Today, the California Legislature returned from the spring recess with policy committees meeting tomorrow to hear several gun control measures. Please use the “Take Action” button below to contact committee members and get involved in protecting our Second Amendment rights in California.
Assembly Public Safety Committee at 9:00AM on April 11th
Assembly Bill 28 places an excise tax of 11% on the sales price all firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition. These taxes are to be collected from California retailers and placed in a newly created “gun violence” fund for appropriation by the state legislature. It is unjust to saddle law-abiding gun owners with special taxes. Such a measure makes it more expensive for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutional right, and discourages them from practicing to be safe and proficient with their firearms for purposes such as self-defense, competition, and hunting.
Assembly Bill 574 requires gun owners, when filling out the Dealer Record of Sale, to affirm that they have checked and confirmed possession of every firearm they own or possess within the past 30 days. This requirement runs contrary to the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and is an additional burden for gun owners, such as those with firearms stored in multiple residences or in safe deposit boxes, that can make them ineligible to purchase another firearm until they visit all of those locations.
Assembly Bill 851 creates a pilot program, designating a portion of Sacramento as a “gun free zone”. In the designated area, otherwise lawful carry of firearms would be prohibited, except for narrow exceptions, such as in residences and businesses with permission of the owner, and unloaded and locked in vehicles. While the bill requires the city to place signage demarcating this boundary, it does not require them to do anything to physically prevent armed criminals from ignoring it. In the Bruen case, the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that New York City could not simply designate a large geographic area as a “sensitive place” just because it was crowded and generally protected by police.
Assembly Bill 1133 establishes a one-size-fits-all curriculum for the training courses required for carry permit applicants. The bill language is intentionally vague, giving the California Department of Justice broad authority, and requires written examinations amongst the requirements, which could be modeled in a fashion that prevents certain individuals from achieving passing scores. No evidence has been provided to show that there are any problems with lack of training or quality training from the many licensed concealed carry permit holders in the state. This legislation appears to be more of a solution in search of a problem.
Assembly Judiciary Committee at 9:00AM on April 11th
Assembly Bill 36 denies Second Amendment rights to respondents of protective orders for an additional three years after the order expires.
Again, please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE these bills.