cal-ffl opposition letters to gov. brown regarding gun control bills (2013)

7/27/2019 CAL-FFL Opposition Letters to Gov. Brown regarding gun control bills (2013)

1/14

Monday, September 23, 2013

Governor Jerry Brown

State CapitolSacramento, CA 95814

Regarding: Request for VETO of SB 299 (DeSaulnier)

Dear Governor Brown,

I write you today on behalf of the thousands of members and supporters of California

Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL), Californias largest firearms industry and

consumer advocacy association, to express our STRONG OPPOSITION to SB 299.

SB 299 criminalizes, with no exceptions, any failure to report a lost or stolen firearm to law

enforcement within 48 hours.

The one group of people who could not be prosecuted under SB 299 are those most likely to

use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Felons and others prohibited from possessing

firearms cannot be charged with failure to report a lost or stolen gun -- requiring them to do so

would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (for the crime of possessing

a gun in the first place, possibly even by operation of another crime).

As you poignantly stated in your veto message1 for Senator DeSaulniers last attempt to create

such a law, For the most part, responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and

irresponsible people do not. I am skeptical that this bill would change those behaviors.

We respectfully ask that you VETO SB 299.

Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz

Legislative Advocate

cc: June Clark, Deputy Legislative Secretary

1 Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_1366_Veto_Message.pdf, last visited September 20,

2013.


2/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of SB 374 (Steinberg)





SB 374 would ban semi-automatic rifles in common use for lawful purposes, protected under the

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It would also create new criminal liabilityfor hundreds of thousands of Californians and California visitors -- including shooting sports

competitors -- without so much as a simple outreach program, public service announcement, or

mandate that DOJ update the years-outdated (and, in many cases, grossly misleading) information

it promulgates [but refuses to correct in spite of the real consequences to law-abiding people].

However, SB 374 would have an unintended consequence that benefits our members and all

American gun owners -- the bill would assist the gun industry and consumers alike by providing aclear federal civil rights litigation path for making the common semi-automatic firearms that

Senator Steinberg (and others) seek to ban here forever off-limits to opportunistic politicians and

misguided acts like Senator Steinbergs SB 374. As such, we have no choice but to be GRATEFUL

that Senator Steinberg would choose to expedite our litigation strategy (saving us thousands of

dollars and many years) by providing such a ripe opportunity for us to litigate these

Constitutional questions to their ultimate conclusion. SB 374 could very well represent Senator

Steinbergs legacy, amusingly revered forever by gun owners and dealers across the nation asthe man who saved the AR-15.

We strongly urge you to VETO SB 374 unless you, like us, wish to see AR-15s on the walls of

every California gun dealer, freely available for sale to all non-prohibited people -- and this

debate concluded once and for all.

Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz




3/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of SB 475 (Leno)





SB 475 would require the prior approval of the board of supervisors of both the County of San

Mateo and the City and County of San Francisco for an officer, employee, operator, or lessee ofDistrict 1-A to contract for, authorize, or allow an event at which a firearm or ammunition is

sold at the Cow Palace, effectively ending gun shows at this facility.

SB 475 is nothing less than a blatant and hostile attack on Constitutionally-protected speech --

and the law-abiding participants of gun shows -- based purely on the content of the speech.

If San Mateo and/or San Francisco dont wish for good and peaceful people to engage inexpressive conduct protected under the First and Second Amendments at the Cow Palace, they

should ask the Legislature to replace the buildings and grounds of District 1-A with a prison.

We strongly urge you to VETO SB 475.

Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz




4/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of SB 567 (Jackson)





SB 567 is an unnecessary re-definition of a common class of firearms -- shotguns -- into strictly-

regulated Assault Weapons, forever removing them from the market and the opportunity topass on personal property to heirs. SB 567 would upend over a century of social understanding

and tradition for the sole purpose of extending criminal liability to gun owners that dont commit

crimes.

This measure attempts to ban an obscure class of shotguns that are never involved in crime or

reported to be a public safety concern. These shotguns have rifled barrels as they are designed

to also fire handgun rounds, often in cowboy loads such as .45 Long Colt.

SB 567 seeks to criminalize a versatile, cowboy-style shotgun for no stated purpose other than it

had not been contemplated in 1989 under the Roberti-Roos Dangerous Weapons Control Act.

What SB 567 really does is show that all firearms, even innocuous non-semi automatic ones like

those targeted by this bill, will at some point be reclassified by the legislature as an Assault

Weapon for the express purpose of making Californias prohibitions on firearms more and

more expansive.

If SB 567 had merit, then there would be no real limit on the types and categories of firearms

that will one day be banned in this state. The old Winchester lever-action repeating rifles --

designed in the late 1800s -- would most certainly become tomorrows Assault Rifle. But SB

567 does not have merit, and there must exist a practical limit on how government can regulate

firearms according to their respective technologies. SB 567 falls short of respecting that limit.

Finally, the author failed to include the most basic of elements that a bill like this one cries out

for: A provision for law enforcement training and public outreach.


Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz




5/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of SB 683 (Block)





SB 683 expands the Handgun Safety Certificate requirement to include all firearms beginning in

January of 2014.

This measure would make the qualification test for a firearm safety certificate unnecessarily

difficult as it will require detailed knowledge of the many firearm types that a purchaser doesnt

(and may never) own.

Handgun purchasers seeking to exercise Second Amendment rights would no longer need know

only the safety and operational details of handguns. Under SB 683, they would also need to learn,know, and pass a test on the intricacies of firearm categories like rifles, shotguns, other long

guns, and firearms Federally classified as Any Other Weapons, each having myriad action types

such as lever, pump, semi-automatic, single-shot, and others. despite the fact that they may

never choose to own any of them.

We appreciate the authors desire to make sure that gun owners have a basic understanding of

how to safely handle and operate their firearms. However, one of our proposed common-senseamendments -- that the bill provide for a core-competency firearm safety certificate and

endorsements for firearm types, not unlike a commercial drivers license -- was perplexingly

rejected.

We respectfully ask that you VETO SB 683.

Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz




6/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of SB 755 (Wolk)





SB 755 is nothing less than an attack on civil rights, a bill to create broad new classes of people

ineligible to exercise fundamental rights expressly protected in the United States Constitution.

Depriving an individual of their Constitutionally-enumerated rights is a heavy burden that society

takes on only in exceptional cases. Under SB 755, Second Amendment rights would be abrogated

for non-violent crimes like public intoxication and vehicle code violations. Would we even begin

to consider such a punishment in the context of the right to speak, vote, or have an abortion?

We think not.

Our societal values dictate that punishment fit the corresponding crime. SB 755 goes far beyond

reason, stripping people of their civil rights and creating criminal liability where other

punishments are more appropriate.


Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz




7/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of AB 48 (Skinner)




consumer advocacy association, to express our STRONG OPPOSITION to AB 48.

AB 48 would, very simply, turn tens [and possibly hundreds] of thousands of law-abiding

California citizens and visitors -- including law enforcement training professionals -- intocriminals. The bill would make the repair of legal, lawfully-possessed private property outright

impossible and criminalize the mere possession of spare parts. Millions and millions of such parts

exist in the State of California today.

Assemblymember Skinners AB 48 would also negatively affect honorably retired and former law

enforcement officers who possess firearm magazines and parts as AB 48 provides no exemption

for such people. Even if AB 48 contained an exemption for former law enforcement officers, sucha provision would be unconstitutional.1

Outrageously, AB 48 fails to provide for even a modicum level of public outreach and

awareness... a terminal oversight for such a massive change to existing law. The technical

deficiencies in and legal problems created by this bill would nearly certainly create an

unenforceable nightmare for law enforcement by introducing serious civil liability for law

enforcement personnel and agencies that [even unknowingly] violate individuals civil rights.

This measure also represents a gross violation of fundamental rights by through its taking of

private property particularly, items protected under the Second Amendment without

compensation or due process.

AB 48 offers no improvement to public safety and creates massive new costs and risks for theState, its residents and visitors, and law enforcement alike. We respectfully ask that you VETOAB 48.

Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz



1See, Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1087 (9th Cir.2002). See also, Opinion no. 09-901 by

California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. at

http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/09-901.pdf, last visited September 20, 2013.


8/14


Governor Jerry BrownState CapitolSacramento, CA 95814

Regarding: Request for VETO of AB 169 (Dickinson)


I write you today on behalf of the thousands of members and supporters of CaliforniaAssociation of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL), Californias largest firearms industryand consumer advocacy association, to express our STRONG OPPOSITION to AB 1131.

Last year, you vetoed1 an even less far-reaching bill (AB 2460, also by AssemblymemberDickinson), for which you stated, I don't believe this is justified. We agree with yourconclusion in that case and ask that you find this years attempt to further restrictConstitutionally-protected handgun sales similarly objectionable.

AB 169 would box all law enforcement officers -- both active and retired -- who acquire anunsafe handgun into a legal corner: They wouldnt just be subject to the same laws as

every other regular California citizen, they would actually have fewer rights andopportunities to sell or transfer their firearms (see proposed Penal Code section32000(b)(4)). This bill is not just a repeat of the bill that you vetoed last year. Its worse.

Additionally, AB 169 would prohibit all law-abiding gun owners from selling more than twolawfully-owned handguns if they are not listed on the Department of Justices Roster ofHandguns Certified for Sale (Roster). As you are undoubtedly aware, the number ofhandguns that can be Rostered is now indefinitely limited -- and will most certainly continueto decrease -- because of the Departments recent decision to require that all handgunscontain microstamping technology in order to be considered for inclusion on the Roster.There are no handguns available today that satisfy every provision of the Safe Handgun Act.

There are many constitutional problems in AB 169, not the least of which is a gross

violations of the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause. AB 169 also presentsTakings and Commerce Clause issues. Accordingly, we respectfully ask that you VETO AB169.

Sincerely,

_______________Craig DeLuzLegislative Advocate


1 Veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_2460_Veto_Message.pdf, last visited September 20,

2013.


9/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of AB 170 (Bradford)


I write you today on behalf of the thousands of members and supporters of CaliforniaAssociation of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL), Californias largest firearms industry

and consumer advocacy association, to express our STRONG OPPOSITION to AB 170.

AB 170 will do nothing less than create perverse results, significant legal issues, and impose

severe cost impacts for our members, law enforcement, the entertainment industry, and

negatively affect the economy generally. The following are just a few of the many issues thatAB 170 would present if allowed to become law:

How would corporations sell assault weapons to law enforcement and theentertainment industry if the corporation itself does not possess such a permit, as

required under the Roberti-Roos Act, to be a licensed firearms dealer? Theycould not. (See Penal Code section 16970.)

How would individuals sell assault weapons to law enforcement and theentertainment industry if the individual is the only one that possesses the assault

weapons permit but the employing corporation is the one that possess the

requisite firearms dealer licensing pursuant to Penal Code sections 16700 to 26715?

As AB 170 is written, individuals cannot sell such firearms on behalf of a

corporation.

What is the legal status of a corporations assault weapon inventory when theirpermitted employees quit or are fired? The corporation would suddenly be in

felonious possession of assault weapons and/or .50 BMG rifles despite the fact

that the permitted individual was acting under the corporations license. This places

the corporation under the sword of Damocles when their permitted employee

should be terminated for misconduct or threatens to leave the corporation.

Individual permittees would statutorily become personally responsible for the saleof the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle, thereby defeating the liability shield of

the corporate structure.

AB 170 would not increase public safety or reduce crime. AB 170 would, however, cost

law-abiding California businesses thousands of dollars each year for compliance, add

significant costs to law enforcement agency firearm procurement contracts, impose

substantial (and costly) logistical hurdles for the entertainment industry, and create severe

administrative burdens for the individuals and employees who work under a Federal

Firearms License, already some of the most scrutinized organizations in the entire privatemarket.

We respectfully ask that you VETO AB 170.

Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz




10/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of AB 180 (Bonta)



Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL), Californias largest firearms industry


AB 180 is nothing short than a direct attack on the States uniform system of regulating guns

and gun owners by carving out a preemption exemption for only the City of Oakland. Thesystem envisioned by AB 180 (and the City, per numerous news sources) would be

damaging to all Californians, particularly Oakland residents, and harm fundamental rights by

adding unnecessary, duplicative, and costly local laws -- an outcome that disproportionately

affects poorer Oaklanders. Mr. Bontas AB 180 will further increase the risk of criminal

liability for law-abiding people by introducing significant complexity and confusion into

Californias already prolific gun laws but do absolutely nothing to improve public safety.

Under AB 180, it is not difficult to envision that Oakland would soon create a system of gun

control laws that would make Oakland as dangerous as other cities, such as Washington,

D.C. and Chicago, that have disarmed their law-abiding people through bans and other right-

chilling regulations. Tragically, but unsurprisingly, Chicago -- which has some of the most

restrictive gun laws in the country -- is now the murder capitol of the United States.

Beginning January 1, 2014, the State of California will, at the time of every firearmtransaction, register all firearms and firearm owners. There is no rational, compelling, or

important governmental interest served by allowing Oakland -- and the many municipalities

that will undoubtedly follow their lead -- to add burden and cost to the exercise of

fundamental rights by doing the same things that the State already does.


Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz




11/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of AB 231 (Ting)





AB 231 make a new crime by restricting a child to gain access to an unsecured firearm. This

measure ignores the fact that, in many households, there are minor children -- often teenswho are well trained -- to safely access and utilize a firearm to defend the home. Consider

this recent headline: 15-YEAR OLD BOY USES AR-15 TO DEFEND HIMSELF, SISTER

AGAINST HOME INVADERS. AB 231 would have made that lawful (and courageous) act of

self-defense a crime.

On June 22, 2012 in Phoenix, AZ, a 14 year old boy who was babysitting his three younger

siblings shot an armed intruder. The local Fox News affiliate reported: The boy was with hissiblings when he heard rattling at the door and people attempting to break in. He went

upstairs to retrieve a handgun and as he was coming down the stairs, the door broke open.

The boy became face to face with a burglar, who pointed a gun at him. The 14-year-old fired

at the suspect, critically wounding him.1 Under AB 231, the parents of that young hero

would be charged as criminals.

It is the role of parents not the government to decide when their children areresponsible enough to be entrusted with self-defense tools.

Finally, one fact that cannot be disputed or ignored: Guns save lives. That fact remains true

even in the context of those who are not yet 18 years old. CAL-FFL respectfully asks for

your VETO of AB 231.

Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz



1 Cited news story located at http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/18860494/2012/06/22/14-

year-old-shoots-injures-home-intruder, last visited September 20, 2013.


12/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of AB 500 (Ammiano)





AB 500 would allow the California Department of Justice to arbitrarily and administratively

extend the waiting period for firearm transactions to 30 days (from the current 10) with no dueprocess or remedy for the firearm purchaser or impacted sellers. This bill would harm

Californias economy by creating an unpredictable process, increasing liability, and imposing

additional administrative and cost burdens on thousands of small businesses.

Instead of using the DROS fund surplus money for the purpose it was collected from California

gun purchasers (namely, the creation and maintenance of the DROS background check system,

including fixing DOJs materially-defective databases reported on in the L.A. Times in an articleentitled California criminal database poorly maintained1), the DOJ instead sought out legislative

remedies to reallocate the [improperly-collected] DROS fund surplus to its failed APPS program.

Assemblymember Ammianos AB 500 is nothing more than a mule for bootstrapping DOJs

unconstitutional practices of delaying and denying rights into the statutes. AB 500 codifies, in

part, the outright disaster of a program that is DOJs DROS under Attorney General Kamala

Harris. Notably, Ms. Harris is a named defendant (in her official capacity as Attorney General) intwo civil rights lawsuits2 relating to the DOJs DROS delay policies at issue in AB 500. If AB

500 becomes law, it will absolutely be challenged in court and subject the State to significant

additional litigation costs.

If the above were not bad enough, AB 500 also strips individuals of civil rights simply for residing

with a person ineligible to possess firearms, including those who are prohibited by state orfederal law but who did not commit any crime of violence.

For all of these reasons, we respectfully ask that you VETO AB 500.

Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz



1 Article by Jack Dolan, dated July 17, 2011 at http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/17/local/la-me-

crime-data-20110717, last visited September 20, 2013: California has a shoddy system forcollecting case results from 58 county courts and hundreds of local prosecutors and police

agencies, said Travis LeBlanc, a special assistant attorney general who oversees technology

operations in the state Department of Justice.

2 The lawsuits are Schoepf, et al. v. Harris, et al., filed April 11, 2013 in Fresno Superior Court, and

Owen, et al. v. Harris, et al. , filed September 19, 2013 in Californias Eastern District Federal

Court.


13/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of AB 711 (Rendon)





This bill would prohibit the use of virtually all modern ammunition for hunting and destroy

Californias long heritage of outdoor sport and sensible wildlife management practices.

In 2009, the California Fish and Game Commission (at the recommendation of the California

Department of Fish and Game) voted overwhelmingly against banning lead bullets, noting the

complete vacuum of scientific evidence supporting a policy like that contained in AB 711.


Sincerely,

_______________

Craig DeLuz




14/14




Regarding: Request for VETO of AB 1131 (Skinner)





AB 1131 would increase the prohibition on firearms possession and ownership from 5 years

to 10 years for those taken into custody and placed in an approved facility for a 72-hourtreatment and evaluation. It strips individuals of their Constitutionally-protected civil rights

with absolutely no legal, evidentiary, or historical justification.

There is no factual basis for the premise of the bill, that the existing 5 year prohibition is

insufficient to satisfy the States public safety interest. This measure only serves to further

stigmatize those in society who may have, at one time, experienced a short-term challenge

with a mental health issue.

Given that the bill would not improve public safety but would impact the civil rights of many

Californians, CAL-FFL respectfully asks that you VETO AB 1131.

Sincerely,

_______________Craig DeLuz



cal-ffl opposition letters to gov. brown regarding gun control bills (2013)

Documents