Order Form For Lists Of Records - Department Of Safety: Fill & Download for Free

A lot of laws are old and outdated. What’s one law you think needs to be changed or added?There is one law I can think of.I was pulled over for a traffic ticket.When you get pulled over, they always ask for three things.Drivers licenseRegistrationProof of Financial Responsibilities (aka Car insurance card)The CA Highway patrol asked me for all three things but on the Registration, I had a copied one and not the original. He demanded the “original” not the copy. I said you don’t need the original. We went back and forth like this 3 times. Then, His “smart-ass” response was, “I’ll just write you a ticket for that also”. I said, “fine do it.”He pulled me over for crossing the double yellow lines, into the carpool HOV lane. I had another passenger so we met the criteria for 2 or more people plus my car was a brand new 2018 Nissan LEAF EV which was allowed in the carpool lane even with 1 person because it’s an EV.Anyway, Well he walked back to his CHP motorcycle and was there for the longest time searching for the code in his CVC (California Vehicle Code) book to write me up. He couldn’t find it so when he came back I only received the ticket for crossing the two double lines.Well, I have a J.D. law degree and one of my skills is to help people fight traffic tickets.So I wrote up my complaint. My argument was as follows.See LA is in Cal-Trans District 7. San Francisco is in Cal-trans District 11. Orange County (OC) is in Cal-trans District 12.In San Fran and OC Cal-Trans permits you to go in and out of the carpool HOV lane anywhere. In LA you can only enter / exit at the broken lines, not the solid double lines.My argument was I had just left OC and entered LA and there was no marker to show where each county line ended and was delineated. Thus I was free to enter the carpool lane since I believed I was still in OC territory. I also said I had a 2nd passenger, my 15-year-old son, AND my car was an approved EV that could travel in the carpool HOV lane even if I was by myself.The traffic court bought my argument and the ticket was dismissed.==============================================Okay here’s the tricky part on where the law is “outdated” and should be removed.It was the part where he insisted I had to have the original registration in the car, in my car instead of a copy.I researched and showed the court that that law was invented in the days “BEFORE” or “PRIOR” to computers in police units and “BEFORE” or “PRIOR” to they had CB radios in police units and before they had copiers or XEROX copy machines.So, back then the police had to see an ORIGINAL registration.My argument to the court was this COP / CA HIGHWAY PATROL was corrupt and wanted to write me a BOGUS ticket on top of the carpool lane violation for not having ORIGINAL registration in my car.I stated to the court that my car had not one, not two, but THREE car video cameras that caught everything he did and everything he said. I had TWO video cameras facing forward, and ONE facing the rear.So my video cameras caught him walk back, get his VC Vehicle codebook and look through it for a good 10–12 minutes before he gave up and never wrote me for the 2nd ticket infraction.My video camera’s audio also caught him lying and saying the ORIGINAL registration was required and not a copy.Years back I had taken a Traffic school class, and it was being taught by a who else? A California Highway Patrol officer. He taught classes to make extra side money.And he taught us, NEVER, NEVER EVER put the original registration in your car. Just make a copy.The reason is “if your car gets towed”. You need the ORIGINAL Registration to get your car out of the Tow Yard or Storage yard. THEY or THAT TOW Facility will “not” take a copy of the Registration only the Original.So now whenever I renew my tags and my wife’s, I always put the tag on the car license plates, then make a photocopy of the registration and put the copy in our 3 cars.I told the court all this.Then I further told the court that back in the day they didn’t have copiers, CB radios, and car or motorcycle computers.PLUS, PLUS, PLUS, he could CLEARLY SEE, that my car was BRAND SPANKING NEW, NEW, NEW. I just just bought the car on March 10th of 2018. It was a 2018 NISSAN LEAF EV. I got the ticket in April of 2018. The very next month.So he (the CHP) COULD clearly see my tags were brand new, then why would he even need to see my registration? Except to harass me and give me a hard time.Furthermore, he could have any time called it in to dispatch to verify it.Note: Also in California, we have had something called TBWD; that’s Trial-By-Written-Declaration; that means you write up your arguments (aka type it up on a computer) as a Trial Pleading or a Brief; albiet they call it your “Declaration” and submit your “verbal arguments on paper”.That’s what I did; that’s what I do for the people I help with traffic tickets. Here’s another Quora answer I gave on how-to-do-that on Trial type Pleading template or format paper available in Microsoft Word or Word Perfect.Stanley Hutchinson's answer to I got a ticket for going 45 mph in a 35 mph when the speed limit was just about to change to 45 mph. Should I just pay the fine or take it to court?Also here is an actual excerpt from my TBWD on this case that I submitted to the court; with all pertinent identifiers removed. Enjoy! I copied and pasted it so all the Indentations are messed up. But read it for the Content. I put a lot of time into these TBWD.“SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF LOS ANGELESEL MONTE COURTHOUSE11234 VALLEY BLVD.EL MONTE, CA 91731RE: Citation # HQxxxxDefendant: John Doe | Case: Citation #HQxxxx1vs. California Highway Patrol (CRANE #20988) (name illegible on citation) || Motion for Subpoena: CR-125/JV-525| Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum (order to attend court or| provide documents (Facts not in evidence)| Motion for Pitchess SB1421| Motion to Compel an answer| Motion to Dismiss| Motion to Impeach for Perjury (CA PC141)DECLARATION OF JOHN DOEI, John Doe, declare as follows:1. I am the Defendant in this above-entitled matter. I makeThis declaration in support of my contention that I was wrongfully cited for VC21655. I have personal knowledge of the facts of the matters stated herein.On said day and date of the said citation, 1:05 pm Wednesday 04-14-18. I was wrongfully ticketed by CA Highway Patrol, where this corrupt California Highway patrol officer CRANE (name illegible on citation) cited the driver of the vehicle under VC21655.MOTION FOR SUBPOENA of FACTS to be Entered into Evidence (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)Under the 5th Amendment, I am not under any duty to testify nor provide any neither culpable nor exculpable evidence for the prosecution for this “Strict Liability” citation.I am “Presumed Not Guilty”. Motion to dismiss the ticket is entered.The prosecution has the burden of proof and the prosecution must meet this burden beyond a “reasonable doubt”, not me. I have the right to confront my accuser (Crane) and examined under Direct examination or cross-examined. (Exhibit A. Attachment form CR-125/JV-525.)CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE LAWCA EVIDENCE CODE 115. Except where otherwise provided by law the burden of proof shall be by the preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Here the accuser is the CA State Government witness California Highway Patrol officer Crane (Crane). Motion for Production and subpoena are entered (supra.)(infra.). (EXHIBIT A. Attachment form CR-125/JV-525.)CALIFORNIA CAL TRABS DISTRICTS 12 Orange County and DISTRICTS 4 Alameda Counties HOV rulesCalifornia Highway Patrol’s ARE aware or should be aware that Caltrans Tran Districts 4 and 12 permit ingress and egress from the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) aka Carpool lanes at any point. EXHIBIT B (copy of citation)2003 California Vehicle Code (CVC) Visit the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website, see Appendix A-7 and A-8: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm. Most of the HOV related vehicle code sections are located in Division 11 of the CVC.♦ Section 21460 Double Lines♦ Section 21654 Slow-Moving Vehicles♦ Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles♦ Section 21655.3 Permanent High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes♦ Section 21655.5 Exclusive- or Preferential- Use Lane for High-OccupancyVehicles♦ Section 21655.5(b) Mass Transit and Para Transit Vehicles may use HOV lanes regardless of occupancy♦ Section 21655.6 Approval of Joint Transportation Planning Agency or CTC♦ Section 21655.7 Use of Highway: Public Mass Transit Guideway♦ Section 21655.8(a) Entering or Exiting Preferential- Use Lanes♦ Section 21655.9 HOV Lanes: Use by Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles♦ Section 21714 Three-Wheeled Vehicles: Operation in HOV Lanes♦ Section 22364 Lane Speed Limits♦ Section 22406 Maximum Speed for Designated VehiclesUNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – 14th AMENDMENTUnder the 14th Amendment Right to Due Process and Right of Confrontation. A defendant has no duty to testify, nor any duty to provide Exculpatory evidence where there is a presumption of a negative. That negative is a presumption of ‘not guilty’.Also, under the 14th amendment, I have a right to confront any accuser herein Government witness(s) and demand proof and evidence to meet the burden of proof of what evidence the Government witness has against the defendant.Where there is a failure to provide such evidence to corroborate the allegations by the Government witness a motion to dismiss must be granted by the court for lack of evidence to prosecute. That Motion to dismiss is hereby entered in the interest of justice where the California Highway Patrol office fails to provide the requested motion for production underCR-125/JV-525 Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum (order to attend court or provide documents (Facts not in evidence) as ordered by the Subpoena.)In the interest of justice Motion to Dismiss is hereby entered.QUESTIONS FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERVC 21655The definition of law enforcement includes VC21655–Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation or local authorities to designate specific lanes for vehicles required to drive at reduced speeds. Requires vehicles driving at reduced speeds to use the farthest right lanes.My vehicle is a 2018 Nissan LEAF Electric Vehicle (EV) not a hybrid, But rather a FULL EV. Thus I am permitted to travel in the HOV lane. Furthermore, on that date, I had a passenger in the front seat of my vehicle making my car “ELIGIBLE” to be in the HOV lane. This evidence is self-evident on the citation itself as it lists the Year, Make, and Model of my Nissan LEAF EV.A complaint was also filed with CA Highway Patrol HQ in Sacramento vs. CRANE. (EXHIBIT D) for this violation.MOTION TO IMPEACH FOR PERJURY (CA PC141)Motion for CRANE to be Impeached and charged with Perjury under PC141.AB 1909, Lopez. Falsifying evidence. Approved by Governor on September 30, 2016. Filed with Secretary of state on September 30, 2016.SECTION 1. Section 141 of the Penal Code is amended to read:141 (b) A peace officer who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, or video recording will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or five years in the state prison.Submitting a traffic citation for prosecution without evidence and without corroborating evidence satisfies this statute signed into law by Governor Brown on September 30th, 2016, and filed with the Secretary of State effective immediately on the same said date September 30th, 2016.On the said date of this citation Defendant, Doe was traveling from Orange County via SR57 freeway HOV lane northbound and Transitioned to SR60 freeway HOV lane Westbound. The defendant was traveling in an Eligible EV vehicle and had a passenger THUS was qualified to enter the SR60 HOV westbound.Orange county district 12 permits entry of HOV lanes “anywhere”. And there is no marker to show where the Orange county line and Los Angeles County line separate.Defendant Doe was wrongfully cited.While stopped Defendant produced:1. A current and valid CA DL# Cxxxxxxx2. A current and valid Registration on a brand new 2018 Nissan LEAF EV. (only 1 month old from the date of purchase)3. A current and valid “proof of financial responsibility” aka “proof of insurance” via 21st Century insurances.4. These are ‘not’ disputed facts.However, corrupt CHP patrolman CRANE, refused to accept the Current and valid registration saying it was a copy, and not an original and he was going to issue me a citation for not having the original IN ADDITION to the VC21655.I verbally disputed that CRANE WAS INCORRECT. The law only requires valid registration. It does not specify the original or a copy.FACTS:FACTS: Defendant was informed by another CHP that the Original Registration should never be kept with the car.FACTS: There is no law that requires the Original Registration should be kept with the car.REASON: If and where the vehicle ever gets “towed” the tow yard will require the “original registration” to get the vehicle out of impound.Vehicle License FeesAn annual license fee is "imposed for the privilege of operating [a vehicle] upon the public highways in this state...." (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 10751.)[6] The amount of this fee "shall be a sum equal to 2 percent of the market value of the vehicle as determined by the [DMV]." (§ 10752.)As originally enacted in the year 1941, section 10753 directed the DMV annually to "compile and publish a list showing the market values... of each class 768*768 of the vehicle subject to the license fee...." (Stats. 1941, ch. 40, § 1, pp. 605-606.) Upon registration, the DMV would use the information in this "rate book" to assign to the vehicle a classification code from which its market value would be determined for the year of the sale and all subsequent years, regardless of any change in ownership. The DMV did not differentiate between vehicles originally sold within California and those originally sold outside the state.In year 1948, section 10753 was amended to require the DMV to determine the market value of vehicles "upon the basis of California delivered prices as established by the manufacturers or distributors in their selling agreements with authorized dealers as of the time the particular make and year model is first offered for sale in California...." (Stats. 1948, ch. 26, § 2, p. 129.) Manufacturers informed the DMV of the "delivered price" on each model, and the DMV entered this information in its rate book. Using a method described in section 10753.2 (enacted in 1948), the market value of each vehicle was determined from this "delivered price" according to a depreciation schedule set forth in the statute.[7] As before, the same classification code was assigned to the vehicle and the same tax was imposed, whether the vehicle was purchased in California or elsewhere.The DMV, however, urged the Legislature to alter the method for determining the vehicle license fee, because manufacturers objected to supplying information regarding prices, thereby causing delays at the beginning of each model year in updating the rate book. In the year 1967, the Legislature amended section 10753 to require the DMV to determine the market value of vehicles by reference to "California suggested base price" (§ 10753, subd. (a)), which was defined as "the retail price of the vehicle suggested by the manufacturer ... as reflected on the price listing affixed to the vehicle pursuant to the Federal Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958...." (§ 10753, subd. (g), as amended by Stats. 1967, ch. 435, § 1, pp. 1647-1648.) The "price listing" is commonly referred to as the "sticker price" of the vehicle.[8] Section 10753 defined California suggested base price to include "destination charge[s]" and the cost of statutorily required 769*769 "emission control devices," but not the cost of factory-installed "accessor[ies]" or "optional equipment."[9] (§ 10753, subd. (g).) The statute further provided: "In the event the [DMV] is unable to ascertain California suggested base price as herein defined ..., the [DMV] shall determine the market value upon the basis of the cost price to the purchaser of the vehicle as evidenced by a certificate of cost...." (§ 10753, subd. (c).)The years stated in the citation supra. Are respectively:1941, 1948, 1958, 1967.These were years “before” the invention of police vehicle radios and computers.Thus on April 14th, 2018, CRANE could clearly see defendants' tags and license plates were brand new and barely 1 month old and CRANE could have also used his radio and motorcycle mobile computer to ascertain the valid and current registration of the defendants brand new NISSAN LEAF EV Vehicle. My vehicle was brand new, purchased on March 10th, 2018, about 1 month and 4 days prior to April 14th, 2018.Yet, on the pretense of ‘not’ having the “original” registration in my car CRANE THREATENED AND INTIMIDATED defendant with an additional citation for not having that original registration.Defendant and passenger observed CRANE walk back to his vehicle and look through the CA VC book for 15 minutes. But he failed to find that code to cite the defendant. When CRANE returned there was no mention of the “failure to have registration” on the citation.Further corroborating evidence the defendant has. Defendants 2018 NISSAN LEAF has not 1, not 2 but 3 audio/video cameras installed for his safety.Two of these cameras face forward and one camera faces to the rear.All three cameras recorded audio and video interaction between Defendant and CRANE. These audio/videos can be produced at trial-de-novo to Impeach CRANE on the Motions stated herein and below.MOTIONS:Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “obstruction of justice” the defendant also has a right to justice.Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “conspiracy” to falsify charges.Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “perjury” PC 118.1 for misquoting the law and threats to falsely issue a citation under color of authority.Motion for Pitchess rule to disclose any other dishonesty or corruption by CRANE to be presented to the court for adjudication. Under SB1421 permitting discovery of Law Enforcement personnel files.Motion to Impeach under Penal Code Section 141 as amended by AB 1909 on 9-30-2016. Signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown and recorded immediately by CA State Secretary. (see Citation below)California Penal Code Section 141CA Penal Code § 141 (2017)(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), a person who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter will be wrongfully produced as genuine or true upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a misdemeanor.(b) A peace officer who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, or video recording will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or five years in the state prison.(c) A prosecuting attorney who intentionally and in bad faith alters, modifies, or withholds any physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information, knowing that it is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years.(d) This section does not preclude prosecution under both this section and any other law.(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 879, Sec. 1. (AB 1909) Effective January 1, 2017.)MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERWhere the Commissioner fails to honor these arguments and finds the defendant guilty of this illegal traffic infraction, Objection is hereby entered for purposes of Appeal. Motion to show cause is hereby entered. Defendant Doe request written explanation for cause for purposes of Appeal.MOTION TO SHOW BASIS or PRECEDENT FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERWhere the Commissioner fails to honor these arguments and finds the defendant guilty of this illegal traffic infraction, Motion to show Basis or Precedent that supersedes the citations quoted in arguments herein - is hereby entered. Otherwise, Objection is hereby entered for purposes of Appeal. Defendant Doe requests a written explanation for Basis for purposes of Appeal.CONCLUSIONNotwithstanding and for all the arguments and reasons stated above and incorporated by reference; I, therefore contend there is more than reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and veracity of the citation and the government record as argued and cited here in.. There reasonable doubt for the reasons, and case law and statutes as cited for dismissing the ticket. In the interest of Justice, I respectfully request that the said citation herein against DEFENDANT DOE be dismissed and the Motion to Dismiss be granted.I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing statements are true and correct.Sincerely,JOHN DOEExecuted at:9545 Main StAll American City, CA 90001Dated: January 24th, 2019_________________JOHN DOEAPPENDIX A:http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tm/docs/HOV_Guidelines-English-Edition-Jan2018.pdf♦ HOV Guidelines, 2016 English Edition Appendix A♦ 7 ADDITIONAL HOV INFORMATIONCalifornia Vehicle Code sections relating to HOV lanes: To view the 2003 California Vehicle Code (CVC), visit the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm .Most of the HOV related vehicle code sections summarized below are located in Division 11 of the CVC. Section titles in BOLD indicate official title names as shown in the CVC. The section title in the regular font was included for clarity in describing the HOV related issue.Section 21460 Double Lines The purpose of the solid-white single line on the inside of the double yellow lines on buffered HOV lanes is to permit vehicles to legally drive to the left of the double yellow lines as defined in the provisions of this section. Section 21654 Slow-Moving Vehicles This section requires vehicles, such as those with 3-or-more-axles or vehicles with trailers as defined in Section 22406, to use the farthest right freeway lanes. Therefore, these vehicles cannot use the HOV lanes. Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation or local authorities to designate specific lanes for vehicles required to drive at reduced speeds. Requires vehicles driving at reduced speeds to use the farthest right lanes.Section 21655.3 Permanent High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes After 1/1/87, but before 12/31/87 all permanently designated HOV lanes operating 24 hours a day shall be separated from general use highway lanes by a minimum 4 feet wide buffer.Section 21655.5 Exclusive- or Preferential- Use lanes for High-Occupancy Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation and local authorities to designate specific lanes for HOV preferential use upon completion of competent engineering estimates made of the effects of the lanes on safety, congestion, and highway capacity.Section 21655.5(b) Mass transit and Para Transit Vehicles Enactment of SB 236 on January 1, 1998, permits mass Transit vehicles to use the HOV lanes without meeting the occupancy requirement. Enactment of AB 2582 on January 1, 2003, permits clearly marked para Transit vehicles to use the HOV lanes without meeting the occupancy requirement. This section also requires that HOV lane-use comply with posted signs designating the minimum occupancy requirement.Section 21655.6 Approval of Transportation Planning Agency or County Transportation Commission Requires the Department of Transportation to have the approval of the county Transportation commission prior to establishing new HOV lanes.Section 21655.7 Use of Highway: Public Mass Transit Guideway Allows for any portion of a highway to be designated for exclusive public mass Transit use.Section 21655.8(a) Entering or Exiting Preferential-Use Lanes A citation for violation of the provisions of this section, commonly called a buffer violation, carry a minimum fine of $271. APPENDIX A♦ HOV Guidelines, 2016 English Edition Appendix A♦ 8Section 21655.9 HOV Lanes: Use by Ultra – Low Emission Vehicles Website for list of vehicles that meet federal requirements and qualify as ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEV) and super ultra-low-emission vehicles (SULEV) in Assembly Bill 71, enacted July 1, 2000: California Air Resources BoardSection 21714 Three-Wheeled Vehicles: Operation in HOV Lanes Prohibits three-wheeled vehicles from using the HOV lanes.Section 22364 Lane Speed Limits Allows the Department of Transportation to post the appropriate speed for designated lanes.Section 22406 Maximum Speed for Designated Vehicles By definition in this section, trucks with three or more axles, or vehicles with trailers, are not allowed to use the HOV lanes because they cannot drive the maximum legal speed limit posted on HOV lanes in California. Provisions ofSection 21654 (above) then apply.If you like this answer, feel free to look at some of my other interesting answers.

There’s no doubt that we are at a low point.Since we became a state in 1850, we’ve experienced a surge in entrepreneurship accompanied by the industrial revolution of the late 1800s.In fact up until the 1990s, California was one of the leading producers of firearms in the nation. There was a region of South California known as the “Ring of Fire” due to the number of manufacturers that numbered in the dozens.Today, nearly all of them are defunct, have moved out of state, and/or been sold to other companies which are anywhere but California.There were some very high quality and unique companies such as Arcadia Machine & Tool, known as AMT, that produced the AutoMag line of pistols made famous in the Clint Eastwood movie “Sudden Impact”…..and Calico Light Weapons Systems founded in Bakersfield, CA in 1982 that made one of the first mass produced helical magazine based firearms…That said, things have changed dramatically.California is one of the most hostile states towards not only gun manufacturers everywhere (I’ll explain why later), but also to law abiding guns owners as well.California has two forms of “gun control laws”, there are those that are seemingly reasonable gun management laws (i.e. how top purchase, who can purchase, their storage when not in use) and then are those that are seemingly just restriction in the sense that it’s what the CA Legislature has been able to enforce without a successful court challenge.For example, anyone 21 years and older (it used to be 18) can purchase a firearm after taking and passing a test (for a fee), passing a background check (for a fee), then waiting 10 days in order take possession of your firearm, but NOT more than 30 days otherwise you have to do the background check again AND pay all of the fees again except taking the test again. That’s only once every 3–5 years.By the way, there is a stringent list of what forms of ID are allowed. A common state issued, but non-Federally approved, drivers license DOES NOT permit you to purchase a firearm in CA. You have to have a REAL ID that complies with Federal requirements.BUT, there are significant restrictions on WHICH firearms you can purchase here. Most long guns (rifles and shotguns) are OK (but with LOTS of exceptions that are outright banned), but you can ONLY purchase handguns on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.To have your gun approved to be on the Roster, manufacturers pay a fee to have their guns tested, and then if they pass and meet the CA requirements, they are allowed for sale assuming they CONTINUE to pay a renewal fee to be on the list every couple of years. Most manufacturers just don’t submit the majority of their guns, including those that have the latest safety improvements, and forego the CA market.Out of the thousands of different kinds and models of handguns available in the rest of the U.S., there are functionally less than 100 models approved for sale and the list is shrinking rapidly and could go to ZERO unless there is a successful court challenge to the Roster requirements which by the state’s own admission are impossible…Laws That Are 'Impossible' to Follow Can Still Be Constitutional, Says California CourtBy the way, most “assault weapons” are banned or have stringent registration requirements that have resulted in visits to people homes to confiscate their firearms. In other words, people who have attempted to comply with the law and register a certain type or configuration, have informed the state of what they have, the State found it in violation and used law enforcement to take them away…No criminal would ever register their firearms, but this man was penalized for attempting to follow the law and had his property confiscated rather than be given the option to comply with the law.From a legislative standpoint, there are more gun prohibitions here in CA than almost any other state. We have more gun laws that are malum prohibitum (wrong because we say so) than any where else. This is opposed to laws for acts that are malum in se which are illegal in their very nature like murder or theft.But there are most restrictions in the works.Recently there was a stay ordered on the enforcement of the firearm magazine portion of California Proposition 63 from 2016. The new provision would have made ANYONE who possessed a firearm magazine that held more than 10 rounds a criminal if they did not get rid of it one way or another.A federal judge ordered a stay on this provision and offered a lengthy judicial decision as to why. It’s been challenged by the CA Department of Justice and while the new provision is not being enforced, the earlier law that banned the sale of new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is still in effect.We’ll likely have to wait until this winds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court before there is a settling of this issue.There is also a lawsuit against the requirements of the Handgun Roster that is winding its way through the courts and has made its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals…Watch recording for Ivan Pena v. Stephen Lindley, No. 15-15449Even the Judges of the Appeals court make some amazing observations and conclusions about the effects and ramifications of the Handgun Roster that would lead a reason able person to believe that it should be overturned as an infringement of the Second Amendment, but that’s not what they have done.This video is a highlight reel version of the above linked one and with all of the reasons they come up that justify the Roster requirement’s removal…Since the 9th Appeals Court has affirmed these requirements, the challenge will be escalated to the Supreme Court to see if they will hear the case.By the way, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has the highest turnover or reversal rate on their decisions than any other Appeals Court in the U.S.The CA Legislation and Courts also have a tendency to ignore court rulings or precedent that they do not agree with and by their own admission, at least by this one representative…So 20+ years or so of outright gun restriction may be coming to a close with quite a bit of gun legislation being overruled or deemed unConstitutional.But we will still have all but an outright ban on Concealed Carry Permits in the more populous counties (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, etc.) and then there is also the statewide Open Carry ban. The Supreme Court declined to hear this case, so its still at issue.BUT….In about 2 weeks on July 1, 2019, new ammunition restrictions will go into effect.Every time someone purchases ammunition in CA, they will have to pass a background check (and pay for it, $1), present their ID, and give a fingerprint. The details of that transaction will then be sent to the Department of Justice that include the purchasers information, the caliber, and the amount.This will present new opportunities for challenges to existing laws because of the redundancies created.For example, if background checks are going to be required for ammunition, why require them for new guns purchases after July 1, 2019. Conversely, if the background check for ammunition can be done for $1, why can’t it be that for firearm purchases instead of the $20-$25 charged now by most dealers.Lastly, every time that the State comes up with new restriction, fewer and fewer dealers want to comply with them, and some (usually small businesses) opt to just stop.This video covers the current situation as of February 2019. It’s long and somewhat technical, but it describes the legal “tipping point” we are potentially at with most guns laws. I have fast-forwarded it to the 32:27 mark for the key point…California’s “war on guns” is one of very long term attrition. The Legislature has made it so easy for a willing law abiding citizen to BREAK one of the myriad of complex, confusing, sometimes contradictory, and now seemingly impossible to achieve gun laws, that its appalling.This probably explains in part the net LOSS of people from our population. More people are moving OUT of California than are moving IN.

I actually looked into this question back int 2011 when Texas was about to pass it’s Voter ID law. Here’s what I found:There are plenty of allegations of voter fraud, but if you look for actual legal action or indictments for voter fraud the list is actually pretty small and minor. According to Ballotpedia voter fraud in Texas usually has to do more with mailing in another person's ballot, ordering one or two mail in ballots for someone else, votes by convicted felons (who may not have known that it was illegal for them to vote), and a few cases of people claiming to be illegal aliens to get out of jury duty (jurors are partly chosen from voter registration rolls). The only case of voter fraud that was really egregious and actually did lead to a conviction was the election Refugio County Commissioner, Raymond Villarreal, who misused Mail-in Ballots.Raymond Villarreal, a Refugio County commissioner, pleaded guilty in 2007 to a felony count of tampering with a governmental document and a misdemeanor count of wrongful possession of a ballot. District Judge W.W. Kilgore sentenced Villarreal to 90 days in county jail, 300 hours of community service and $2,500 in fines. If he violates terms of a five-year probation, he could get sent to state prison for two years. Villarreal also agreed to pay back $2,090 to the county, in conjunction with his use of county equipment and county employees to do work on private property, but charges were never filed.[20]Villarreal resigned and admitted his role in a voter fraud scheme involving mail-in ballots that helped him get elected in 2006, officials said. Villarreal got county residents to sign mail-in ballot applications, but had those applications sent to his supporters. After the ballots were filled out indicating a vote for Villarreal, he had the original applicants sign them. "It left a bad taste in my mouth that somebody would try to defraud the system — the same system that I worked to be elected," Refugio County Sheriff Earl Petropoulos said.[20]Claims that there are more Hispanic voters on the rolls than actual citizens and voting by dead people seem to be anecdotal at best and not borne out by reality.According to the US Census detailed tables on Hispanic Voter Registration (2008), the number of Hispanic citizens out numbers Hispanics registered to vote by 40% (see Table 2, Hispanics) and the number of Hispanics who are registered, but don't vote is 50%. When looking at our region (West South Central, Table 3, Hispanics) the percentage of Hispanics registered who didn't vote was even higher, 62%. (Unfortunately, these tables are outdated and no longer exist, but here are the latest tables Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2016)The Texas Secretary of State's Office ran an audit of Voter Registration Systems. The report found that there were registered voters who were possible felons or dead, but claimed they couldn't find evidence that these people had voted, because they didn't have enough time before the election. Now why they couldn't check these allegations out after the election is anybody's guess.The TEAM system included the following voter registration records for the May 12, 2007, special election that auditors identified as belonging to people who were potentially ineligible to vote:Records for 23,114 voters identified as possible felons using data provided by the Department of Criminal Justice. The data identified felons on community supervision as of April 30, 2007, and felons who were incarcerated or on parole as of May 31, 2007. The Secretary of State’s Office identified 1,124 (4.9 percent) of these possible felons prior to the election, but it was not able to complete its investigations to verify the registrants’ felon status and remove them from the TEAM system before the election.Records for 23,576 voters believed to be deceased because these records matched death records through November 30, 2006, obtained from the Bureau of Vital Statistics. The Secretary of State’s Office identified three of these records prior to the election, but it was not able to complete its investigations to verify that these voters were deceased and remove them from the TEAM system before the election. It should be noted that the number of potentially deceased voters auditors identified may be understated because the data obtained from the Bureau of Vital Statistics did not include death notices for the six months prior to the May 12, 2007, special election.The only part of the audit that addresses illegal alien voting is a survey of the 254 county voter registration offices in Texas. The survey askedDo you have procedures to identify ineligible voter applicants, such as felons, non-citizens, or voters who submitted duplicate registrations?Forty-six percent of the counties said they had no identity procedures and 11% didn't respond.The issue seems to be more one of record housekeeping than actual voter fraud. The possibility exists for election shenanigans, but the low level of indictments and convictions speaks otherwise.So what about the claims that Voter ID legislation will put such a high burden on the elderly and the poor that they won't be able to vote?Well, first, let's look at the two bills. SB 14 requires the following types of ID:Sec. 63.0101. DOCUMENTATION OF PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION. Provides that the following documentation is an acceptable form of photo identification under this chapter: a driver's license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that has not expired; a United States military identification card that contains the person's photograph that has not expired; a United States citizenship certificate issued to the person that contains the person's photograph; or a United States passport issued to the person that has not expired.There is an exception to the ID requirement in section 63.001Provides that the requirements for identification prescribed by Subsection (b) do not apply to a voter who presents the voter's voter registration certificate on offering to vote and was 70 years of age or older on January 1, 2012, as indicated by the date of birth on the voter's voter registration certificate.So as the Senate Bill stands, it does not appear to be an impediment to the elderly.The bill also amends section 521.422, subsections (a) and (d) of the Transportation Code(a) Provides that the fee for a personal identification certificate, except as provided under Subsection (d), is $15 for a person under 60 years of age, $5 for a person 60 years of age or older, and $20 for a person subject to the registration requirements under Chapter 62 (Sex Offender Registration Program), Code of Criminal Procedure.(d) Prohibits DPS from collecting a fee for a personal identification certificate issued to a person who states that the person is obtaining the personal identification certificate for the purpose of satisfying Section 63.001(b), Election Code, and who is a registered voter in this state and presents a valid voter registration certificate, or who is eligible for registration under Section 13.001 (Eligibility For Registration), Election Code, and submits a registration application to DPS.So a registered voter can get a free ID, if they show DPS their voters registration card. Here we get into a murky area because that means the voter would have to go to the DPS office to get the ID. Some voter advocates are claiming that it is hard for poor people, or people who are home bound to get to the DPS office. They are able to vote with mail in ballots that are sent to their homes, but they have to travel to prove eligibility to vote.OK, so what about the House Bill. At the very beginning of HB 401 it statesSec. 12.007. TEXAS VOTER IDENTIFICATION CARD. (a) Eachvoter registrar shall issue Texas voter identification cards toregistered voters to be used only for the purpose of meeting theidentification requirements of Section 63.001(b). The voterregistrar must provide at least one place in the county to acceptapplications for and issue Texas voter identification cards. Thevoter registrar may not charge an application fee or a fee for theissuance of a Texas voter identification card.....(f) A Texas voter identification card remains valid if the person to whom it was issued resides at the same address and remains qualified to vote. A person who changes residence within the state must surrender the card to the voter registrar of the new county of residence and may apply for and receive a Texas voter identification card issued by the new county of residence if the person is otherwise eligible under this section. A person who moves residence outside the state or who ceases to be qualified to vote must surrender the person's Texas voter identification card to thevoter registrar who issued the card.Both bills provide for free Voter ID but each bill expects either DPS or the counties to come up with money to pay for ID cards for voting purposes (unfunded mandate). At least the HB allows the voter to keep the same card as long as they live in the same dwelling. But, I thought we didn't have any money? Also, there is that thorny transportation/mobility problem.But what proportion of the poor, elderly and shut-ins vote in the free-for-all world of No ID Required voting? Let's take a look at the Census figures.According Table 2 of the Voter and Election detailed tables 74% of citizens over the age of 75 are registered to vote and 66% actually voted. But if the language for the SB makes it through, these voters will not be effected. In Table 8, Reported Voting and Registration of Family Members, by Age and Family Income: November 2008 of the total citizens in the US making under $10,000 per year, 72% were registered to vote and 49% reported voting. (for the purposes of this post $10,000 per year per person is poverty level) When Hispanics are parsed out of the total population (Table 9) the percentage of registered voters below the poverty level drops to 50% and only 35% reported voting. Remember, these tables represent voting in 2008 when there was a lot of excitement about the election. (Unfortunately these tables are outdated and no longer exist, here are the new tables Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2016)The sad fact is, people in Texas just don't vote. Between 1988 and 2010 voter turnout rates in Bexar County dropped from 66% to 34%. During the Presidential election in 2008 voter turnout jumped up to 57%, but wouldn't you expect a better turnout for a highly contested, historical election?So who's right, those who want to protect Texas from the evils of Voter Fraud or the voter advocates who claim legislators are trying to prevent the poor and elderly from voting?Potential for Voter Fraud exists, but it hasn't really been a major problem and traveling to get Voter ID Cards for the poor and elderly could be a problem.Also, why only Voter ID in person, what are their plans for Absentee Balloting, where most voter fraud actually occurs?