CAFR Press Release concerning Governor Brown's action on recent gun legislation
October 15, 2011
On the plus side the governor vetoed the very obnoxious and confusing ammo bill SB 427 ( De Leon) - nothing changes this time around with respect to handgun and rifle ammo. This was a really important win for us and probably the bill that had the potential to do the most harm economically and with the most potential to drag gun owners and gun stores into court battles.
On the down side, he did sign into law the bill SB 819 ( Leno) that allows the state of California to continue to overcharge and misuse/misappropriate the surplus funds paid by gun buyers for background checks. (Editor note: refers to Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) and Safety Tag fees.) As I understand it we will continue to be overcharged and the state will continue to misuse the excess funds. Unknown if a court action will follow. SB 819 takes effect in January 2012.
He also signed AB 809 ( Feuer) into law which will create the same registration scheme for long guns as it does for handguns. This means that long guns, (rifles and shotguns), which are currently delivered to the gun buyer with a background check but without a registration requirement will now be registered the same as handguns. This will make firearm confiscation easier the next time the state decides to do it again. Yes, again. California has already established that it can and will - has - confiscated firearms. See the history of the SKS Sporter rifle and the ongoing confiscation of so-called assault rifles. This new long gun registration will make it very easy for the state to target individuals and groups of otherwise law abiding citizens. AB 809 is expected to cause an increase in demand and possibly the retail price for long guns as gun owners rush to beat the rush and AB 809's long gun registration scheme. AB 809 takes effect in January 2014. (Editor note: If past history holds, the rush and attendant price increase will take place in 2013.)
AB 144 ( Portantino) was signed into law and basically bans open carry. Many within the pro-gun community believe this bill was the result of an unnecessary fight between the proponents of open carry and Portantino. Well publicized and widely reported open carry demonstrations and a few "in your face" media interviews where proponents did a very poor job of representing gun owners led to the fight over open carry. Given whose in charge in Sacramento and the apparent fact that open carry proponents didn't have the funds or organization to win the fight it might have been better to maintain a lower profile until conditions were more favorable. The dubious silver lining to this cloud is that passage of this bill might work in our favor as elements within the gun lobby challenge the "good cause clause" in California's concealed carry law. The "good cause clause" is based completely on the local sheriff's arbitrary and discretionary opinion of what constitutes "good cause" and supports the elitist perspective of many of our state's anti-gunners. AB 144 takes effect in January 2012.
SB 610 ( Wright) Concealed Carry (CCW) is almost a neutral bill in the 2nd Amendment debate in that it makes no great or substantive changes. Regardless, it was generally supported by pro 2nd Amendment groups as pro-gun because first it does no harm to the 2nd Amendment and second because it does make certain minor monetary improvements on behalf of CCW applicants. Basically, SB 610 modifies existing law so that the applicant would not be required to pay for any training courses prior to a determination of good cause being made; this provision will save you some money when the sheriff turns you down. It clarifies that the application fee for a new license must include the costs of required notices and provides that no applicant would be required to obtain liability insurance as a condition of the license. Finally, it puts a time line on the sheriff for notifying you of your denial. Please note that this alleged "major league" pro-gun bill leaves intact the primary anti-2nd Amendment provision that allows the sheriff to refuse to issue a license for any reason that he as sole arbiter decides does not meet "good cause clause".
CAFR is disappointed that the NRA is celebrating this legislation, which they drafted, as if it will free up the process or increase the issuance of CCW's. It will have no such effect. The issuing authority will still have the ability to refuse to issue CCW permits based on whatever arbitrary criteria they wish to apply. The NRA, conspicuous by it's absence elsewhere - particularly in the fight against Portantino's AB 144 which bans open carry - also diverted attention and resources away from the main gun lobby effort aimed at doing away with the "good cause clause" of California's CCW law as well as support on other legislative issues. NRA drafted SB 610 benefits Democrat Senator Wright more than gun owners as it helps maintain his pro gun credentials and does so without actually doing any harm, from an anti gunner's perspective, to the original unconstitutional and anti 2nd Amendment concealed carry law already on the books. In short, the minor gains in SB 610 are a poor showing for a bill from a Democrat Senator that claims strong pro 2nd Amendment credentials. SB 610 takes effect in January 2012.
CAFR sincerely hopes that the lessons learned during this legislative session will lead to improved coordination next year between the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby.
Should you have any questions please contact our legislative advocates, Kathryn Lynch, at (916) 443-0202, or Gerald Upholt, at (916) 384-5813.
Sincerely,
Marc Halcon, President
California Association of Firearm Retailers
|
