bdcheung
08-15-2012, 01:52 PM
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/california-sb-249-pulled-committee-nssf-thanks-all-gun-owners
NSSF just learned that in response to overwhelming grassroots opposition from law-abiding gun owners and California’s firearms industry members, SB 249 has been pulled from the Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing calendar for Thursday, Aug. 16.
This means that the bill is dead for the year! Congratulations to everyone who responded to our legislative alerts and radio ad and called their California state legislators to oppose SB 249, which would have resulted in the unconstitutional confiscation of lawfully purchased rifles that are fully complaint with California’s draconian firearms laws. Without your efforts, this victory would not have been possible.
NSSF also commends the California legislature for recognizing that SB 249 was hastily conceived, and that the legislature has not had an opportunity to fully consider all of the policy implications and impacts the bill would have had, including the severe fiscal impact it would have had on the state’s budget and the serious constitutional problems with the legislation.
NSSF just learned that in response to overwhelming grassroots opposition from law-abiding gun owners and California’s firearms industry members, SB 249 has been pulled from the Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing calendar for Thursday, Aug. 16.
This means that the bill is dead for the year! Congratulations to everyone who responded to our legislative alerts and radio ad and called their California state legislators to oppose SB 249, which would have resulted in the unconstitutional confiscation of lawfully purchased rifles that are fully complaint with California’s draconian firearms laws. Without your efforts, this victory would not have been possible.
NSSF also commends the California legislature for recognizing that SB 249 was hastily conceived, and that the legislature has not had an opportunity to fully consider all of the policy implications and impacts the bill would have had, including the severe fiscal impact it would have had on the state’s budget and the serious constitutional problems with the legislation.