AB992 and AB 602

[Megadeth]

Write your letters boys. They are going to add $.10 a shell if it passes. If we lose this one, it'll hurt the pocketbook. DONT put it off, PLEASE.

[foulshot]

AB 992 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_992_bill_20030220_introduced.html)

AB 602 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0601-0650/ab_602_bill_20030218_introduced.html)

It's hard to believe that they want to impose a .10 tax per munition. Didn't they try this once before?
Don't they also realize that if "Johnny" is stealing a gun that he's also stealing the bullets.

I wonder how many of the traumas are hunting related!

[Duck Fan]

My letters were sent to everyone on the committee:



I write in opposition to AB 992 and AB602 - bills that would impose a 'fee' of 10 cents on ammunition sold in California.

I am a sports shooter in this state and can tell you that any 'fee' (aka tax) will only hurt the state's economy. Why? Because sportsmen and women will simply purchase their ammunition from another state that does not impose the 'fee'...and thereby the State of CA will loose out completely on the regular sales tax revenue generated by those sales. An example: a case of shotgun shells would now cost $25.00 more with this 'fee'. Everyone I know will go online and purchase from out of state sporting good stores or may even makes their purchases just over the border in Oregon or Nevada. Many hunters that I know do hunt in the eastern Sierras or along the Tule Lake/Klamath area near Oregon. It will be just as easy to purchase their ammunition from these states. And, of course, with the access to the internet, I and others will just log on and make our purchases - effectively taking ALL tax revenues from those sales out of CA.

There are other reasons as well and I know the opposing groups such as California Waterfowl Association and all other Conservation Organizations will express those viewpoints. But it is my desire to express to you that the 'fee' will actually create sportsmen and women to change their behavior and purchase outside this state. You will loose revenues - not gain additional funds. I will not purchase my ammunition any longer in this state if this 'fee' is imposed on the citizens of this state.

Sincerely,

[EL CAZADOR]

These appear to contain the exact same verbage, am I correct.

What's their purpose in creating two identical bills, maybe try to sneak one in?

I'll get the letters out pronto!!!

http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smiley-shootin-green.gif

[Duck Fan]

they are the same...not sure why there are two of them.....

pure politics I&#39;m sure

[EL CAZADOR]

Here is the sample letter from CWA:

Dear Assembly Member XXXXX:

I am writing you to urge your opposition to AB 992 (Ridley-Thomas), which would impose a "fee" of 10 cents on every piece of ammunition sold in California after January 1, 2004 for the purposes of financing a Trauma Center Fund.

While increasing funding for trauma centers remains an admirable goal, requiring hunters and other law-abiding sportsmen and women to shoulder such costs makes little sense: there is simply no documented nexus between sporting activities and gun violence. Rather, it is the illegal use of firearms by criminals that causes the vast majority of firearms injuries and fatalities. Ironically, California&#39;s sporting community has long sought to reduce firearm-related accidents through mandatory hunter safety programs, beginning in 1954 with the passage of the Davis-Abshire Hunter Safety Training Law. Today, over 30,000 students of all ages complete a minimum 10-hour hunter safety course before receiving a hunting license. Through this program and other efforts, concerned hunters have significantly reduced the number of firearms accidents in the field over the last 50 years, making hunting one of the safest outdoor recreational pursuits available today. Statistics available from the California Department of Fish and Game bear this out. In 2001, there were only 2 fatalities in the entire State from hunting-related accidents. In 2000, just one fatality occurred, while in 1999 no fatalities from hunting-related incidents were reported.

Although AB 992 would add just ten cents to the cost of each shell, one must consider the large volume of ammunition used by hunters and other shooting enthusiasts-many of who purchase their ammunition not by the box, but by the case. During just one day at the shooting range, target and skeet shooters, for instance, may fire hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Similarly, many waterfowl and upland game bird hunters use significant amounts of ammunition throughout their respective hunting seasons. Unfortunately, AB 992 would not only increase the retail cost of each case of shotgun shells by $25, it would nearly double the price in many cases-creating new financial disincentives for low-income Californians to participate in hunting, which is already prohibitively expensive for many. Using conservative estimates, our Association believes that AB 992 would cost many law-abiding sportsmen and women, individually, hundreds of dollars each year to pay for criminal or negligent acts that they had absolutely nothing to do with!

Hunting is one of our nation&#39;s most treasured traditions. Over the past two centuries, as our nation became more developed, it was the hunting community that first recognized the alarming decline in populations of many North American wildlife species, and took the first steps to cease the destruction of our natural resources. Truly our nation&#39;s first "environmentalists", in the early 1900&#39;s the hunting community looked no farther than to themselves for the initial funding to fuel critically needed habitat conservation efforts. In the 1930&#39;s, sportsmen lobbied Congress to pass the Pittman-Robertson Act which placed an 11% excise tax on the sale of sporting arms, ammunition and archery equipment and a 10% tax on all handguns - creating the first firm annual funding stream earmarked specifically for habitat restoration and enhancement. Over the life of the program, the Pittman-Robertson Act has generated over $4 billion for wildlife conservation purposes nationwide. Shortly thereafter, sportsmen again lobbied legislators to pass laws, which mandated the purchase of a hunting license to harvest game species, and also required the purchase of state and federal stamps to hunt migratory waterfowl.

In addition to creating these and other important funding mechanisms, sportsmen have also dug deep into their own pockets to give generously to wildlife conservation organizations to assist them in their habitat conservation efforts. But, perhaps the hunting community&#39;s greatest contribution to the preservation of our nation&#39;s natural resources is the wildlife and habitat benefits they provide on their own lands. Nowhere is this contribution more evident than in the area of California&#39;s waterfowl and wetland resources. With duck hunting as their single incentive, California&#39;s private landowners have restored and currently maintain over 60% of our state&#39;s remaining wetland and upland habitats.

Other revenues generated by hunting significantly benefit the economy. A 1996 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study found that hunting generates 704,600 jobs in the US, representing almost 1% of the entire civilian labor force and contributing $22.1 billion annually to the national economy. A more recent report entitled Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of NWR Visitation found that National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) visitor spending-much of which is driven by hunters-generated $401.1 million in sales at the local level.

Finally, it is important to note that, in an effort avoid the two-thirds vote requirement on the floor for this measure, the author has utilized the term "fee" rather than "tax". Regardless of any euphemism used to describe it, AB 992 would obviously function as a true tax on all ammunition and should therefore be treated as such for purposes of voting thresholds. We strongly urge the Committee to delete all references to "fee" in the bill and appropriately replace them with the term "tax".

The intent of the Trauma Center Fund is primarily to cover the medical costs of the victims of illegal firearm activity in our State&#39;s urban areas. Yet, AB 992 would unfairly place the majority of the burden for financing the Fund on the shoulders of law-abiding sportsmen and women who already pay significant taxes on ammunition. To make matters worse, the measure would ultimately decrease participation in recreational hunting and other sporting activities that fund important wildlife conservation efforts and benefit the economy. It is because of these concerns that I urge you to oppose AB 992.

Sincerely,

(Your Name and Address)

[Megadeth]

We need help. This bill, AB992, will be heard again on 4/29, we need everybody in the hunting/shooting community to write opposition letters NOW. Take 30 minutes out of your weekend and write some letters and fax them off. Go to The Duck Hunters Refuge for CA and get the names/numbers for your assemblymembers. We need HEAVY opposition. Thanks, Steve

[huntducks]

Do your part even if you only shoot a couple box&#39;s of shells per year this tax is also on reloading componts. http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smiley-hair-raisin-blue.gif

[Duck Fan]

I received this Good News response from one of the assemblymen: (KEEP WRITING!)



I will be voting against AB 992, and all the other tax bills. I will also be voting against the anti-gun owners and anti-hunting bills. We will try to defeat them. Please continue to express your opinion and get those you know to do the same. They are passing most of these bills with a simple majority vote, and if there is not enough public outcry, we will have a great deal of difficulty stopping them. Appreciate your willingness to get involved.

Assemblyman Ray Haynes

[Bottom_Feeder]

I have only one question about this bill. Is the money(99% of which is going to be paid for by hunters and plinkers) going to be used to pay for hunting accidents as well? This may be a good question to ask and help stall.

[bigtusker]

What committee must these bills go before? How do I find out the names and addresses of the people on these committees? I sent 6 letters last night but want to send more. HELP

[EL CAZADOR]

My letters will be in the mail tonight!!!

[RIFLEMAN]

Guys,

AB992 (Ridley-Thomas and Koretz) is the one with wheels under it and is on the fast track, having already passed through the Assembly Committee on Public Safety with a vote of 5 yeas (Leno, Bermudez, Goldberg, Koretz and Longville) to 2 Nays (La Suer and Maze-who replaced Spitzer) Membership and contact information can be found here. (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=57)

Its fate now rests with the Assembly Committee on Health. That membership information can be found here. (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=10)

Let&#39;s crank out the opposition here, people. If we can defeat bills attacking such fractured sports as dove hunting and the use of dogs, surely we can all come together to send this bill down in flames.

[EL CAZADOR]

Another response from Assembly Member Ray Haynes (I received this today)


"I am adamantly opposed to AB 992, and the other tax and anti-gun bills, and will do my best to see them defeated."

Assemblyman Ray Haynes

[Pasco]

My letters to the committee members went out last night. Sure are a lot of Democrats out there. Do these people listen to citizens outside of their constituency? Hope so.

[buck59]

Here are the addresses.
Anti-Gun forces in California&#39;s state capitol are trying to make ammunition buyers pay an extra fee of ten cents per loaded round, or per individual reloading
component. That’s $5.00 per box of .22 shells and $10.00 per box of primers
for reloading added onto the purchase price! Shooters cannot afford to pay
this outrageous fee!! The bill number is AB 992 by Ridley-Thomas, D-Los
Angeles.

AB 992 is set for hearing on April 29th. All shooters, hunters and
competitors should immediately contact the bills author, Assembly Member
Mark Ridley-Thomas and the Assembly Health Committee to voice their
opposition! A list of the Committee and Mr. Ridley-Thomas is attached for
your use. Please act now!! If you can come to Sacramento to show your
opposition of these bills, it would be very helpful.

Time is short, so if you are going to write a letter, fax it.

Jerry Springer
Editor/Publisher
WesternHunter.com

AB 992 Author Contact Information
Assembly Member Mark Ridley-Thomas (D)
Assembly District 48
District Address: Admin. Offices East, 700 State Drive, Suite 303, Los Angeles, CA 90037
District Telephone: (213) 745-6656/Fax: (213) 745-6722
Capitol Address: State Capitol, Room 4005, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249
Capitol Telephone: (916) 319-2048/Fax: (916) 319-2148

(AB 992) Assembly Health Committee
Assembly Member Dario Frommer (D) (Chair) Assembly District 43
District Address: 111 E. Broadway, Ste. 205, Glendale, CA 91205
District Telephone: (818) 240-6330/Fax: (818) 240-4632
Capitol Address: State Capitol, Room , Sacramento, CA 95814
Capitol Telephone: (916) 319-2043/Fax: (916) 319-2143

Assembly Member Robert Pacheco ® (Vice Chair)
Assembly District 60
District Address: 17800 Castleton Street, Suite 125, City of Industry, CA 91748
District Telephone: (626) 839-2000/Fax: (626) 839-2005
Capitol Address: State Capitol, Room 5164, Sacramento, CA 95814
Capitol Telephone: (916) 319-2060/Fax: (916) 319-2160

[bigtusker]

I just received this email response:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I will be opposing the Legislation. ###It is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Health Committee tomorrow.

Assemblyman Ray Haynes[/b]

If anybody has a chance today, get some emails or phone calls out to all the members of The Assembly Health Committee. They meet on this TOMORROW!

Click Here (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=10) for a list of the commitee members.

[Pasco]

Well, here&#39;s what the CA website says as of May 1, 2003, AM. Looks like the author needs to do a little rework? Anyone know the particulars? (Note the hearing canceled at the request of the author)




CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 992
AUTHOR(S) : Ridley-Thomas and Koretz (Coauthors: Goldberg and Nunez)
(Coauthor: Senator Soto).
TOPIC : Ammunition: Trauma Center Fund.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 04/22/2003


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/29/2003
LAST HIST. ACTION : In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at
the request of author.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM HEALTH

TITLE : An act to add Chapter 2.8 (commencing with Section
12330) to Title 2 of Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating
to ammunition, and making an appropriation therefor.

[Duck Fan]

Got this from Dave Cox. If he is your assemblymen - be sure to let him know you appreciate his stance:


Thank you for your correspondence regarding Assembly Bill 602 and AB 992. I appreciate hearing from you.

My stance on additional gun control legislation has been clear. I have consistently opposed efforts to restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to be able to purchase and legally use firearms.

AB 602 (Koretz) and AB 992 (Ridley-Thomas) are identical bills which would both impose a tax of $0.10 on each round of ammunition. These bills are another example of how Democrats are again attempting to tax the people of California without the Constitutionally required two-thirds vote. The language used in these bills calls the munition tax a "fee" in order to circumvent this important Constitutional requirement.

Again this year, numerous other bills affecting Second Amendment rights have been proposed. This type of legislation will not have a role in reducing crime related to the illegal use of guns. Because these bills trample upon the Constitutional rights of taxpayers and lawful firearms owners, I will vote against either of these bills should they come before me on the Assembly floor in their current form.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

DAVE COX
Assembly Republican Leader

[Pasco]

Amended 5-5-03:

AB 992 amended (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_992_bill_20030505_amended_asm.html)

Still a bad idea.

[thetarheelkid]

This crap has got to STOP!!!

Totally ridiculous and prejudiciously directed to harass legal gun owners and elimnate guns in this state.

[Hook]

They don&#39;t seem to get it, WE do not support a "fee", of any amount, per munition. No matter where the money goes!!!

Keep writing and sending faxes and let&#39;s get it stopped.

[Pasco]

Status as of May 15. This one is moving on to the Assembly Appropriations committee.

More letters faxes, e-mails and letters please.

Remember, this increases the price for a brick of .22LR by $50, and a box of 1000 primers by $100.



COMPLETE BILL HISTORY


BILL NUMBER : A.B. No. 992
AUTHOR : Ridley-Thomas
TOPIC : Ammunition: Firearm Victims&#39; Reimbursement Fund.

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

BILL HISTORY
2003
May 15 Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
May 6 Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
May 5 From committee chair, with author&#39;s amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.
Apr. 29 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request
of author.
Apr. 23 Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
Apr. 22 From committee chair, with author&#39;s amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.
Apr. 21 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH.
Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 8).
Mar. 3 Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and HEALTH
Feb. 23 From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
Feb. 20 Read first time. To print.

[huntducks]

Anyone heard anything, this will be one of them that will pass when no one is looking.

[Pasco]

As of May 23 here it is...Appropriations committee hearing NEXT WEDNESDAY! (May 28). Going to be tough to get letters there in time, at least call and e-mail.


CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 992
AUTHOR(S) : Ridley-Thomas and Koretz (Coauthors: Goldberg and Nunez)
(Coauthor: Senator Soto).
TOPIC : Ammunition: Firearm Victims&#39; Reimbursement Fund.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 05/05/2003


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/15/2003
LAST HIST. ACTION : Re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 44. Noes 27. Page
1719.)
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 05/28/2003

TITLE : An act to add Chapter 2.8 (commencing with Section
12330) to Title 2 of Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating
to ammunition, and making an appropriation therefor.

[Pasco]

Their hearing is tomorrow, 5-28. If your letters didn&#39;t go out last week, e-mail each member TODAY and state your case on this one.

Even if you can afford this, it is unfair and will erode the shooting and hunting community in the future.


Assembly Committee on Appropriations (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=43)

[DKScott]

Just called a slew of committee members. I think the phone calls are better than e-mails. The leftys don&#39;t even want to hear it - a perfunctory if polite "thanks for your input" The Republican members were considerably warmer, asked who I was and where I was calling from, and willing to hear my comments about what this tax will actually cost the average trap/skeet shooter ($2.50/round x 5-10 rounds per week) $10/round of Sporting Clays or a $50 for a brick of .22s for a day at the range/desert with the kids. I also reminded them that we already pay an 11% excise tax on ammunition. I get the impression they haven&#39;t given much thought to the dollars out of each persons&#39; pocket, so the examples may put it in perspective.

Make those polite calls today before the vote! Especially to the liberals - they are the ones that need to hear it, but the Republican&#39;s also need to know they have support and its worth the fight by them.

Click on the link in Pasco&#39;s post above for the phone numbers. Calls take about a minute and are answered right away.

[Neil San Diego]

AB992 as of yesterday:

"June 5 To inactive file on motion of Assembly Member Ridley-Thomas."

It is now listed as "inactive". Does anyone know what this means in the real world? As much as I dare to hope, this can&#39;t mean that it is going away, does it?

Neil

[EL CAZADOR]

It means they&#39;ll probably do some more research on the logistics that the bill demands - IE: how to collect and enforce internet and out of state sales.

It will surface next year for sure!!