California

[Crafty_Dog]

California Call to Action:  Two Anti-Gun Bills are Expected to be Heard Next Tuesday
 
Contact members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee Today
 
On Tuesday, April 2, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety will consider two drastic and sweeping restrictions on the sale of lawful firearms and ammunition in California.
 
Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner), would ban the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than ten cartridges, it would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed firearms dealer and would require that every single ammunition transfer be reported to the state.  Under this unprecedented attack on ammunition, millions of law-abiding gun owners would become criminals.
 
If enacted, a gun owner who “furnishes” ammunition to a friend at the shooting range, and a father who hands his son ammunition while teaching him how to properly and safely use a firearm, would become criminals.  Under AB 48, sporting goods stores, general stores, and shooting ranges that do not sell firearms would be BANNED from selling ammunition on a widespread basis throughout the state.  This would effectively put many ranges out of business!  What is more, AB 48's sales registration requirements have already been tried, and failed, at the federal level.  In 1986, the BATFE scrapped this requirement because it had no substantial law enforcement value!  But the bill’s problems don’t end there.  AB 48 is utterly vague in its attempt to ban parts kits, prohibiting the sale of “devices capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine.”  To the extent this provision might be deciphered to ban common magazine parts kits violates, the law is unconstitutional.  And by criminalizing the transfer of ammunition by all but licensed firearm dealers, AB 48 further violates the Second Amendment.
 
The other bill is, Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson), which would ban the sale and transfer of firearms that are not currently on California's roster of handguns approved for sale in the state.  In doing so, this bill would prohibit the transfer of millions of lawfully-owned handguns and jeopardize their continued ownership.
 
Currently, California law allows handguns that are not on the approved roster to be sold or otherwise transferred to another individual either on consignment or as a private party transfer, provided that the sale is completed through a licensed firearms retailer, where the purchaser is subjected to a background check.  If enacted, AB 169 would leave gun owners who lawfully purchased a handgun that previously appeared on the State's approved roster with no means to sell or transfer their handgun, if that firearm is no longer listed on the roster.
 
Call AND e-mail members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee today and remind them that these bills will NOT deter violent criminals intent on committing crimes and will unconstitutionally restrict the ability of law-abiding Californians to purchase, transfer and use firearms and ammunition on an unprecedented scale.  Let them know that passage of these bill will result in additional unnecessary expenses for the state, continue to drive legitimate business owners out of California and force the taxpayers to pick up the tab for costly litigation against the state!  Contact information for members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee is provided below:
 
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-17), Chairman
(916) 319-2017
E-mail here
 
Assemblyman Melissa Melendez (R-67), Vice-Chairman
(916) 319-2067
E-mail here
 
Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-59)
(916) 319-2059
E-mail here
 
Assemblyman Holly Mitchell (D-54)
(916) 319-2054
E-mail here
 
Assemblyman Bill Quirk (D-20)
(916) 319-2020
E-mail here
 
Assemblyman Nancy Skinner (D-15)
(916) 319-2015
E-mail here
 
Assemblyman Marie Waldron (R-75)
(916) 319-2075
E-mail here
 
You can write your representative here urging them to OPPOSE the anti-gun bills listed above.  Please feel free to also copy and paste all the bill information to ensure your state legislators know which bills to OPPOSE.
 
You can also send a letter to all elected officials in California here.  Please feel free to copy and paste all the bill information above to ensure the elected officials of California know which bills to OPPOSE.
 
You can also find information about anti-gun and pro-gun legislation in California at http://www.calnra.com.

[Crafty_Dog]

California: Three Anti-Gun Bills Pass in the Assembly Public Safety Committee
 
 
Call the Members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee TODAY
 
Unfortunately, early this week, all the Democrats in the state Assembly Public Safety Committee voted for three egregious anti-gun ensuring that each bill received and was reported by a 5 to 2 vote. The following Democratic Assembly committee members SUPPORTED these onerous bills:
 
Tom Ammiano (D-17)
Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-59)
Holly Mitchell (D-54)
Bill Quirk (D-20)
Nancy Skinner (D-15)
 
These two Republican Assemblymen OPPOSED these onerous bills:
 
Melissa Melendez (R-67)
Marie Waldron (R-75)
 
Please contact the state legislators above to express your disappointment in their vote to PUNISH law-abiding gun owners or your thanks for SUPPORTING law-abiding gun owners. Contact information can be found here.
 
These three anti-gun bills will now be re-referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. A hearing date has not been set, but we will keep you posted.  Continue to check your e-mail and www.nraila.org.
 
Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner), would ban the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than ten cartridges, it would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed firearms dealer and would require that every single ammunition transfer be reported to the state.  Under this unprecedented attack on ammunition, millions of law-abiding gun owners would become criminals.
 
If enacted, a gun owner who “furnishes” ammunition to a friend at the shooting range, and a father who hands his son ammunition while teaching him how to properly and safely use a firearm, would become criminals.  Under AB 48, sporting goods stores, general stores, and shooting ranges that do not sell firearms would be BANNED from selling ammunition on a widespread basis throughout the state.  This would effectively put many ranges out of business!  What is more, AB 48's sales registration requirements have already been tried, and failed, at the federal level.  In 1986, the BATFE scrapped this requirement because it had no substantial law enforcement value!  But the bill’s problems don’t end there.  AB 48 is utterly vague in its attempt to ban parts kits, prohibiting the sale of “devices capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine.”  To the extent this provision might be deciphered to ban common magazine parts kits violates, the law is unconstitutional.  And by criminalizing the transfer of ammunition by all but licensed firearm dealers, AB 48 further violates the Second Amendment.
 
The other bill is, Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson), which would ban the sale and transfer of firearms that are not currently on California's roster of handguns approved for sale in the state.  In doing so, this bill would prohibit the transfer of millions of lawfully-owned handguns and jeopardize their continued ownership.
 
Currently, California law allows handguns that are not on the approved roster to be sold or otherwise transferred to another individual either on consignment or as a private party transfer, provided that the sale is completed through a licensed firearms retailer, where the purchaser is subjected to a background check.  If enacted, AB 169 would leave gun owners who lawfully purchased a handgun that previously appeared on the State's approved roster with no means to sell or transfer their handgun, if that firearm is no longer listed on the roster.
 
Assembly Bill 500 (Ammiano) extends the ten-day waiting period for a firearm for an additional seven days and expands the mandatory storage requirements of a firearm.
 
Call AND e-mail members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee today and remind them that these bills will NOT deter violent criminals intent on committing crimes and will unconstitutionally restrict the ability of law-abiding Californians to purchase, transfer and use firearms and ammunition on an unprecedented scale.  Let them know that passage of these bill will result in additional unnecessary expenses for the state, continue to drive legitimate business owners out of California and force the taxpayers to pick up the tab for costly litigation against the state!  Contact information for members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee can be found here.
 
Please forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners in California and urge them to do the same.  California is going to need all its law-abiding citizens to contact their state legislators urging them to OPPPOSE legislation that will infringe upon the Second Amendment and hunting issues.
 
You can also write your representative here urging them to OPPOSE the anti-gun bills listed above.  Please feel free to also copy and paste all the bill information to ensure your state legislators know which bills to OPPOSE.
 
You can also send a letter to all elected officials in California here.  Please feel free to copy and paste all the bill information above to ensure the elected officials of California know which bills to OPPOSE.
 
You can also find information about pending anti-gun and pro-gun legislation in California at www.calnra.com.
 
Help NRA Get Californian’s Connected With NRA’s California Resources
 
Help the NRA expand its California network to keep all pro-Second Amendment Californians better informed about legislation in Congress, Sacramento, and locally that threatens your right to keep and bear arms, as well as developments in Second Amendment litigation and regulatory enforcement actions.  Please forward this email to your family, friends and fellow gun owners, whether they belong to the NRA or not!  Encourage them to sign up for California NRA’s Stayed Informed e-mails here. And follow NRA through these additional connections:
 
Websites:
NRA-ILA, NRA-ILA California, NRA – ILA Legal Update, CalNRA.com, CRPA.org, CalGunLaws.com, HuntforTruth.org
 
Facebook Pages: NRA’s Facebook page, CalGunLaws.com Facebook page, NRA Members' Councils' Facebook page, Hunt for Truth Facebook page
 
LinkedIn: NRA’s LinkedIn page, YouTube: NRA YouTube, Twitter: NRA Twitter, NRA-ILA Twitter, CalNRATwitter, CalGunLaws Twitter
 
The NRA recognizes that California is one of the most active Second Amendment "battleground states," so for decades NRA has devoted substantial resources to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms for Californians. The NRA has full-time legislative advocates in its Sacramento office fighting ill-conceived gun ban proposals. NRA coordinates a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local gun bans and regulations. And NRA has been litigating cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment for many years. NRA’s California legal team continues to work pro-actively to strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and to protect the Second Amendment rights of California firearms owners. For information about NRA’s litigation efforts, see www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx
 

[Crafty_Dog]

California: Anti-Gun Bills Scheduled for Committee Hearings Next Week
 
 
 
Contact your State Legislators in Sacramento TODAY
 
Many anti-gun bills are scheduled to be heard in committee next Monday and Tuesday.  Call AND e-mail your state legislators urging them to OPPOSE the bills listed below.  Remind them that a criminal by definition does not obey or respect the law and any legislation infringing on gun owners will do nothing to affect criminals or their access to and misuse of firearms.  Instead, urge them to focus on meaningful legislation relating to school safety, mental health issues, marketing of violence as entertainment for our children and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.
 
On Monday, April 15 in the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation at 1:30 p.m. in Capitol room 126 (Click here to listen to this hearing):
 
  Assembly Bill 760 (Dickinson) imposes a sales tax of .05 cents per ammunition component (complete cartridge, bullet or case).
 
 
On Tuesday, April 16 in the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife at 9:00 a.m. in Capitol room 437 (Click here to listen to this hearing):
 
  Assembly Bill 711 (Rendon) BANS the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.
 
On Tuesday, April 16 in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety at 9:00 a.m. in Capitol room 126 (Click here to listen to this hearing):
 
  Assembly Bill 231 (Ting) expands the law for Criminal Storage of Firearms and child access.
 
On Tuesday, April 16 in the state Senate Committee on Public Safety at 9:00 a.m. in Capitol room 4203:
 
  Senate Bill 47 (Yee) expands the definition of “assault weapons” to BAN the future sale of rifles that have been designed/sold and are equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device, requires NEW “assault weapon” registration of ALL those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed to retain legal possession in the future, and subjects these firearms to all other “assault weapons” restrictions.
  Senate Bill 53 (DeLeon) requires persons to buy an annual ammunition purchase permit, requires the registration and thumbprint of the purchaser for each ammunition purchase, and bans online and mail order sales of ammunition to Californians.
  Senate Bill 108 (Yee) requires mandatory locked storage of firearms within a locked house regardless of whether anyone is present.
  Senate Bill 293 (DeSaulnier) BANS the sale of conventional handguns, if the state Department of Justice approves the sale of “Owner Authorized – Smart” handgun technology.
  Senate Bill 299 (DeSaulnier) turns victims of firearm theft into criminals for failing to report the loss of their firearm within 48 hours.
  Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) expands the definition of "assault weapons" to BAN the future transfer of all semi-auto rifles that accept detachable magazines (including those chambered for rimfire cartridges) and virtually all semi-auto rifles with fixed magazines (primarily those chambered for rimfire cartridges), requires NEW "assault weapon" registration, requires registration of ALL those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed to retain legal possession in the future, and subjects these firearms to all other "assault weapon" restrictions.
  Senate Bill 396 (Hancock) BANS the POSSESSION of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges, including currently legally possessed "grandfathered" large capacity magazines.
  Senate Bill 567 (Jackson) expands the definition of shotgun for “short-barreled shotguns” that are illegal to own.
  Senate Bill 755 (Wolk) expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.
 
Your state Senator and Assemblyman MUST hear from you TODAY urging them to OPPOSE the anti-gun bills listed above.  Don't forget to forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners throughout California and urge them to do the same.  We need all of California gun owners and Second Amendment supports to continually call AND e-mail their state legislators.  The California Legislature needs to know that this tyranny against law-abiding citizens needs to stop.
 
You can write your representative here urging them to OPPOSE the anti-gun bills listed above.  Please feel free to also copy and paste all the bill information to ensure your state legislators know which bills to OPPOSE.
 
You can also send a letter to all elected officials in California here.  Please feel free to copy and paste all the bill information above to ensure the elected officials of California know which bills to OPPOSE.
 
You can also find information about anti-gun and pro-gun legislation in California at www.calnra.com.
 
Help NRA Get Californians Connected With NRA’s California Resources
 
Help the NRA expand its California network to keep all pro-Second Amendment Californians better informed about legislation in Congress, Sacramento, and locally that threatens your right to keep and bear arms, as well as developments in Second Amendment litigation and regulatory enforcement actions.  Please forward this email to your family, friends and fellow gun owners, whether they belong to the NRA or not!  Encourage them to sign up for California NRA’s Stayed Informed e-mails here. And follow NRA through these additional connections:
 
Websites:
NRA-ILA, NRA-ILA California, NRA – ILA Legal Update, CalNRA.com, CRPA.org, CalGunLaws.com, HuntforTruth.org
 
Facebook Pages: NRA’s Facebook page, CalGunLaws.com Facebook page, NRA Members' Councils' Facebook page, Hunt for Truth Facebook page
 
LinkedIn: NRA’s LinkedIn page, YouTube: NRA YouTube, Twitter: NRA Twitter, NRA-ILA Twitter, CalNRATwitter, CalGunLaws Twitter
 
The NRA recognizes that California is one of the most active Second Amendment "battleground states," so for decades NRA has devoted substantial resources to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms for Californians. The NRA has full-time legislative advocates in its Sacramento office fighting ill-conceived gun ban proposals. NRA coordinates a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local gun bans and regulations. And NRA has been litigating cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment for many years. NRA’s California legal team continues to work pro-actively to strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and to protect the Second Amendment rights of California firearms owners. For information about NRA’s litigation efforts, see www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx
 
To donate to help support the NRA’s California efforts, please click here.

[Crafty_Dog]

California Capitol Update
In This Issue
Legislative Update

Sign the Petition to Support the Romeikes

Judge Orders Sale of Morning-After Pill to Teens

Extra! Extra! Read all About It

Legislative Update
 
We shared with you on Tuesday that AB 154, the bill that expands abortions, passed through the Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee.  The hearing can be viewed here and begins at the 1:03 mark.
 
SB 323 passed out of committee on Wednesday.  SB 323 would revoke the tax-exempt status of the Boy Scouts and all non-profit youth sports and civic organizations, including private schools by forcing such organizations to hire, allow as members and leaders, persons whose sexual orientation and gender identity is against the tenets.
 
While organizations like the Boy Scouts are being bullied punitively with SB 323 because of their oath to stay morally straight, the Assembly passed AB 332, requiring condoms for adult film actors. 
SB 606 (De Leon) is a bill that was gutted and amended this week to bring harsher sentencing to paparazzi that harass celebrities' children.  The bill amends the Penal Code for an existing crime by increasing jail time from 5 days to up  3 years in county jail on a 1st conviction and would add fine of up to $10,000 to the same jail time for a 2nd conviction. The bill further provides for civil liability in an action for damages. 
 
While we do not condone the harassment of any children, we find this bill in stark contrast to several bills that sought to protect our children from sexual predators that have failed to be voted out of the Public Safety Committee. Bills such as AB 5 (Morrell) and AB 605 (Linder) that would have sent registered sex-offenders back to prison for violating parole, both failed to get enough votes to pass out of their committee.
 
Who Voted for AB 154
 
Who Voted for SB 323

Sign the Petition
 The Romekies, a German homeschool family, fled their native Germany in 2008 and sought asylum in the United States after German officials dragged their children to government-run schools.  They were granted refugee status in the U.S. by immigration judge, Lawrence O. Burman.  Judge Burman found that the Romeikes were being denied basic human rights.
 
However, the U.S. Justice Department stepped in arguing that the freedom to choose to educate one's own children is not a fundamental right.
 
The Petition to the President of the United States to allow the Romeikes to remain in our country has been successful in receiving the required number of signatures to be considered. Continue to show your support for our parental right to homeschool our children by standing with the Romekies and sign the petition if you have not already!

Judge Orders Sale of Morning-After Pill to Teens
As we are fighting back the expansion of abortion in California, a federal judge in New York ordered that a morning-after pill normally requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger be made available over the counter for all ages. 
 Extra! Extra! Read all About It
 
GRAPHIC:The ghoulish details of abortionist Gosnell's trial
 
TEACHER FIRED FOR SHOWING HIS BIBLE
 
Boy Scouts Under Attack in California
 
Melissa Harris-Perry: Your Children Are Not Yours



   
 



Funding of our work comes from individuals like you!
If you benefit from the work CRI performs on behalf of families, please consider a tax-deductible contribution today!
 
Reminder:
All donations are tax-deductible
 
All donations are confidential
 
CRI does not sell or lend our mailing list

Make an Online Donation Today!



   

[Crafty_Dog]

Action  Needed!
 
Urge a NO vote on AB 1266 
Forced Co-Ed Locker Rooms
 
AB 1266 requires that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person's private sense of his or her own gender. For example, if a female considers herself a male and is most comfortable referring to her personal gender in masculine terms, then her gender identity is male. Any student would be permitted to participate on male or female sports teams and access any bathroom or locker room of their choosing simply on the assertion that they identify themselves as a male or a female.
 
This bill will be voted on by the Assembly Committee on Education on Wednesday, 4/17/2013.
 
We urge you to contact your the committee members listed below and ask them to vote "NO" on AB 1266.
 
Read AB 1266
 
Assembly Education Committee
 
Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (Chair)
916-319-2016 Fax: 916-319-2116
 
Assemblymember Kristin Olsen (Vice Chair)
916-319-2012 Fax: 916-319-2112
 
Assemblymember Nora Campos
916-319-2027 Fax: 916-319-2127
 
Assemblymember Rocky Chávez
916-319-2076 Fax: 916-319-2176
 
Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian
916-319-2046 Fax: 916-319-2146
 
Assemblymember Shirley Weber
916-319-2666 Fax: 916-319-2179
 
Assemblymember Das Williams
916-319-2035 Fax: 916-319-2135

[G M]

I never knew adolescent males held such political power in California. I expect there will be a massive spike in young males self identifying as needing access to the girl's showers.

Action  Needed!
 
Urge a NO vote on AB 1266 
Forced Co-Ed Locker Rooms
 
AB 1266 requires that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person's private sense of his or her own gender. For example, if a female considers herself a male and is most comfortable referring to her personal gender in masculine terms, then her gender identity is male. Any student would be permitted to participate on male or female sports teams and access any bathroom or locker room of their choosing simply on the assertion that they identify themselves as a male or a female.
 
This bill will be voted on by the Assembly Committee on Education on Wednesday, 4/17/2013.
 
We urge you to contact your the committee members listed below and ask them to vote "NO" on AB 1266.
 
Read AB 1266
 
Assembly Education Committee
 
Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (Chair)
916-319-2016 Fax: 916-319-2116
 
Assemblymember Kristin Olsen (Vice Chair)
916-319-2012 Fax: 916-319-2112
 
Assemblymember Nora Campos
916-319-2027 Fax: 916-319-2127
 
Assemblymember Rocky Chávez
916-319-2076 Fax: 916-319-2176
 
Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian
916-319-2046 Fax: 916-319-2146
 
Assemblymember Shirley Weber
916-319-2666 Fax: 916-319-2179
 
Assemblymember Das Williams
916-319-2035 Fax: 916-319-2135

[Crafty_Dog]

 

Forced Co-ed Bathroom Bill Passes Committee


Assembly Bill 1266 passed out of the California Assembly Education Committee today on a party-line vote.  This bill requires that students be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities consistent with his or her gender identity.
 
Gender identity refers to a person's private sense of his or her own gender. For example, if a female considers herself a male and is most comfortable referring to her personal gender in masculine terms, then her gender identity is male.
 
According to Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute, "AB 1266 requires that schools allow children of any gender to participate on any sports team, and enter into locker rooms, showers and bathrooms of their choice. This bill's prohibition on gender identity discrimination means that a boy claiming gender confusion is permitted to share those facilities with girls. There is no privacy protection for the majority of students."
 
"These situations should always be addressed at the local level with the school administration and parents working together to assist children with their particular needs," said England. "This bill forces a radical policy on all school districts in California."
 
Read AB 1266

[Crafty_Dog]

By ALLYSIA FINLEY
California's bullet train was conceived 20 years ago from Quentin Kopp's infatuation with European high-speed rail. His beautiful brainchild, however, has since morphed into a monstrosity. Mr. Kopp seems more and more like the protagonist Victor Frankenstein of literary lore, disillusioned by what his ambitions have wrought.

Testifying in a lawsuit filed by Kings County, the 84-year-old retired judge of San Mateo County Superior Court says that California's present high-speed rail plan violates the ballot measure that he helped craft and voters approved in November 2008. In essence, he argues, the state pulled a bait-and-switch on voters.

Kings County wants the court to enjoin the release of state bond funds until the rail authority's plan adheres to the letter of the initiative. The lawsuit is scheduled for trial in May. If it succeeds, state taxpayers may finally dodge the bullet train. Without state bond money, the rail authority has no fuel to burn. So the good news for California—finally—is that compliance with the initiative's original terms is unlikely if not impossible.

 
Assistant Opinion Journal.com editor Allysia Finley on Jerry Brown’s visit to China courting investors for California’s bullet train. Photo: Getty Images
.Still, killing the project outright is not Mr. Kopp's desire. "I have not changed my position or enthusiasm for high-speed rail in California," he tells me. On the contrary, the San Franciscan bursts with paternal pride. In 1994 he sponsored legislation in the state Senate to study high-speed rail's "desirability and feasibility." Two years later he introduced the bill establishing the California High-Speed Rail Authority to design an 800-mile, zigzagging bullet-train route from San Diego to Sacramento.

From 2006 to 2011, the judge served on the authority's board of directors, during which time he helped lead the campaign for the ballot measure that authorized $9 billion in bonds to build the train project. The initiative mandated that electric trains run every five minutes at peak speeds that exceed 200 miles per hour; zip between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes; and operate without a subsidy.

The rail authority's campaign literature promised that the train would cost $45 billion and be financed primarily by the feds and private investors. Mr. Kopp insists that the rail authority rigorously studied the plan before presenting it to voters. The initiative passed by a five-point margin in November 2008.

Over the next two years, the Obama administration gave California $3.5 billion in grants tied to matching state funds on the condition that the state build the first segment in the sparsely populated Central Valley.

Mr. Kopp says the Central Valley was chosen because the flat, open expanse was the best place to test trains to ensure they were "technologically sufficient." The Central Valley also happens to be represented by Democratic Rep. Jim Costa, whose vote was crucial for passing ObamaCare in March 2010. Mr. Costa campaigned for re-election later that year by trumpeting the thousands of jobs high-speed rail would create in his district, where the unemployment rate exceeded 17%.

Meanwhile—in response to mounting criticism from the state legislative analyst's office and others that the business plan was unrealistic—the rail authority produced a revised plan in November 2011 that raised the train's price tag to $100 billion.

Golden State voters were incensed. To mollify them, Gov. Jerry Brown instructed the authority to whittle the cost down to roughly $70 billion by developing a plan for a "blended system." This new plan, adopted in April 2012, would electrify commuter rail in the Bay Area—which had long been on the wish-list of local politicians and transit agencies—in lieu of building dedicated tracks for high-speed trains.

Mr. Kopp says that such a system "bastardizes" high-speed rail. Passengers traveling between San Francisco and Anaheim would have to change trains twice—once in San Jose and again in Los Angeles—which violates the letter of the ballot initiative. Trains would also run at most every 15 minutes, not every five minutes as required by the initiative.

According to Mr. Kopp, 10 trains must run per hour during peak times to support the authority's ridership forecasts and operate without a subsidy. He insists that "the money will come," but only if the train is built according to the original plan.

Right now, however, the state doesn't have enough money on hand even to electrify the first 130 miles of tracks from Madera to Bakersfield. Private firms have refused to invest in the project without a subsidy or revenue guarantee, both prohibited by the initiative.

There's also some not trivial concerns about safety. To meet the law's required 2 hours and 40 minutes travel time, the rail authority intends for the train to barrel through the Central Valley and Tehachapi Mountains, which are transversed by a fault line, at 220 mph.

Mr. Kopp believes that these speeds are feasible. But the fastest train in the world, which runs between Paris and Strasbourg, France, tops out at just under 200 mph. The Chinese reduced their bullet trains' maximum speeds to about 190 mph after a train going 217 mph crashed in Wenzhou two years ago. Forty passengers were killed, and hundreds were injured.

According to a recent study by the Reason Foundation, if the California authority assumed top speeds of 200 mph, averaging 150 mph through rural areas—as is consistent with the National Research Council's safety recommendations—the bullet train's travel time would increase to between 3 hours and 50 minutes and 6 hours. It takes about six hours to drive and an hour to fly from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

Even so, Mr. Kopp insists that the bullet train could make the L.A. to San Francisco trip in 2 hours and 40 minutes and operate without a subsidy—but only if the state sticks to the plan approved by voters in November 2008. And what about studies that have found only two high-speed rail lines in the world break even?

"I've heard that," he says. "But I don't believe it."

Ms. Finley is an editorial writer for the Journal.

[Crafty_Dog]

Assembly Bill 1266 passed out of the Assembly floor on a party-line vote this morning.  AB 1266 forces all California schools to allow students to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities consistent with his or her gender identity.
 
"This bill allows children of any gender to participate on any sports team, and enter into locker rooms, showers and bathrooms of their choice based on that student's private sense of their own gender regardless of their biological gender at birth," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. 
 
"By imposing this radical policy on all schools in California, the Legislature seeks to take away local control from the school districts, parents, and communities. What this bill is saying is the rights of a few students supersede the rights of all other students. AB 1266 will bring many unintended consequences for students, school districts and communities," said England. "No student should be forced to share bathrooms or change clothes in front of members of the opposite sex.  AB 1266 mandates San Francisco values on all California schools."
 
AB 1266 will now move to the California Senate. 
 
Read AB 1266

[Crafty_Dog]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/breaking-new-guns-essentially-banned-in-california-as-microstamping-law-takes-effect/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

[Crafty_Dog]

From a reliable friend:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And...........

California is now passing a law on ammunition.  It requires:

1. Registration and license to buy ammo.

2.  $50 dollar license fee.

3.  Background check.

If a person tries to buy ammo, and has a mental problem now or in the
past,  or even certain violations of CA law, they will be denied the
license.  Then, the government will go to their homes and "remove" the
weapons found.  Just another way around trying to restrict gun ownership.

Look for gun shops opening up at every border with a passable road so
people can buy ammo out of state and bring it back.

------------------------------------------------

From Pater Tenebrarum: the latest thinking on nuclear issues in California?
As Pater says: *

File under: you couldn't make this up.
*

Tom

*

Good News for Nuclear Terrorists in California

May 30, 2013 | Author Pater Tenebrarum <http://www.acting-man.com/?author=6>
Nuclear Infractions Are Henceforth Cheaper …

Right after California's bureaucrats had the brilliant idea to consider a
ban on
campfires<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/23/california-to-ban-fire/>–
since campfires are potentially dangerous and therefore a legitimate
object of concern for the nannycrats (as the Washington Times notes, 'enjoying
the pleasures of life is just not good for you')– the bureaucrats running
the California town of Chico, the most populous in Butte county, have given
birth to an even more astonishing example of cranial flatulence.

Similar to other municipalities, Chico is apparently struggling
financially. In fact, it has an 'enormous hole in its budget' that is in
desperate need of plugging. As a result, the town has decided to raise all
sorts of fees and fines. Breaking various city ordinances has just become a
lot more
expensive<http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23322509/editorial-hits-and-misses>–
with one notable exception. Hold on to your hat, here it comes:

“The council has for years approved spending millions of dollars it didn't
have, shifting money around to hide the problem. Now it's out in the open,
and citizens will pay dearly if they dare break city laws.

But there's good news out there for nuclear bomb owners. The current fine
for a first-time violation of the city's nuclear-free ordinance is $1,064.
Under a proposal to revise certain fines, a first-time offense will be
reduced to $1,000.

For those of you new to town, this is not a joke.”

(emphasis added)

Maybe this is an attempt to attract certain types of tourists
fromWaziristan<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Emirate_of_Waziristan>?
We'd also be curious to know what the fine for repeat offenders is.

File under: you couldn't make this up.

[Crafty_Dog]

Democrats in Sacramento are taking a victory lap for balancing this year's budget without raising taxes (not counting the $6 billion retroactive hike voters approved at political gunpoint in November). The dirty little secret is they're instead tapping California's new cap-and-trade program.

California expects to generate $500 million this year from auctioning off permits to emit carbon, and between $2 billion and $14 billion annually by 2015. This rich new vein of revenues was supposed to flow to green programs (e.g., solar subsidies), but Governor Jerry Brown cut a deal with Democrats in the legislature to seize this year's proceeds to finance more generous welfare and Medicaid benefits. Environmentalists are suddenly stunned to discover that they're not exempt from Sacramento's generally accepted accounting principle of raiding internal accounts to backfill the budget.

Mr. Brown has vowed to repay the $500 million cap-and-trade "loan" in short order. But as a matter of law, he has until the California Air Resources Board (CARB) says it needs the cash to administer the cap-and-trade program. That may be never since CARB's expenditures are discretionary, and the quarterly auctions will produce gushers of revenues that guarantee the cap-and-trade fund never runs dry.

The board's chairwoman Mary Nichols, who's endorsing the raid, has tried to quell enraged environmentalists by reminding them that "the part about the cap-and-trade program that is reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it's the cap," and "not the revenue that we get from the allowances."

Good point, and one which businesses are making in a lawsuit that contends the state is levying an unconstitutional tax under the guise of a "regulatory fee." California's Prop. 13 (1978) requires a supermajority vote of the legislature to raise taxes. CARB circumvented this requirement in 2011 by setting up a state-run auction to sell permits and calling the profits "regulatory fees" that would be used to mitigate emissions.

But as the state Supreme Court underscored in its 1997 Sinclair Paint Co. opinion, regulatory fees cannot "exceed in amount the reasonable cost of providing the protective services for which the fees are charged" or be imposed for "unrelated revenue purposes."

California has never quantified the "reasonable cost" to protect the public from carbon emissions, and it's hard to argue that spending cap-and-trade dollars on welfare checks advances environmental objectives. The state doesn't need to auction off permits to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It could achieve its emissions targets by giving away permits for free and ratcheting the cap down over time.

In short, California Democrats are proving that the real point of cap and trade is to give politicians another revenue stream for income redistribution while dodging accountability for raising taxes. That's worth keeping in mind when liberals resurrect the scheme for the entire U.S.