Bills Firearm bills awaiting Governor's signature (2025)

[shroom]

Or, Glock could challenge this in the courts but, I do not think they will win, not even with the corrupt SCOTUS.

My faith in the Supreme Court is at an all time low. For Trump or for abortion bans they'll bend over backwards. For 2a cases that've been in the system for a decade they tell us the time isn't right.

 

[star.3d]

something that might actually resonate with the Governor? I've been thinking about it and I can't come up with anything. People will still be able to buy weapons and they will still be able to buy Glocks as long as Glock implements a redesign.

You've touched on a lot of good points - I don't think I have enough experience to say what (if anything) may resonate with this Governor when it comes to firearms. The following is rambling... I don't know if it's useful.

It seems to me, the prevailing liberal politician and California voter believes more gun owners = more crime. But this denies a few realities: in California, roughly 60% of gun deaths are suicide; 30% are putatively gang related; and the rest are homicide and accidents. As far as I can tell, the first two are heavily linked to economic opportunities and other complex factors (racism, trauma, online hate and radicalization), some of which are not amenable to a 4yr election cycle. Most liberals I meet think school shootings are a leading cause of death among minors - they're not, suicide is. It would not be a win if new laws shift gun suicides to overdose suicides. We must address root causes.

I don't see how lawful California gun owners, as a whole, perpetuate root causes of gun violence (I'm mostly okay with safe storage laws). Put bluntly, I think California sees lower than average rates of gun violence partly because of greater economic opportunity (at least recently), and legislation has a role to play. That said, some free states have lower rates of gun violence. But rather than appropriating general funds, the state implemented the 11% FET implying lawful gun owners must foot the bill for gun violence prevention. Personally, it's hard for me to understand why a non-violent gun owner bears greater responsibility for gun deaths compared to non-gun owning Californians. This trivializes other root causes, defers blame, and ignores illegally acquired guns.

Probably more worrying to me is that increased gun control over the past two decades hasn't definitively reduced gun crime. Severely restricting legal firearm markets has, however, incentivized the proliferation of ghost guns, which now account for ~20% of guns recovered from crime scenes (the state AG has reported on this). I tend to think we've reached a point of diminishing returns on new laws, AB-1127 included.

 

[Jimi Jah]

My faith in the Supreme Court is at an all time low. For Trump or for abortion bans they'll bend over backwards. For 2a cases that've been in the system for a decade they tell us the time isn't right.

Ever since that SC assassination attempt and the illegal protests and marches on the streets they reside the court has been cowardly.

Gone are any beliefs or standards, self preservation is paramount. It's now like Mexico where cartels are allowed because public officials don't want to die.

With the SC in full third world mode critical cases will be passed over in order to avoid rocking the boat. There will be no more gun cases taken. What you see is what you get.

Less controversial cases will be taken to give the illusion they are doing their job.

 

[Toshiro Mifune]

From a philosophical standpoint, that is indeed very troubling. There is however a very powerful counter-argument: Law enforcement is on duty 24x7. That's actually not just the law, and also not a joke, talk to some officers sometime: It's not unusual for their radio to go off at 1am, when they are off shift, and get a request: "please come in right now, we need more help". This is particularly true in remote areas, and for certain types of LE that are spread thinly. Example: State park rangers (who are full LE with badge and gun) in the remote parts of the Northern California coast or the Sierra foothills. There is a reason friends in those careers always keep their uniform pants and jacket, and their duty belt (with badge, gun and radio) ready to go on at a moment's notice.

Another example (from a friend) who works in a big city PD (as an undercover investigator mostly): Going out to dinner with spouse and kids, and someone recognizes them and smiles and waves. Turns out the someone is a person our friend helped put behind bars for several years. Fortunately, the someone was friendly this time. But there is a good reason our friend always carries when off shift; you never know when the next someone will not be friendly.


That argument won't fly. On duty, as part of police and public safety work, agencies are allowed to do things others are not. For example: Go way over the speed limit, make U-turns in the middle of the freeway, have a rifle or shotgun loaded and in plain view in your car, and so on. And that includes things like large capacity magazines or off-roster guns. Part of that is being better armed than their opponents. From a hardware and equipment viewpoint, there is a similarity with the military, which is also allowed things that normal people don't have access to.

One could take the viewpoint (which is somewhat hinted at in the prefatory clause of the 2A) that both law enforcement and military are identical with "the militia", and one could then define the militia as "all able-bodied people (or males?) between the age of X and Y". That viewpoint was popular 300 and 250 years ago, and remnants of it exist in anarchist communities. For our society at large, this viewpoint is not relevant any longer.


That trope is always used to explain why democrats (supposedly always in bed with unions) like to exempt LE from gun control law. And theoretically it might be true; after all our democratic politicians involve some unions heavily in decisions. BUT: They do that for a reason, namely delivering votes (not so much D versus R, but more turnout). And that argument only works for large unions, first and foremost the CTA and the SEIU where it represents government employees, and also large construction trade unions. The LE unions in California are fragmented, and always at each other's throat (there is nothing a park ranger hates more than a Chippie, and the feeling is mutual). And most LE are not actually reliable D voters anyway, independent of how much their unions play along with politics in press releases. I don't think buying off LE unions with gun law exemptions works, and I know democratic legislators share my viewpoint.

What does work: Appointing roughly half of the State Board of Education to be CTA members and lobbyists. That nets a governor a quarter million reliable votes. Or a school board pay the highest paid teachers even more, again the CTA will handsomely reward them at the next election (and young low-paid teachers get kicked to the curb, because the CTA doesn't care about them). Or require certain construction projects to only use unionized workers. In my (not at all humble) opinion, the CTA is the most evil thing in California politics, and responsible for many of the ills of our school system. But they get reimbursed handsomely for their power.

I completely understand everything that you said. But none of that is a constitutional argument. Its a rationalization of how “All men are created equal but some are more equal than others…”

 

[treelogger]

... I don't think I have enough experience to say what (if anything) may resonate with this Governor ...

Right now, the thing that resonates with the Governor (or rather with his staff that read letters) is: how to become POTUS. Other than that, Gavin Newsom is immune from pressure being applied, as he is not likely to run for any other office, and has only two years left in his current office. If he had party loyalty, you could threaten to stop supporting democrats and to instead support republicans. I like to include a photocopy of a donation check that I have written to the opposing candidate (make it the maximum amount allowed, to make an impression). But Newsom's relationship with the party has always been fragile, and right now the survival of the democrats in California is even more guaranteed than before, so threatening the party is pointless.

Or to put it differently: Newsom will either sign these bills or not (or let them slide through to becoming law), based solely on his own tactical considerations.

 

[treelogger]

I completely understand everything that you said. But none of that is a constitutional argument. Its a rationalization of how “All men are created equal but some are more equal than others…”

And they indeed are, that is the reality. Some have a badge that say they can arrest, or a very small and tasteful badge that says that they can charge in criminal cases. Some have a card that says they can represent others in court, and others can render judgement in court. Some are specially protected because they decide on what will become law. Pretending that all men are equal is fooling ourselves. And "being created equal" is nowhere in the US Constitution (it's in the Declaration of Independence, but there only in the intro), ergo it is irrelevant.

 

[star.3d]

Right now, the thing that resonates with the Governor (or rather with his staff that read letters) is: how to become POTUS.

I do agree with this, I guess I assumed that I - individual voter - don't have the clout to pose any threat to his presidential bid.

I'm disappointed that when gun bills progress through the legislature, there are at best a few individuals tallied in opposition. Compared to many dozens in favor. Maybe it's futile, but I see that as a potential missed opportunity for pro-gun communities to be counted, provided we can get cogent messaging together. The committee votes are party line, but I can't say whether the bill revisions are. For instance, if I were smart, I would've already spoken up about including an FFL03/COE exemption to the barrel ban (as a backstop) rather than just opposing it. Anyway... ideally, I'd like to do more than just sending money to the CRPA.

Appreciate you chiming in.

 

[treelogger]

I'm disappointed that when gun bills progress through the legislature, there are at best a few individuals tallied in opposition. Maybe it's futile, but I see that as a potential missed opportunity for pro-gun communities to be counted, provided we can get cogent messaging together. The committee votes are party line, but I can't say whether the bill revisions are. For instance, if I were smart, I would've already spoken up about including an FFL03/COE exemption to the barrel ban (as a backstop) rather than just opposing it.

The 99% of the process of writing bills is the stuff that we don't see, unless we look. Insert old joke about making sausage here. Before a bill is even submitted, the staff of the assembly member / senator has spent many hours writing it, talking to the department in charge (in our case CA DoJ), talking to lobbyists and pressure groups, talking to other legislators' staff and the governor's staff, and taking input from the public informally. There is a reason that every legislator has roughly a half dozen staffers, that's their job. And when the bill gets modified, the staffers and the legislators are again doing an enormous work behind the scenes.

And this is the point where gun people (or any other activists) can usefully enter the game. The NRA and/or CRPA used to employ one full-time lobbyist in Sacramento (Ed Worley), but he retired about 9 years ago. I don't know whether the CRPA has replaced him with a staff person or not. GOA/GOC used to employ one lobbyist (Sam Paredes), but he passed away recently. According to what I used to hear until ~10 years ago, both Ed and Sam were utterly useless. They drew paychecks, and then hung out with republican legislators in Sacramento---but republicans in Sacramento are as useful as a bicycle is for a fish. In public hearings, they would say their thing (read out the notes they got mailed from headquarters), and everyone would laugh, because the NRA and GOA are completely anti-aligned with California's politics (remember the old joke, NRA stands for "National Republican Auxiliary"). But what did use to work somewhat were other groups talking directly to democratic (!) staffers. Obviously, Ed and Sam didn't try that, they wouldn't have got as much as the time of day from a democratic staffer; no wonder, they both went around the lecture circuit saying 4-letter words about democrats. Neither is much of this done by smaller pro-gun organizations (such as the CGF, FPC or SAF), because they are all about grandstanding and fund-raising, not about actually doing something to prevent bad law from getting passed. Matter-of-fact, the more bad laws Sacramento passes, the more money Alan Gottlieb (SAF) and Brandon Combs (FPC) make, because donations go up.

So a lot of the pro-gun work is done quietly, by volunteers. Someone I know did that for a while to prevent even worse damage to off-list lowers and bullet-button rifles, working with campaign staffers for Jerry Brown when he was running for California AG (long time ago), then with campaign staffers for Kamala Harris when she ran for the same position 8 years later, and with staffers for Senator Leland Yee (until he got hauled off by the federales ). The trick here is not to write angry letters, or accusing the legislators or their staff of being ts and traitors, but to talk to them (phone and in person), give them information and knowledge (the typical democratic staffer has no idea about guns, and would know a "shoulder thing that goes up" if it floated in their coffee), and most importantly offer them assistance in how to write legislation that (a) makes sense and (b) will survive court challenges. One important thing a volunteer needs to have is some legal and legislative knowledge (what are laws, how are they passed), and some political and campaigning knowledge, in particular being familiar with democratic politician habits (so having volunteered for democrats is at least an advantage, perhaps a prerequisite). But the basics starts with communicating with respect.

 

[shroom]

LMAO know what I just realized? The flintlock kits I enjoy, https://kiblerslongrifles.com/ will probably have to go to an FFL now. Man that is F-ing hilarious. I thought this crap wouldn't affect me much, and now I remembered that I build muzzleloaders every now and then.

Didn't read through the inane babble that is that bill, but a ctrl+f for "musket", "muzzleloader", "antique" brought up no hits, so there's no exemption for that. Wooooooow.

Holy F-. "A firearm barrel may have a rifled or smooth bore"

 

[GoldensRule]

Right now, the thing that resonates with the Governor (or rather with his staff that read letters) is: how to become POTUS. Other than that, Gavin Newsom is immune from pressure being applied, as he is not likely to run for any other office, and has only two years left in his current office. If he had party loyalty, you could threaten to stop supporting democrats and to instead support republicans. I like to include a photocopy of a donation check that I have written to the opposing candidate (make it the maximum amount allowed, to make an impression). But Newsom's relationship with the party has always been fragile, and right now the survival of the democrats in California is even more guaranteed than before, so threatening the party is pointless.

Or to put it differently: Newsom will either sign these bills or not (or let them slide through to becoming law), based solely on his own tactical considerations.

There really is more to this calculus. Newsom, unlike some higher profile politicians, is rational and intelligent. Rather than approaching the issue from the position of applying pressure, if one can make a sound, logical intelligent argument about why this proposed law is bad for the majority of the population, that would be the vector to approach the issue from.

If those who object actually have sound, logical reasons for objecting, now would be the time to present them.

 

[John.petrovich]

What will happen if they introduce bill required a mandatory liability insurance for each and every registered with DOJ gun?

 

[GoldensRule]

What will happen if they introduce bill required a mandatory liability insurance for each and every registered with DOJ gun?

The City of San José's Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance requires all residents who own or possess a firearm to obtain and maintain liability insurance. This requirement has been in effect since January 1, 2023.

Key requirements of the ordinance include obtaining a homeowner's, renter's, or specialized gun liability insurance policy that covers losses from accidental firearm use, such as death, injury, or property damage. While there is no specified minimum coverage amount, gun owners are also required to pay an annual fee to a nonprofit that supports gun violence reduction programs, though this fee collection is still being implemented.

To demonstrate compliance, residents must complete a City of San José insurance attestation form and keep it with their firearm. This form does not need to be submitted to the city.

Failure to have the required attestation form can result in an administrative citation with initial fees starting at $250.

The ordinance faced legal challenges but was upheld by a federal district judge who ruled that the insurance requirement does not violate the Second Amendment.

https://www.sjpd.org/records/documents-policies/gun-harm-reduction-ordinance

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/5304/4699

Litigation Highlight: Federal Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Claims Challenging San Jose Gun Insurance and Fee Requirements | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

 

[1911-CV]

Anyone reading the ruling on Nguyen vs Becerra would understand that AB 1078's 3-in-30 legislation is just another ticket to a long, expensive court loss for the state.

 

[cobian1984]

I think the main hypocrisy is that if they are no “safe” enough for the roster why allow are they allowed for LEOs. The logic does not follow.

Safe enough for LEOs, not safe enough for the general public. Until the LEOs want to flip them to the general public for 2-3x. Hypocrisy is right!

 

[Jimi Jah]

The City of San José's Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance requires all residents who own or possess a firearm to obtain and maintain liability insurance. This requirement has been in effect since January 1, 2023.

Key requirements of the ordinance include obtaining a homeowner's, renter's, or specialized gun liability insurance policy that covers losses from accidental firearm use, such as death, injury, or property damage. While there is no specified minimum coverage amount, gun owners are also required to pay an annual fee to a nonprofit that supports gun violence reduction programs, though this fee collection is still being implemented.

To demonstrate compliance, residents must complete a City of San José insurance attestation form and keep it with their firearm. This form does not need to be submitted to the city.

Failure to have the required attestation form can result in an administrative citation with initial fees starting at $250.

The ordinance faced legal challenges but was upheld by a federal district judge who ruled that the insurance requirement does not violate the Second Amendment.

https://www.sjpd.org/records/documents-policies/gun-harm-reduction-ordinance

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/5304/4699

Litigation Highlight: Federal Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Claims Challenging San Jose Gun Insurance and Fee Requirements | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

That local looney law is a fee to exercise a right. That is infringement. Good luck getting a court to review that one. Is there one brave lawyer there willing to refuse payment and demand a court hearing?

Death by a thousand cuts.

 

[GoldensRule]

That local looney law is a fee to exercise a right. That is infringement. Good luck getting a court to review that one. Is there one brave lawyer there willing to refuse payment and demand a court hearing?

Death by a thousand cuts.

A Federal district court already ruled it constitutional. I haven't bothered to research whether there has been an appeal or not.

 

[star.3d]

offer them assistance in how to write legislation that (a) makes sense

If those who object actually have sound, logical reasons for objecting, now would be the time to present them.

Is negative economic impact to California businesses a logical objection? I'm specifically thinking about AB-1263 and SB-704. As best I can tell, these two may make it untenable to operate a non-FFL firearm-related retail business in CA without an FFL01/07, because it impedes lawfully acquiring inventory. Operationally, the following also present liabilities for online retailers in and out of state (think: liability of verifying someone's ID - of whatever type/jurisdiction - over the internet).

3273.50(c) “Firearm accessory” means an attachment or device designed or adapted to be inserted into, affixed onto, or used in conjunction with a firearm that is designed, intended, or functions to alter or enhance the firing capabilities of a firearm, the lethality of the firearm, or a shooter’s ability to hold and use a firearm. increase a firearm’s rate of fire or to increase the speed at which a person may reload a firearm or replace the magazine, or any other attachment or device described in subdivision (a) of Section 30515 of the Penal Code that may render a firearm an assault weapon when inserted into, affixed onto, or used in conjunction with a firearm.

3273.50(e) (1) Prior to completing the sale or delivery in California or to a California resident of a firearm accessory or a firearm manufacturing machine, as those terms are defined in Section 3273.50, or of a firearm barrel unattached to a firearm, a firearm industry member shall comply with all of the following requirements:
(B) The firearm industry member shall receive an acknowledgment from the prospective purchaser attesting that the prospective purchaser received and understands the notice provided in paragraph (2).
(C) The firearm industry member shall require the prospective purchaser to provide proof of age and identity verifying that the prospective purchaser is at least 18 years of age.

Let's take Wing Tactical, LLC (Walnut, CA) as an example (I have no affiliation with them). They're an online-only seller of AR parts, but not lower receivers or ammunition, and are likely not an FFL. Maybe their wholesalers/suppliers are ready to comply with rule changes 1/1/26 and they suffer no impact from the notification and acknowledgement requirements to acquire inventory. If they import their in-house product line, they will need to hire a middleman or obtain a FFL01/07 (subject to local laws and lease restrictions) to obtain barrels/uppers. Let's imagine they do $5M in sales annually, and half of their business is in state. The tax implications are potentially significant:

• $2.5M x 8% sales tax = $180,000
• $5M x 10% net profit x ~9% corporate tax = $45,000
• $0.5M wages x 10% state income tax = $50,000
• Lost taxes from spent wage income = $25,000?

So ~$300k/yr state tax revenue lost for one business. This cost seems trivial - let's zoom out.

If the entire California gun industry is worth $2B/yr, the state would argue that eliminating the industry in its entirety would be acceptable if it saved 143 lives per year (per $14M VSL - see below). Constitutionality aside, I'm not sure how one rebuts any gun law from a financial standpoint.

Retrospectively, this analysis will always work out as long as gun deaths trend down. Between 2003 and 2023, California reported a 1.8 per 100,000 (avg. 650 per year) reduction in firearm deaths. Naturally, the handgun roster, ammo eligibility checks, GVROs, raising purchasing age to 21, expanded FSC, assault weapons restrictions, etc are cited as the sole causal factors and valued on paper at $8.8B/yr - more than value of the entire firearm industry. However, if California enters a recession and gun deaths increase (like they did during the COVID recession) despite passing an increasing number of gun laws, then the value (on paper) is harder to find.

a long, expensive court loss for the state.

If you ask the OAG, they claim these cases take tens of millions to defend. If true, that's cost effective. I'm skeptical, but it's likely among the cheapest 'solutions' as they see it.

This is a bit dark... But US government agencies quantify a Value of Statistical Life ≈ $14M (California DOT number). So if the state spends $10M defending Nguyen v Bonta and it saves one life, it's "worth it".

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Dear Crappin Newscum,

You want a chance at Presidency? Don't sign any F-ing bills you brain.

 

[GoldensRule]

Is negative economic impact to California businesses a logical objection? I'm specifically thinking about AB-1263 and SB-704. As best I can tell, these two may make it untenable to operate a non-FFL firearm-related retail business in CA without an FFL01/07, because it impedes lawfully acquiring inventory. Operationally, the following also present liabilities for online retailers in and out of state (think: liability of verifying someone's ID - of whatever type/jurisdiction - over the internet).


Let's take Wing Tactical, LLC (Walnut, CA) as an example (I have no affiliation with them). They're an online-only seller of AR parts, but not lower receivers or ammunition, and are likely not an FFL. Maybe their wholesalers/suppliers are ready to comply with rule changes 1/1/26 and they suffer no impact from the notification and acknowledgement requirements to acquire inventory. If they import their in-house product line, they will need to hire a middleman or obtain a FFL01/07 (subject to local laws and lease restrictions) to obtain barrels/uppers. Let's imagine they do $5M in sales annually, and half of their business is in state. The tax implications are potentially significant:

• $2.5M x 8% sales tax = $180,000
• $5M x 10% net profit x ~9% corporate tax = $45,000
• $0.5M wages x 10% state income tax = $50,000
• Lost taxes from spent wage income = $25,000?

So ~$300k/yr state tax revenue lost for one business. This cost seems trivial - let's zoom out.

If the entire California gun industry is worth $2B/yr, the state would argue that eliminating the industry in its entirety would be acceptable if it saved 143 lives per year (per $14M VSL - see below). Constitutionality aside, I'm not sure how one rebuts any gun law from a financial standpoint.

Retrospectively, this analysis will always work out as long as gun deaths trend down. Between 2003 and 2023, California reported a 1.8 per 100,000 (avg. 650 per year) reduction in firearm deaths. Naturally, the handgun roster, ammo eligibility checks, GVROs, raising purchasing age to 21, expanded FSC, assault weapons restrictions, etc are cited as the sole causal factors and valued on paper at $8.8B/yr - more than value of the entire firearm industry. However, if California enters a recession and gun deaths increase (like they did during the COVID recession) despite passing an increasing number of gun laws, then the value (on paper) is harder to find.


If you ask the OAG, they claim these cases take tens of millions to defend. If true, that's cost effective. I'm skeptical, but it's likely among the cheapest 'solutions' as they see it.

This is a bit dark... But US government agencies quantify a Value of Statistical Life ≈ $14M (California DOT number). So if the state spends $10M defending Nguyen v Bonta and it saves one life, it's "worth it".

Honestly, if I were the state, my first reaction would be; if a non-FFL company loses sales because they don't have an FFL, they will either get an FFL or the business will be picked up by a licensed dealer.

I appreciate your in-depth analysis but, you need to think more like a politician and approach each of your arguments as a devil's advocate. Are the sales really going to be lost or just reallocated? Just how many non-FFL firearms accessories dealers are there in California and what percentage of their sales is represented by the items in question? All rhetorical questions.

Lastly, these guys are used to dealing in hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. I think you would have to factually prove / quantify a true loss to the state, not simply an exchange of sources of revenue and I think the numbers would have to be very substantial. in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Frequently, the actuaries will have already prepared an "impact on the state" analysis and oft times that data is included with the proposed bill as an addendum.

 

[Dvrjon]

The 99% of the process of writing bills is the stuff that we don't see, unless we look. Insert old joke about making sausage here. Before a bill is even submitted, the staff of the assembly member / senator has spent many hours writing it, talking to the department in charge (in our case CA DoJ), talking to lobbyists and pressure groups, talking to other legislators' staff and the governor's staff, and taking input from the public informally. There is a reason that every legislator has roughly a half dozen staffers, that's their job. And when the bill gets modified, the staffers and the legislators are again doing an enormous work behind the scenes.

Every bill identifies a member of the Legislature as the “Author”, but this is not the person who writes the bill. When a legislator is presented with a concept or a problem which they deem necessary to address (money; influence; district voter approval) a staff member works with the Legislative Counsel’s Office to draft the bill. Drafts get discussed with stakeholders (money; influence; district voter approval) to solicit support and to ensure nobody’s areas are encroached upon. When finalized, the Author presents the bill to their House by submitting it to the Clerk.

Gun Legislation is now ~95% (my estimate) brought to legislators by anti-gun groups. The legislators and staff have insufficient knowledge of the area to even begin a discussion.

A prime example: Portantino was not smart enough to understand what’s in SB 2 to have written it. Portantino’s SB 918 (the precursor for SB 2) was a gut-and-amend effort that landed at the same time (June 2022, post Bruen) and with similar language as the New York-passed Concealed Carry Improvement Act of 2022. (SB 918 failed because of the overreach of an Urgency Clause). Does anyone believe that Kathy Hochul, Gov of NY, and state Senator Portantino in CA each sat down and, in a matter of days, independently wrote virtually identical excessive language? This is the hand of the Giffords, Bloomberg’s fronts (Everytown, Moms, etc.) and the Bradys. They have assembled lawyers and experts who are executing a broad playbook across America. After SB 918 embarrassingly failed, they enhanced it into SB 2 and didn’t try to push the Urgency Issue (which would require a 2/3 vote for approval).

Another example (although not legislation) is Prop 63, Safety for All (ammunition ban). De Leon had worked with Giffords to write a bill controlling handgun ammunition which was the precursor of Prop 63. The statute was enacted and became law, but was killed in the courts due to the ambiguity of ammunition types. Some ammunition is equally efficient in handguns and long guns.

The Giffords took the language and adapted it to create Prop 63 and presented it to Newsom when he was Lt Gov to enhance his run for Gov. Here’s Page 167 of the Proposition Booklet original draft. They simply deleted the unconstitutional concept of “handgun” ammo and redefined it to be all-inclusive. Does any one think our dyslexic governor did that?

The NRA and/or CRPA used to employ one full-time lobbyist in Sacramento (Ed Worley), but he retired about 9 years ago. I don't know whether the CRPA has replaced him with a staff person or not.

CRPA employs a full-time lobbyist (Rick Travis) in Sacramento and he often provides updates on the CRPA video links.

The trick here is not to write angry letters, or accusing the legislators or their staff of being ts and traitors, but to talk to them (phone and in person), give them information and knowledge (the typical democratic staffer has no idea about guns, and would know a "shoulder thing that goes up" if it floated in their coffee), and most importantly offer them assistance in how to write legislation that (a) makes sense and (b) will survive court challenges. One important thing a volunteer needs to have is some legal and legislative knowledge (what are laws, how are they passed), and some political and campaigning knowledge, in particular being familiar with democratic politician habits (so having volunteered for democrats is at least an advantage, perhaps a prerequisite). But the basics starts with communicating with respect.

Agreed.