Canales News Briefs

May 18, 2007

"...Sec. 3. Section 3004.5 is added to the Fish and Game

Code, to read:

3004.5 (a) Nonlead centerfire rifle and pistol ammunition,

as determined by the commission, shall be required when

taking big game, as defined by Section 350 of the depart-

ment's mammal hunting regulations, and when taking

coyote, within the department's deer hunting zone A South,

excluding Santa Cruz, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo,

and San Joaquin Counties, areas west of Highway 101

within Santa Clara County, and areas between Highway 5

and Highway 99 within Stanislaus, Merced, Madera,

Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern Counties, and within

zones D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, and D13.

(b) By January 1, 2008, the commission shall establish, by

regulation, a public process to certify centerfire rifle and

pistol ammunition in which there is no lead content. The

commission shall establish and annually update a list

of certified centerfire rifle and pistol ammunition...."

- Excerpts from AB 821, the so-called

"Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act"

April of 2007

To All,

One could say "...stupid is as stupid does...", except what we are talking about here is a requirement for a bullet that does not yet exist, and a ban on all center-fire ammunition used for hunting purposes in the effected zones:

Same Old Song and Dance:

Well, you've got to give it to Assemblyman Pedro Nava, and all the silly souls that elected him in California's 35th Assembly District.

Assemblyman Pedro just happens to be the principle author of AB 821, a bill that would ban the use of traditional ammunition for hunting purposes in areas populated by those derelict extras from the cast of "Deliverance" known as the California Condor (Well, what would you call a species that is being "restored" by the intensive breeding of biological siblings and close cousins? If it were not a real issue, this would sound like one of Jeff Foxworthy's "redneck" jokes.).

It seems that Pedro has sponsored AB 821 in response to demands by Preservationists determined to take a lead ammunition ban on a national tour, just after they get a successful Way-Off-Broadway opening here in the Fool's Golden State.

After all, one must take Pedro at his word that when he says "ammunition", he means "ammunition" and not "projectile" (See excerpt above.).

Perhaps Pedro was AWOL that day when he and his staff were invited up to the CHP Range and given an introduction in firearms by NRA staff. If he had been there, or even paying attention if he was there, he would have learned that ignition of ammunition is caused first when the primer is impacted.

A primer that has a certain amount of lead in it.

What is more is that at a recent California Fish and Game Commission meeting, a DFG staffer from the enforcement side admitted that there was no way for wardens to conduct a test in the field for ammunition compliant with parallel lead bullet ban regulations currently under consideration by the Commission. Said staffer even spoke of banning re-loaded ammunition for hunting and varminting purposes, because original packaging may be the only way for wardens to be able to distinguish between approved and non-approved ammunition.

Face it- It is becoming clearer by the day (and despite the denials of various "pro-gun" Conservation Groups such as Audobon, Sierra Club, etc...) that what is being attempted here is a bullet ban by hook or by crook. If lead were truly the issue, in Pedro's bill at least, other forms of ammunition would be included in his language. No, this appears to be a piecemeal, divide-and-conquer assault on modern ammunition and the folks who pay the fees and taxes that keep the Department of Fish and Game's rent paid on time. Add to that the vow by the Center For Biological Diversity's Jeff Miller (one of the plaintiff's in the current lawsuit against the Fish and Game Commission who is trying to force a up to a statewide ban of traditional ammunition) that "...After securing the protection of condors in California, we're definitely going to be looking at regulation nationwide...".

Firearms activists are not yet done in by these continued efforts to disarm them by attrition. As long as all concerned gun owners can tell the difference between science and schlock, we can persevere in yet this latest battle against the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, we will have to wait until November of 2008 until gunowners in the 35th District can to begin to ask "Where was Pedro" when it to preserving the right to modern means of self defense. Stay glued.

Links at:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/
ab_821_bill_20070222_introduced.html

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1606660,00.html

Once More Onto The Breach....:

If there were not already enough problems with the work product of those Denizens Under the Dome in Sacramento, Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D-AD 42) is carrying this year's premier load of Bandini in the form of AB 1471.

Effectively, AB 1471 is a "three-peat" attempt at imposing micro-stamping features on pistols sold in the Fool's Golden State starting in 2010. The operative section in this case would revolve around amending Section 12126 (b) (7) of the California Penal Code to read as follows:

"...(7) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic

pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to

Section 12131, it is not designed and equipped with a

microscopic array of characters that identify the make,

model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or

otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior

surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are

transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when

the firearms is fired..."

So, if Feuer would have his way, firearms newly listed to the California Handgun Roster would most likely be forced to imprint the required information with both the firing pin and the breech face of the pistol involved. And where the numbers are imprinted on the bottom of the cartridge case, firearms manufacturers would be somehow forced to find a way to orient the base of the cartridge in such a manner as to print the required numbers around and in-between the characters normally impressed by the ammunition makers to denote brand and caliber.

Given how firearms and ammunition are currently designed, the odds of firearms manufacturers introducing new designs in California after 2010, should AB 1471 become law, are remote to say the least (Can you say "gun ban"?).

Added to this aspect is that only a fraction of all the firearms sold in California would be affected by AB 1471, and one begins to seriously suspect that such legislation is intended more as a payoff to certain political allies than a workable form of gun control that could be added to the thousands of words in the Penal Code already dedicated to the subject.

There are other reasons why the Legislature should reject AB 1471 besides it's technical un-workability (False positives at crime scenes was an issue before, and remains today.). But it remains to be seen if they will take the advice of firearms owners-cum-registered-voters and vote this turkey down. Liberals in the Legislature have lead gullible pols down this garden path before, much to their chagrin. Perhaps this time there will be a more thoughtful consideration before AB 1471 is voted on and hopefully rejected. Stay tuned.

Link at:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/
ab_1471_bill_20070410_amended_asm_v98.html

And Your Little Dog Toto, Too:

Well folks, we're not in Kansas anymore.

In reality, it's more like the Twilight Zone, if the latest legislative offering from the Animal Eugenics Crowd is any indication.

AB 1634, by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine, is entitled the "California Healthy Pets Act". Said legislation would apparently define a "healthy pet" as any cat or dog that was either spayed/neutered by age four months, or otherwise proven of such pure-bred lineage that the owner has gone to the trouble and expense of obtaining the heraldry symbolized by a breeding permit. Violators would be subject to a civil penalty of $ 500 per violation.

In a sense, the bill is discriminatory due to the time-honored proposition that no one truly owns a cat (Though it would be easy to imagine that a large number of "indoor" cats would become "outdoor" cats should AB 1634 become law.). As such, dog owners would be unduly penalized (not to mention the dogs themselves) simply due to the nature of the "beast", so to speak.

But to define pet health through the mechanism of surgically elimination of reproductive capability surely expands the definition of "Orwellian" to levels not previously envisioned by that famed writer. What is more, the resorting to the methodology of forced sterilization of pets indicates a level of such arrogant disdain for pet owners at large as to defy explanation.

Still, Assembly Member Levine may be able to convince skeptics of his sincerity in this measure, rather than demonstrate his arrogance. All he has to do is subject himself and his family members to the same treatment he would forcibly subject other people's valued family members (One's loyal hunting dog is a member of that hunter's family, after all.), and then perhaps a reasonable discussion can be had. Until then, the bill deserves nothing but scorn and derision. Stay tuned.

Link at:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/
ab_1634_bill_20070509_amended_asm_v95.html

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

SFVMC-NRA