American Defense Enterprises

As we talked about back in 2007, all news guns to be added to the California safe handgun roster starting in 2010 will need to”microstamp”, that is, place a unique (to the gun) number on every casing that is chambered/fired.

The California law says that they stamp has to be in at least two places.  Pretty much, like AB962, this is just an end run to gun control that avoids that pesking 2nd amendment thing.  Well, even though the governator signed it,  it turns out that the CA attorney general has, so far, refused to certify the law — a requirement for the law to go into effect.

The issue, quoted here:

”

“The problem I have with this is it can’t be done,” said Kevin Reid, Ruger’s general counsel. “The legislation says it has to work 100 percent of the time and there is nobody, nobody including Todd Lizotte himself, who would say it will always work.”

Several studies, including one done by the University of California Davis, have concluded the process needs further review, that it appears to work better on some guns than others.”

Don’t worry…  This is California and I am sure the AG will be pressured into approving problems will be resolved soon.

Story on KXTV 10 website

If you have been paying attention to current events in California you know that we had a very large budget deficit … about $26 billion.  This is based on current projected revenue for the next year which is likely wildly optimistic to limit the amount of budget cuts that are really necessary. Now if you personally had to cut back on your yearly budget and trim your spending for the year you would simply have to eliminate spending on certain items.  The State on the other hand just gets creative. Let’s see … How about pushing a State workers payday from July 31st to August 1st to move the payday into the next fiscal year. Good idea! How about increasing the amount of tax withholding from citizens for a while and pay them back later with no interest. Awesome, no one else but the government could get away with that! Wait … you don’t want to loan a practically bankrupt institution that is paying out debts with IOUs? Too bad you already are.

It is truly sad that this once great State has adopted Wimpy as its new role model and is glad to pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

The San Diego Reader has a nice piece on open carry in San Diego.

Worth the read.  For that matter, it is probably worth participating in an open carry exercise before our fine friends in Sacramento close the “open carry loophole”.  For those not in the know.  It is legal in California to openly (not concealed) carry an unloaded pistol thruout the state except in expressly restricted areas (e.g., within 1000 ft of a school).  Since the rules are complex, I wouldnt just jump on this without getting really well informed.  http://opencarry.org/ is probably a good place to start.

Dont blame me if you accidentally end up violating the law and get arrested…  For that matter, dont blame me if you DONT end up violating the law but you still get arrested.

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) just sent out an update on AB962.  The bill was scheduled to be heard today in the Senate Public Safety Committee, but has been rescheduled for July 7th.  Please continue to send letters, emails and call the committee members to let them know that you oppose this bill.  It is important to stop bad legislation like this before it even sees a floor vote in the Senate or ends up on the Governor desk.

The NRA-ILA has done a great job staying on top of legislation in California.  You can sign up for their email alerts on the NRA-ILA webpage.

Contact the members of the Senate Public Safety Committee by Phone, Mail, and Email and tell them to vote “NO” on AB962 at the July 7th meeting.

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3) – Chair
(916) 651-4003
Senator.Leno@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37) – Vice-Chair
(916) 651-4037
Senator.Benoit@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22)
(916) 651-4022
Senator.Cedillo@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9)
(916) 651-4009
Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Robert Huff (R-29)
(916) 651-4029
Senator.Huff@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
(916) 651-4006
Senator.Steinberg@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25)
(916) 651-4025
Senator.Wright@SENATE.CA.GOV

Outlook formatted emails

Senator.Leno@SENATE.CA.GOV; Senator.Benoit@SENATE.CA.GOV; Senator.Cedillo@SENATE.CA.GOV;Senator.Hancock@SENATE.CA.GOV; Senator.Huff@SENATE.CA.GOV; Senator.Steinberg@SENATE.CA.GOV; Senator.Wright@SENATE.CA.GOV

Between Tamiflu resistant H1N1 and the world economic problems the future is looking pretty bleak.  How about some sprinkles on the turd sunday we Californians are being force fed?

Enter the California budget.  California is getting ready to start delivering IOU’s to its creditors this week unless a budget is passed.  Gov. Schwarzenegger has threatened to veto any budget that penalizes California residents by increasing taxes to close the budget deficit due to what he rightly calls Sacramento’s inability to live within its means.

Had the Governor not been complicit in the spending over the past 5 years I would have some sympathy, but he is just as bad having signed increasing budgets year after year with no regard for Californians.  What we really need in California and at the Federal level are fiscally responsible elected officials who don’t mortgage the future for their own political benefit.

Story on Financial Times

California currently faces a $24.3 billion shortfall in its budget. We need to trim the fat and get back in shape.

Even better is that without a new budget California will run out of money by the end of June or some time in July.  These are tough times in California which may soon have to turn out the lights.  By generating revenue (i.e. taxing companies and individuals and increasing fees) the State hopes to hold on to the current funding levels that were not even supported without borrowing during our thriving economy a couple of years ago.

To close the projected $24.3 billion shortfall in next years budget Gov. Schwarzenegger has proposed several budget cuts which include eliminating funding for the Welfare to Work program, cutting $335 million from University of California and California State Universities funding, cutting Medi-Cal benefits to families who make too much to be on the program, eliminate California Healthy Family program, cutting state park funding in half this year and eliminating it next year, releasing non-violent and non-sex offenders one year early from prison.  All of these cuts were met with strong opposition from State union and interest groups.

Now keep in mind when you hear the complaining about cutting money to certain programs that these are cuts to planned increases that are always included in the budget.  So the $335 million cut to Cal State and University of California still represents in increase in funding compared to the previous year.  And every time someone talks about closing loopholes in the tax code understand that these loopholes were intentionally put there to promote businesses setting up shop in California or to prevent people and businesses from having to pay taxes twice if they do business overseas.  Basically closing these loopholes will drive businesses out of California which already has a relatively hostile tax code for them.

We are in tough times.  Californians did not reject the recent special election propositions because were were tired of voting and did not understand the props as Speaker Karen Bass stated, rather we are sick and tired of being gouged for the States excess and said the State must pare down like the rest of us rather than increasing taxes and bleeding us dry.  We had a thriving economy during the internet-bubble years and the housing market years recently, but instead of saving money the legislature and Governor went on a crazy spending spree which is the basis for the current level of State spending.  Those levels were not founded in reality then and any increases now would simply perpetuate the idea that they were.

So what happens if California doesn’t get a budget passed with appropriate cuts?  The State will go into standby mode with most nonessential employees told not to come to work, longer and slower lines at State offices with some nonessential ones closed.  I say go for it, I dare them to.  Even if they do it is unlikely to last very long since the State will be forced to raise taxes or cut spending or get bailed out by the Federal government despite Obama’s current statements to the contrary.  It is hardly the disaster scenario the media, interest groups and government officials present in the media and most people would not even notice or likely embrace the changes once they realize the limited benefit they receive from our bloated State spending.

One thing I would not oppose in the budget is getting the Governator a nice pair of swim short for the beach least he continue to terminate the vision onlookers.  Plus he really needs to clean out his closet.  Seriously, how old is that black thing he’s wearing?

Link to the story at KTLA.

Short summary:  a couple of shipping containers of stored ammunition at a guys house caught on fire and started, well, doing what ammunition on fire tends to do.

Well, it was fun shooting with you all.  If you think the current ammunition shortage is bad then you are in for a rude awakening.  Yesterday Assembly Bill AB 962 was sent to the State Assembly floor for a vote that could make it law.  In the current bad economy we need to focus our attention on more pressing matters.  We do not need another government mandated program to regulate the sale and transfer of products and services.  This law will put out of business firing ranges, gun stores and firearms training classes in California.  Additionally this bill will decrease the state revenue from these business and leave the people they employ jobless.

The gist of the bill is that it will:

1) stop internet ammo sales (forcing all ammo sales to be face-to face)

2) require registration and thumbprint at each ammo purchase

3) require certification of ammo sales personnel

4) require all ammo kept inside a secure enclosure

And the worst part …

5) limit the sale or transfer of ammunition to 50 rounds per month

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE AND TELL THEM YOU OPPOSE AB 962!

Text of AB 962

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain
records pertaining to firearms transactions.

This bill would require the department to maintain additional
information relating to ammunition transfers and licensed handgun
ammunition vendors, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.

This bill would establish a program administered by the Department
of Justice for licensing handgun ammunition vendors, as specified.

The bill would establish a database maintained by the department
to serve as a registry of handgun ammunition vendors.

This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2010, unless
specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50
rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless he or she is
registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined. The bill would
also require these vendors to obtain a background clearance for
those employees who would handle ammunition in the course and scope
of their employment. The bill would require the Department of Justice
to maintain a registry of registered handgun ammunition vendors, as
specified. Violation of these provisions, as specified, would be a
misdemeanor.

The current Supreme Court has had a series of recent rulings that have led to further and further restricting of the protections offered by the fourth amendment, best one is this one which basically says that if you can get a search warrant by “mistake” that anything you find is still ok — remember it had to be a mistake (wink wink).

However, in the most recent ruling, the protections offered were actually expanded.  Specifically:

For the police to search your car, they now must meet one of two conditions:

1. The suspect being arrested must be out of police control AND within contact distance of the vehicle.
2. -or- there must be reasonable suspicion that evidence of the crime for which the arrest is being made is present in the car.

The first condition is for police safety, the second is probable cause.  This is a somewhat rational ruling…  What was the law before the ruling?  Police were able to handcuff a speeding suspect, lock him in the police car, and then search for drugs and weapons or other possible who knows what crimes — after all, the fact they were in a car clearly means that they have no right to privacy……  Perhaps a little overreaching .

Some addtional references:

What to do during a traffic stop (youtube video). — The FlexYourRights youtube channel.

And of course, http://www.flexyourrights.org/ and http://www.aclu.org/,

The ACLU, defenders of Rights 1 and 3-10 of the Bill of Rights

UPDATE: California just also made a ruling regarding 4th amendment rights in your car.  Here, specifically, the aquiescence to a search of the truck of a car was NOT an aquiesence to a search of the passenger compartment.  Further, handing the keys over to search the truck and remaining silent during the passenger compartment search were not mitigating factors in the reducing the rights of the suspect in protecting the privacy of his passenger compartment.

So you want that new rough textured frame Glock pictured above?  Too bad if you are here in CA since the texture on that model makes it unsafe. No, really, it does.  If you manufacture a firearm with a rough texture frame vs. the standard textured frame this supposedly makes the firearm unsafe in CA. And don’t even think about a different colored frame, that obviously makes the firearm unsafe.

That doesn’t make much sense to most sensible people in CA, so the legal beagles of the 2A are methodically chasing down the nonsensical anti-gun laws here in CA empowered by the recent Heller vs. D.C. and Nordyke decisions.

The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.

California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.