The Shootin' Guy

STOP AB 1527

There is a very bad bill on the Governor's desk that needs action on your part. AB 1527 will both require all long guns to be transported in a "locked container" and create a ban on the transportation of long guns outside the home with a list of "exemptions" for lawful purposes. Such systems in other states (notably NJ) have resulted in the arrest of countless law abiding citizens for inadvertent violations, or no violation at all.

It used to be that when the the "bad guy" walked into town there was fear and concern. But, when the "good guy" walked down the street with his rifle, people felt comfortable and safe. I understand that knowing who the good guy vs. the bad guy is these days is more difficult because there isn't the type of relationship in a larger city we once had in a smaller town. But a law like this will make even the good guy appear to be the bad guy.

Consider this, if a construction worker should walk down the street with his hammer in tool belt exposed, do we think of him as a good guy or bad guy?

Read this: http://goo.gl/vo1kb

Are these good guys carrying a bad hammer? Did the hammer make these guys bad? Should we outlaw the carrying of a hammer? This type of crime happens all the time in America. Why didn't law enforcement see this hammer and arrest this hammer carrier before he could perpetrate this crime?

See how silly this is?

Dealing with criminals in a very real and severe way is much more effective in sending a message to would be perpetrators of crime than punishing a non-criminals by passing silly laws that only the people like me, the non-criminal, will abide by. It's like saying, if we only get rid of all those hammers, we'd have no more crime or criminals. Everyone will be the good guy.

Another thought. The real underlying issue here is, gun control legislature is about control of the people and about eventually disarming Americans completely.

I'm telling you, that this current federal administration is about equalizing the world. Not bettering the whole world by raising the bar for the rest of world and helping them, but by lowering the American bar to the rest of the world. In affect, reducing America to a place were it was at before the revolutionary war.

But, that's a whole different blog entry.

++++++++++++++

Here's my letter to the Governor of CA. Use it if you'd like in it's entirety or perhaps use it as a basis for your own letter. 

Here's where to write: http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Honorable Gov. Brown,

I am writing in opposition to AB1527. This proposed law is a very bad idea for a lot of reasons:

AB1527 is a law in search of a problem. I believe the majority rifle owners respect the fact that the sight of a rifle or shotgun may make non-gun owners uncomfortable. This is why I personally and all of the rifle owners I know respect others and already, when transporting long guns, do so in a respectful and discreet manner as to not make others uncomfortable. I believe this bill is written so vaguely, that no attempt to be discreet will be acceptable and could cause more currently law-abiding citizens to be in violation of a poorly written, unnecessary law.

AB1527 contains sections that are so vague that they invite abuse by over zealous law enforcement officers and prosecutors.
The law that would be created by this bill is so complex and convoluted that it is virtually certain that both law enforcement and gun owners will misunderstand it.

Exemption based systems, such as the one contained in AB1527, in other sates have resulted in law abiding citizens being arrested for inadvertent violations. They have also resulted in many arrests of gun owners who were, in fact, complying with the law.

Because it is both unnecessarily restrictive, overly complex, and contains vague sections, AB1527 is nearly certain to be challenged on 2nd Amendment and other constitutional grounds.

Given that the DC Court of Appeals has ruled that long guns cannot be restricted in the same way, or to the same degree, as handguns it is virtually certain that a challenge on 2nd Amendment grounds will succeed. It is significant that this court reached this decision applying only intermediate scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has signaled in McDonald that the level of scrutiny ultimately applied to the Second Amendment will likely be higher.

Defending AB1527 will cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. In the event of a loss, which is the likely outcome, the state may have to pay even more in attorney's fees and court ordered penalties.The law that would be created by this bill is so complex and convoluted that it is virtually certain that both law enforcement and gun owners will misunderstand it.

For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that you veto AB1527.