Yesterday, the California State Legislature saw the introduction of two more anti-gun bills that continue the assault on lawful gun ownership in the Golden State. On the heels of passing legislation to violate gun owner privacy during the 2021 legislative session, for which the NRA has already filed a lawsuit, legislators have now introduced Senate Bill 906, to require disclosure of firearm ownership and storage methods for parents of school-age children. This is one more attack on the privacy of lawful gun owners in this state. NRA will fight this legislation during the session and will be prepared to pursue litigation in the event it receives the Governor’s signature. Additionally, Assembly Bill 1769 was introduced prohibiting the sale of firearms, ammunition, and firearm parts at gun shows in the 31st Agricultural District. Both SB 906 and AB 1769 are still awaiting committee assignments and policy hearings. Your NRA will continue to keep you updated as these bills are scheduled.
Senate Bill 906, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), makes it mandatory that parents of students disclose firearm ownership status to the schools their children attend, including how they are stored. It requires that these questions be placed on the forms used to register or enroll students, and these forms may be made available to law-enforcement under certain conditions.
Assembly Bill 1769, introduced by Assembly Member Steve Bennett (D-37), prohibits officers, employees, operators, lessees, or licensees of the 31st District Agricultural Association from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm parts, or ammunition on property or buildings that comprise the Ventura County Fair and Event Center or properties in Ventura County and the City of Ventura that are owned, leased, operated, or occupied by the District. This imposes a one-size-fits-all restriction to prevent officials from deciding how to use venues.
The People’s Republic of California is at it again! Reports are coming in that through unelected state officials, California is trying to sever ties to ham radio repeater owners throughout the state, jeopardizing the lives of millions of Californians who depend on these repeaters to operate during emergencies.
Last month, repeater operators were sent emails telling them the State would no longer allow them to operate repeaters on public land without paying substantial rental fees. In the letter sent by CAL FIRE, the state claims Ham operators no longer provide a benefit to the state or public safety. They claimed that “constantly changing technological advances” has made Ham radio obsolete during an emergency.
Keep in mind; this was done while the state was shutting power down in 34 of its counties because its infrastructure cannot handle 20-30 mph winds without risking wildfire breakouts throughout the state.
What is a Ham Radio Repeater
An amateur radio repeater system is a two-way radio system that takes weaker or low-level amateur radio signals and retransmits them at a higher level or higher power so that the radio signal can cover longer distances without degradation. It is a vital part of the local emergency communications system, and Ham Radio operators have been using them for decades to provide support during disasters that take out local communication infrastructure.
Why would they remove something that is the last line of defense during a disaster?
What is infuriating here is people are going to die because of this decision. It costs the State of California nothing to allow these repeaters on public land; in fact, Ham Radio Operators pay for the equipment and maintain the equipment at their own cost. Ham Radio operators also make nothing from running these radio repeaters; they do so as a service to the public to help ensure the public’s safety during natural disasters and emergencies.
Here is a good explanation of what’s going on from a Ham Radio operator in California
While paying billions of dollars a year to cater to illegal immigrants and welfare bums, California is now targeting hard-working Ham operators who provide critical and vital Disaster Emergency Communications. These people have absolutely lost their minds!
There is a nationwide effort to Kill Ham Radio
Even most Hams haven’t taken notice, but in 2012 the federal government launched FirstNet, a public safety nationwide broadband network that many in the government think will make Ham radio operators obsolete. In reality, its nothing more than a $47 Billion Federal Cell Phone Network that itself is already obsolete. In fact, it needs LOTS of infrastructure to function, and it creates multiple, single points of failure.
The real story here is Ham Radio is a threat to the government. We make them look stupid! They spend billions on infrastructure that breaks down, while we can literally take a hundred bucks in equipment, some random wires, and in minutes set up a radio system that can communicate with anyone in the world. Hell, I’ve used my kid’s slinky, some Television Coax Cable, and a solar battery system to build a mobile rig that I’ve used to talk to people around the world — You can check out the Radio Rig Here.
They don’t want the public to realize that we can take care of ourselves, and do a much better and cheaper job doing so!
UPDATE:
Over the last couple of months, a bunch of so-called Ham Radio operators from the ARRL have been trying to debunk the facts of this article. Unfortunately, The American Radio Relay League is full of shit and is hell-bent on not upsetting the FCC or any other government agency.
The truth is the ARRL is about as useless as the NRA when it comes to actually defending the rights of their members. They are only interested in maintaining memberships and fundraising money.
But let’s look at the argument these people and some of the sellout hams are using to try to pretend this didn’t happen in California.
They claim that this is a non-story or it is being blown out of proportion because it was a repeater on public land.
FIRST, Public land is OUR land. It’s not the government’s land! And it sure as hell isn’t CAL FIRES land!
It’s beyond sickening that these ARRL assholes and the hams defending California’s actions have never seemed to have heard the phrase WE THE PEOPLE. It’s amazing how many have allowed the government to become their parents, believing they need the government’s approval for everything.
They are forcing repeater owners off public land by increasing fees to levels that no repeater owner can afford. Land that you and I pay for, land that WE THE PEOPLE pay with our tax dollars
Second, these repeaters that are on “public land” are everywhere.
They are the backbone of the communication network in some of these remote areas. Ham Radio would not exist without these public land repeaters. These repeaters, as well as the public land around them, are paid for, managed and usually maintained at great expensive by the repeaters owner.
Third, even in the ARRLs fake investigation basically admits this happened but they say they can’t determine how many repeaters it affected or who was actually affected by these actions– yeah great fucking work ARRL, way to spend that membership money supporting hams! They claim this has all been blown out of proportion, but to the dipshits saying the ARRL said it’s not true – how can it be both not true and blown out of proportion?
And one last thing for the people who keep citing the ARRL article, maybe read the quote where they admit this has been happening in California for years while then again trying to tell you there is nothing to see here and that it’s all being blown out of proportion.
The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) filed a lawsuit against California on Wednesday challenging a law that allows the state to disclose sensitive personal information about law-abiding gun owners to universities and any “bona fide research institute.”
“California must be held accountable for its near-constant, unconstitutional assaults on law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “This law strips privacy rights from anyone who has ever purchased a firearm, transferred a firearm, purchased ammunition, or obtained a concealed-carry license. This is an outright violation of our rights and must be reversed.”
The bill, Assembly Bill 173, allows for the disclosure of highly sensitive information, including a gun owner’s name, address, place of birth, phone number, occupation, driver’s license or ID number, race, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and even their social security number and types of firearms that they own. This information was gathered from law-abiding gun owners with the understanding that it would only be used for legitimate law enforcement purposes.
“This information is a person’s identity. And it’s being handed over to organizations that have no duty to safeguard it. This will do nothing to prevent crime — it will only serve to put law-abiding gun owners at risk,” Ouimet said. “Gun owners are entitled to the same privacy rights as all law-abiding citizens. They should not be ‘doxxed’ for exercising their rights.”
This is only one of the cases that NRA-ILA has filed in recent years to curtail California’s efforts to burden the Second Amendment. NRA-ILA is also challenging California’s draconian restrictions on ammunition purchases and transfers, magazine bans, and the closure of gun shops and ranges. NRA-ILA will continue opposing California as long as it continues to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
California: Stay Issued in 9th Circuit Magazine Ban Ruling, Allowing Californians to Continue Possession of Lawfully Acquired Magazines
Yesterday, a stay was granted in the case of Duncan v. Bonta after an en banc panel upheld California’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. With this stay, the Ninth Circuit has decided to allow Californians to continue possession of any magazines that were acquired during “Freedom Week” or prior to the ban taking effect—for the time being.
The court agreed to stay the mandate from its decision for 150 days, to May 19, 2022. The court’s order further stays the mandate until the U.S. Supreme Court disposes of a petition for certiorari, should one be filed.
NRA-ILA is supporting this lawsuit and many other lawsuits in California.
Stay tuned to your inbox and http://www.nraila.org for updates concerning your Second Amendment rights.
California has a propensity for starting trends that sweep through the rest of the nation, whether it was the hippie era in the ’60s, high tech in the ’90s, or a host of environmental regulations in the 2000s, to name a few.
Politicians have run this fifth-largest economy in the world as a test case for radicalism, enacting some laws that turned out to be a disaster. Here are the top five:
California State Water Resources Control Board
The precursor to this agency was created in 1949 with legislation aimed at preserving the state’s vast water resources by enforcing laws and regulations. Citizens saw the agency as a welcome partner to the Golden State’s pristine ocean, beautiful homes, and stunning landscapes in the postwar era. But as the population grew, so did the board’s smothering clout, and it’s now viewed as the enemy by farmers and many rural communities that resemble dust bowls.
Since 2008, the board has regulated the flushing of millions of gallons of water into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to protect an endangered fish. This water then flows into the ocean and is not diverted to parched farmland.
For more than a decade, farmers in the Central Valley have grappled with decreasing water levels that have forced them to cut back on crops or abandon their lands altogether, spiking food costs.
Some years, farmers receive no water allotment but watch while celebrity homes in Los Angeles and golf courses in Palm Springs continue to showcase massive green lawns. As California is once again in the midst of a drought and threats of rationing, the mandate of “fish over people” continues to draw ire.
FILE – In this June 9, 2021, file photo, a small stream runs through the dried, cracked earth of a former wetland near Tulelake, Calif. California regulators on Tuesday, Aug. 3 said some farmers in one of the country’s most important agricultural regions will have to stop taking water out of major rivers and streams because of a severe drought that is rapidly depleting the state’s reservoirs and killing endangered species of fish. (AP Photo/Nathan Howard, File)
Nathan Howard/AP
Proposition 47
Citizens placed this initiative on the ballot in 2014 as the “ Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act ,” and it passed with 60% of the vote. Pushed by then-San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon, it was billed as a way to give more attention to violent criminals by downgrading numerous felonies to misdemeanors.
One million felons with crimes such as grand theft, forgery, and fraud were eligible for resentencing, with most released from prison due to overcrowding, thereby saving the state money, proponents said.
It took just five years before criminals realized that they could steal from stores in broad daylight with little or no repercussions. Many rural cities don’t have enough police to respond to all the vehicle and home thefts, while San Francisco has been the poster child for violent smash-and-grab retail looting.
Assembly Bill 5
Who would think of passing a bill during a pandemic that makes it harder for people to find work? No one is surprised to learn that the “winner” is California. Newsom signed the gig worker bill in 2019 as a means to provide independent contractors with benefits. It forced employers in most situations to hire contractors as employees, who would then receive benefits such as healthcare and vacation.
Instead, companies like Uber and Lyft balked, along with other industries, including those that employ artists and journalists.
A hastily written measure was placed on the 2020 ballot to exempt Uber and Lyft , and it passed. Newsom then rolled back the artist and media segments, but the original law remains in place and is driving more businesses out of state. Some 40,000 businesses closed last year .
Proposition 57
Like its partner, Prop. 47, this initiative had a glowing, misleading name: the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act. This 2016 ballot measure was billed as a way to clear out overcrowded prisons of nonviolent offenders with early parole, saving tens of millions of dollars.
Some of the felons eligible for early release would include sex traffickers, child molesters, hate crime offenders, and those who committed assault with a deadly weapon. Parole boards ruling on these cases were stymied by only being allowed to see the most recent offense.
Now, crime is rising across the state, but exact numbers are not available because statistics were not submitted to the FBI for an annual report. The state is apparently reclassifying its data, as various crimes no longer qualify as “violent” or as a felony.
However, local jurisdictions tell the true story, as in Oakland, with 100 murders this year. TheGuardiananalyzed crime data for the San Francisco Bay area and reported a 25% rise in homicides so far this year.
California Coastal Commission
During the 1970s, Californians became alarmed as large numbers of oceanfront developments were erected and nothing was in place to protect public access to the state’s 840 miles of coastline. Hence, the commission was born as a way to regulate future development and ensure sound environmental policies.
It didn’t take long before the commission started infringing on personal property and meting out illegal edicts, even ordering a restaurant to allow beachgoers to use its parking lot for free. The restaurant sued in a case that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court , which ruled that the commission was unconstitutionally taking private property.
Now, the problem has been exacerbated with a 2014 rule by the Legislature that gives the commission power to levy fines of up to $11,250 per day. The number of new cases opened by the commission has skyrocketed as it attempts to take any land it wishes, attorneys told Reasonmagazine.
However, the agency is again headed toward the Supreme Court, as one homeowner balked at allowing the state to demolish part of his property for a walkway. He has been fined $4.2 million.
