Skip to main content
Tag

policy

California: More Firearm-Related Bills Scheduled to be Heard in Committees this Week

By General Posts

On Tuesday, April 2, both the Assembly and Senate Public Safety Committee are scheduled to hear several firearm-related bills and on Wednesday, April 3, the Assembly Appropriations Committee is also scheduled to hear several firearm-related bills.   Please use the TAKE ACTION buttons below to contact the Assembly and Senate Public Safety Committee AND the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Assembly Public Safety Committee – Tuesday, April 2 at 9 a.m. in room 126:

Assembly Bill 1096, sponsored by Assembly Member Melissa Melendez (R-67) would improve California’s concealed carry permit system by defining “good cause” and requiring that the issuing authority “shall” issue a permit if the statutorily required criteria is met.

Assembly Bill 276, sponsored by Assembly Member Laura Friedman (D-43), would modify California’s already existing storage laws, which include a patchwork of local restrictions in addition to requiring firearms be inaccessible to both minors and prohibited persons, by providing additional storage requirements and significantly enhanced criminal penalties for failure to comply. 

Assembly Bill 879, sponsored by Assembly Member Mike Gipson (D-64), would require precursor firearms parts to be sold/transferred through a licensed precursor parts dealer in a similar process to the new laws regarding ammunition purchases. It would further create a new crime for transfer of precursor parts without the involvement of a licensed precursor parts dealer to anyone under 21 years of age or prohibited from owning firearms. Precursor parts include items such as unfinished frames and upper receivers.

Assembly Bill 1064, sponsored by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi (D-66), would place further restrictions on licensed firearms dealers, including prohibiting a residence as a place of business for licensees, allows localities to place further restrictions on where licensees may operate, requires licensees to carry insurance of at least $1 million in coverage per incident and requires extensive recording of a licensees premise to include video surveillance system that, among other requirements, visually records and archives footage of (1) every sale or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, in a manner that includes audio recording (2) all places where firearms or ammunition are stored, displayed, carried, handled, sold, or transferred; (3) the immediate exterior surroundings of the licensee’s business premises; and (4) all parking areas owned or leased by the licensee.  

Assembly Bill 1297, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin McCarty, would remove the maximum fee a local authority can charge on the concealed carry permit application.

Senate Public Safety Committee – Tuesday, April 2 at 9:30 a.m. in room 4203

Senate Bill 61, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), would expand California’s one handgun a month law to apply to all firearms.

Senate Bill 172, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), would expand California’s existing storage laws.

Senate Bill 220, sponsored by Senator Jerry Hill (D-13), would further increase the mandatory storage and security requirements for licensed firearms dealers. California already has some of the strictest laws in the country regarding how dealers must store and secure firearms.  This bill simply places more costs and mandates on law-abiding business owners.

Assembly Appropriations Committee  – Wednesday, April 3 at 9 a.m. in room 4204:

Assembly Bill 284, sponsored by Assembly Member Jim Frazier (D-11), would permanently place in statute California’s junior hunting license, which is due to sunset in 2020.

Assembly Bill 688, sponsored by Assembly Member Kansen Chu (D-25), would place stringent storage requirements on all firearms that are left in an unattended vehicle, regardless of the duration. The requirements set forth in this legislation are overly burdensome and in some cases unattainable storage options that are neither practical nor possible for the average firearm owner who may temporarily leave their vehicle unattended on their way into the field or to the range.   

Assembly Bill 893, sponsored by Assembly Member Todd Gloria (D-78), would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition at the Del Mar fairgrounds located in the 22nd District Agricultural Association on and after January 1, 2021.

Continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.

 

 

 

Motorcycle Profiling is Official Daytona PD Policy

By General Posts

Video footage obtained by the MPP from the North Florida Council of Clubs confirms that motorcycle profiling is not only widespread in Daytona Beach, but it is also official law enforcement policy. In the words of Daytona PD Chief Craig Capri, “If you wear your colors [in Daytona Beach], you’re going to get stopped.” This official policy is unconstitutional and exposes the entire Daytona PD to civil liability. This video evidence also justifies a cost-free legislative solution in the form of a simple prohibition against motorcycle profiling combined with relief for victims.

Chief Capri’s Statement Proves Unconstitutional Practices Are Policy

Without any other evidence, Chief Capri’s Statement alone proves that the Daytona PD profiles motorcycle club members as a matter of policy. This official policy irrefutably violates the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

Federal courts have confirmed that motorcycle club colors are protected by the 1st Amendment. To punish an individual through seizure in the form of a profiling stop anyone “who wears the insignia of [a 1% motorcycle club], without regard to or knowledge of that individual’s specific intent to engage in the alleged violent activities committed by other members, is antithetical to the basic principles enshrined in the First Amendment and repugnant to the fundamental doctrine of personal guilt that is a hallmark of American jurisprudence. see Coles v. Carlini 162 F.Supp.3d 380 (2015)

Chief Capri’s statement also violates the 14th Amendment because it represents Selective Enforcement of the law. Capri’s statement proves that the strategy to use traffic stops as a way to punish those exercising their rights of expression and association is premeditated and selective. In terms of the 4th Amendment, any minor traffic pretext used to stop a club member in Daytona Beach should be presumed invalid.

Exposure To Civil Liability

Motorcycle profiling as a matter of policy implicates the entire Daytona PD at an organizational level. Independent of individual officers and incidents, each profiling stop exposes the Daytona PD as an entity to civil liability. Chief Capri is the highest authority at the Daytona PD and clearly articulates a policy of discrimination and Selective Enforcement. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 provides:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.“

An Epidemic In Florida

The National Motorcycle Profiling Survey validates the Florida’s profiling epidemic. The 2018 NMPS lists Florida as one of the top motorcycle profiling concerns in America. According to the 2018 NMPS, 65% of Florida survey participants reported being the victims of motorcycle profiling at least once since 2012. These survey statistics are 99% reliable with less than a 2% margin of error. (See NMPS Executive Summary 2018).

Despite promises, Daytona PD has failed to address motorcycle profiling

There is a long history and pattern of evidence establishing that motorcycle profiling is engrained in the Daytona Beach PD. And the Daytona PD has made empty promises when caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

While attending the 2017 Biketoberfest rally in Daytona Beach, Florida, members of the Iron Horsemen Motorcycle Club (IHMC) were the target of blatant profiling and discrimination at the hands of the Daytona Beach PD. The incident, caught on videotape as a result of quick thinking, is irrefutable. The impact on civil liberties motivated the combined efforts of the North Florida Council of Clubs, the National Council of Clubs, and the Motorcycle Profiling Project to immediately respond with a formal complaint and public record requests. These inquiries, based on the video, sparked an investigation into the actions of the officers involved and a review of Daytona PD policies regarding motorcycle clubs, said a source inside of Chief Craig Capri’s office. As a result of the State Attorney’s inquiry, a curriculum was supposed to be constructed and all Daytona PD officers were to be re- trained relating to motorcycle profiling.

Unfortunately, almost 2 years later, motorcycle profiling is alive and well in Daytona Beach. As articulated, motorcycle profiling is still official policy.

A Legislative Solution

Motorcycle profiling is a legitimate national policy discussion. In December, the US Senate unanimously approved S.Res.154 which directs all states to follow the lead of Washington State and Maryland by legislatively addressing and condemning the practice of motorcycle profiling. A prohibition combined with injunctive and actual relief for victims is a simple solution with no fiscal impact. A legislative prohibition would immediately increase exposure to the issue therefore reducing incidents of profiling.

The post Motorcycle Profiling is Official Daytona PD Policy appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

http://www.motorcycleprofilingproject.com/

https://councilofclubs.org