Oppose CA AB 2497
I stand with the Firearms Policy Coalition and oppose this bill. First, this bill imposes an unspecified tax on the sale, storage, use, and "other consumption" of firearms and ammunition. The burden this would impose upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners is unquestionably daunting – and one that clearly cannot be even remotely compared to the DROS-related fee upheld in Bauer v. Becerra. By substantially increasing the purchase price, the percentage tax on the retail sales of firearms and ammunition at a rate consistent with retail sales of other goods would alone impede citizens’ right to obtain and keep firearms in lawful self-defense. But extending the taxation to essentially all activities associated with any use, and even the mere “storage,” of firearms and ammunition would inevitably work to severely burden these fundamental rights with costly expenses – penalties, really – for simply attempting to exercise the core right of self-defense and the corollary rights necessarily embodied within that right, including training and practice activities in lawful commerce. Second, this bill would augment the Education Code with several provisions all centered around attempting to regulate forms of speech related to the making and reporting of “threats” and “perceived threats” with the sword of criminal sanctions. That sword would strike at both the statutorily-defined “mandated reporter” and the alleged maker of the threat. All mandated reporters are subject to a misdemeanor conviction, a $1,000 fine, or both, should they fail to “report a threat or perceived threat as required” by the scheme. The alleged maker of the threat is subject to being “flagged” in “a firearms registry that notifies the Department of Justice if the individual tries to purchase a firearm”. This “flag” could apparently persist as some sort of scarlet letter, leaving the branded person indefinitely subject to the unbridled discretion of the DOJ as to whether he or she may ever buy a gun – discretion that one can only imagine would not be exercised in the person’s favor. Third, this bill would allow forced seizures of valuable property with no compensation to the property owner. The only purported protection against this criminal forfeiture scheme is the fact that the person must be found guilty of the proscribed offense - manufacturing or assembling a firearm in violation of the DOJ-serialization requirement with the intent to sell that firearm – before a permanent property deprivation. But that is little solace given the breadth of the asset forfeiture provisions triggered. The prescribed forfeiture sweeps into its net “all moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, property interests, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a firearm assembled or manufactured in violation of this section, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all firearms, firearm components, tools, parts, personal or real property, or other instrumentalities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this section.” Of course, “intended to be used” implies application to any planned or possible future use of such instrumentalities – not just those actually used in connection with the specific violation of the law of which the person is convicted. And the phrase “used to facilitate” is broad enough to include any components, tools, parts, or other instrumentalities in any way remotely connected at any point to the manufacture or assemble of the firearm(s) that were the subject of the conviction – even though those things may be essential to (and primarily used for) entirely legal forms of firearms manufacture or assembly. This could not only deprive a person of the firearm(s) that are the subject of the alleged violation but also potentially numerous and valuable components, parts, tools, and instrumentalities necessary for the conduct of fully legal manufacturing and assembly activities. And such deprivation could occur even without the state first proving its case for a conviction, because the prosecution may pursue a preliminary injunctive action that forces all the specified property out of the owner’s hands pending the outcome of the prosecution. I urge you to vote no on AB 2497.
First & Last Name
Email
please leave blank
Address
City
Zip
Phone