AB 3 (one of the age restriction bills in CA we've campaigned against) was just put on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee thanks to YOU. SB 1100 (another age restriction bill) to be soon considered by the Committee. Keep pressure on - TY & HAPPY 4th.

UPDATE on the Campaign against California Legislature's Insanity (including some of our recent victories).1) Read AB 3 here. This bill would make it illegal to own any firearm for people between 18 and 21 and would thus prohibit carrying of any kind by persons in that age range. THIS BILL HAS BEEN PUT ON SUSPENSE - THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVOCACY! THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ANALYSIS EVEN CITED SOME OF THE LEGAL AND COST PROBLEMS WITH IT, AND MENTIONED THE IMBALANCE IN THE "DROS" FUND. You can read the Appropriations Committee analysis here at the link that reads "7/02/18 - Senate Appropriations." KEEP UP THE PRESSURE AND CONTINUE TO DEMAND THIS BILL BE KEPT ON SUSPENSE UNTIL IT FORMALLY DIES!HOWEVER: SB 1100 still remains in the Senate Appropriations Committee. It proposes to ban people 18-21 from exercising a Constitutional right unless they are in the military, police, or have a hunting license. The exercise of the right of ownership (whether or not it is ever needed to be used for self-defense) in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision means that we cannot tolerate a right being allowed only for some ages "unless" you are military, police, or have a hunting license. Indeed, forcing people to obtain a hunting license merely to be able to own a firearm (as SB 1100 proposes), even after they have already gone through other required processes (e.g. background check, COE, safe certification, so on and so forth) is surely ludicrous and would deprive most people from 18 to 21 of being able to timely obtain a firearm for the defense of their home. The Legislature, in promoting SB 1100, proposes (for example) that a 20 year old woman should have to wait a month or month and a half it takes to schedule and complete a hunting course if she feels there is a threat to her home and family that merits buying a firearm, and the Legislature would rather we see violent actors (true criminals) be able to prey upon unarmed people while innocent Californians who own firearms are deemed as criminals by the State. This is unacceptable and it is not enough to have gotten AB 3 on suspense, we must press for defeat of SB 1100 also. BELOW ARE THE MEANS TO CONTACT THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE TO DEMAND THEY CEASE ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF SB 1100.2) Consider a financial / fiscal argument against the age restriction bill, which proposes to ban Constitutional right for any adults between the ages of 18 and 21 (a policy choice that the State cannot legally exercise). An example of a fiscal argument against the bill would be your own estimation of the cost of enforcement of AB 3 and SB 1100 if these become law and the cost of imprisoning millions of innocent persons who wish to exercise a right. You might also want to estimate the financial cost of making criminalizing Constitutional rights via this bill and how it will add to the public safety costs as criminals exploit the new loopholes that would be created by it. The Appropriations Committee only accepts financial / fiscal arguments against the bills, so your message will need to be focused on finances and costs.As part of your message, request that the Committee deny passage of BOTH AB 3 and SB 1100 and request that if EITHER ONE of the bills is moved out of Appropriations, that they be sent back to the Rules Committee before being re-referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.Both these bills can be defeated. KEEP THE PRESSURE ON.3) E-mail the designated Senate Appropriations staffer and all the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee here with your message to oppose AB 3 and SB 1100.Note, the link provided above to e-mail them all at once may not work for all e-mail clients, so for some readers/redditors, you may have to hover over and view the link, and copy and paste the addresses into whatever you use to compose e-mail. You will likely also have to remove a "//" that will appear before the addresses in your browser (edit it out so that it doesn't cause an error when you send). It will also help to call the Committee members individually.If the above link does not work for you, please just email your comments to the staffer whose duty it is to receive input on AB 3, SB 1100 and the below mentioned bills for the Senate Appropriations Committee. The staffer's email is here - due to reddit you will have to manually remove the // that appears in front of the staff's email before you hit send. The staffer is designated to handle only the above mentioned and the below bills - the staffer is not designated to analyze every bill that comes before the Senate Appropriations Committee.Again, for the Senate Appropriations Committee you do need to make your comments focused on financial criticisms of the bill (other comments that are not fiscal or economic are likely to be discounted in the analysis at Appropriations).4) Once you've done the above, also contact the Governor's office via this link and ask him to veto AB 3 and SB 1100 if either one reaches his desk (the sooner you do this the better as these bills need opposition sent to the Governor's office IN ADVANCE of either one of them potentially ever getting to the Governor's desk). This is important to do even if the bills both end up on suspense, because it gives us more time to oppose them at ALL levels. Here's where you can use whatever argument you wish. Unlike the Appropriations Committee, which only accepts fiscal comments, the Governor's office must review community input regardless of the reasoning you use.5) You can also use the e-mail link provided in step 3 to contact (all at once) the staffer in charge of the following bills and the Senators on the Appropriations committee who will soon be reviewing these bills, so as to write in letters of opposition about these bills as well. Because you'll be contacting the Senate Appropriations Committee, please use fiscal / financial arguments only. Here are the bills:A.B. 931 Weber. Criminal procedure: use of force by peace officers. This bill proposes, in part, to prohibit police officers from being able to legally exercise their own judgment in situations which could escalate to use of deadly force for self-defense. The bill has no true public safety purpose. It was passed out of Senate Public Safety Committee on June 19th, and goes next to the Senate Appropriations Committee.A.B. 3 Bonta. Firearms: age restrictions. This bill proposes to prohibit adults from being able to exercise the Constitutional right of firearm ownership and of self-defense. If signed into law, it would have a profound negative influence on public safety in California. It was passed out of Senate Public Safety Committee on June 19th, went to the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 2, where YOUR ADVOCACY HELPED GET IT SENT TO SUSPENSE! THANK YOU AND KEEP THE PRESSURE ON TO MAKE SURE THIS BILL STAYS ON SUSPENSE UNTIL IT DIES.DITTO FOR SB 1100 -- not yet on suspense (let's get it there!) - which is another age restriction bill coming before Senate Appropriations.A.B. 2888 Ting. Gun violence restraining orders. This bill is unnecessary; such (provisions including "gun violence" restraining orders or GVROs) already exist in California law, and the existing law itself is arguably unnecessary in light of pre-existing law (predating GVROs) allowing for restraining orders. The bill is redundant at best, and thus serves no meaningful purpose. It was passed out of Senate Public Safety Committee on June 19th, and was considered July 2nd at the Senate Appropriations Committee. THIS BILL HAS BEEN SENT TO SUSPENSE FILE THANKS TO YOUR ADVOCACY - KEEP THE PRESSURE ON TO KEEP IT ON SUSPENSE UNTIL IT DIES!A.B. 1927 Bonta. Firearms: prohibition: voluntary list. This bill proposes that people should "voluntarily" give up the exercise of a Constitutional right. It was passed out of Senate Public Safety Committee on June 19th, and it still is at the Senate Appropriations Committee. CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS BILL.A.B. 1968 Low. Mental health: firearms. This bill proposes that you would be prohibited for life from exercise of a Constitutional right, without opportunity to appeal, if you were unfortunate enough to have to seek treatment for some mental issue or to be dragged before a kangaroo court and accused of the same. It was passed out of Senate Public Safety Committee on June 19th, and still is at the Senate Appropriations Committee. CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS ON DUE PROCESS AND 2ND AMENDMENT GROUNDS WITH ECONOMIC ARGUMENT BEING THAT THE COST OF NECESSARY COURT CHALLENGES TO THIS LAW DUE TO ITS DUE PROCESS PROBLEMS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE SUSTAINED BY THE STATE.A.B. 2213 Cooley. Firearms: ammunition sales. (Urgency) This bill proposes to exempt certain officers from ammunition laws. The ammunition law being discussed by this proposal is currently the subject of a court challenge. The Equal Protection Clause indicates we should be treated equally under laws, not have exemptions from unconstitutional laws for certain classes of people. It was passed out of Senate Public Safety Committee on June 19th, and remains in the Senate Appropriations Committee. CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS BILL.A.B. 2495 Mayes.Prosecuting attorneys: charging defendants for the prosecution costs of criminal violations of local ordinances. This bill sounds reasonable from the title, but is problematic because many laws in the State now criminalize Constitutionally protected acts. Thus, this bill should not be approved. This bill was sent from the Public Safety Committee straight into the Senate and was unlikely to even be considered by the Appropriations Committee. STATUS: IT IS ON ITS WAY TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK AS IT IS ON THIRD READING IN SENATE AND LIKELY WILL PASS OUT OF SENATE - CONTACT GOVERNOR AND TELL HIM TO VETO THIS BILL.A.B. 2504 Low. Peace officer training: sexual orientation and gender identity. This bill attempts to consume police time with training on political correctness and assumes that officers, who are in fact adults, don't know how to make appropriate judgments on the matter of nontraditional gender identity issues. The bill doesn't have to do with public safety. It was passed out of Senate Public Safety Committee on June 19th, and made it out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. IT IS ON THIRD READING AT THE SENATE, AS SUCH IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE IT, CONTACT THE GOVERNOR AND REQUEST A VETO.AB 2382. This bill proposes to make nearly any part which you might at some point use to repair, build, or rebuild your weapon, would need to go through an FFL and background check. Imagine background checks on barrels, magazines, triggers, etc. This bill sadly passed the Public Safety Committee on June 26th, and now will be considered by the Appropriations Committee. CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS HORRIBLE BILL.6) Check out firearmspolicy.org and consider using some of the action links on their site, and donating to them.7) Check out defendingconstitutionalrights.com and consider how you might eventually need to sue the State to overturn some law that negatively impacts you. Perhaps businesses that you've used already are considering lawsuits agains the State due to its assault on our Constitutional rights. Ask them how they will proceed. Evaluate your strategy for how you will move forward.Thank you!! HAPPY 4th of JULY!!! via /r/CCW https://ift.tt/2NljEnY