Posted on 06/12/2003 9:38:46 AM PDT by mvpel
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:05:49 -0700
From: jmarch@prodigy.net
Subject: Update: AB1044 (we won so far...)
The California Senate Public Safety Committee hearing on AB1044 happened yesterday (June 10th). We won. After three days of minimal sleep I came home and passed out, hence this update is late.
Prior to the hearing, in discussions with the bill's proponents in the hall I was told that arguing that I needed access to the central Cal-DOJ records for easy access to a single source of Public Records Act Requests would "cost me credibility." As it turned out, it wasn't my credibility at risk that day.
The bill's proponents came up and tried to pass it off as a minor paperwork cleanup bill, as they've always maintained. Besides the bill's sponsoring legislator (Gloria Negrete McLeod), the head of the DOJ Firearms Division (Randy Rossi) was the main speaker in favor.
The first sign of "trouble" was when Senator Vasconcellos pressed McLeod on the "need" for the bill. He repeated himself several times: "why do you need this bill?" After some hemming and hawing, one of the proponents, I forget which, said that it was to save on paper storage.
Then it was time for opposition statements. I was the sole opposition speaker, but the committee also had the opposition statements from CFAC (newspaper folks) and CCRKBA, and extensive quotes from the CCRKBA statement had made it into the official bill analysis.
I was given about three minutes, and managed to cover most of the high points, especially how joint actions of Cal-DOJ and the local agencies had managed to seal ALL records of CCW "good cause" statewide in violation of the California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block.
Vasconcellos then cut me off when I was about 95% done anyways, and directly questioned Rossi on whether or not the records Rossi wanted permission to destroy were available from local agencies.
Rossi then put on a display of "weaseling" not seen in those chambers since the last ferret legalization bill. Rossi desperately tried to imply that the records were available, but he couldn't outright say it because it's not true.
Vasconcellos could smell it, and flat-out stated he would vote "no" on the entire bill.
Since the full set of committee members weren't present yet (some were in other committees), the chair listed the bill's vote at that point as two in favor, one against. It needed four positive votes (out of six members total) to pass out of committee.
Rossi and I debated briefly in the hall outside after that, and then he went away.
I scratched my head, pondering what to do.
I headed straight for an Internet connection, went to my own website and printed three pages:
http://www.equalccw.com/DOJbulletin1.gif
http://www.equalccw.com/Nadjaletter1.gif
http://www.equalccw.com/Nadjaletter2.gif
The first is an official DOJ broadcast to law enforcement explaining how to use the new CCW forms. The key paragraph is:
Concerns have been raised regarding the potential disclosure of certain applicant information listed on the standard CCW application form should a request be made pursuant to the Public Records Act (Government Code 6250 et. seq.). To address these concerns, the standardized CCW application has been organized in a manner that segregates confidential, non-disclosable information about the applicant. Confidential information should be entered in Section 7 of the application.
The CCW "good cause data" is contained in Section 7 of the form. Rossi says this does NOT mean that the whole "good cause" is sealed from the public but his department has thus far refused to share this unusual opinion with law enforcement.
The other document is a response to a public records request by activist Nadja Adolf from the Santa Clara Sheriff's office. In response to the Nadja's request for "good cause data," Sheriff Smith replied:
This information is documented within that part of the individual's files which is not subject to disclosure. The California Department of Justice, which received an legislative mandate in 1999 to standardize the various CCW forms and application processes, has determined this information to be confidential.
(In my view, this situation is primarily the fault of the DOJ. The sheriffs are only responding to them.)
Thus armed with smoking-gun proof that Rossi was trying to destroy data the DOJ had illegally sealed on the local level, I pondered where to take it. I went to Vasconsellos' office and spoke to staffer Matt Gray, who looked over the documents (I had marked the same paragraphs quoted above).
He shook his head and realized what was going on.
While I was in Matt's office, he called up one of Senator Burton's policy staff members who had been at the committee observing it for Burton, who wasn't yet present. Matt explained the contents of the documents I'd given him.
Matt also explained to me that Rossi had also been around trying to get Vasconcellos' vote, and had also been lobbying Burton and others.
Back in the committee chambers, once Senator Burton showed up he declined to add his vote to the "support" column. Rossi and company were unable to get any further "yes" votes and it hence failed.
It's been "granted reconsideration," so some extra lobbying will now take place. I will be showing the evidence of the illegal sealing of the records to additional members; Senator Margett has expressed interest in the subject and I think he might actually switch.
In conclusion: Rossi wants the ability to do whatever he wants with the forms without public oversight, when we can prove that the forms creation process was already abused illegally and in violation of a California Supreme Court ruling. Rossi also wants to throw away his copies of records that his agency has made sure that the local agencies can conceal.
By the end of the day, Senators Vasconcellos, Burton and probably more realized it, and it wasn't my credibility that took any hits.
Special thanks to CFAC (www.cfac.org) for their support; I have just been asked to speak at their next OpenGov series of conferences in Long Beach in the fall.
WHAT TO DO NEXT:
Contact info for the legislators is at the bottom of this page:
http://www.equalccw.com/ab1044.html
Call Burton and Vasconcellos and thank them. Call Margett and VERY POLITELY ask for his "no" vote if AB1044 comes up again. I think he's liable to switch. Bob Margett is a pro-self-defense type, don't treat him as an enemy. He showed up too late to hear Rossi's "weaseling" and hence needs guidance, not pounding. I think we should let Burton and Vasconcellos handle their Democratic compatriots.
Jim March
I sort of smell a rat in all this because guys like Burton and Vasconcellos are life-long gun haters - their voting records are very clear on that. I look to see some crooked 'midnight' shenanigans in order to get this bill passed out of committee; once that happens it will be passed by the overwhelming Neo-Marxist California Legislative majority - and that will be the end of any real CCW reform in Cal. Jim March must have an unending supply of patience and a twisted sense of humor - good going Jim!
Yes, but when you tie gun rights to some of their hot-button, me-so-horny issues like gay rights, racism, discrimination, and so on, they start to see the light. That's the brilliance of Jim's approach.
This is the very reason we're planning an end-run around the legislature and the courts by amending the California Constitution to include the RKBA. (The main site is down due to two serious disk crashes.)
Concealed carry permits granted on basis of who you are?
I am shocked, shocked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.