Our old friend, the person claiming to be "Bob Ricker" has graced us with another comment post, to which I replied.
He refers us to the California Senate Committee on Public Safety analysis of AB 854, dealing with ...SHORT-TERM LOANS OF FIREARMS FROM FEDERALLY LICENSED MANUFACTURERS, DEALERS OR IMPORTERS TO CONSULTANT-EVALUATORS... and credits its passage to NRA.
Why? Well, because I was complaining about BATFU trying to be the arbiter of who is or is not an "authorized journalist," and the bill in essence does that, assigning to the California DoJ authority for deciding who qualifies to be a "consultant-evaluator."
I fear I may have played a small part in this. Some time back, I got a call from one of the editors at GUNS & AMMO, one I had not worked with during the time I wrote for them. He had assumed I was a lawyer, and wanted to know if certain proposals in the legislature would prevent his field editors from getting guns to test and write reviews on. I let him know I was not, and he wanted to know if I knew any firearm lawyers he could ask. I referred him to NRA/CRPA's attorney, Chuck Michel--even though I have some differences with them and their tactics--because he is a lawyer with in-depth knowledge of developing firearms-related bills and their legal impacts.
Perhaps that anecdote was just coincidental to this bill, but what remains is a situation where California now has "authorized gun writers," and we know from past experience that what starts there often metastasizes its way eastward.
But here's the thing, and I invite comment and analysis: If California was poised to ban all transfers without exception, does this bill represent a victory of sorts? Or would it be best to have all share equally in the pain?
By way of complete disclosure, I have a press card for the purpose of writing for a gun magazine. To date, I've never used it, although I have been approached to test some products by companies that don't realize I'm an opinionslinger, not a gunslinger.
That said, I'm of the opinion that no branch of government has any business telling free citizens which of them is authorized to be a journalist, and they certainly have no moral authority to limit which firearms anyone not in custody is free to transfer and receive from other sovereign citizens. I stipulate that my way does not produce a "political solution"--but won't hold my breath waiting for NRA's game to produce a real and lasting one either.
Does it make a difference? In practice, probably not, as I don't know of any manufacturer who would transfer a product to someone who has not established a professional reputation as an evaluator or writer. But it's the precedent of government dictating who it will recognize that concerns me.
And as for "Judas Bob's" motives in calling this to my attention? Unless and until I hear him decry this bill and demand that all citizens be free to receive firearms from manufacturers, I think he just wants to start a fight within the gun community, so he can get off on it from the sidelines.
He refers us to the California Senate Committee on Public Safety analysis of AB 854, dealing with ...SHORT-TERM LOANS OF FIREARMS FROM FEDERALLY LICENSED MANUFACTURERS, DEALERS OR IMPORTERS TO CONSULTANT-EVALUATORS... and credits its passage to NRA.
Why? Well, because I was complaining about BATFU trying to be the arbiter of who is or is not an "authorized journalist," and the bill in essence does that, assigning to the California DoJ authority for deciding who qualifies to be a "consultant-evaluator."
I fear I may have played a small part in this. Some time back, I got a call from one of the editors at GUNS & AMMO, one I had not worked with during the time I wrote for them. He had assumed I was a lawyer, and wanted to know if certain proposals in the legislature would prevent his field editors from getting guns to test and write reviews on. I let him know I was not, and he wanted to know if I knew any firearm lawyers he could ask. I referred him to NRA/CRPA's attorney, Chuck Michel--even though I have some differences with them and their tactics--because he is a lawyer with in-depth knowledge of developing firearms-related bills and their legal impacts.
Perhaps that anecdote was just coincidental to this bill, but what remains is a situation where California now has "authorized gun writers," and we know from past experience that what starts there often metastasizes its way eastward.
But here's the thing, and I invite comment and analysis: If California was poised to ban all transfers without exception, does this bill represent a victory of sorts? Or would it be best to have all share equally in the pain?
By way of complete disclosure, I have a press card for the purpose of writing for a gun magazine. To date, I've never used it, although I have been approached to test some products by companies that don't realize I'm an opinionslinger, not a gunslinger.
That said, I'm of the opinion that no branch of government has any business telling free citizens which of them is authorized to be a journalist, and they certainly have no moral authority to limit which firearms anyone not in custody is free to transfer and receive from other sovereign citizens. I stipulate that my way does not produce a "political solution"--but won't hold my breath waiting for NRA's game to produce a real and lasting one either.
Does it make a difference? In practice, probably not, as I don't know of any manufacturer who would transfer a product to someone who has not established a professional reputation as an evaluator or writer. But it's the precedent of government dictating who it will recognize that concerns me.
And as for "Judas Bob's" motives in calling this to my attention? Unless and until I hear him decry this bill and demand that all citizens be free to receive firearms from manufacturers, I think he just wants to start a fight within the gun community, so he can get off on it from the sidelines.