Transcription
We had several Democrats say yes, we'll pass this out of committee. Voted for it. But they had an interesting question, Joel, that my jaw literally fell between my knees when I had a senator repeat the same thing an assembly member, both Democrats from the Bay Area. This is stupid. Why isn't it just open carry?
>> Mr. Rick Travis, you've gone up in my estimation. You're now Mr. Rick Travis. Wow. You got to tell Chuck you need a raise. Tell him I said so.
>> That carries no weight at all. You realize that's kind of ridiculous. Well, listen. What's going on?
>> H I'm stealing myself for the answer. I know there's some good things though. What's going on in Sacramento? Or at least there have been some good things.
>> Yeah, Sacramento's been a a very interesting year um thus far. We are now um in a unique area that I think a lot of people um who don't keep up on it understand. So California has a two-year legislative cycle as you know Joel and when the it starts off an odd year ends an even year. So we're ending that two years right now. Um and so that makes it a little interesting when you're looking at all the different bills and things. So the first year um 25 we had some pretty aggressive stuff. And in 26 it has been relatively not as aggressive. Now some of the pundits and the people that like to to try on social media will say, "Well, Rick, that's because they've done everything to us." No, they haven't. Believe me, there's a lot and I'm not going to highlight those cuz I'm not going to give them the playbook against us. But there's still quite a bit of territory that they could go after. But there's also been a push back. There's also been a lot of education that we're now in the third year of of legislators and their staff and that has had some positive effects where many bills are not introduced and we're seeing a lot more bipartisan um support for some bills and so we'll start to talk about that.
Part of this has also been a change in the way we approach some of the legislators. Um, now I've said this for years on your show that um, just because you belong to a political party does not make you pro or anti the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment. We have people in both. They have some very different views um, in both parties. And so not everybody who is, and I'll just pick on the Republicans as a Republican believes you should have a AR-15. There are some that do and there's some that don't. There's some that will say something and some that are quiet, but they just won't show up to vote. So, um, and the same is true on the Democrats. or some Democrats are like they're perfectly fine with the AR-150 and there's some that are veently, as we all know, opposed to it. So, um, a lot of what this has been is us working to thread the people that support us together and finding ways that don't ostracize them when we do that. And so, I'll talk a little bit about that in the bills.
Um, right now we're on recess, which means, as I call them, the kids, the legislature, they're all at home. Um, so they're not in the capital. So, this is a good time to rec. on August 3rd, they'll come back. And this is where it gets confusing to people because it is a flurry of activity. Um, we basically have eight days at the beginning of August um to fight on everything. They'll be shoving things as fast as they can through the final um uh committee meetings, for lack of better terms. And the reason they're doing that is because it's also an election year. So, they want to get this done as quick as they can to get back to campaigning because they want to keep their jobs. So, all of that also feeds into this. And then finally, um, where the people that are watching this come into play with CRPA and others like Gun Owners of California is listening to us and we say, "Now, we need you to start making the phone calls, start saying the letters, start saying the emails." because that's the point where myself, my counterpart Adam or Clay with NRA, none of us are allowed to go into the capital anymore because after um specifically August 14th, we're done. The lobbyists can no longer play in the game. And those last two weeks, which are all floor votes, that's where you've got to have really strong people. And I'm going to point out a couple of those people that have been pretty strong within areas of the Second Amendment, including a Democrat who is carrying one of our bills to try to get across the assembly floor for that final vote. So, um, this is probably going to be a little different than our normal like, hey, here's what's going on, Joel, because it's just
>> Well, first of all, because nothing's going on. We're in recess, but we can talk about what went on. And I think it's a very interesting thing that you guys can't be there for a period and the only people that can have any effect are well I was going to say voters but in California that encompasses perhaps a lot of people that shouldn't be voting but nevertheless it uh it encompasses mostly just the people have to speak up at that point otherwise their voice is not heard at all.
>> Correct.
>> Yeah. So I did not know that until just now. I suspect I am not the only one who did not know that. So that's a very very good piece of information. Pay attention to CRPA. And
>> when they say speak up now is a good time to speak up now. Speak what what do they used to say? Speak now or forever hold your peace or whatever.
>> Yeah.
>> Do not hold your peace. Speak.
>> Um so we have some bills that we're opposing the assembly and some we're happy with. So I'm going to talk about them. Uh Assembly Bill 1743 is from uh Buffy Wixs. It is currently in what we call the suspense file in the Senate. Um, and I it could sound like I'm talking out of two sides of my mouth and I'm not. In the Senate, that's a harder thing to do to get out of um the suspense file because the Senate has a $50,000 price tag per bill whereas the Assembly has $150,000. So, say a bill was going to cost the taxpayer 75 to 100 grand. Gain it out of the Assembly Cakewalk. getting it out of the Senate, different different animal. So, assembly bills are always held to a higher standard getting out of the Senate because that's the the second house that they go to. So, it being a suspense file does not mean it's dead, but it does mean it's got some uh jumping it's going to have to do to get out. Now, am I saying it's it's we're going to be able to block it? I don't know. What does this deal with? This is the famous bill that deals with information from firearms owners getting out to uh your local colleges and how that would look and because we put a lot of pressure on the lawsuit possibilities that would obviously happen with this that price tag is growing and um so that may be the thing that actually stops this bill. Now, when I say stops, I mean for this session, I'm rest assured she or somebody else will bring something that looks like this back the next session.
>> Well, we've seen one like this at least once before, right? I mean,
>> right.
>> And concealed carry permit holders have been doxed at least once
>> in California, but there was there were some limits to that one, I think, that don't apply here. Isn't that isn't that the case?
>> Yeah, the limits were it was specifically to the University of California at Davis to a specific uh research program. This is now opens up all the way down to community colleges.
>> Geez.
>> Which in theory could be high school students that are taking advanced classes.
>> I was just going to say every every high school kid taking an advanced C class is now going to have your your personal address if you have a concealed carry permit.
>> Wow. Okay. And uh and we just had Amy Connie Barrett testifying yesterday about being swatted. I'll just leave that there. Uh what else shall we talk about?
>> So we have Assembly Bill 1753. It's a protective orders. We've obviously um went up against it because and this is where I take a lot of uh angst from a lot of people including on our side. You know, Rick, that's a protective order. Well, the reason is is because a lot of these protective orders, people have been, like you just brought up, um, was a great intro. They've been swatted. They've had false reports applied to them. And even though they eventually are able to prove that and get out from under these protective orders, there is a cost. And it's remarkable. Some of those costs, depending where you live, can be as high as $30,000 for something that you didn't do, that was never deserved. But you're out 30 grand and going through a year and a half worth of hell in your life.
>> Here's the other aspect of that. So they you turn in your guns.
>> Uhhuh.
>> Right. Because you've got a we got this GVRO and um you're supposed to turn them in. So you turn them in. When you want to get them back, if you get them back, you have to go through a new background check for each one when you get it back.
>> Why? They're yours. You already had them. But you have to go through now you have to go through the whole dross thing again
>> to get your own firearms back.
>> And you may not get your own firearms back because depending on the time limit some of those firearms may have been sold, destroyed, moving on,
>> right? And so if you have this wonderful, beautiful collection you've worked on for half your life and you were falsely accused of something,
>> uh you may never see those again and some of them could be very valuable. It's It's Yeah. I mean, that's happened to a lot of folks.
>> Yeah. Um
>> what's the stat What's the status of that one? I know you guys are opposing it.
>> That's also in Senate appropriations. So, we're hoping to knock that one out on the costs.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Hopefully.
>> This next one is also in Senate Appropriations. It's going to be kind of a reoccurring theme for a couple of these. Uh but it is Assembly Bill 1810 and it's about creating a centralized list for firearms. um which we do not want. This comes from Assemblyman Burman who has never seen an anti-2A bill. He doesn't like this. Is also the one that we've talked about um because it's not the first time it's come through that it's going after like the big box stores for every engagement that they have with a violation of uh somebody carrying a firearm that you know like law enforcement officer says, "Hey, are you a CCW holder?" Yes, that's an interaction with a firearm. That would be viewed as a negative interaction.
>> Okay. So, wait, hold up. As usual, when we talk, at some point in every conversation we ever have, I'm confused what exactly. Wait a minute. Hold on. It's a negative. If a cop I get pulled over for a ticket, I've had a traffic accident. I don't know. I'm on the side of the road cuz my car broke down. cop pulls up behind me and I because I'm, you know, polite,
>> because I'm polite, I give the officer my driver's license and my concealed carry permit. That's considered a negative interaction with law enforcement according to this bill. Is that what you're saying?
>> Well, according to this bill, that is something that's tracked. So, in other words, you didn't do anything wrong with your firearm, but a firearm engagement with a law enforcement officer, because it is goes into the record. Then they go and say, "Oh, where did in your case Joel purchased that firearm?" "Oh, he purchased it at big box store in his county." Now, you think of counties that have issued a lot of CCWs. They're going to have a lot of those quote interactions. It also goes down to, oh, Joel filled out his paperwork and Joel had to move and the paperwork kind of got caught up with DOJ, which can take more than a year. And so that puts a flag. And then if you are one of the 10 most flagged stores in the state, you lose your ability to do anything for two years.
>> Okay. So, wait a minute. We got Turners,
>> we've got Bass Pro. Yeah,
>> these people sell a lot of
>> Yeah.
>> guns. And so even if
>> I mean you they're just trying to put these people out of business.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And this is Senate Bill 1810,
>> correct? Oh, no. Assembly bill 18.
>> I'm sorry, Assembly Bill 1810.
>> It is in Senate appropriations right now.
>> Hopefully it will die there.
>> Yes, hopefully. Then we have Assembly Bill uh 1974. This is the voluntary uh firearm storage program. We have been the primary people to oppose this the whole time. This will create a program that allows you to voluntarily transfer your firearms to a local law enforcement for temporary safekeeping.
>> I I just said I was confused. Okay. Why on God's green earth would anybody wish to store their firearm with law enforcement for safekeeping? First of all,
>> and secondly, what law enforcement agency has the space and capacity to store those and manage it? So, there are two very fine questions. The first one, um, you know, I don't see myself doing this, but I could plausibly see somebody else doing it. This is the response to, um, some of the things we've heard where there's been a fire a firearms uh, violation, like a school shooting or something where the parents said, "Well, we didn't know where we could put the firearms." So if the parents suspected that that was an issue, they're trying to get the person help, they would be able to put their firearms out of their house to a safe place while they were getting that person help. This was part of it. Part of it was also if you were a person that was contemplating suicide, but you didn't want to give up a firearm because it was worth a lot of money, you could put it in this place um or some other injury. The second part of what you asked is yeah the the majority of vast majority of law enforcement agencies are we don't have the space to do that. We cannot take
>> personel inventory system
>> the cost
>> and that minimize the costs of this program will probably kill this bill in appropriations because those are millions of dollars as you can well imagine.
>> Yeah. Yeah. At at a at a minimum.
>> Not not to mention what's the process to get it back. you've just now said, "Oh, I don't trust a member of my family." Well, is that family member going to be at your house? Are they going to ever visit? Are they like this? Just it opens up a can of worms.
>> Yeah.
>> Um and then the last one that we're fighting that's both in judicial and appropriations has been the uh Assembly Bill 2047 and it is a 3D printing blocking technology. And what's designed to do in 2029 is eliminate any 3D printer that could make any firearms part. Now, what's been interesting is we are fighting that bill, but the primary people find that bill are people that do medical technologies and other technologies because many of the the parts, as you well know, Joel, um, in a firearm are also used in other engineering and mechanical projects. And so blocking the printer from making that also blocks those technologies from being developed. And so there is quite the broad-based group going against it. What was interesting was when we were in public safety, we actually had the creator of the software that assembly member Ber Cahan cited say, "My software doesn't nor can it do what you're claiming it does."
>> No.
>> And they said, "Well, we'll figure that And so they move the bill forward anyway. So
>> yeah.
>> Okay. Well, here's the other problem. Okay. So right here I have a 3D printer. I use I print stuff all the time. I just printed some things for my car the other day. If you This is an example of the legislature not understanding how technology works. if they decide they don't want this particular file. This can't you can't just put something in a machine that says if it's firearms related, don't print it. It doesn't work that way.
>> It's going to require specific files to be loaded into the machine and the firmware or software or whatever. And if you do that, then any minor alteration to that file will allow the printer to print it. Likewise, any update to that file by the person who originally created it will allow it to be printed. It it can't be done. This is why I've said for years now because of the advent of 3D printers and home CNC machines and so on, that as a from a functional perspective, functionally, not not literally, I mean, obviously there are gun control laws, but functionally gun control is dead. It's been dead for a long time
>> because they can't control who makes a gun and who doesn't anymore. Not that they ever really could, but I mean,
>> but this is this is a feel-good bill. It's not really going to do
>> anything. And and you can't retroactively go back to how many thousands or tens of thousands or millions of people own 3D printers right now.
>> And you can't make this happen in any other state in the union. Therefore, if you wanted to get a printer to do something, you would just go to Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, and buy it there.
>> Yeah. It's like the whole carb thing. When you want to buy a generator,
>> if you just drive over to Yuma and buy the generator and bring it back, you get past all California's carb rules or whatever. Yeah. It's nonsense. It's nonsensical.
>> It's a waste of everybody's time. That's crazy. Where's that one sitting?
>> That one is sitting currently in appropriations and judicials. Yeah, August, first week of August will be fun. Now, on support, we had uh a couple of bills. We had three bills that we were pushing in the assembly that we were supporting. Um, specifically a second amendment. One was on uh Assembly Member Chen's trying to get firearm silencers approved for I always get messed up. I think it was level three uh law enforcement uh reserves that don't get paid or anything else. That was to be a bridge to us. it ended up dying. Um, he's going to bring it back next year, which I'm really happy with. Also, uh, Assembly Member Flora trying to get the self-defense bill, which was Assembly Bill 2584 that would hold you harmless. Uh, that one's being retoled for next year as well. However, the bill that I took a lot of grief early on, as you know, which was the um second attempt at a firearms concealed carry license, and we dropped it from four years to three years. We technically didn't. We asked for six. They cut it to three. They cut it in half, but we got it. And the governor uh actually signed that on June 30th. So now what happens is starting January 1st, if you're a brand new person applying for a CCW for the first time, your license is good for 3 years. And anytime after January 1st, if you were renewing, it's 3 years. Now, the big question I get asked all the time is, well, this usually there's a statement like this sucks. And then why don't they just upgrade adding a year to my license? Here's why. Because that requires all the law enforcement agencies to have to create a new license, staffing, everything. It would up the costs. And we discussed that in the background and said we don't want to increase the cost for anybody because once you increase the cost, the costs never come back down.
>> No. So the government has never seen a cost, a fee, or a tax that it did not like. And they never get away with they never make them go away. So once they're there, they're there. It's not that much. I I'm gonna get myself in all kinds of trouble saying this. I mine's gonna when mine renews, it'll be good for three years. Okay. I'm so used to I've had a permit for so many so long now. I'm so used to it being valid for two years that when I get it and I go, "Wow, it's good for three. That'll be pretty cool."
>> What I see is a very positive here is it's incremental because you ask for six, you got three. Now you can go back and ask for eight and get five or four and go ask for 10 and get five,
>> right?
>> And that's that's part of what people have already talked legislators and realize this was a Democrat. This was Assembly Member Ramos, the Democrat on public safety that worked with us to get this done and even said, "Hey, let's see how this turns out. And if it turns out the way I think, which is nothing bad's going to happen next couple years, let's do this again and increase it."
Well, the other aspect to that, and I I wonder if this has anything to do with it, and then I got a question for you about these kind of bills, is the sheriffs and the issuing authorities are overloaded. Even the ones that want to issue as fast as possible, unless they're in a rural county where they don't have a large population,
>> they've got they're just inundated with the with the applications and renewals and people wanting to add a gun and and so on. And uh and of course, you know, that costs money and people and they don't have enough money and they don't have enough people and they're always going back to the county or whatever to get more money. Of course, there isn't any money. And I wonder how much effect two things. One, how much affect did the fact that the issuing authorities, the sheriffs and police chiefs that actually issue um would obviously be behind this because it takes some of the pressure off of them,
>> right?
>> Uh how much effect did that have in trying to get the bill passed?
>> It had a lot I mean it was a very broad-based coalition that got this bill across and we were really happy. Um one of the biggest concerns had been trying to lower the rate for those that didn't have as much money. So some people can afford it. Some people were actually making the decision uh I can't take care of my family safety and their health at the same time because it's too much money. But by stretching that cost over 3 years, that was able to lower the threshold that we are we're anticipating about a 40% increase in firsttime requests statewide,
>> which is absolutely marvelous. I mean, I realize that people will say, "Well, now it sucks. You shouldn't have to have a permit at all." Yes. I'm We are completely in agreement.
>> Yeah.
>> And we're hoping that one day that'll be the case. Right now, it isn't. So, we're trying to get to make it as good as we can possibly make it. I guess the other question I would ask you is in California, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but that's ahead on people. Take the W. We got to win.
>> Take the stinking win the W.
>> Right.
>> Take a breath and then we'll continue the fight. Yeah.
>> Right. The other question I have for you is this was a because it was obvious that the issuing authorities, the sheriffs, police chiefs, whatever, were going to support this because logistically it just makes all the sense in the world. Mhm.
>> Even if you didn't look at the value to the citizen, even if you didn't look at the value to public safety, you didn't look at any of that. You just looked at here's the pain the issuing authorities are are suffering through. Let's see if we can alleviate some of that pain. And the benefit of alleviating that pain is it also helps the citizens. It helps concealed carry holders. It helps people in a lot of different directions. Are there other second amendment related laws or second amendment related things like that that are sort of lowhanging fruit also because government agencies may support them to alleviate their own pain.
>> Yeah. And we're going to see that when I get into the uh hunting area of the Second Amendment today. Yeah. Because that's definitely happening.
>> That's pretty cool. That's pretty cool. Yeah. Yeah, it's like almost a new hat trick.
>> Yeah, it's a it's Yeah, it's been very very um good. Um the Senate has a bill that we've all heard about. It's the firearm safety certificate bill. It's Senate Bill 948. It's a bill that um it's a zombie bill. We've seen this bill time and time and time again. Uh this bill started off pretty obtrusive. It was trying to go after quote um people that were coming into the state with firearms that they were now giving a new classification as a firearms importer. So to use me, I'm going to go be visit my dad. My dad has a small firearms collection in Texas. When he passes, it magically becomes mine at the moment he passes because that's the way he set it up. So when I bring him back in, I don't see myself as an importer. I see myself as somebody that inherited. I'm not importing China from my mom and dad's China set that he has. I'm not importing my grandfather's old cane. I'm not a cane importer, but somehow if I bring back a firearm, I'm a firearms importer. And what it said was initially I had uh 60 days to report to the state that I brought that in and I had to go through training and get a firearm safety certificate that was going to require me to go for eight hours of training and I was going to have to go um out to the range with the firearm test myself with it. Could not be done at FFL which currently as you know FFC's firearm s certificates are done at the FFL. This completely removed them, made them a separate training issue. This was interesting because the FFLs were like very upset with this and side with us. But we had some second amendment trainers that were like, "Oh, this is good because this is another class I can make money on." And so, um, that has made this bill an difficult at times bill to to fight. Um, we have pounded on this and pounded on this. And I say we it's again a broad-based coalition. So now the the time was extended from currently from 60 to 180 days. They dropped it from 8 hours of training to 4 hours of training and it has to be completed within the prior year before applying. Well, how am I going to know when that is?
>> I was just going to ask that question.
>> Yeah. And how do I and and and part of this and you know
>> if I move to Arizona and I moved to Arizona full-time and I want to stay at my place in Arizona and I don't want to come back to California and I leave my son my guns. What's he supposed to do? Call me every year and say, "Hey dad, are you planning on dying next year?"
>> Well, and here's the other part of this too and and this is why I said there is no way for someone to know. I mean a lot of times I think the legislature is stuck in the 70s. I remember when my parents first moved to Orange County from LA County. There was this lady that showed up at the door with a basket and it was like, "Here's all the places to eat. Here's all the rules for the city you just moved into. Here's things you need to know about license your cat and dog." And she was like, "The welcome lady." And the legislature functions like there's a welcome lady that comes to everybody's door when they move. There is no such beast. There is no such thing.
>> Yeah. And it's a practical matter. I mean, for as long as I can remember, I don't know how long it's been, when you brought a firearm to the state, you moved into the state, then you are required to notify the state of California with a little form that you brought the gun and it and they stick it in the the California firearms database. But as a practical matter, I would venture a guess that a very large percentage of people who move to California never do that. And you know, we could we could
>> because they never knew to do that.
>> We could say that they never do it because they have some nefarious reason for not doing it. But I think the purpose, the truth is they don't know they're supposed to do it, which is the reason why it really doesn't get enforced. For example, if you go to get a concealed carry permit and you put on your list of guns you want to put on the CCW permit, a gun that is not registered in the SEA force, the sheriff will just tell you, "Oh, by the way, that one's not in there. Go ahead and do the paperwork."
>> Yeah.
>> They don't come arrest you because you didn't do it,
>> right?
>> Because the vast majority of people who come to the state have no idea they're supposed to. Or using that same example, you know, I had a pistol that I was able to get when I worked as a police cadet many, many, many, many, many moons ago. And you know, the police chief signed off on me going to get the pistol when I was 18. And guess what? There was no paperwork. That was never in the system. But if I all of a sudden for sentimental reasons was like, "Oh, I want to carry that on my exactly what you said. I would have to go and enter it." So, and there was nothing nefarious about it. It was like it didn't require paperwork, so why would I do it?
>> Right. And if you moved here from Tennessee, you know, there's not this billboard at the at the border that says, "By the way, if you have guns, you need to do this within
>> and the like you said, the you know, the neighborhood lady doesn't come by and say, "Here's the list of things that you have to do, and here's the time frames."
>> Yeah.
>> So,
>> so yeah. So, we're hoping this will will die once again. And then uh we have Senate Bill 1220 which deals it's also being held up in appropriations and it is the firearms prohibited persons and this is a bill that we've opposed but it's basically extending um any kind of crime that you've had for 10 years you can't have a firearm. It used to be five, it would be 10 and it could be extended another 10. So for some it could be 20. And uh again, because some of these crimes would make sense, some of these crimes do not make any sense.
>> So, for example, if it's a crime, I want to make sure I understand. If it's a crime that currently carries with it,
>> once you're convicted of it,
>> a prohibition for carrying for possessing firearms for a period,
>> they could lengthen that. It's not just
>> any crime. You got caught shoplifting and stealing, you know, bubble gum from the, you know, from the convenience store. That's not something that prohibits you from using but but a domestic violence conviction is for example.
>> Yeah.
>> Is that what we're talking about?
>> Correct.
>> Yeah. So they could arbitrarily they could just
>> extend
>> extend it.
>> Yeah.
>> H
>> which is really interesting from my point of view of the number of times I sit in there and hear about oh we're rehabilitating people and we shouldn't punish people that were rehabilitating. Well, if you rehabilitate it, using your example, the person accused of a DV,
>> then why are you extending? Why do you want to extend the punishment? Right.
>> Yeah.
>> And is this done at the time that the according to this bill, is this done at the time that the judge issues sentence or is it just done along the way or at the end because
>> both
>> with or without a hearing? That is something that they have failed to this point to solidify like lots of them.
>> That's gonna you know I know who's going to drag that into court is a is a very fine lady named Harmy Dylan.
>> Yeah. Along with Chuck Michelle and others. Okay. That's not going to even if it passes it won't last very long. Well, it will because it takes a while to drag it through court. But I mean that's
>> Wow. So then we move to the hunting side which was interesting because I always tell people when I go and speak that you know part of defending the second amendment is defending activities like competitive shooting which we really didn't have any bills negative or positive on those hoping to change that next year. Um impacts ranges and stores. We had a couple of those we've already talked about but then hunting has just been beat up over the past few years and this year is an amazing year. Um so uh we have one bill that's in uh so I'll talk about the assembly side first. We have uh a positive bill that is dealing it's Assembly Bill 1673 and making sure um funds that are are picked up from violations actually go not to um administrative funds but actually go to support public programs, open up public lands, do what they're designed to do. um it's in suspense, but I think we're gonna get that one out. Um and so I'm kind of excited for that one. But we also have a bill that I just want to do a shout out. Heather Hadwick has been one of the most amazing freshman assembly members in my entire time of working in the capital for over 30 years off and on. Um she's incredible. She comes out of Assembly District 1 and you're going to hear her name several times and you'll go, "Oh, that's why we're saying she's incredible." Um but uh she came up with a bill when we went to do the Senate bill for the kids that I'll talk about in a few minutes. One of the things that came up was, "Well, where you going to get the tags?" And they just tried to kill me on tags issues. Heather got an amended a bill she had and she made this the Hunter Tag Transfer Youth Participation Programs bill. And what this bill does is, you know, in the old days, um, like prior to this bill, if you got a X tag, but then you got sick and something happened with a family member and you couldn't use it, you lost the tag and you lost all your points, this bill says, "Hey Joel, you could pass this on to your son or your grandchildren and not lose your points. Or you could hand this to a kid with a life-threatening illness, not lose your points, or to a disabled veteran, and not lose your points.
>> Has this already passed the legislature and been signed?
>> It has not been signed yet, but um we're in Senate Appropriations and we were given the green light that it's coming out of appropriations on the 3rd of August and will go to the governor's desk. So, we're very excited about this.
>> Well, yeah. I mean, I can't imagine it being hung up in in appropriations. It's not going to cost anything,
>> right? And uh Yeah. So, we're we're very we're very very excited.
>> We're also very excited.
>> We're also very excited. Oh, and by the way, that that build that was holding people accountable on funding, that also came from Heather Hadwick, the first one I talked about. But she wasn't done.
>> This is why she's been such
>> There's more. You sound like Billy May. So, it came out with Assembly Bill 1722. It's also in appropriations. This is the most common sense bill ever. This bill says, "Wow, Joel, you're up hunting and here's a mountain line and it's trying to kill you." Now, in the status quo,
>> hold on, Just as it stands right now, I can't shoot it.
>> Correct. This would say you could and you could not be held criminally liable or civily liable and that there's things you have to do, but it allows you long as you report it to Fish and Wildlife within 24 hours, you have the right to protect your life or those of a loved one or a party member with you.
>> What a concept. and it has flown through the assembly and through the Senate largely on consent and now it's in appropriations and it has a green light to get out of appropriations.
>> Yay. Do you think Gruesome Nuisance will sign it?
>> I think he'll Well, I'm hopeful he might not just because his father, Judge Nuome, is the one that brought the Mountain Line bill forward. So, that could be the one hangup. If he does not sign it, does it become law automatically if he doesn't veto it or does it just sit?
>> Yeah, but if he vetos it, we're screwed. But yeah.
>> Yeah, that's interesting. Okay.
>> Um, after six years of battling, most of it was done in the commission. There was since the 19 late 1930s, you haven't been able to carry the concealed weapon while doing any kind of hunting. We had fought back over the past few years and got the game commission to reverse that. The one area we were still hung up was shooting deer during archery season. You were not allowed to carry a concealed firearm. And what is bad is the wildlife hasn't realized people are hunting yet. And so a lot of times archers were threatened by bears, cougars, other things. They haven't pulled back in the wilderness. Um you'll never guess who introduced this bill.
>> Those are start with Heather.
>> Yeah. Heather Havick introduced it and it was um deer archery season carried to concealed firearms. And what was interesting is we had several Democrats say yes, we'll pass this out of committee voted for it. But they had an interesting question, Joel, that my jaw literally fell between my knees when I had a senator repeat the same thing an assembly member, both Democrats from the Bay Area. This is stupid. Why isn't it just open carry?
>> Okay. Wait, wait, wait. Hold up.
>> You didn't ask them that. They asked you that,
>> right?
>> Democrats.
>> Democrats.
>> And was your what was your response?
>> My response along with a couple co-workers is we would love to explore that, but right now we're trying to get this part across the board. and they said, "Okay, let's let's look at that during the the between the sessions because I don't one of them said she did not like the idea that people had to go get a CCW to be able to exercise, get this, a constitutional right to protect themselves while hunting." Lot to unpack there. I just want to know, did I,
>> you know, I told you before we started this, I was outside painting the rail on my porch I just built.
>> Did I trip and fall through a some sort of like universe thing where I'm now in an alternate universe where somebody up in Sacramento that has a D by their name would say that? I mean, are you the same Rick Travis?
>> Yeah.
>> I saw for Fourth of July. Um, these two particular Democrats along with about a half dozen others are ones that unfortunately I'm just going to say this. I do not believe traditionally our community would have ever welcomed to anything. And about two years ago, you know that I've t told you this a lot of times offline. I think that old adage that is attributed often to a an obviously very smart person Einstein that you know it's stupid to do the same thing over and over again expect a different outcome
>> right
>> so we invited them to go duck hunting like the day after Christmas and they did and they fell in love with it now I was kind of pissed off because one of them limited out on their first hunt ever
>> and you didn't
>> I've never limited out so yeah I'm I'm a little mythed but
>> wait hold on I just want this on the record. I'm a duck hunter. You've never limited out hunting ducks?
>> No. Never.
>> I've done something hunting that you haven't done.
>> Yep.
>> Oh, this needs to be written down. I'm buying a billboard that right on i5.
>> So, my my point
>> I'm going to really piss you off now. I've limited out on duck several times. But my point with that was that experience changed their viewpoint. We got them out there. It's why I spend a lot of time getting them out for trap shoots and archery shoots is showing them that we aren't what they think we are.
>> It's a lot safer.
>> Yeah. You got to get them out, knock a deer down or something.
>> Yeah. Um we also were able to uh get more managed lands. Assembly bill 1987. It looks like it's going to come out of uh suspense as well and it will go and open up more land for hunting and public use. And so I mean right there potentially where we sit right now, Joel, we have just coming out of the assembly a total of six positive bills.
>> Yeah.
>> That become law.
>> Yeah.
>> We've never been in that position in decades. Now, we have two bad bills that are still from um the Senate in play. One of those is a human and wildlife coexistence. Um it was gun amended recently to be a wolf livestock compensation pilot program. Um this is becoming a huge issue up in Northern California. Um I'm not sure if it's going to get out of appropriations. It's got a pretty big price tag on it. Uh, Senator Blake Spear has done a lot to try to um amend it to be it's right now probably a third of what it was when she first introduced it. Um, she still has a chance to amend it one more time and try to get it through, but it's basically became a wolf bill and the wolf issue is going to become bigger and bigger as we move forward in the next session. Um, because we're losing a lot of livestock and uh, they're out of control to be honest in some areas. And I love wolves. I'm not an anti-wolf person, but um wildlife needs to be managed at a level. Um and then we have the proposition from Senator Richardson out of LA County to reintroduce grizzly bears to California. That has been hotly contested and I'm not sure that's going to get out of appropriations because quite a lot of people have fought that. And then we have the two good bills coming out. Do you have a weird coalition fighting that with the grizzly bear thing
>> or is it
>> Yeah, we have Native Americans for Native Americans against. We have wildlife groups for wildlife groups. It's a very weird coalition.
>> Wow. Wow. I don't you know you know you and I have talked about this bill before. I don't think people understand the effect that that's going to have on hunting or just the fact that if somebody from look if somebody who's a resident of San Francisco or LA writes a bill like this and they don't have any knowledge of bears
>> or skin in the game
>> or any skin in the game they don't I mean yeah I realize we all had a teddy bear as a kid since you know teddy bears started be called teddy bears after teddy Roosevelt.
>> But a grizzly bear is not a teddy bear.
>> No.
>> Well, I think one of the things that people have to realize, too, and um I loved one of the comments by one of the senators, Senator Sarto made it, but it's like, you know, we're talking about transplanting 75 bears according to this study. And um his point was we could lose up to half of them just in the transplant. So, how is this good for the bears if we're going to kill half of them moving them? Like, which I think is a valid point.
>> And we have all these wonderful hunting
>> bills that are going through. And if you take those bears out of an area where they are protected species,
>> right? They carry that
>> and they carry that with them, that moniker, that brand with them when they go. You can't manage them,
>> right? And I you can't even hunt the area that they're transplanted into, can you?
>> You can, but there's a lot of restrictions and there's a lot of issues, especially if the bill that Heather Hadwick authored that gives you the right to protect yourself. And with the grizzly bear, that's something you want to have that right to do.
>> Well, I'm going to do it whether I have the right to do it
or not. But I mean, but you know, when you're talking about, you know, a wolf is an apex predator.
Yeah.
A grizzly bear is a grizzly bear is an apex predator. And we're reintroducing them into the wildlife when we have all these people in California who go out hiking and, you know, they love the, you know, they want to go out and experience nature, but they don't want to experience nature. They want to experience nature, you know? And they're not going to be ready for that. We're going to lose wildlife, we're going to lose game, we'll lose people. It's going to be a shock.
It was interesting because we had somebody on in one of the dasis say, "Well, you can just use bear spray." And I'm like, "No, you guys outlawed that in California." And then it was, "Oops." So, yeah.
So, then we have two positive bills. Um, we have one that is from Marie Alvarado Gil, and it's dealing with mountain lion conflicts program. What was interesting with her bill, and it looks like it's going to get signed into law and go the whole way because it's a study program. But what was interesting with her bill, along with the mountain lion or the grizzly bear bill, was, um, Assembly Member Alanise actually asked several of the people that were representing Native Americans, specifically one, I think, tribal elder, and said, "Hey, we already have two studies in each of these departments that say this is a bad idea. Are you going to be, if a third study now that we're funding comes out and says has the same findings, are we done with this?" And that particular tribe was like, "We're never going to be done till we get what we want." And I think that's a key point that we face in all aspects of the Second Amendment, not just in hunting, that those who oppose us, they don't care. They're going to keep opposing until they get what they want. So this idea of, well, we win this bill or we win that bill, it's over. It's not over. They are dug in.
Um, so, and then, what is it? What is it they're trying to do? I mean, are mountain lions endangered? Like, it seems to me we have a lot of...
Not in California anymore. But here's what they're trying to do. There is a movement. It's been funded. Um, I just challenge people. Go look at who's been funding introducing more predators. Go down those rabbit holes. Go to other states and look at it. And there is, um, I mean, I haven't had personally the time to go through all of it, so I'm going to be very measured in what I'm going to say. There is more evidence than I would normally find in, um, theories that are placed on social media. There's much, much, much more evidence. But until it goes through a court, like one of my favorite attorneys, Tiffany, says, it's not proof. Until the judge says it's proof, but there's a plethora of suggestive evidence showing that there are foreign countries that have invested in this. And the reason is is because the more predators you have, the more you're able to force far small farms, medium-sized farms out of business. And most of the big corporate farms are owned by foreign countries.
And that has come up. And if you ever want to do a separate show, there's a couple people I could invite to you from one of the biggest groups in Montana that goes into that.
I absolutely want to do that. And that's, it's a bit unnerving.
Yes, I absolutely want to do that. Please, please, um...
I'll be more than happy.
Make that happen. We'll do it. Yeah. Because that's absurd. I mean, we're...
Wow.
You know, I, I... The problem with things like that. Gosh darn it. I left my tinfoil hat in the other room. I need to go get my tinfoil hat.
The problem with that is it kind of sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's not. And, and I'm running out of conspiracy theories because they've all come true at some point or other. You say, "Who's behind this crap?" Well, now you find out, right? I mean, it's crazy.
It is. It is very crazy. Um, and a lot of people don't understand it. But like, I know one rancher that I have been working, um, with a couple other people from CRPA with, he's lost 26 heads of beef since January.
Oh my god.
That is nearing the $80,000 mark.
Well, and what people don't, what the average person doesn't realize is the margin, the profit margin...
Is small.
In cattle ranching is very thin.
Yeah.
It's really, really thin.
And that's enough to put somebody out of business.
You bet.
And they don't get reimbursed for two years. And meanwhile, this is ongoing. So it's like...
You know, he said, "If I hit a quarter of a million dollars, we're done forever." And it's a five-generation ranch. Yeah. Like that's why I say because these, there's a lot of, I mean, they're pouring money into cattle and water and feed and whatever. And I mean, it's, it's a...
Their margin is really thin.
Your beef prices go up. That's just the way it works. And the quality goes down.
Yeah.
And then you complain about it because you're at the supermarket buying beef and you want to whine about it. But this is the kind of stuff...
And your healthcare. Yeah. It's just, it's just a nasty circle.
It is. It's a nasty circle. But people don't, don't realize that this is the problem. Is I think legitimately, I think people vote for things sometimes because they feel good and it seems like a good idea and they think, "Oh, this is a good idea." And they don't realize the downstream effect of that and the way it comes back to haunt them later on. And they don't ever seem to connect the dots to that. And, and perhaps it's because it's not particularly intuitive. Uh, but in this instance, I think we just did connect the dots. And hopefully, um, anybody watching this will actually get it. I mean, some of this stuff that the legislature wants to do has really horrible downstream consequences for a lot of people.
Yep. It's, it's that old paraphrase of the road to hell's paved with good intentions.
Good intentions. Yeah.
Yeah. Which is not in the Bible, by the way. Somebody, somebody said, "Well, let you know that that phrase in the Bible." It's not. Just so there you go. All right. Anybody, anything else?
Yeah. The last one is the bill that I, uh, helped write and had Sander Troy out of Irvine, California run. And this is the bill for, um, kids with life-threatening illnesses to be able to have accommodations. This has arguably been the bill that I've had to fight the hardest to get across, which is just insane to me. Um, but it, it currently is in the assembly, uh, suspense file. We're fighting to get it out. Um, and hopefully we can get it out. If we can get it out and get it to the governor's desk, it'll get signed. But we got to get it out of suspense. So, um, to his credit, I'll do a shout out. Senator Choy, um, has been very, very supportive and made this his priority bill of his. All of his bills, he made this number one to try to use everything. This bill currently has 16 co-authors from both houses and both parties. So, I want you to illustrate just exactly how warped the mindset of the California legislature can sometimes be by explaining, you and I have talked about this bill a lot, explaining what this bill does. And the minute you hear Rick tell you what this bill does, you will not understand why anybody under any circumstances would oppose it. Go ahead.
So, what this bill does is when a child under the age of 17 has been diagnosed by two doctors, um, and has turned in paperwork that says that they have basically a life-threatening illness which gives them less than five years to live, that they can go hunting and fishing with accommodations per the American Disabilities Act, which is a federal law. And what those accommodations would look like is say, you're a young lady, and I'm using actual examples. A young lady in offshore fishing boat going after rockfish, generally like, you know, no more than 10 lbs. You're in a wheelchair with two IVs and all of a sudden, well, because we have this new El Niño impact going along the coast, um, they weren't rockfish. They were, uh, yellowtails that weighed 40 lbs and 50 lbs and 60 lbs. And she had a 50 lb yellowtail grab her line, grab her pole, and start running. She's not capable of bringing that up on her own. She needs assistance. Well, many boat crews would give you that assistance. Anybody's been fishing knows that they will do it. But technically, law could be being broken because they're not the angler. She's the angler. She's not bringing it up. This would say, "Yes, the nurse, the person on the deck, anybody else, you, me, Joel, could actually assist her bringing this up without breaking the law, which is what you would be doing right now if you did it, right?" And the other part of it would be a similar instance we had was up in the, um, American River. We had an again, a young girl that was dying and she, she passed three weeks after this incident. But in a weird time of the year, there was a random salmon that was in the American River when they're not normally in, but it's out of season. And what this allows to is called CPR, not cardiopulmonary resuscitation. It's called catch, photograph, release. And that's placed in that, that's allowed. And the animal didn't die, didn't suffer, and we're all good. She got her experience. The family got the day away in nature. California gave back. Isn't this a beautiful thing? She had to have a license, and she had to go through all the training. No shortcuts. Now on the hunting side, same kind of issue.
Well, and the family not only has the memory, but they have the photo of the memory.
Right.
Right.
Yeah. And they have the time. Being someone, as you know, that has went through a long battle with my wife's cancer and we were blessed to be healed, but, um, there were many dark moments in that time period where we were just trying to find a 24-hour period to breathe. This gives those families that invaluable moment. And if things don't turn out, they have a positive memory within that fight, which is so critically important to not just the health of the patient, but to the family and those that support them. Um, same thing on the hunting side. You go out, the kid doesn't have a dog. Um, they shoot something like a bird. Well, they, in their wheelchair or, you know, some of the other, um, modalities that they have, they can't get to it, so they can't retrieve it. So, now you have wanton waste issues. This would say, "Oh, Joel, Rick, you can go retrieve it for them. You can go."
We just... Okay, earlier we mentioned duck hunting.
Yeah.
You clobber the little cinned teal as it goes whipping on by. This kid, you know, knocks it out of the air and it lands in the middle of the lake. Well, you send your dog. The dog goes and retrieves the bird and brings it back for this child, for this kid.
Has anybody articulated to you any of the, I'm sorry, I had to stop myself from using a descriptive term for the people who would oppose this. Have any of the polit, the political folks, the legislators who have opposed this bill explained to you why?
Yeah, some of them, um, one senator that I don't get along with a lot, but I, I just because I don't get along with them doesn't mean I don't understand the political issue that came up. And the political issue was we had, uh, a very vocal, um, anti-hunting, anti-Second Amendment, uh, person that works with a wide group of organizations that generally have 10 to 15 people in them. Um, and have interesting names like, I'm making this one up, but it would be like the Democratic Socialist Party of said city in said county against animal cruelty. Like, what? Like that's such a long, weird name. But they have it, and then they sign a letter, and so that represents to people like, this is another organization against it. And their big deal was we were setting up more dying animals and that we were teaching kids who were dying to kill as they were dying. And we're like, "No, these are kids' wishes." And so we had a couple of them testify. One young lady said, "Before I got sick with cancer and I'm going to pass, I've already been told I can't beat it. She goes, 'This is the one way that I could go out and connect with my dad who's died while I've been fighting cancer and reconnect that memory. That is the most important thing for me to go do. Please let me have this.'" Another one was a young man that said, "I, you know, didn't get to be old enough to go with my grandfather who passed away. I want to go do one bird hunt before I die."
How do you say no to that?
Well, exactly. And that has been the fight. But that is also why I want to point out that I've had several Democrats that have came on side. One of them, um, you know, Diane Papin, who runs, uh, water parks and wildlife, um, in her house, she's great. She's very fair. Um, we don't always agree on stuff, but she looked at this and she looked at everybody on the dis and said, "I'm voting for it and I strongly encourage all of you to." Like, that is not something we normally see. But this bill has gotten people, like I said, on both sides, both parties, um, both houses behind it. So, if we can get it out of suspense, it will, it will go to the governor's desk. And I don't see a reason the governor wouldn't sign this because that would be politically unwise not to sign a bill like this.
I guess I...
But it has been one hell of a fight. And, and I think that's, and not to belabor the point, but the degree to which it pisses me off that people would oppose such an obviously positive thing. I don't even have words to describe. I'm sitting here thoroughly pissed off and I'm trying not to be because I don't want to behave that way on my show, right? But I mean, come on now, guys.
You bring a solid point. Um, you know, the staff from Senator Troy's office have been incredible on this bill along with a couple of other offices and, and one of the things that, uh, I talked to the one of the legislative people about in that office, and he brought up a really good point along with Heather Hadwick's legislative, uh, individual, and that was, this is no different than what we see on the Second Amendment when we say, "Hey, we need three years to lower the price because we have single parents who are nurses, for example, who testified who, you know, ended up being a single parent with two kids and said, 'I have to make more money.'" So, they went to nursing school. They're sad with $200,000 debt. They have to pay that debt off. They, even though they're nurses, they're not making enough money because so much money is coming out for that plus the cost of housing, food, everything with their kids that they live in neighborhoods you wouldn't think a nurse lived in, like really bad, high-crime areas. And then we tell them, "Oh, we're going to make it so you can't afford a CCW." Right? What? Like it's the same lack of compassion. And then the irony is there's actually groups that back that opposition that put the word compassion in the title of their organizations. And we're like, that is so antithetical. It's not funny. This is the kind of stuff that I, at one, and I, and we'll just wrap up here, but I, one, it's one of the things that can make me the angriest, I think, but at the same time, it's one of the things that lights a fire in me to fight this fight.
Uhhuh.
Every day.
Yeah.
Because the opposition to these things, the, you mentioned, you said something earlier, you called it common sense. Man, common sense should be renamed. It ain't common at all. It's just good sense. And it's not common anymore. And people oppose it. It's common sense that when a young person is dying, that if you can possibly grant their last wish, you do it.
Yeah.
It is common sense that when somebody lives in an area where their life, their family is under threat because of maybe where they live or the neighborhood they live in or the time that they come home at night or the time they go to work or whatever, that you afford them whatever tools they need, whatever training they need to be able to protect themselves and the people they love. This is just good sense.
Yeah. It is.
And the idea that it's opposed by people who live in a bubble, who don't face these difficulties at all, who are not dying of cancer at a young age or dying of some terrible disease, who don't live in a crap neighborhood that's crime-ridden and difficult, who don't have to do all of that, who sit in their, at their, protected by the state police all day, every day, is infuriating.
Yeah.
To put it mildly.
As you can tell, I'm... We're good friends. You know, I'm trying really hard not to swear. Okay. I really am.
You're doing better than me because there's been several times I've said things that I normally wouldn't say this session because I just been like, "You got to be kidding me." But it is what it is. Our friend Sam would be as incredulous as we are, I think, at this point.
Yeah. Although he would have some wise, you know, pearl of wisdom to share. I ain't got none. I got, I got nothing. But...
Well, thank you, Rick Travis, for for battling these battles up there, man. How you do this and remain sane, uh, is a credit to Mary Beth and to God. That's all I got to say.
And the dog. That's right. I have a Labrador that knows more about politics than probably any other Labrador in the US because Jack hears it all the time.
That's hilarious. Well, thank you, brother. I appreciate it. I've, I've slammed my pen on my desk more times during this interview than I have in any other interview recently. Have a great week, brother. Thank you so much for coming on the show.