On Jan. 28, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 199, by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles. The vote was 23 to 8. The bill would require BB and airsoft guns to be painted bright colors to make them “readily identifiable” so law enforcement officers could distinguish them from real firearms.

Police shooting of 13-year-old

In the Senate debate on Jan. 23, de Leon addressed the recent shooting death of 13-year-old Andy Lopez in Santa Rosa, who was carrying an airsoft BB replica of an AK-47 automatic rifle.

“Law enforcement officers have extreme difficulty distinguishing between the real thing and what is fake,” de Leon said. “This is about saving lives.”

Sen. Steve Knight, R-Lancaster, disagreed. The former Los Angeles police officer said, “Today a brand new 9 millimeter gun can look like a toy. A brightly colored gun isn’t necessarily a toy. Are we going to write a bill when a police officer gets shot by a real gun painted bright orange?”

“The tragedy has rocked Santa Rosa and Sonoma County to its very core,” said Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, a co-author of the bill. “A toy should look like a toy. A toy should not get a child killed.”

Santa Rosa police said that Lopez’ airsoft gun did not have the required orange marker.

Similar incidents have occurred elsewhere in America. In 2012, police fatally shot a Texas eighth-grader who was carrying a pellet gun resembling a black Glock. In 2011, Miami police shot and killed a man carrying a realistic-looking replica gun.

However, bright colored firearms — real guns — already exist. There are bright pink Glocks, white AR15s, pretty pearl-handled revolvers, Burberry print rifles and even a 9 millimeter with a leopard print grip — all designed to appeal to women.

For many years gang members, and some suspected narcotics dealers near the border with Mexico, have painting their weapons to resemble airsoft weapons.

The bad guys

“The problem is, we can’t control the bad guys from painting their weapons,” said Sen. Joel Anderson, R-San Diego. “If this bill was about educating our youth how to react to law enforcement, I’d support it.”

Anderson told a story about a man in San Diego apprehended by police. He came at officers with a trowel — and they shot and killed him.

“The bill puts false hope out there,” Anderson said.

Airsoft is a sport

Redding resident T.J. Armstrong is an airsoft enthusiast. “It’s a community sport,” Armstrong said. “It is a father-son sport.”

Armstrong plays on an all father-son team in Redding and told CalWatchdog.com what SB199 will do to the sport. “This bill just kills another sport and successful industry,” he said.

Armstrong said the area property he uses was a local eyesore. So his team asked the property owner if they could use the land for airsoft sporting in exchange for a huge cleanup and ongoing maintenance of the land.

Now, not only do all of the airsoft players in Redding use the field, local police and sheriffs participate for training and ongoing exercises.

Armstrong said that if SB199 becomes law, it will shutter many businesses and thousands of people will lose their jobs. “This bill will not improve public safety at all,” he said.

Specifics

Specifically, SB199 would require that all toy guns, replica guns and BB guns be painted bright orange, purple, red, blue, green and yellow colors.

And in would make it illegal to own all weapons that shoot a 6 mm BB. “No more Red Ryder Daisy BB Guns, no more Pellet Guns, no more Airsoft guns,” Armstrong said.

Armstrong provided a partial list of of groups and businesses located throughout the state of California that would be affected:

AirsoftGI

Airsoft Megastore

Evike.com

Airsplat

U.S. Airsoft

Fort Ord

CQB City

Shorty Airsoft

Lion Claws

Airsoft Extreme

DogTag Airsoft

And the communities which have active Airsoft facilities:

Redding Area Airsoft

The Shadow Legion Airsoft Team

The Jefferson State Regulators Airsoft Team

U.S. Airsoft Team

The Misfits Airsoft Team

The SMS Airsoft Team

Sacramento Airsoft

Butte County Regional Airsoft

Easy Company Airsoft

Airsoft Craigslist

Sutter Yuba Airsoft

Airsoft World Wide

Magpul Masada PTS

Phantom Force Airsoft

Susanville Airsoft Squad S.A.S.

Polarstar Airsoft Owners’ Group

I Play Airsoft

PTW Sales & Forum

BoE Airsoft

The Airsoft Exchange

By Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, AB 1266’s language says “that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

The bill was co-authored by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Leno explained the need for the bill to AP:

“There should be certainty that every kid has the chance to go to school and be treated equally and fairly. We know that these particular students suffer much abuse and bullying and denigration. We can’t change that overnight, but what we can do is make sure that the rules are such that they get a fair shake.”

And AP reported on a statement emailed by the Transgender Law Center. In it, 16-year-old transgender boy Ashton Lee said:

“I just want to be treated the same as all the other boys, but my school forces me to take P.E. in a class of all girls and live as someone I’m not. I can’t learn and succeed when every day in that class leaves me feeling isolated and alone.”

Signatures

If the 620,000 signatures just turned for the initiative qualify the referendum for the ballot, it will be voted on during the next general election in Nov. 2014.

“This is a win for the people,” said Karen England, Executive Director of the Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative think tank, and the co-chairwoman of the Privacy for All Students referendum.

Privacy for All Students is a coalition of parents, students, nonprofit and faith groups who launched the referendum effort to give voters the right to decide whether to accept AB 1266, which would inevitably transform intimate school facilities such as showers, bathrooms and locker rooms, according to England.

The law would allow transgender students to self-identify as transgender, in order to use school bathrooms and try out for sports teams of their chosen gender, even if that differs from what’s stated on their birth certificates.

Around the state in 80 days

“We had under 80 days to do this,” England said. “This is a new way of doing things, which may be how our founding fathers intended.”

England said she had so much support for the signature gathering. “We had a fellow in Reedly, CA who collected 2,000 signatures,” she said. “We had people who drove for hours to deliver only a few signatures, and hundreds of signatures. The Calvary Chapel church in Chino Hills delivered 46,000 signatures! Sadly, it’s clear, most politicians don’t care. It does take the people.”

England said a change of the magnitude of AB 1266 would cause chaos and confusion in the state’s public schools.

England said there was also huge support coming from Chinese churches in the San Francisco Bay area. “People drove more than five hours round trip to deliver their collected signatures,” she said.

Privacy violations for 99.7 percent

“We’re not going to stand by and let 99.7 percent of our students lose their privacy and free speech rights just because 0.3 percent of the population are gender-confused,” said Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute.

Specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties, the non-profit Pacific Justice Institute works without charge, to provide its clients.

“LGBT activists are sacrificing the safety and sanity of children in our schools to push an extreme political agenda,” Dacus said. “This battle is no longer confined to California or Colorado, where we have another case; it is spreading to every part of the nation. It is crucial that we act now to prevent a crippling blow to our constitutional freedoms.”

If allowed go into effect, AB 1266 would deprive non-transgender students in public schools of their privacy rights and affect girls’ rights to participate in sports, Dacus explained. “Case law firmly establishes that we as Americans have the right to privacy, under the Constitution,” said Dacus. “This case is irrefutably self-evident.”

Privacy is especially sensitive to students during the pre-teen and teenage years. “A 12- or 14-year-old girl should have a right to change clothes and shower in a locker room, without having a 14-year old boy showering and changing his clothes next to her,” Dacus said. “Outside of rape, this is the greatest violation of individual privacy imaginable. Yet it is exactly what was legislated and mandated to occur, under the pretext of a boy who, in his mind, thinks he’s a girl.”

“The Legislature could have passed something compassionate and supportive for gender-confused children, to help resolve the underlying issues for dysphoria,” Dacus said. “Instead, this law ties the hands of parents, school officials, and psychologists, in how gender confusion is addressed. It’s anti-transgender.”

Defending AB 1266

NBC Bay Area profiled one teen who backs the bill:

“Kane Atticus Tajnai lived as Kathryn Amanda for 16 years before coming out to his family as a transgender teen.

“Kane, now a senior at Gunderson High School in San Jose, said he never felt completely comfortable — not just with being identified as a girl, but about labels in general. For Kane, the labels on the bathroom doors at school were some of the hardest to face. He wanted to go into the boys’ room, but felt obligated to go into the girls’ bathroom.

“So he tried not to go at all….

“As for Kane, changing in the boys’ locker room and using the boys’ bathroom at school has not resulted in any problems.

“He believes this new law has the power to save lives. He remembers his worst nights, feeling desperate and alone, and though he sometimes still has emotional struggles, he feels much freer — a feeling he hopes others in his shoes can also experience. With that, he had a question for the opponents of AB 1266.

“’Don’t I deserve the same safety at school and same comfort level at school, that all the other students do?’ he said.”

Parents mad at the mainstream media

Karen England said hundreds of the Privacy for All Students volunteers told her they were angry with the mainstream media for not highlighting the seriousness of Ammiano’s bill. “People from all over the state said they heard little or nothing about AB 1266,” England said. “They were outraged when they realized the law had passed, and asked me, ‘what was Jerry Brown thinking?’ This referendum protects all students, including girls who don’t want to go the bathroom with a boy in the next bathroom stall.”

“A referendum is hard, and it should be,” England added. “This has cost $500,000, of which $300,000 has gone to paid petition gatherers. The rest is a massive grass roots organization.” In recent years, paid petition-gathering has cost about $2 million for a statewide initiative. So the low cost of this campaign shows the grassroots effect.

“This has been a huge battle,” England said. “Democratic politicians need take note — the sleeping giant in California is going to wake up.”

The UFW won an election to organize Gerawan Farming more than 20 years ago but has been silent ever since. Certified by the ag labor board in 1990, the UFW held only one meeting a couple of years later, then abandoned the farm due to lack of worker support. There was never a contract.

So when the UFW, needing new dues-paying members, showed up in October 2012, claiming Gerawan Farming’s 5,000 employees were de facto union members, the workers were furious.

Organized by longtime Gerawan Farming employee Silvia Lopez, thousands of workers fought against the attempted takeover.

“We never certified the union,” said Silvia Lopez during an interview on KMJ radio with host Ray Appleton on Friday. “Why do we have to certify the union? This is a question for Jerry Brown.”

“I tried to contact the governor, but couldn’t,” Lopez said. “The only thing we want is to vote.”

Does the Ag labor board have an agenda?

SILVIA LOPEZ

Lopez collected signatures to petition the Agricultural Labor Relations Board for decertification of the UFW. She turned in 2,000 signatures Sept. 19. The ALRB rejected her petition and said most of the signatures were forged.

Undaunted, Lopez turned in another 3,000 signatures Friday, Oct. 25.

Within 24 hours, Silas Shawver in the Visalia ALRB office said Lopez turned the petition and signatures in too late to be valid.

But then the Sacramento ALRB overturned Shawver’s decision and said the workers could have an election, within seven days of submitting the signatures.

But on Thursday, Oct. 31, Shawver announced his decision to block the decertification election.

Angered and frustrated, 1,000 workers protested at the Visalia ALRB office Friday, demanding the right to vote.

On Friday, Nov. 1, workers received word from the ALRB they could have their election Tuesday, Nov. 5.

‘They have a right to vote’

Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, is also angry. “The workers have been entirely ignored by the very people and political leaders supposed to be representing them,” he told me. “The ALRB is a rogue agency now, entirely biased and out of control.”

Patterson, shown at right, wrote a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown expressing his support of the farm workers and urging Brown to intervene with the ALRB.

“It is the governor’s responsibility,” Patterson said. “He authored and signed the enabling legislation. It’s an absolute obligation to meet with these people. They have the right to vote.”

Patterson said he would work toward legislation reining in the rogue ALRB. “They cannot treat people like this,” he added. “I’m just amazed the governor has not intervened.”

Patterson said he was particularly disgusted at the silence of Assembly colleagues who represent the Central Valley. “I’ve reached out to Assembly Democrats Henry Perea and Rudy Salas on a number of occasions,” he said. “The silence is deafening.”

“This is what one-party rule looks like,” Patterson said. “This is the consequence of a supermajority of one party. And it’s an abuse of power.”

Legislative games abet union power plays

The United Farm Workers sponsored a bill earlier this year by Sen. Darrell Steinberg to grant the union advantages given to no other union in California, such as forcing employers into constant, repeated mediation.

SB 25 was specifically targeting six of the state’s largest farms in order to assume control of the workers, and thus instantly triple UFW membership.

But the farm workers who found themselves impacted by this law did began to fight. Silvia Lopez and thousands of Gerawan workers fought against the attempted takeover.

Even lawmakers from farming regions would not vote for SB 25. Unable to get the bill passed out of both houses of the Legislature, Steinberg sent SB 25 to the inactive file in September.

But that did not end the union troubles for the farm workers, or for Gerawan Farming.

Ag board in ‘cahoots’ with union?

Because Silas Shawver, the ALRB regional director in Visalia, refused to document and publish the total signatures on the first petition Lopez submitted, his decision to dismiss the petition looked subjective and suspicious.

Lopez told me ALRB officials, including Shawver, personally met with more than 2,000 Gerawan employees at the farm before the first election so the ALRB could inform the workers of their right to ask for an election.

Given that the ALRB witnessed firsthand the interest of the workers in an election during that meeting, Shawver’s ruling invalidating the signatures was troubling to many.

And so was the UFW’s statement to me:

“The ALRB issued a 12-page report which dismissed the workers’ petition,” said UFW communications director Maria Machuca, when I called her following the first election. ”It was just a small group, the petition, and included forgeries and company involvement, which is illegal.”

“The ALRB invalidated the Gerawan decertification petition based on illegal employer involvement,” Machuca added in an email following my call. “In its review of the petitions signed by employees, the ALRB found a substantial number of forged signatures.  Nothing demonstrates more disrespect for employees than forging their signatures on a legal document.”

As this story unfolds the seeming relationship between the ALRB, a government agency, and the UFW, a union, continues to be of interest.

In a recent CalWatchdog story, I explained: “During an August 21, 2013 court proceeding, Judge Jeffrey Y. Hamilton said, ‘So the court is very suspect of, one, the ALRB’s position here.  It almost seems like it’s in cahoots.  And the court finds it very troubling that the ALRB is taking such a position, especially sitting in a prosecutorial role.’”

More to come on this story as it develops.

“Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama,” the Mercury news said. “Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.”

Vinson, a 60-year old retired teacher will pay $1,800 more a year for her individual policy. Waschura, 52, self-employed engineer, will have to pay $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.

This isn't funny, although the irony is. We at CalWatchdog, along with many in the new media, have been warning about the impending fallout of Obamacare. Our critics accused us of everything from being doom-and-bloomers, to wanting poor people to die.

CalWatchdog stories provided data, numbers, facts, studies, and quoted health care experts. But as is the case with so many, people apparently need to experience things first hand in order to learn.

Surprisingly, even with the painful reality of the significant health care cost increases, the San Jose Mercury News called media stories warning about Obamacare-induced cost increases, “political rhetoric.”

“For years, the nation has been embroiled in the political rhetoric of 'Obamacare,' but this past week the reality of the new law sank in as millions of Americans had their first good look at how the 3 1/2-year-old legislation will affect their pocketbooks,” the Mercury News said.

Obamacare facts page says, “In exchange for the new rights and protections most Americans must obtain health coverage by 2014, get an exemption, or pay a fee.”

Covered California spokesman Dana Howard defended the “winners and losers” under Obamacare. “Some people will see an increase who are already on the individual market purchasing insurance,” he said, “but most people will not,” Howard said.

Covered California, the state's health insurance exchange, claims on its website, “Your destination for affordable health care.”

I guess that depends on who you ask.

The list of who won't have to pay for health care under the Affordable Care Act is long. “The shared responsibility payment (IRS penalty) should not apply to any taxpayer for whom coverage is unaffordable, who has other good cause for going without coverage, or who goes without coverage for only a short time,” according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The list of exemptions to the payment of Obamacare exempts just about everyone except the middle class and those who pay income tax.

“I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this,” Waschura said. “When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy.”

“I was laughing at Boehner — until the mail came today,” Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, and the Republicans' charge to defund Obamacare.

But it was okay that the $10,000 health care cost was going to come out of someone else's pocket.

Noticing Brown's silence, the association representing active and retired state fish and game wardens sent a letter Thursday to the governor opposing the bill to ban lead ammunition, urging a veto.  This is fairly significant since the California Fish and Game Wardens’ Association are breaking with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which is supportive of AB 711, the lead ammo ban by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Southgate. The bill would effectively ban hunting under the guise of “protecting the environment.”

Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society, and Audubon California, are pushing for California to be the first state in the nation to kill wild game hunting. Hunting opponents claim the lead in the bullets is killing the California Condor. I wrote about this recently in “CA and feds take aim at hunting ammo.”  By prohibiting the use of all lead ammunition for hunting in California, coupled with the federal government’s attempt to ban non-lead ammo, hunters could be left out in the woods with an empty weapon.

Media silence on opposition

California lawmakers are ignoring the historic recall last week of two Colorado state legislators who backed new gun restrictions. And they are ignoring the Bill of Rights.

Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” says the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

The gun control debate waged during the last eight months in the California Legislature has been an attack on the Second Amendment.

Democratic lawmakers claim the legislation is needed to address acts of gun violence. But who are they trying to control?

Increase in violence, or media hype?

Never letting a good crisis go to waste, California’s Democratic lawmakers reacted en masse to the Dec. 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults. By January 2013, the Legislature introduced 40 gun control bills.

But as I wrote in “Gun control laws would not make us safer,” the worst deadly massacre at a school in American history was not the Newtown shootings, or the Columbine shootings.

The worst school massacre took place before there was even a television in every home — in Michigan in 1927 when a school board official, enraged at a tax increase to fund school construction, planted explosives in Bath Township Elementary school, then blew the school up.  When crowds rushed in to rescue the children, he drove up his shrapnel-filled car and detonated it, killing more people, including himself.

While the media and politicians respond purely emotionally and opportunistically, they have ignored that these incidents are not new, and are certainly not indigenous to America.

Despite media claims that these types of mass killings are on the rise, criminologist James Allen Fox, of Boston Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, said “the random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest,” Fox said. “Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.”

Experts who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common or on the rise.

In April, the U.S. Senate killed measures to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and require background checks during the purchase of guns at gun shows or on the Internet.

Study after study has shown that between 6 percent and 10 percent or criminals are responsible for up to 70 percent of all crimes committed.

Interpretation of the second amendment varies between those who believe it protects citizens’ rights to own guns, and those who do not.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protected the individual right to keep suitable firearms at home for self-defense. This case overturned Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns.

Naming names

Listed are the lawmakers who authored the gun control bills — all Democrats:

AB 48 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, bans ammunition and gun parts. Skinner infamously said, “bullets are the very thing making guns deadly.”

Also by Skinner, AB 1131, increases prohibition periods after credible threat of violence from 6 months to 5 years.

AB 170 by Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, prohibits anyone who owns a business from getting assault weapon permits.

SB 374 by Sen. Pres. Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, bans detachable magazines in rifles.

SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, redefines a shotguns to delete the requirement that it be fired from the shoulder.

SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, expands list of crimes resulting in ban from owning firearms.

AB 180 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, allows the city of Oakland to pass gun control regulations.

AB 500 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, allows the Department of Justice additional time to run background checks on gun purchasers.

SB 299 by Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, requires gun owners to report all lost or stolen firearms.

SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, requires gun buyers to take a firearm safety class to earn a “safety certificate.”

SB 475 by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, bans gun shows at the Cow Palace by requiring approval from San Mateo and San Francisco counties.

AB 169 by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, limits transfer of “unsafe” handguns — any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed, which has not been vetted by the California Department of Justice.

AB 711 by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, bans the use of lead ammunition.

AB 231 by Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, adds criminal liability for firearm storage that endangers a child.

Oppressive CA government

An oppressive government is what led to the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers wrote into the Bill of Rights that rights are human rights endowed with by our Creator, and not rights granted by the government. The argument over the Second Amendment is not just about preserving the right to keep and bear arms; this fight is about making sure the government cannot take away citizens’ rights.

If the government can grant rights, it can also take them away. That’s what makes the liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights “unalienable.”

“All power is inherent in the people; . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, shortly before his death.

George Mason, a delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention, believed the relationship between arms and liberty was crucial, and said history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them.

The “Youth Equality Bill,” SB323 by Lara, targeted Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Little League, YMCA, YWCA, Future Farmers of America, 4-H and Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs are all listed in Lara’s bill, in addition to the Boy Scouts. Even Special Olympics, American Youth Soccer and Pop Warner football were included.

Despite claiming SB 323 was “alive and well,” the bill stalled on the Assembly floor during voting, and was transferred to the Legislature’s inactive file, which is usually a signal the bill was dead in the water.

However, the inactive file will allow Lara to bring SB 323 back next year.

“As session reconvenes in January, the passage of this bill and fighting against the discrimination of California’s LGBT community continues to be of paramount importance,” Lara said.

Youth organizations are substitute parents

Throughout the year, Lara never once acknowledged the harm SB 323 would do to all of the targeted youth organizations.

It’s ironic a lawmaker from Bell Gardens in Los Angeles was targeting youth organizations, which are often the only parental influence some inner city kids have.

The Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs and YMCA offer important after school programs for kids whose parents work. The opportunities kids have in the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are endless — camping, hiking, building, survival skills, fellowship, the importance of charity and giving, and morals and ethics.

Youth programs aren’t just tax-exempt babysitters.

Not for the Democratic supermajority in the California Legislature. More than two dozen gun control bills are being voted on this week. And while lawmakers are making a pretense of having difficulty voting for their passage, the bills are being passed. Several gun control bills have passed out of both houses of the Legislature and already await the governor's signature.

“I don't see anybody switching teams here,” quipped Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, in the busy Assembly gallery Wednesday.

Of the original 40 gun control bills, 29 made it into the committee hearing process.

Senate Bill 396

Critics contend the most restrictive of the gun control bills, SB396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, is constitutionally questionable. The bill would retroactively confiscate guns lawfully purchased and owned. SB396 would ban the possession of all standard capacity magazines over 10 rounds, which generally means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The bill language specifies, “Surrender the larger capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.”

“This bill is going to say, if you own a Glock, you're a criminal,” Donnelly said. “By taking away capacity of individuals determined to kill, also takes away capacity for people to defend their own lives. We never hear about the millions of times each year people defend their lives and homes. Why do we in Sacramento believe we have the right to interfere with the right to self defense?”

“I am deeply concerned with taking private property by state government,” said Assemblywoman Marie Waldron, R-Escondido.

“The Constitution says government cannot seize private property,” said Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. “I just pray to God Jerry Brown is the savior of the Second Amendment in this state.”

The bill failed to pass, 34-33, the first time it was voted on, and could only muster 39-34 on the second vote; 41 votes are needed to pass. Some say Hancock and Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-South Gate, will push for another vote Thursday.

Passed both houses

All the following bills passed both houses of the Legislature.

Senate Bill 374

SB374 by state Senate Pres. Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, expands the definition of “assault weapons” to ban the future transfer of all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. SB374 requires new “assault weapon” registration; requires the registration of all those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed in order to retain legal possession in the future; and subjects these firearms to all other “assault weapon” restrictions. The Assembly passed SB374 on Tuesday along party lines, 44-31.

Senate Bill 567

SB 567 by state Sen. Hannah Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, would expand the definition of “short-barreled shotguns” that are illegal to reclassify even handguns shooting “Shot-shells” as shotguns. SB 567 had trouble passing the first time around, but on the second try passed the Assembly, 41-34.

Assembly Bill 48

At a hearing in April, Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner said, “bullets are the very thing making guns deadly.” Her AB48 prohibits the sale of gun kits to convert conventional firearms into semi-automatic weapons.

AB48 would also ban the manufacture, sale or import of any device that enables a gun to fire more than 10 rounds at one time. Apparently guns are bad, but bullets are worse.

AB48 originally required dealers selling ammunition to to notify federal and local officials when someone purchases more than 3,000 bullets. “But this gave some heartache,” Skinner said in the Assembly today. “So I took out that part — it's been struck from the bill,” as a nod to hunters and sportsmen.

“The bill allows our assault weapons ban to be in tact,” Skinner explained. “Now legally you can buy and sell conversion kits, so they can shoot many, many more than 10 rounds, and convert your conventional weapon to an assault weapon. Now the bill would make it illegal to purchase or sell the conversion clip kits.”

“This is inviting the government to spy on us becasue we want to exercise our Second Amendment right,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia. “We voted to stop filling or jails with those who possess drugs. But now we want to arrest people possessing bullets and metal parts. We are setting ourselves up to become instruments of tyranny. It's just going to turn a whole lot of innocent people into criminals.”

“This bill says any part of a conversion kit makes me a criminal?” said Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Riverside. “I don't think so. We are going back to this timeless discussion on the Assembly floor of reducing crime. 'Assault' is a behavior, not a type of weapon. If they can't do it with a gun, they'll find a way to do it with something else.”

But AB48 was passed, 42-30.

But the Boy Scouts aren’t the only group targeted. Any youth organization would be stripped of its tax-exempt status if the group does not open to all gender identities, races, sexual orientations, nationalities or religious affiliations.

Girl Scouts, Little League, YMCA, YWCA, Future Farmers of America, 4-H and Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs are all listed in Lara’s bill, in addition to the Boy Scouts.  Even Special Olympics, American Youth Soccer and Pop Warner football are named.

SB 323 threatens these kid-focused nonprofit organizations with being stripped of current tax exemptions if they do not embrace the state’s policies on sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill requires the state’s policies be incorporated into the organizations’ hiring, practices, membership, objectives and activities.

Critics contend that, if this bill becomes law, it will be only a matter of time before churches are faced with this same dilemma.

Many of these nonprofit organizations provide important services to their community. By stripping them of their tax-exemption, California would be harming the very people lawmakers claim to support.

Supporters of SB323 contend they are not dictating the views of a nonprofit organization, only seeking to align it with state policies.

The controversy

The Scouts long have fired any troop leader who announced his homosexuality, a decision that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. The Scouts cited Jerrold Schwartz, a 42-year-old scoutmaster of a New York scout troop, who repeatedly sodomized a young teen in his troop over the course of a three-year period during the mid-nineties.

City Journal wrote in 2002, “Ex-scoutmasters from Massachusetts and Iowa to Oklahoma and Utah have recently faced charges on such offenses. Cases of sexual abuse in the Scouts have been rising, going from 70 a year two decades ago to roughly 200 a year by the late 1990s.”

The ban still is on for troop leaders. But in May this year, the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council modified its policy for the scouts themselves, and now allows them to be of any “sexual orientation or preference.”

Last year, the California Assembly refused to commemorate the 102nd anniversary of the Boy Scouts by rejecting a bill by Assemblyman Mike Morell, R-Rancho Cucamonga.

Lara

Lara is a member of the Legislature’s LGBT Caucus. When SB323 was introduced in the Senate, he said, “They [Boy Scouts] are out of line with the values of California and should be ineligible for a tax benefit paid for by all Californians. SB323 brings our laws into line with our values.”

Lara’s own career has been in the insulated state political community. His bio lists previous jobs as “community activist,” “political aid” and “longtime Assembly staffer.” Prior to running for Assembly, Lara was  appointed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to the powerful Los Angeles Planning Commission. Lara worked for Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Sen. Kevin de Leon, before finally mounting his own run for Assembly.

The bill has passed the California Senate and four Assembly legislative committees, with votes along party lines. SB323 will be voted on in the Assembly this week.

If SB323 does become law, it inevitably will be challenged on First Amendment grounds as violating the “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” And given that many of the groups affected are affiliated with religious organizations, the law also will be attacked for violating the First Amendment right to religious freedom.

Civil rights groups will maintain that Americans’ “values” should be determined, not by lifelong political operatives, but by the people themselves.

AB 711, by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, would make California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.  According to Sam Paredes with Gun Owners of California, extensive research has shown that traditional lead ammunition does not pose a health hazard for hunters. And a recent study found that, despite 99 percent hunter compliance, a ban on using lead ammunition in certain areas of the state under AB 821 of 2008 failed to reduce lead poisoning in condors.

AB 180, by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, would repeal state firearms preemption in Oakland by allowing the city to enact ordinances more restrictive than state laws on the registering and licensing of firearms. AB 180 would allow the city of Oakland to create anti-gun policies much more strict than the rest of the state. Criminals still could get guns in other California cities, or in Nevada.

AB 231, by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would expand the law pertaining to the storage of firearms.  This bill would make it a crime if a child gets access to an unlocked firearm. According to Gun Owners of California, AB 231 is a misguided proposal that imposes unprecedented liability on legal gun owners.

Senate anti-gun bills

SB 475, by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would allow San Francisco officials to ban gun shows in the Cow Palace at the Fairgrounds, one of the last remaining legal gun venues in the city.

SB 374, by Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, would ban the sale of all semiautomatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine, even with bullet buttons attached. And it redefines these firearms as “assault weapons.”  This legislation would ban most common hunting rifles, including the Marlin Camp Carbines (.45acp and 9mm), Remington M81 “Woodmaster,”  Winchester M1905, BAR MK II, BAR Short Trac, Ruger Mini 14, Ruger Ranch Rifle, M1 Carbine.  SB 374 would also require registration of currently owned detachable magazine rifles.

SB 396, by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, is one of the most repressive gun control bills. The bill would retroactively confiscate guns lawfully purchased and owned. SB 396 would ban the possession of all standard capacity magazines over 10 rounds, which generally means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

However, a 2001 study from the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found “no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations” as a result of the federal ban on standard capacity magazines.

SB 567, by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, would redefine the meaning of a shotgun. SB 567  would remove from the Penal Code the requirement that a shotgun be fired from the shoulder, change the definition to include rifled bores, and make any weapon for which shotshell-type ammunition exists a “shotgun.”

SB 567 would also ban the sale of shotguns that have a revolving cylinder and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns.

SB 683, by Sen. Marty Block, D-Los Angeles, expands California’s handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and would prohibit anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate.

SB 755, by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would expand the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee recently sent four anti-gun bills to the suspense file, but those can be heard at any time.

Bullets make guns deadly

One of the bills on the suspense file is Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner’s AB 48, which would ban the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than 10 cartridges, and require mandatory reporting of law-abiding citizens who purchase more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition within a five-day period.

AB 48 requires the reporting of ammunition sales, requires the licensing of ammunition dealers, and establishes other controls on ammunition sales similar to current controls on firearms sales.

And AB 48 makes it illegal for gun owners to purchase parts that allow them to convert their guns into assault-style weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds of bullets without reloading.

Skinner, D-Berkeley, says it’s easier to buy bullets than to buy alcohol, cigarettes or certain cold medicines. “Sales of some cold medicines are reported to the Department of Justice but not ammunition sales,” Skinner said at a hearing in April. “We expect to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, but there is no such requirement for bullets.”

But Skinner is putting the target on lawful gun owners, who purchase ammunition and gun kits legally from gun stores. Criminals don’t shop for legal gun merchandise at gun stores.

Mounting evidence

If history is right, more gun control laws always means more crime and government control. American cities with the strictest gun ownership laws, such as Chicago, also have the highest crime and murder rates.

Interestingly, according to safety expert Steve Curtis, “criminals are generally in favor of more stringent gun controls because it makes their criminal activities safer.”

“Rather than following the progressive model of gun control, where law-abiding citizens are disarmed and only criminals possess firearms that worked so well in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Australia and Britain, Americans should be looking at the immense success of “universal” gun ownership in places like Switzerland or Kennesaw, GA,” Curtis said. In Kennesaw, all citizens are required to own at least one firearm and keep ammunition, resulting in the lowest crime rate of any city its size in America. ”

Crime statistics show the downward trend is positive, as word of the “armed city” spreads.