Here are descriptions of the five bills described as being "pro-firearms" bills:
SB255 (Ducheny - Dem) Landmark "First in the Nation" Background Check Law - Signed by Governor Gray Davis. The provisions of SB255 will allow persons to pay $20.00 and undergo a State and Federal background check to determine their legal status for purchasing firearms without risking the violation of State and Federal laws in the process. Senate Bill 255 is long overdue, and allows a person to comply with State and Federal laws without becoming a victim of inaccurate government records or bureaucracy.
I can understand the idea of allowing people a "no-risk" means of learning whether they would be breaking the law by attempting to purchase a firearm. The idea that law-abiding people like myself have been forced to pay $20 repeatedly to prove that we are innocent every time we purchase a firearm is disgusting. If Kalifornia wishes to know whether I am a criminal, then Kalifornia ought to pay. I already know that I am not a criminal.
It remains to be seen whether this mechanism actually protects anyone. It my guess that a person can be charged for illegal purchase if it later appears that there was some disqualifying fact, even though the fact was not evident at the time of purchase.
Although not in Kalifornia, Emerson was charged with being in illegal possession due to a restraining order. Will the day arrive when gun-owners will need to purchase a "background" check every six-months in order to be confident that they are not in violation of some new infringement?
AB1044 (Negrete-Mcleod - Dem) CCW Applicant Privacy Protection - Several years ago, California law was changed to require the state Attorney General to maintain a centralized Department of Justice database of local CCW application data. Assembly Bill 1044 repeals this requirement, prevents the state from maintaining that information and affords other protections in local CCW forms and procedures. This bill would require the California Department of Justice to destroy any centralized database of information or records of CCW permit holders or applicants.
This bill puzzles me. It was my understanding that some jurisdictions have attempted to hide their CCW permit records because the records prove conclusively that the present "may issue" system of permits in Kalifornia is rife with cronyism, corruption, and de-facto racism. Requiring the state to destroy what may soon be claimed to be the only documentation on such matters is not a victory for gun-owners.
AB396 (Harman -Rep) Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement Program - Authorizes the California Department of Fish and Game to work in partnership with nonprofit conservation groups and other interested non-governmental organizations to encourage private landowners to voluntarily make their land available to the public for wildlife-dependent recreational activities.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. There is no "sporting-purposes" exception in the Bill of Rights.
SB238 (Perata -Dem) Lowers the penalty for the simple possession of an unregistered firearm classified as a "Roberti-Roos Assault-Weapon" to a simple infraction (ticket) and not endanger your gun rights.
I haven't read this bill. It might be a benefit but then it might be a terrible trap. There is more than one "assault weapons" law on the books in Kalifornia. A person might get a ticket for violating "Roberti-Roos" by owning a Colt AR Sporter and then be imprisoned for violating "SB23" because the Sporter has a pistol grip on it. If it ever becomes within my power to do so, I will offer the tyrants supporting these bills a choice of the type of rope with which they are to be hanged.
AB1455 (Negrete-Mcleod - Dem) Airguns - Declares that BB and pellet guns that shoot ceramic or plastic objects are not toys. Existing law requires that toy guns be either bright orange or green.
This will be shown to be a tremendous mistake the first time some twelve-year-old with a BB gun is shot down by cops and the claim is made that gun-owners are responsible for the mis-identification of the "weapon".
Overall, I am tremendously unimpressed. The loss of ground represented by the more burdensome purchase permits recently passed and further restrictions mandating magazine disconnects and chambered-round indicators far outweigh this "progress".
Over twenty years ago Californians overwhelmingly voted "NO" on a ban on handguns. The gun banners took away from the vote the lesson that they might achieve their objective short of a de jure ban. And they have. You can't buy a gun from a home, you can't buy a gun from a store without waiting 15 days before you can take it home, you can't carry it on your person without a hard to obtain CCW permit, and if you have a gun on the premises with children around, you must have a trigger lock on the gun or have it placed in a safe. In short, the gun banners in California have made guns hard to acquire and a hassle to own. They really don't need to make it "official." And there's nothing gun owners can do to change the reality short of an outright revolution in California.
