Transcription
So, we saw the legislature flip the bills from House of Origin to their new house. Uh, we had a lot on the line that we were both advocating for and against. We talked about this last week, but it's time to look at the results. Did any of these bills bite the dust? Did some of them get amended? Let's talk about it.
Hey everybody, welcome back to the channel today. That's right. We are touching back on our discussion last week. Uh if you guys didn't see that video, you can always go and watch it afterwards uh seeing what we were looking forward to uh with the appropriation committee meetings that we saw in the California legislature on Thursday and Friday last week. Of course, we want to get together to see the results of those appropriation committee meetings. So, we're going to walk through that today.
To do that with us, we have brought back uh the legislative director of CRPA. You can also catch him on uh the firing line radio. You can catch him there every Saturday at 100 pm on AM590 the answer. That of course is Rick Travis. Rick, thanks for being with us today.
>> Thanks for having me.
>> Absolutely. And guys, as always, please be sure to like, share, and subscribe to these videos. It's a great way for you to directly contribute to the fight that we are fighting here in California to restore uh our Second Amendment rights and to progress the Second Amendment movement here in the state. And there is a lot to look forward to, a lot of work to do uh as we look towards the 2026 elections uh and then also continue to follow along with the legislation and the litigation. So, if you haven't already, we hope to earn this every single video. Please be sure to like, share, and subscribe.
Uh, so, Rick, let's let's kind of go back to the beginning. Um, we we did talk last week about the appropriations committee meetings that were happening. Uh if you could just refresh us really quick. What is the appropriation committee meeting? What is it there for? We we do a lot of these campaigns to advocate uh for or against the legislation that we see going through Sacramento. Uh what's the specific purpose of the appropriations committee meetings and what do we see directly thereafter?
>> So a bill starts out in its house of origin. So assembly bills in the assembly, Senate bills in the Senate. They'll move through a series of policy or and/or judicial committee meetings, which is where we often fight these bills. If they make it through there, they have a point where it's in May that they have to cross over from the house of origin to meet the deadline over into the other house. So assembly has to go to the senate, sent to the assembly. Appropriations is where the budget of the state and that portion of which the legislators can be involved in have to consider how much each bill of the 2-year cycle of the 3500 bills um how much that's going to cost the taxpayer. Some bills are very minimal. Some bills actually remarkably um reduce the amount of money being spent, but most add to it. Um by and large, I would say probably 90 95% add to the budget. The budget is a subject that has been up u depending on who you talk to. We're running an annual like about 30 to 40 billion deficit. the governor comes up with a pixie dust type of uh logic that says uh nobody look over here at what the budget says it's going to be. We've even had things come out of the budget offices, including the one for the legislature, which is nonpartisan, who has said, uh, there's two ways to look at a budget, um, with a whole lot of optimism that nothing is going wrong, and so we can keep spending even though we don't have the money, which tends to be where the governor goes, or holy cow, you need to pull in the purse strings cuz we don't have enough money to cover this, and it's going to set us up even worse for next year, which is what the the accounting offices told everybody in the legislature.
So, the legislature approaching this has two different rules. In the assembly, anything that's going to cost more than $150,000 in projected costs has to go to appropriations on suspense to be reviewed. Um, it's also a tactic that that is where assembly members if they they feel like, oh, there's bad optics if I say no to say a stop sign. Um, they don't want to be known as the person said no to the stop sign. So they can say, "Oh, well that bill died because there just wasn't money." But then when you look at the broad spectrum of what passes out of appropriations in any given year, you can say, "Well, that's funny because there's a lot of bills that cost a lot more money than the stop sign and they made it through." So it is a tactic that's used in the Senate. That bar is $50,000. So, one of the things you look at is if you can get a Senate bill in the into the assembly, the odds of passing the assembly are much greater because appropriations, the bar is three times less likely to hurt you. However, if you're an assembly bill going to Senate, it gets even harder to get out of the Senate. So, that is kind of the stop gap that keeps some assembly bills. They cruise through the assembly, they get through appropriations, which we'll talk about today, and they go.
What was interesting this year, like every year, but especially this year, is several bills that we didn't want to see move over to the Senate did, but they did so with some pretty severe uh changes made to them. And I, it's been remarkable for me to watch social media over the past couple days because there's a lot of people talking about these bills moving through, but they obviously didn't read the amendments. they didn't read what has happened because they're still talking about things that have been out of the public space since January that no longer exist or have seriously been altered.
>> All right. So, we're talking about money. Um, essentially, you know, we we got committees to discuss the the policies themselves. We've got committees to see um, you know, whether or not this is constitutional, but the appropriations committee itself uh is really discussing only whether or not California taxpayers can pay for this. Uh now I guess if you got you got you got some people over here that are probably going to look at that and say well how the heck can we pay for anything? Let's not pass any of these bills uh because we've got such a big budget deficit. And then I guess there's there's another side of that aisle that says where where there's a will there's a way and and we've got the will. So uh wanted to touch on that with you today. But uh let let's go ahead and start here because we've got uh firearm safety cards turning into a licensing scheme. We've got mountain lion uh projects. We've got um, you know gun violence restraining orders. We we did have quite a few bills uh for that we are for and against uh that are in the appropriations committee. I I I think 1021 and 948 are two uh are two bills that we were certainly keeping our eye on. So um what happened with 948 and what happened with 1021 and were there others that any others that really uh popped out at you going through these committees?
Yeah. So 948 is an interesting um bill because it's exactly what you said. It's a scheme not unlike the one that we see in Illinois which has been around for decades which requires people to have papers. Um it kind of reminds you of something out of a Nazi movie, you know, of like yep, please, you know, in order to have your firearm. Um and I'm not trying to be funny with that, but I mean that's literally what they're trying to go for. And what was interesting was, you know, we have fought this. We have said how unconstitutional it was. The whole concept was twofold. One, if you were a person from out of state coming to state, you'd be labeled an importer. You would have 60 days. You'd have to do an 8-hour class. You'd have to do a live fire. Um, but that would also translate to people coming over. There were no exceptions. There was nothing like it was just this is the way it's going to run. We fought that really hard as you know in policy debates. But one of the things I want to make sure people understand is appropriations isn't just about budget. I want to go back to it's also about um those committees meet with each of the authors and they try to figure out how to lower the threshold the cost. The cost isn't just the implementation. The cost can be like oh shoot like in the case 948 CRPA is going to sue the state. What's that going to cost? How do we how do we reduce the odds of them suing us? and how do we reduce the amount of money we're going to have to pay if we lose that lawsuit.
So, here's what happened with 948 that was interesting. So, that 60-day argument of like there's no way people are moving in. There's no way they're going to know da da da. That got inappropriations extended to 180 days. So, it went from two months notice to six month notice. Okay. But the 8-hour class is now a 4-hour class because, as you remember, one of the arguments that we were making was now you're telling people they have to take two days out of work to go to the class and to go to the to the live fire exercise. So now they've shrunk that to one day to try to make it seem less ownorous. It's still ownorous. We're still going to fight it. But they also trying to plate realizing that we have, you know, I would say close to a quarter of a million people with CCWs in the state or nearing that. Um, depending on who you talk to and how it's tracked, uh, they give an exemption that if you have a CCW, you don't need a firearm safety certificate. You don't need to go through any of these processes. So, this is interesting to to us because this leaves a lot of different loopholes because there could be CCW holders with an outofstate CCW coming in that could get caught in this gap thinking that they were free and they weren't. So, there's a lot of new ground for us to go over. But what people out there need to realize is arrog Senator Argan was already backing up. And now as we go into this fight, it's more defined and it makes it a little bit easier for us to shut this down because now instead of having a shotgun pattern of things, it's very very tight and we can put the pressure on to help stop this bill.
And what of uh 1021 and and were there any others that stuck out to you that um either got uh reduced, increased, or passed or not passed through uh last week?
>> Yeah. So, one of them I I'll touch on is AB1974. It hasn't been hotly talked about because I think to a lot of people like how's this actually going to work? And this was uh a volunteer firearm storage program. So the concept that uh Assemblywoman Stefani had put out was hey if for whatever reasons you don't feel it's safe to have your firearms at home. Say it's you know uh you have an issue with your kids or you think someone in the house might use them to vi for violent or suicidal or other injury things that you didn't have to give up your guns. Um but this this is like a a really bad slippery slope argument. But the idea was that your law enforcement agency would hold on to your firearms until whatever that was had went away. During the argument, we had talked about, but how do the firearms get returned? What happens if they don't get returned? Blah blah blah. And one of the amendments that she put in because our people had talked about, hey, a lot of times there's historical firearms, you know, that great grandpa had a really nice gun from the 1800s. He gave it to his son. His son gave it to his his son. And now we're going into the fourth generation and it goes to law enforcement because of a a perceived or real threat. Okay. Well, now that firearm's lost forever. And so what she put in was it cannot be donated to a public or private nonprofit historical society, museum, or institutional collection. Because she agreed, yeah, some of these firearms should not be destroyed. They should be allowed to be kept for historical purposes, for study, for other things. That is a shift. I'm not saying, "Hey, let's go to Disneyland and celebrate with fireworks." But that's a shift that we didn't previously see. And so that's interesting. I don't know where this bill is going to go. We're still fighting it. By no means are we like not in still opposition of it. But I do want to highlight that going through appropriations, it's amazing some of the things that get laid out there as an amendment. Because now this shows that Stefani and other Democrats are thinking, well, maybe we can get some support from Republicans if we're not so heavy-handed, if we back off, if we open up some doors. And this could be a door opener that we're going to be looking at. Um because you know right now in the status quo in California, Kevin, a lot of those groups, museums, institutional collections, historical societies can't own firearms. So let's see where this goes.
Uh 1021 was our fishing and uh youth program, hunting and youth program. This is designed to allow uh kids with life-threatening illnesses, which is defined in this bill and under the law as uh youth under the age of 17 who have been diagnosed that they most likely will not survive the disease they have within the next 5 years. And one of the challenges has been that when you go to take some some of these kids hunting and fishing, there's violations to the code because, you know, Kevin, if you and I are fishing and the fish is big and you're having problems with it, I'm not allowed to touch your fishing pole. You know, that's you versus the fish. Um, you're the one that has to go pick up whatever you've killed in the field. I can go with you and help you out, but like you've got to go. Um, but you can't shoot and I go cuz you're perfectly healthy. Well, what do you do if you have a kid that's in a wheelchair and the kid can't make it over to where they shot the bird? You know, can't an adult help? Well, that's always been like a case by case and not really well defined. This bill allows for um and this is what we amended it to accommodations under the American with Disabilities Act. So, it's changed the flavor of the bill in the sense it's really well defined. It lowers the cost of the bill because doesn't cost the state anything to have to approve to have somebody there. They've already had to go through their licensing. They've already had to do all the steps. So, there's no compromise in anything, but it greatly lowered the cost to get this one across the line. So, um not much of a concession. Actually, I wish we would have put that in at the very beginning into the bill, but uh that's moving this bill forward. and probably uh you know the other bills that are still moving through are are moving through fairly well. But uh also the AB1753 which was the other Stefani bill. You remember that had the prehering firearm search which was kind of like you know going back to a Tom Cruz movie where oh we get to we get to come in before we really have a right to that was completely removed um civil harassment restrain orders workplace violence restrain orders postsecondary school restrain orders elder independent all removed from that bill. So, that bill was heavily amended and is uh less obnoxious by far than it was before. Still obnoxious, still opposing it, but we basically took out about half of what that bill was about negatively was gutted out of it. So, um that's one of the things that happens in appropriations that a lot of people don't see. So, a lot of the bills coming out, um, for those of you watching our channel, realize, be very careful with other people you're watching because if they're not looking at this, they're actually giving information that may not be accurate because there's a lot of these bills have been heavily amended and there's a lot of lawyers and people like myself that are going through these painstakingly to see how that changes the flavor of these bills.
So, it seems like uh what didn't necessarily bite the dust, a lot of these bills are getting pretty neutered as they uh go to the next House. Uh and obviously, guys, we're going to follow along with these and it seems like Rick, maybe we we ought to do uh some follow-up videos on the bills individually, if they really are changing that much.
I think that's well said. Obviously, we're going to continue to fight against them. By no means does this mean we're we're not going to fight against them and accept them uh even as they are amended. But uh perhaps a new look um at a new at at a new way that it's been written uh is warranted, but that can be for another day. I guess the only other question that I had and you kind of alluded to this um at the beginning of our conversation here is uh the money situation. I mean appropriations, okay, if it's not all about money, it's it's primarily about money. So, um, maybe let's step outside of Second Amendment litigation and and if you're looking at Sacramento as a whole right now, what is the general tone of the capital? I mean, with the budget deficit that we are in, are we seeing a lot more bills bite the dust when they're going through appropriations than normal? Uh, what is it that you're actually seeing up there as it pertains to the budget?
>> It's a hot mess to be blunt. um you have many many uh departments that run the government of you know um California and as a result those departments had already been taking massive cuts and so those departments are looking to pad wherever they can to try to make up the money they've lost not to get ahead. I mean I'll give most of the departments credit like I haven't seen like fish and game as an example isn't trying to like give themselves a 20% increase. They're trying to backfill the 18% cuts they've taken across the board while being given more. DOJ, no fan of that agency, but DOJ's taking some really hard-hitting cuts. And then yet the legislature and the governor and the attorney general are like doubling and tripling their workload. So if you look at that in the private sector, people would be like, "No, I'm walking. If you're you're paying me less and tripling my workload, yeah, later." And that's what you're seeing a lot of government agencies is that people are walking. They're like, "No, I'm not going to do it." So, there's that layering on it. You also have a lot of people trying to figure out how they're going to pay for some of the things that need to be taken care of. I mean, one of the things I I don't want to be cold and callous, but there are are things that develop um throughout the state that yeah, we need to take care of it. And to take care of it requires money, but where's that money going to come from? And there's a lot of things that we're paying for that is in the news right now where fraud allegations are rampant in the capital. Um that is being discussed and that's why I was being sarcastic but not being sarcastic. It's been called a pixie dust um type of a a budget because when you look around you um it's not just the billions of dollars in debt. It's not just the millions of dollars that are being accused under fraud. It's not just a number of cases of investigations from the governor's office on down, not the governor directly himself, although that has changed over the last two days. I mean, we have the fires in Southern California. You have the PRA campaign who's been very effective in in that mayoral race of bringing up stuff. You've had uh Karen Bass yesterday now suing the governor over funding for the fires. I mean, it's a hot mess. You got the feds coming in. And so as a result, money is a huge driver. The lack of it is a huge driver and everybody is seeing it. And I will tell you, a lot of the uh typical business as usual kind of conventions and and uh mixers and stuff are less than half of what they were two years ago. So like you can feel it in the capital. Um there's there's a definite tone change.
>> Well, good. I mean I I guess it's refreshing to hear that there is a tone change. I mean, you list all those things out and it's kind of like how does this government not just come to a complete stop with all of these things. Uh, but uh I'll take a tone change for now. Obviously, we're going to be continuing to follow along with all of these bills, ones that need to be advocated against, but also, and I want to keep stressing this, the ones that need to be advocated for. So, watch out if you are subscribed to the CRPA emails. you're going to see those advocacy emails to write to our legislative um uh officials. Um and please, we need to continue and tell tell these people, you know, we like what you're doing if you're putting forth legislation that that we approve of. Did you have something else, Rick?
>> I want I want to say thank you to all those who did take part in the positive letter writing campaign for Senate Bill 1021 because staff on both sides of the aisle said that made a huge impact. the fact that we were able to mount up the thousands of letters that came in on that told those legislators and the vote to clear 1021 out seven votes and they got all seven and every one of those offices said those letters had an impact.
>> So if you're one of those people that uh are like I used to be I used to be this way and thinking that there's no way my phone call or my letter can make a difference, it absolutely can. You're hearing it from the source right now. So, uh, definitely something to be a part of and, uh, definitely appreciate those that have done it. Looking forward to continue doing more of those. Uh, Rick, I want to thank you very much for coming on. Obviously, we're going to have to see you again soon to go through these bills individually, but uh, thanks for coming on and sharing with us today.
>> Thank you.
>> Absolutely. And guys, as always, if you haven't done it already, I hope we we have earned this, but please be sure to like, share, and subscribe to the videos. Really helps get the information out there. We've got a lot more work to do, not just with the legislation, but with the litigation and the elections coming up. It's a great time to be a part of this movement and we want to keep it moving forward. Uh you can help us do that just by liking, sharing, and subscribing. So, if you haven't done that already, please go ahead and tap those buttons. Leave a comment in the comment uh section down below. Let us know, is there a specific bill that you want us to touch on as we move to or away from the House of Origin to the next house uh on this bill creation process? Thanks again, guys. We'll see you on the next.