NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to the CA DOJ supporting the bills to serialize ammo, the Folsom Shooting Club is now denying access of their ranges to DOJ personnel acting in an official capacity.

Hopefully the manufacturers and distributers will follow suit.

http://www.sacvalley.org/SacVal/Lttr_to_DOJ.html

Bill Lockyer
Attorney General
Suite 1740
1300 ‘I’ Street
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

RE: Department of Justice Range Use Suspension

Attorney General Lockyer:

The Board of Directors of the Folsom Shooting Club (FSC) has directed me to advise you, in writing, that Department of Justice staff, while acting in their official capacity, are suspended from using the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center (SVSC). The FSC is concerned that your staff will further your efforts regarding AB 352 and SB 357 while using our facility...

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=661


"The bills represent groundbreaking new ballistic identification systems which would give police new crime solving tools"

Wait, wasn't the "groundbreaking new ballistic identification system" of Ballistic Fingerprinting supposed to have already done that?

"It is offensive that the owners of this shooting range would rather side with criminals than with law enforcement and victims"

So they're either with us or against us.

"What?s next ? should police who support sensible gun laws have their firearms taken away? This is un-American, and these guys ought to have their heads examined,? said Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign."

So

A. A legitimate, peaceful protest by private citizens against a governmental agency that supports an opposed policy is now "Un-American".

B. Which group is trying to take away guns again?

C. An accusation that gun owners have some sort of mental problems.

In response to the CA DOJ supporting the bills to serialize ammo, the Folsom Shooting Club is now denying access of their ranges to DOJ personnel acting in an official capacity.

Hopefully the manufacturers and distributers will follow suit.

http://www.sacvalley.org/SacVal/Lttr_to_DOJ.html

Bill Lockyer
Attorney General
Suite 1740
1300 ‘I’ Street
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

RE: Department of Justice Range Use Suspension

Attorney General Lockyer:

The Board of Directors of the Folsom Shooting Club (FSC) has directed me to advise you, in writing, that Department of Justice staff, while acting in their official capacity, are suspended from using the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center (SVSC). The FSC is concerned that your staff will further your efforts regarding AB 352 and SB 357 while using our facility...

The Board of Directors of the Folsom Shooting Club (FSC) has directed me to advise you, in writing, that Department of Justice staff, while acting in their official capacity, are suspended from using the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center (SVSC). The FSC is concerned that your staff will further your efforts regarding AB 352 and SB 357 while using our facility.

I find this hilarious, and I hope the decision by the BOD "backfires" on them.

The ban certainly reeks of partisan politics and I would guess that the BOD hopes that the ones affected by the ban will seek to put pressure on the politicians to squash this proposed law.

The FSC has always had a close working relationship with law enforcement agencies. Many club members are currently serving, or are retired peace officers. At the direction of the FSC Board of Directors, use of the SVSC facility has been offered to law enforcement organizations at nominal cost. Law enforcement personnel from various units in your department use the SVSC while they are on duty.

Despite, their rhetoric about "a close working relationship", the BOD would invoke punitive measures against their OWN membership, out of fear and the desire to retaliate.

It would be ironic if the affected members form their own club and put the Folsom Shooting Club out of business. :eek:

[i]

Despite, their rhetoric about "a close working relationship", the BOD would invoke punitive measures against their OWN membership, out of fear and the desire to retaliate.

It would be ironic if the affected members form their own club and put the Folsom Shooting Club out of business. :eek:

Nice to see you can still selectively choose your "facts".

"Any of your employees who are members of the FSC are welcome to use the SVSC provided that such use does not occur while they are on duty for the Department of Justice."

And where would they go to shoot? CA gov't opposes ranges in general as well.

Nice to see you can still selectively choose your "facts".

"Any of your employees who are members of the FSC are welcome to use the SVSC provided that such use does not occur while they are on duty for the Department of Justice."

And where would they go to shoot? CA gov't opposes ranges in general as well.
And does the BOD feel that these people are somehow different if they are on duty then when they are off duty?

And does the BOD feel that these people are somehow different if they are on duty then when they are off duty?



On Duty they are representatives of the agency that supports the opposed policy.

Off Duty they are regular citizens.

Are you incapable of discerning the two?

Do you honestly think that any people who quit the club could just go and start up another w/ an 800 acre site?

Do you make this stuff up as you go along or do you have a collection of inane arguements stored on your computer?

Let me make sure I understand the opposition to this legislation.

1) It is alleged by opponents of the legislation that microengraving identification numbers onto ammunition rounds would cause the price of ammunition to dramatically increase to unreasonable levels.

Prelude to 2) The legislation makes it illegal for unengraved ammunition to be possessed in a "public place". Anyone violating this is subject to arrest.

2) It is alleged by opponents of the legislation that the definition of "public place" (as used by the piece of legislation in question) is so broad that it can include parts of a residential owners private property (such as driveways and front lawns).

Prelude to 3) Point of Information: The legislation makes unengraved ammunition subject to seizure. Is this the government taking the ammunition or is this the government forcing owners to sell the ammunition to the government? Under what circumstances does the legislation prescribe seizing unengraved ammunition? When it is carried into a "public place"? Or is it subject to seizure when NOT stored in a "public place" (as defined by the legislation)?

3) It is alleged by opponents of the legislation that the legislation would make more than one billion rounds of existing, unengraved ammunition subject to seizure.

Do I understand the opponents of the legislation?

Note that I may or may not choose to debate this topic. I am merely clearing up facts so that anybody who chooses to debate better understands what is being debated, here.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

...

Do you make this stuff up as you go along or do you have a collection of inane arguements stored on your computer?This is bordering on flamebait. I suggest you calm down and remain civil.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator