealership delivers in say a year, for us it runs from 1000 plus, and you have the potential in our example, for 50,000 errors between annual ATF inspections. You don't get annual inspections? Then multiply it times the number of firearms since your last inspection - figure out your error rate and you have an idea of your potential exposure. A Federal form 4473 is a literal mine field for minor error with some major ones interspersed throughout just to keep the level of excitement up. Add the human element to this mess and it's easy to see how you will never be error free. At this point you should be questioning the wisdom behind giving the ATF the ability to fine, suspend, or revoke YOUR FFL on EVERY admin inspection is a good idea. NOTE: We ran into a new product at the Acusport show called EZ4473 which uses a computer to eliminate much of the human error. We are looking in to it. We, and you, may have to convince the local ATF office that it's legal. LIKELY H.R. 4900 APPLICATION BY ATF: Let's say an ATF agent is inspecting a Mom & Pop FFL. The firearms business is a sideline to a hardware store or they operate out of a garage. Since Mom & Pop haven't been inspected in years and have never had the privilege of sitting in on one of Chris Chiafullo's seminars, hosted by Acusport, on how to protect their FFL or about his new FFL Guard - they have no idea what's coming. In fact, since the NRA & NSSF got H.R. 4900 passed, they feel pretty safe and well protected. The ATF agent easily finds way more than 5 minor errors. The ATF agent confers with headquarters and they come to the following conclusions: 1) None of the errors justify revoking the FFL. 2) A suspension of 30 days can be easily handled by Mom & Pop because the FFL is not a primary or major source of income. 3) On the other hand, a fine of $5,000 would be a crippling financial blow to Mom & Pop that would cause wailing and gnashing of teeth. The ATF fines Mom & Pop $5,000, and then offers an alternative; surrender your FFL and the fine goes away. I would respectfully submit that in this very likely scenario we just lost another dealer. Let's try another hypothetical, shall we? Say an ATF agent is inspecting a medium or large size FFL with the same minor error results. A $5,000 fine to a medium or large dealer is a sting but not something that would ordinarily force them out of business. In this case the ATF elects to go with a 30 day suspension. Not being able to sell guns for 30 days is no small sting, it's a major economic blow to any FFL that relies on the sell or transfer of firearms as a primary or major source of income. Where the bigger dealer could pay a $5,000 fine and move on, a 30 day suspension is not so easy to shrug off. If there is even just one major violation the only thing between you and a 90 day suspension is whatever goodwill you can elicit from the ATF. Good luck with that! Enter, stage left, the many legal remedies and options afforded by H.R. 4900 along with the attendant attorney fees and court time. The remedies and options are wonderful... but don't forget that H.R. 4900 also created the situation that made them necessary. Since many, if not most, businesses live paycheck to paycheck with little if any reserves for legal fees... the business is now faced with a loss of income and simultaneous unplanned legal fees. The business is now at risk. You want to force medium to large FFL's out of business? Then just pass H.R. 4900 as written and let the ATF suspend their operations for 30 to 90 days. Remember that the fines are handed out according to how many violations there are (Section 101(i)(I) & 101(ii)(I)). If I read H.R. 4900 correctly, suspensions are not similarly limited by the number of violations(Section 101(i)(II) & 101(ii)(II)). One major violation - say an FFL loses accountability for one firearm, can result in a $2500 fine -or- 90 day suspension. Why, pray tell, do our industry watchdogs, the NSSF and the NRA, and the sponsors find this so difficult to understand? It's written in plain language in the bill! Additionally, ATF sets the conditions for lifting the suspension. H.R. 4900 is unclear about what happens when the maximum number of days for a suspension have been reached but the conditions for lifting the suspension have not been met. Can the suspension go longer than the 30 or 90 day maximum or does the dealer lose his license? We don't know how a court will rule. It may depend on the Judges view of the 2nd Amendment. A BAD ENDORSEMENT THAT WON'T GO AWAY: Of particular concern to dealers is the total disregard for dealers opinions on something that very directly affects them. The NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) ignored concerns raised by the California Association of Firearms Retailers (CAFR) in 2007. In a 4 hour conference call with the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, CAFR, Congressman Hunter's staff, and myself which took place late last year the NRA was unapologetic and refused to acknowledge that this same bill (known in 2007 as H.R. 5092) was anything but perfect. NSSF refused Rep. Hunter's request to participate. Obviously the NRA and the NSSF have had time to address those concerns between then and now. Rather than admit that serious errors with the bill must be addressed, or even quietly rewrite it, the NRA and NSSF found new sponsors to push the exact same language as H.R. 4900 with complete disregard for what ATF is going to do to dealers with the brand new civil penalties of fines and suspensions, and, in my opinion, without reducing one whit the risk of revocations of FFL's, claims to the contrary not withstanding. As before, the NRA and NSSF still insist that giving the Attorney General the ability set the guidelines for ATF will result in a "reigning in" of that out of control federal agency. Imagine the differences in guidelines you would reasonably expect between AG Ashcroft and AG Reno. If the next President is Clinton or Obama what kind of AG will they appoint? How much "reigning in", exactly, will a Clinton or an Obama AG do? READ THE BILL YOURSELF: The language in H.R. 4900 is really not difficult to understand. If you read it for yourself, the NSSF and the NRA are really going to have an uphill battle convincing you that this is a good thing. Read Gun Owner's of America analyses of H.R. 4900 - they also take exception to the issue of fines and suspensions. I have asked them to readdress the issue of having the AG set the standards. For your part, don't support H.R. 4900 because the NRA or the NSSF said so - DO YOUR OWN THINKING! YOUR VOICE NEEDS TO BE HEARD: Please call your congressman and your senator and tell them to amend H.R. 4900 by removing ATF's ability to impose fines and suspensions. If you really think that ATF needs more power to abuse between the hand slap and revocation, how about something like "Traffic School". As an example H.R. 4900 could allow the ATF to require management or employees to attend a DVD course on the proper administration of an FFL, a maximum of 2 hours per admin inspection, and to be conducted at the FFL's place of business and at a time that would interfere the least with business operations - instead of fines, suspensions, and revocations. Writing it this way would prevent ATF from forcing dealers to transport their personnel at great expense to some far away location and the DVD course would make it standard through out the country as to content and length. Please tell your representative to amend H.R. 4900 to include the actual ATF guidelines that ATF must abide by. Tell them that giving this power to a political appointee guarantees that the guidelines will change with the AG, dealers will be exposed to the AG's personal prejudices on the 2nd Amendment, and that an anti-gun AG will be in a position to do great harm to FFL's. Demand that your representative vote against H.R. 4900 for the harm it will do to gun dealers, unless it is amended, this time with input from dealers themselves. SPREAD THE WORD: It isn't easy to fight the NRA and the NSSF and it shouldn't be necessary. Please spread the word to your local firearms dealer. Have them contact me if they find it hard to believe - and they will, until they actually read the bill for themselves. They need to get involved. Dealers cannot afford to have NSSF and NRA lobbyists who likely have never been through an unfriendly BATF & E inspection to harm them with good intentions and an un-amended H.R. 4900. Ron Godwin, Manager
|
|
January 4, 2008
MEMORANDUM RE: H.R. 4900 FROM: Gun Owners of America The bill contains a number of relatively minor pro-gun provisions which we have championed for many years. However, the bill also contains, for the first time, "civil penalties" for federal firearms licensees (FFL's). The bill's supporters tout the introduction of "civil penalties" as a good thing -- arguing that this allows regulators to take action against errant FFL's short of license revocation. The problem is that -- in virtually all of the most aggressive regulatory agencies in the federal government -- "civil penalties" are the central engine whereby the agency has expanded its jurisdiction. Thus, for instance, the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) will bring an action against Merrill Lynch -- arguing a broad new expansion of its regulatory authority and demanding hundreds of millions of dollars of "civil penalties" for violations which need be proven only by a "preponderance of the evidence." The SEC offers to "settle" the suit for much less, thereby creating a legal precedent which it can use to go against other businesses. True, the "civil penalties" in H.R. 4900 would be considerably less -- for now. But we have seen how difficult it is to argue against "changing the numbers" once penalties are established. And, for small FFL's, $5,000 may be as onerous as $500,000,000 is for Merrill Lynch. Hence, GOA has felt that section 101 is so problematic that it has, in the past, opposed passage of what is otherwise a good bill. Section 101: Current subsections 18 U.S.C. 923(e) and (f) allow BATF to revoke FFL's, after notification and the opportunity for a hearing. Section 101 would create a bifurcated structure:
"Serious" violations would consist of, inter alia, actions which could result in the acquisition of a firearm by a prohibited person or interfere with a criminal investigation. There would be a five-year statute of limitations, and there would be procedures for contesting penalties (before an administrative law judge in the case of minor penalties and before a court in the case of revocation). These procedures would be relatively pro-defendant -- with a bar to bringing a civil charge after an unsuccessful attempt at a criminal prosecution. Section 102: This section would allow an FFL applicant to supplement his application, in the case of problems, before final denial. Section 103: One of the big battles in McClure-Volkmer was over "scienter" (state-of-mind) requirements. In particular, there has been a tendencv to diminish what is required for an individual to act "knowingly" or "willfully." This section would define "willfully" to mean "intentionally," which is about the most culpable state-of-mind requirement in existence. Section 104: This section would require BATF to establish guidelines for conducting investigations. Section 105: This section would prohibit purchaser information concerning a non-prohibited person from being shared with any other agency -- unless the agency agrees not to share it with anyone but a court, prosecutor, or law enforcement agency. Section 106: This section would give an FFL with a revoked license 60 days (with the possibility of an extension) to liquidate his inventory. Section 107: This section would allow more flexibility in permitting an FFL with a revoked license to transfer his business to another FFL without automatically assuming that the violation giving rise to the revocation continues -- and with an opportunity for the acquiring FFL to cure any defects. Section 108: This section would decriminalize a non-material (i.e., minor and irrelevant) "false entry" in FFL records. Section 109: This section broadens federal supervision of state oversight of explosives. Sections 201 through 210:
|
|
California Association of Firearm Retailers (with additional notes from ECGE as indicated) Legislative Update May 2007 Ron Godwin, ECGE Mgr The California State Legislature is now in full operation and has recently finished its hearings for the first policy committee deadline, April 27, 2007. Generally, at this point in the Legislative Session, several bills either fail passage or are made into "two-year bills" not eligible for further hearings until January 2008. The remaining bills, which are most of them, are still eligible for advancement in the legislative process during 2007. This year, there were a huge number of bill introductions, many of which affect firearm retailers and their customers. Several of the bills are either of immediate significant interest, or could become so if amended later. They are constantly being watched for revisions that could elevate their level of interest. The following is a description of some of these and other matters of current concern. AB 821 (Nava), a bill opposed by the California Association of Firearm Retailers (CAFR), would prohibit the use of centerfire rifle and pistol ammunition containing lead for hunting big game in the range of the California Condor, a large part of Central and Southern California. It has been passed by the State Assembly on a straight Democratic party-line vote and sent to the Senate for further hearings. The theory behind the bill is that it is lead from hunters bullets left in gut piles and un-recovered big game that is responsible for the lead poisoning deaths of several condors which feed on carrion. However, even though condor researchers have been unable to definitely establish a scientifically conclusive link between hunters' bullets and the condor deaths, they have reached a non-verifiable "scientific consensus" that such must be the case. Because of the lack of absolute scientific proof, and the fact that the State Department of Fish and Game currently has in place a voluntary program asking hunters in the affected areas to use non-lead bullets, to bury gut piles, or to otherwise interrupt the pathway of lead bullet fragments from animal remains to ingestion by condors, the legislature has in previous years refused to grant passage to lead ammunition ban bills. However, following the November, 2006, elections, it now appears that many legislators are willing to vote for such legislation, regardless of the facts or a lack of scientific proof. Because of the Legislatures past refusal to act, the supporters of the lead ammunition ban are, in addition to AB 821, seeking a lead ammunition prohibition through the State Fish and Game Commissions regulatory process, and they have concurrently filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the use of lead ammunition for hunting. If none of the foregoing is successful, they have threatened to gather signatures to place a lead ammunition ban initiative before the states voters in an upcoming election. The Fish and Game Commission decided earlier this year that the lead ammunition ban issue is too complex, controversial and time consuming to be considered as part of its normal Mammal Hunting Regulations hearings and development process that must have been completed by April 25, 2007. The Commission is, however, continuing to take testimony on this subject from the public at its regularly scheduled meetings. The next meeting is June 7-8, 2007, at the Truckee Town Hall, 10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, Ca. The Commission has also directed the Department of Fish and Game to further review the existing research and literature on the subject, plus any other available relevant information, and to report on its findings to the Commission at a later date. The Department is expected to make its report to the Commission at its June meeting. In the meantime, the Department has removed its original Draft Environmental Document on Methods of Take relative to the use of lead ammunition from its website until it is revised and re-published at a later date. AB 362 (De Leon) would require that, beginning July 1, 2008, no handgun ammunition seller may sell handgun ammunition without recording the following information on a form prescribed by the State Department of Justice (DOJ): a) date of the transaction, b) name, address, and date of birth of the buyer, c) buyer's driver's license or other identification number, and the right thumbprint, d) brand, type, and amount of ammunition purchased, e) buyer's signature, and f) salesperson's name. This bill would also require that no person shall sell or transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless they are registered as a handgun ammunition vendor with DOJ. It would require vendors to obtain a background clearance for employees who handle ammunition in the course and scope of their employment. AB 362 would further mandate that no retail seller of ammunition shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the retailer or employee thereof. Violation of these provisions would be punishable as an infraction with a fine of $500, or as a misdemeanor. Finally, AB 362 would further provide that handgun ammunition, which includes reloading components, may only be purchased in a face-to-face transaction. This would do away with all mail or internet purchases by lawful California users of handgun ammunition. The author has stated that he would be amending the bill later to require criminal and mental history background checks for handgun ammunition buyers. Besides being inappropriate, this would add about twenty dollars to the cost of each handgun ammunition sales transaction.
Several bills have been introduced this year that could, to varying degrees, affect firearm retailers. The following are some of those that are of primary significance. They are listed in numerical order. AB 334 (Levine) Firearms: loss and theft - AB 362 UPDATE 7/11/31 - Per our lobbyist, Lynch & Assoc., this Bill has been gutted and turned into a DOJ feasibility study. Standing by for confirmation and the newly amended copy now. Lynch & Assoc: "I am pleased to report this bill got gutted in Senate Public Safety Committee today and became a feasibility study bill only. We will see those amendments shortly but the main components of the bill on the DOJ maintaining records on ammunition sales, banning internet sales and burdensome requirements on retailers were gutted today. Thank you to all you that weighed in with your legislators on this bill. We have more bad bills we are trying to stop and will be calling on you shortly for action on the remaining bills. Thank you" AB 821 (Nava) Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act - It would require the Fish and Game Commission to establish, by regulation, by January 1, 2008, a public process to certify centerfire rifle and pistol ammunition as non-lead ammunition, and to define non-lead ammunition by regulation. The bill would also require the Commission, to the extent funding is available from sources not including the State of California, to provide hunters in condor areas with non-lead ammunition at no or reduced charge through a coupon program. Any person who violates those requirements would be guilty of an infraction punishable by a $500 fine for the first offense. Location: Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Water; Position: Oppose. AB 1105 (Garrick) Firearms - Would require the State Department of Justice (DOJ) to prepare a report on the time required by DOJ to process an application to purchase a firearm, the number of applications that have been denied, the Dealers Record of Sale Account, and how the waiting period for the delivery of firearms can be reduced. The report would be due by July 1, 2008. Location: Assembly Committee on Public Safety, two-year bill; Position: Support. AB 1218 (Duvall) Firearms - Existing law requires the Department of Justice to compile,
publish, and maintain a roster listing all of the handguns that have been tested by a certified
testing laboratory, have been determined not to be unsafe handguns, and that may be sold in this
state. Existing law also provides that any person* who offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends
any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year.
This bill would make a technical, non-substantive change to provide that these provisions shall not apply the sale, loan, or transfer of any handgun that is defined as an "antique firearm". It would provide that this change is declaratory of existing law. The bill would also provide that these provisions shall not apply to the sale, loan, or transfer of a handgun to a dealer if specified conditions are met, or to the sale, loan, or transfer of a handgun by a dealer who received that firearm under specified conditions if it is accompanied by a notification stating that it has not qualified for inclusion on the roster of handguns that may be sold in this state that is compiled by the department, as specified (i.e.- applies to used handguns produced before the "unsafe handgun" law went into effect). Location: Assembly Committee on Public Safety, two-year bill; Position: Support. AB 1357 (Parra) Handgun safety certificates: exemptions - Existing law provides exceptions
from the requirements for a handgun safety certificate. This bill would establish additional
exemptions for persons who hold a certificate with a Hunter Safety Instruction Validation Stamp,
or who have a hunting license. Location: Assembly Committee on Public Safety, two-year bill;
Position: Watch.
AB 1645 (La Malfa) Emergency powers: firearms - Existing law authorizes the Governor to
invoke various powers in the event of an emergency. 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. Location: Senate Committee on Public
Safety; Position: Watch.
SB 248 (Padilla) Firearms - Existing law regulates the sale, transfer, and possession of firearms. This bill would authorize local law enforcement agencies to have specified information related to firearms entered into the United States Department of Justice, National Integrated Ballistic Information Network to ensure that representative samples of fired bullets and cartridge cases from crime scenes are recorded, as specified. The bill would require the Attorney General to develop a protocol by July 1, 2008, to implement the provisions authorizing the entering of this information. The bill would also require the Attorney General to report to the Legislature, on or before January 1, 2010, on the implementation of these provisions. Location: Senate Committee on Appropriations Suspense File; Position: Watch. SB 327 (Migden) Firearms - Existing law requires the Attorney General to maintain certain
information reported to the Department of Justice in connection with handgun transactions. This
bill would require firearms dealers to report, and require the Attorney General to maintain,
certain information related to the date of delivery of handguns to transferees. Location: Senate
Committee on Public Safety, two-year bill; Position: Watch.
SB 852 (Ridley-Thomas) Sales and use taxes: purchase - The Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a tax on the gross receipts from the sale in this state of, or the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, tangible personal property. That law specifies that a "purchase" means and includes, among other things, a transaction whereby the possession of property is transferred, but the seller retains the title to the property as security for the payment of the price. This bill would make technical, non-substantive changes to this definition of purchase. It is a spot bill that will be amended later to reveal its true intended purpose. Location: Senate Committee on Rules, two-year bill; Position: Watch. SB 860 (Correa) Stun guns - Existing law makes it an offense to assault a person, or to
assault a peace officer or firefighter during the performance of his or her duties, as specified,
with a stun gun or a taser. This bill would express the Legislature's intent to enact legislation
revising the definition of stun guns. Location: Senate Committee on Rules, two-year bill;
Position: Watch.
SB 927 (Perata) Firearms - Existing law creates the crime of, and establishes the punishment for, criminal possession of a firearm. This bill would make a technical, non-substantive change to that provision. It is a spot bill that will be amended later to reveal its true intended purpose. Senate Committee on Rules, two-year bill; Position: Watch. SB 997 (Ridley-Thomas) Firearms - Existing law generally defines firearms for regulatory purposes. This bill would make technical, non-substantive changes to those provisions. Existing law also generally regulates the transfer of firearms and provides exceptions to
various reporting requirements for certain law enforcement entities and licensed firearms
dealers. This bill would provide additional exceptions for the return of a firearm in the
custody of a court of law or an enforcement agency to a law enforcement agency, as specified.
It would exempt from certain reporting requirements, firearms transfers to certain government
entities, under specified circumstances. Location: Senate Desk, two-year bill; Position: Watch.
|
|
"Compromise" bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
1. Please urge your Senators to OPPOSE the gun control bill (HR 2640) which was snuck through the House last week by anti-gun Democrats. Some people are saying this bill is a positive step for gun owners, but realize this ONE SIMPLE FACT: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer are the lead sponsors of this legislation! These two have NEVER once looked out for your Second Amendment rights!!! 2. Please use the contact information below -- and the pre-written letter -- to help direct your comments to them, and circulate this alert to as many gun owners as you can. It is imperative that we remind gun owners nationwide that gun control DOES NOT work to reduce crime; that, to the contrary, gun control HAS DISARMED millions of law-abiding citizens; and that the answer to tragedies like Virginia Tech is to REPEAL the "gun free zones" which leave law-abiding victims defenseless. Monday, June 18, 2007 The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, "The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade." It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists. This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought, "No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me." But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys' list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke, stated that, "We're hopeful that now that the NRA has come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill passes [to impose additional gun control]." Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step. The remainder of this alert will explain, in layman's terms, the problems with what passed on Wednesday. Please understand that GOA's legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill, in addition to looking at existing federal regulations and BATFE interpretations. (If you want the lawyerly perspective, then please go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm for an extensive analysis.) So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history, this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning military veterans from ever owning a gun again. In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 - 90,000 names of military veterans -- who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress (PTS) -- into the NICS background check system. These were vets who were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified them from buying or owning guns. For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that's the number of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns. Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans -- who have been denied their Second Amendment rights -- could get their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise. The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on this.) How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering from PTS doesn't possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger to himself or others? And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to clear their name, there is still the Schumer amendment in federal law which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun. So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is "generously" offering military veterans the opportunity to clear their names, even though it's been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar procedure created in 1986! But there's still another irony. Before this bill, it was very debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should have been added into the NICS system... and yet many of them were -- even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this bill, there were provisions in the law to get one's name cleared, and yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so. Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a "diagnosis." Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they shouldn't)? Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get their rights restored! Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists? First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible. Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for banning Americans from owning guns -- a person can't be a felon, a drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are "adjudicated as a mental defective." Now, in 1968, that term referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity. Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law... especially when it comes to banning guns? After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns? (See footnotes below.) So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you're a "good guy," then think again. Military vets are in trouble, and so are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans, could also apply to these kids. Do you have a child in the IDEA program -- a.k.a., Individuals with Disability Education Act -- who has been diagnosed with ADD and thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink's determination that a person is a risk to himself or others. You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others, that has become the new standard for banning guns. But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws! So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter (dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential risk doesn't have to be based on the fact that the person poses a "substantial" risk. It just has to be "ANY" risk. Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin -- or a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who's been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. -- for a LIFETIME gun ban. This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system with the names of people who are on a so-called "government watch list" (S. 1237). While this "government watch list" supposedly applies to suspected terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun owner's name to this list without due process, without any hearing, or trial by jury, etc. That's where the background check system is headed... if we don't rise up together and cut off the monster's head right now. NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example, where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via Section 3 of the bill. Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11, it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be "adjudicated as a mental defective" by a court or by any "OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY" (like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or others (or can't manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't have to be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include "any danger" at all. How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS doesn't pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else? FOOTNOTES: (1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf). (2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm). (3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn). CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below. Dear Senator: As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support the so-called NICS Improvement Amendments Act (HR 2640), which was snuck through the House last week. This bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years. For the first time in American history, this bill would impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans and troubled teens -- based solely on the diagnosis of a psychologist (as opposed to a finding by a court). You can read more about the problems with this bill by going to the website of Gun Owners of America at http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm. Gun owners OPPOSE this legislation, and I hope you will join the handful of Senators that have placed "holds" on this bill and object to any Unanimous Consent agreement. Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or in England! If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then consider this: "The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be permanently removed from that system." Sincerely, (Your Name & Address) To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location. |
|
We at the El Cajon Gun Exchange have a real hard time buying into this as a coincidence. It is certainly ironic that the "sincere professionals" at OSHA decided that this precise time was the time to flex their regulatory muscles, (muscles that have gone unflexed for years), in an attempt to change the rules on ammo storage and transportation; at the exact time that liberal legislators around the country, especially in Californa, are attacking ammunition as a means of controlling guns and gun owners. If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'ld like to sell to you! We gun owners would be foolish to let this end here. First we should demand that President Bush accept the immediate resignation of the head of OSHA. Second, we need to tell our federal representatives to get off their collective butts and rewrite the laws for OSHA to prevent future attacks from this vector. Don't be surprised if those "sincere professionals" at OSHA come back to finish the job for their political cronies in the anti-gun lobby. By the way... if those "sincere professionals" at OSHA really are sincere, then they are incompetent to do the job. If they are, as I think they are, on a political anti-gun quest, then they shouldn't have the job either. You pick it - call the President! Call your legislator! Ron Godwin, Manager Following is an update provided by SAAMI: Proposed Changes to OSHA Regulation 29 CFR 1910.109 The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) is pleased to report that, following discussions with OSHA, the proposed regulations for explosives (29 CFR 1910.109) is being retracted pending a full review and clarification of the purposes of the regulation. Many people do not understand the properties of modern ammunition and gunpowder. Classifying these products as explosives is simply wrong-it's not consistent with their physical properties. SAAMI has been able to demonstrate the safety of ammunition and ammunition components by conducting and videotaping burn tests of these and other common household products. The tests show conclusively why the proposed changes to 29 CFR 1910.109 were completely inappropriate. As a result of this information, SAAMI petitioned OSHA in 2002 to exclude ammunition from 29 CFR 1910.109 and adopt NFPA (National Fire Protection Act) 495 to properly regulate the safe storage of ammunition and components. We believe the professionals at OSHA were sincere in their efforts to improve regulations of explosives using the most up-to-date information and technology. Ammunition and components were summarily included in the proposed changes based on perceptions of authors unfamiliar with these products. While unfortunate, the end results have proven that OSHA is genuinely interested in making decisions based on science and not politics when promoting workplace safety and protecting employee health. SAAMI looks forward to a continued dialogue and working relationship with the professionals at OSHA-and other regulatory agencies-to promote safety and reliability in the design, manufacture, use, transportation, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and components.
Richard Patterson
Read the entire article at "SAAMI Article on OSHA Proposed Rule Changes" This OSHA Ammo Alert is provided by the
E-mail sent to "State Firearms Retailer Association" Members RE: OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 This is to advise you that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America's workers, issued for public comment several proposed rule changes effecting the manufacturing, storage, sale, transportation, handling, and use of small arms ammunition, primers and propellants. The complete text of the rule changes issued by OSHA on April 13, 2007 is attached. A deadline of July 12th has been set for public comments to be submitted to OSHA. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) recently met with OSHA officials to explain the major problems that the proposed rules present for all firearms and ammunition industry members. NSSF and SAAMI have also requested additional time to prepare and submit their separate written comments as OSHA's rule changes represent a "significant regulatory action" pursuant to Executive Order 12866. The National Association of Firearms Retailers (NAFR) will also submit its request for an extension and will join with the NSSF and SAAMI in their efforts to reason with OSHA with respect to its proposed rule changes and seek workable alternatives to protecting the health and safety of workers employed by NAFR members. Below is a brief summary of some of the major rule changes proposed by OSHA and why they are problematic. Massive Costs: The cost to comply with OSHA's proposed rule changes for the ammunition industry, including ammunition retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million per year. For example, retailers would have to shut down and evacuate their stores when a thunderstorm approached. This is simply not realistic. One Size Does Not Fit All: The proposals impose the same unnecessary and burdensome requirements on all ammunition retailers regardless of their size, location or other differences between retailers. Retailers ranging from "mom and pop" to "big box" stores, must ensure that no open flames, matches or spark producing devices are located within 50 feet of their facilities. This proposal would require retailers to search all of their customers (and even their employees) for matches and lighters before these individuals would be allowed to enter their stores. Even more damaging, the many mom and pop outlets located in strip malls would be forced to shutdown as they have neighboring stores fewer than 50 feet away. Shipping is Halted: Proposed restrictions on transportation exceed current Department of Transportation Regulations. Mandating wood-covered, non-spark-producing material in trailers for ammunition shipments would bring the transportation of ammunition to a near halt. There are simply not enough trailers in existence today that would be able to substitute for traditional, metal covered surfaces. Small package carriers such as UPS and FedEx would be prohibited from carrying ammunition and components, which would stifle and even shut down mail order houses and many business to business transactions. This proposed rule alone, with all it would entail (such as two drivers at all times), is capable of paralyzing our industry. National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) Rules Exceeded: Proposed restrictions exceed NFPA regulations and would, for example, reduce commercial establishment displays of smokeless propellant from 50 to 20 lbs with no commensurate increase in safety. OSHA's proposed rule changes, if adopted, pose a serious threat to all retailers that sell and store small arms ammunition, primers and propellants. I urge all state retailer association members to contact OSHA directly to request a 60 day extension of the public comment period. In your request, please inform the the agency that its proposed rule is a "significant regulatory action" as defined in Executive Order 12866 in that it will clearly "adversely affect in a material way" the retail sector of the firearms and ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs and that the annual compliance cost for all retailers of ammunition will far exceed $100 million dollars. El Cajon Gun Exchange Note: You, the concerned public, are invited to participate in asking OSHA to extend the public comment period and at the same time to give OSHA your comments. Your request must also include the following information in the reference line: Please fax the request for extension to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on your cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter). If you prefer to email your request, you may do so by visiting http://www.regulations.gov and following the submission instructions. National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
We believe that the proposed OSHA regulations would simply force us to discontinue selling ammunition, gun powder, primers, and cannon fuse. Given the huge part of our business that is comprised of sales of these items it is doubtful that we can stay in business. We doubt that the impact will be any less detrimental to our competitors. The anti-gun crowd has, so far, not been able to accomplish it's mission of disarming Americans by going through the "legislative front door"... so now they're going to try to "unload" the guns that they haven't taken away yet by sneaking in the "regulatory back door!" Losing business, as bad as it is, is not the worst part. The worst part is the attack on Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution. The scary part is that it might work. We must act now to stop this outrageous attack on the 2nd Amendment. Please write, email, and call OSHA (Federal) now. After you do that... feel free to call your Congressman and Senators and give them some insight into what you think of them giving this kind of clout to OSHA in the first place. Ron Godwin, Manager (619) 579-5152 |
Locate your representative now! |
| I strongly recommend use of
Gun Owners Of California
(for California Legislation), and
Gun Owners Of America (for current
Federal Legislation), because both will provide accurate & insightful legislative analyses
and updates, and both have contact data for your representatives. What they don't do is just as important; they
they don't withold or spin information to get your support; they won't lie to you. They
will back up their claims with original source material, chapter, line, and verse.
Regardless, stay informed, be involved, and for crying out loud - please - check the NRA's position carefully before you start writing letters on their behalf. It's unfortunate but the NRA doesn't always tell you everything you need to know about a pending Bill or a candidate. When in doubt - check it out! Try the "Gun Owner's" links, I have found them to be truthful, thorough, and reliable. Ron Godwin, Mgr |
Where can I shoot? |
| Key = I Instructors Available, HS Hunter Safety Course Available, RO Range Officers on duty, PC Private Club, OP Open to the Public, CCW course, TSC Trap/Skeet/Sporting Clays Course Available |
| Bruce Colodny - Firearms Lawyer | Trutanich & Michel, Attorneys at Law |
| Christopher Chiafullo - Firearms Industry Lawyer | Larry Kincaid, Attorney, 1110 North 2nd St. El Cajon, Ca (619) 937-0042 |
| Jeremiah J. Sullivan III - Criminal Defense |
One last thing- Call your legislator!
Tell them it's the repeating
Criminal, and not the repeating Firearm!
E Mail Us! HOME
FIREARMS
COWBOY & BLACK POWDER
ACCESSORIES
GUN SAFES
CONTACT US
MAP
