Noting that the reduction of alcohol related deaths has long been a key component of their doctrine, state Democratic leaders in California’s Legislature have introduced Assembly Bill 962 in an attempt to sharply limit access to the much maligned substance.
Named the “Protection Act of 2009: Providing Regulation and Oversight to End Alcohol Terrorism in Our Neighborhoods,” the law requires anyone wishing to purchase alcoholic beverages to first submit their thumbprint, name, address, and telephone number into a permanent record stored at each retail location.
Local police departments may monitor, without a warrant, all sales records to determine who is purchasing alcohol illegally. In order to verify the identity of the buyer, all purchases must be conducted in person, effectively eliminating internet and mail order sales. The transfer of alcoholic beverages between private individuals is prohibited and retailers face stiff penalties for unlawful sales.
Democrats have stated that this law does not impose overly unreasonable or restrictive registration requirements. As they are unable to address the root causes of alcohol related deaths, the apparent goal of these aggressive measures is to once and for all break the American population’s cultural and functional ties to the problem substance. Democrats Skinner and Torlakson have rubberstamped the bill through the Assembly and Senators DeSaulnier and Hancock are expected to do the same.
Critics have quickly noted that the first Prohibition failed miserably and resulted in an enormous black market. Even for lawful purchases, further private distribution of the alcohol cannot be controlled and will easily find its way into the hands of abusers. Only the law abiding public will comply with these measures, making the law completely ineffective and a source for lucrative unlawful transactions.
Critics have decried the registration and monitoring requirements as extremely oppressive, an invasion of privacy reminiscent of the Bush domestic spying program. They also question, in this time of economic hardship, the fiscal repercussions of creating an entirely new department to oversee the monitoring program. Claims that the program will pay for itself have been ridiculed as being woefully unrealistic.
Calls by concerned citizens to Democratic leaders for comments or amendments, even from their own constituents, have largely gone unanswered or ignored.
And so ends this slightly tall tale.
All of the above is true, except that Democrats are targeting handgun ammunition sales instead of alcohol. Regardless of your party affiliation, if you thought the measures above were draconian, ineffective, and even un-Constitutional, you still have a little time left to call your state Senators and put a stop to this ill-conceived abuse of Californians’ rights.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
When making your calls to the elected reps in California please remind Democrats Skinner, Torlakson, DeSaulnier and Hancock that they all took an Oath to support and defend the Constitution.
These people never let the facts get in the way of anything that they do. Right now, Loni Hancock is drafting legislation with another anti-rights politician by the name of Sandre Swanson (16-AD) that would require only law abiding citizens to register ammunition magazines with more than a 10-round capacity with law enforcement.
However, a convicted felon can not be prosecuted for failing to register the mags, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess them, which would be self-incrimination (5th Amendment) but a person who can legally own them, and fails (or decides not) to register them, can be punished under the law. So, the person, one presumes, such a registration requirement is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet, the person at whom such a registration requirement is not principally aimed (the law-abiding citizen), can be punished.
This is your Democrat controlled California State Legislature in action! Brilliant… Just brilliant!
How can these Democrats craft and attempt to pass a bill both so blatantly unconstitutional and at odds with our existing state code?
Exhibit A, The Second Amendment: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The anti’s may claim that 2A is not an individual right, but limited only to members of the ‘militia.’ So what? Our existing state code wisely provides the definition of who is in the militia:
Exhibit B,
MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130
120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia–which constitute the
active militia –and the unorganized militia.
121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.
==
In other words, all males between 18–45. However it can be safely assumed that in this era of PC and equality that this original definition does not discriminate by age, gender, etc., effectively meaning the militia includes all able-bodied adults.
Brilliant analogy Felix. I have been a vocal opponent of AB962, posted a piece on my blog, have written Joan Buchanan on the matter (ignored), and wrote every member of the State Committee on Appropriations to receive only one response on the matter from Assemblymember Harkey. AB 962 passed through the Assembly with the votes totally along party lines. I fully intend to continue expressing my opposition to AB962 by contacting State Senators. For you law-abiding Contra Costa sportsmen, keep this in mind. DeSaulnier has introduced multiple senate bills aimed at restricting your rights, and he wants to be your 10th Congressional District representative.
“From my cold, dead hands,” has significantly less if you are no longer permitted to buy ammo.
To the Editor:
Governmental tyrrany has no limits.
If, among the 50 states, there is free trade in books, gasoline, and food products, the government should not get involved in such things as alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
In fact, it is time to abolish the federal Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
Richard S. Colman
Orinda, CA
June 9, 2009
Why do Statists seek privacy protections for criminals but argue against it when Constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding citizens are involved? Our nation’s jurisprudence is a shambles.
~ BGR