Next week, the California Legislature returns from summer recess and will jump right into pushing anti-gun bills through the process with hearings in Appropriations Committees in both chambers. Please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE the bills below.
Senate Appropriations Committee on August 14th, starting at 10:00AM
Assembly Bill 28 places an excise tax of 11% on the sales price of 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 Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and is an additional burden for gun owners, especially 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 733 prohibits state and local government entities from selling off surplus firearms, ammunition, and body armor. This prevents them from being good stewards of taxpayer money and prevents the public from buying these taxpayer funded items, which are lawful to own.
Assembly Bill 1089 expands California’s ban on private citizens and non-professional users making firearms with CNC milling machines, or possessing CNC milling machines that have the “primary” or “intended” function of manufacturing firearms, to also include 3D printers. This is simply another scheme to harass law-abiding hobbyists by preventing them from using modern manufacturing techniques for otherwise lawful purposes.
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 Bill 1420 broadens the grounds for firearm dealer inspections and punitive measures for technical violations. In addition, it requires that prospective firearm purchasers and recipients list their email address on the DROS forms.
Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 16th, starting at 9:00AM
Senate Bill 2, among other things, creates new subjective criteria for the issuance of carry permits to allow authorities to arbitrarily deny applicants, restricts permit holders to carry only handguns registered to themselves, increases the requirements to apply for a permit, and increases “gun-free zones” where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless.
Senate Bill 368 mandates that licensed firearm dealers offer the service of storing firearms for safekeeping, prohibits firearm dealers from offering items in games of chance (such as by raffles), and expands prohibited persons categories for certain misdemeanor crimes.
Senate Bill 452 prohibits firearm dealers from selling or transferring any semi-automatic handgun after January 1st, 2027, unless the state certifies that it has microstamping. In addition, it also prohibits replacing a microstamping component on such a handgun unless it is replaced with another “valid” microstamping component. In recent weeks, a federal court struck down the microstamping requirement, as well as other required features for handgun models to be placed on the California handgun roster. While the attorney general has appealed the decision, he did not appeal the microstamping requirement. To read more about California’s microstamping law, please click here.
Again, please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE these bills.
