Posts Tagged ‘Gov.’

postheadericon Gov. Brown Drops The Veto Hammer On A Few Anti-Gun Issues — But Don’t Get Too Excited, California…

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA — At this point, California gun owners are so used to bad news that even mediocre political progress is great. Well, Californian gun owners and concealed carry permit holders have a little easier sigh of relief after Gov. Brown got done vetoing a number of assembly and senate bills which would have gone overboard in restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Before you get too excited, there’s ‘good news’, ‘bad news’, and ‘ugly news’. Let’s start with the good…

NOTE: The full list of bills signed and vetoed is available through the Governor’s website. You can find that list here. If you need to look up the language on a bill, check out California’s legislative ‘bill search’ here.

The Good

AB 450 – VETOED – McCarty (D-Sacramento)

AB 450 would have allowed counties to determine their own price for a concealed carry permit application fee. It would have enabled politicians and law enforcement to use discriminatory fiscal practices to determine who may even apply in the first place. Gov. Brown saw no merit to the bill and vetoed it.

AB 2510 – SIGNED – Linder (R-Corona)

AB 2510 would create a uniform concealed carry permit in the State of California that was valid across the entire state. This changes the previous method of having individual counties and major municipalities come up with their own criteria and nuanced ways of asking questions. The State Attorney of California is tasked with coming up with the uniform concealed carry permit application.

SB 1332 – VETOED – Mendoza (D-Los Angeles)

SB 1332 sought to increase the complexity of the laws governing the exchange and loaning of firearms. This would have made the practice of lending a gun at a range, per se, to be nearly impossible to do in a convenient time frame. Thankfully, Gov. Brown shot this one down because he thought it would end up costing the Department of Justice millions of dollars to maintain.

The Bad

AB 2413 allowed sheriffs and police chiefs to lift the $ 100 cap on fees. This was vetoed by Gov. Brown. Sheriffs no longer have the authority to waive fees associated with applying for a concealed carry permit.

AB 1850 – SIGNED – Waldron (R-San Diego)

Upon the issuance of a restraining order or protective order, that person has to cede any and all firearms he or she possesses as well as not attempt to procure firearms throughout the course of the protective order. Because protective orders do not really have much of an appeal process, a person could effectively be disarmed upon suspicion.

“The defendant shall relinquish any firearms that he or she owns or possesses pursuant to Section 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

The Ugly

AB 2165 – SIGNED – Bonta (D-Alameda)

AB 2165 creates exceptions for government employees to purchase handguns not deemed safe to own by a regular citizen. This creates a widening double standard whereby ordinary citizens are scrutinized over their personal choice of handguns while those associated with the government must obviously be so beyond reproach as to deserve the honor of purchasing a gun otherwise unobtainable to a law-abiding citizen.

Concealed Nation

postheadericon Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom Wants Your Guns And Ammo — CA Prop 63 This November, You Decide

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA — As a Presidential election looms in November, Californians are gearing up to face 18 proposals which will alter the very fabric of the state. Amongst these 18 proposals is Prop 63, proposed by Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom who wants to run for Governor of California in 2018.

According to the Washington Times, here’s how Newsom frames his proposition.

“Enough massacres, death, tears, and hate – it’s time to take action and save lives,” Mr. Newsom said in the Sacramento Bee. “The Safety for All initiative gives California voters the opportunity to keep guns and ammo out of the hands of violent, dangerous, hateful people.”

That statement means nothing. However, Newsom has some creative ways he thinks Prop 63 will make it harder for criminals to have access to firearms and ammunition. Before we go into those, here’s some definitions for us to remember:

  • Newsom defines “large-capacity ammunition magazines” as magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
  • Background checks are required to purchase ammunition.
  • Ammunition sales can only be done through licensed vendors.
  • Ammunition purchases have to be reported to the Justice Department.
  • In the event a firearm is lost or stolen, it must be reported.

If you’re in possession of these “large capacity” magazines, Newsom wants you to destroy them, return them to dealers, or move them out of state. If you’re caught with them, expect them to be confiscated. There may even be criminal charges associated with possession of these types of magazines.

This measure adds to the 17 other proposals on the ballot this November for Californians.

Here’s the rub: Democrats oppose this proposition while still trying to pass legislation that accomplishes the exact same thing.

Democrats don’t want gun-owners showing up to the polls. They see it as stirring the pot that will inevitably lead to more votes for the Republican Presidential nominee and put them all in political “hot water”.

Even the California Sheriffs Association has opposed this measure stating that it will create a “new class of criminals”. We’ve seen in Los Angeles, where they enacted a magazine ban last year, that people don’t just hand in their magazines. To date, none have been turned in.

A lot of law-abiding gun owners in California presumably own magazines which Newsom would define as “large capacity”. How many do you expect to turn them in if Prop 63 passes?

Here’s a guess: extremely few.

If anything, this proposal would do more to push law-abiding gun owners out of the state. For those who can’t afford to pack up and move, they would then be classified as criminals if the police caught them with even one magazine that met Newsom’s definition.

Defending your home and you shoot a home intruder?

“Well, sir, let’s see your gun… Oh, I see this gun holds more than 10 rounds. Come with us to the station.”

California has the choice to block this type of infringement on basic liberties at the ballot box. It is our sincere hope for concealed carriers and gun owners in that state that they are able to do so.

Otherwise, enjoy waiting 45 minutes for a background check to clear before purchasing ammunition to go practice at the range.

Concealed Nation

postheadericon OH THE IRONY – Armed Robbery Occurs 400 Ft From Georgia Southern University On The Day Gov. Vetoes Campus Carry Bill

Just hours after Georgia Governor Nathan Deal vetoed a bill that would allow campus carry, an armed robbery perpetrated by four suspects happened in apartments just a few hundred feet from the Georgia Southern University campus.

But it wasn’t on campus, so we’re ok. Right?

Earlier this morning, the school released the following information on their website:

On Tuesday, May 3, at approximately 11:45 p.m., an armed robbery occurred at the 111 South Apartments off campus. The suspects are four black males, three wearing ski masks and one wearing a “Jason”-type mask. They fled on foot toward Rucker Lane. Anyone with information should call the Statesboro Police Department.

The complex itself has a ‘no guns’ policy for it’s residents, rendering them helpless in events such as this one. This ‘no guns’ policy is common among student housing across the country.

While no information was given as to whether anyone was injured, we can only hope that the victim(s) of this armed robbery are alright.

Let this serve as a real-life reminder that the bad guys are out there, and we should be doing what we can to protect ourselves when they show up. That includes campus carry.

Concealed Nation