PDA

View Full Version : AB 962 - DeLeon Ammo: 50 round limit, FTF only, other


Librarian
02-27-2009, 5:20 PM
Well, AB 362 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_362&sess=0708&house=B&author=de_leon) from 2007-2008 is back.
That bill made it out of the Assembly to the Senate, passed 44-34; got amended in Senate Committee a couple of times - the final version of that one was a 'study' bill - and died in Appropriations.

AB 962 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_962&sess=CUR&house=B&author=de_leon), as introduced, De Leon. Ammunition.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain
records pertaining to firearms transactions.
This bill would require the department to maintain additional
information relating to ammunition transfers and licensed handgun
ammunition vendors, as specified.
Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.
This bill would establish a program administered by the Department
of Justice for licensing handgun ammunition vendors, as specified.
The bill would establish a database maintained by the department
to serve as a registry of handgun ammunition vendors.
This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2010, unless
specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50
rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless he or she is
registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined. The bill would
also require these vendors to obtain a background clearance for
those employees who would handle ammunition in the course and scope
of their employment. The bill would require the Department of Justice
to maintain a registry of registered handgun ammunition vendors, as
specified. Violation of these provisions, as specified, would be a
misdemeanor.
By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.
The bill would also provide that no retail seller of ammunition
shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun
ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible
to a purchaser without the assistance of the retailer or employee
thereof.
The bill would further provide that handgun ammunition may only be
purchased in a face-to-face transaction and only if certain
conditions exist.
Existing law generally regulates what information is required to
be obtained in connection with the transfer of ammunition.
This bill would, subject to exceptions, commencing July 1, 2010,
require certain ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other
information from ammunition purchasers, and would require submission
of that information to the Department of Justice, as specified. A
violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.
This bill would provide that a person enjoined from engaging in
activity associated with a criminal street gang, as specified, would
be prohibited from having under his or her possession, custody, or
control, any ammunition. Violation of these provisions would be a
misdemeanor.
The bill would prohibit supplying or delivering, as specified,
handgun ammunition to prohibited persons, as described, by persons or
others who know or by using reasonable care should know that the
recipient is a person prohibited from possessing ammunition.
Violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor with specified
penalties.


This, BTW, is NOT the 'ammunition accountability' stuff. Maybe next week...

Synergy
02-27-2009, 5:29 PM
I am at a complete and utter loss of words!

glockman19
02-27-2009, 5:32 PM
He did this in 2006-2007 also, violating rules on bringing the same legislation session after session. His problem is he's so left that no one else will co-sponsor the bill to make it legal. And, now he's the chair of the Assembly's appropriations committee.

Once again, This violates interstate commerce and is unenforceable. But...when was the last time they cared?

How would they enforce this? they have no jurisdiction out of CA. Will they now intercept UPS packages marked OREM-D?

DeLeon is a tool that needs to be sent back to the crib.

Anthonysmanifesto
02-27-2009, 5:33 PM
I make one request- that this be the official AB 962 Thread outside of an actual Call to Action.

In the past, we have had multiple threads per bill making it hard to communicate changes and amends.

rayra
02-27-2009, 5:33 PM
I am at a complete loss of words that won't get me banned yet again for thoughtcrime, or won't be seen as an actionable threat by an agent of the State.

Librarian
02-27-2009, 5:50 PM
I am at a complete loss of words that won't get me banned yet again for thoughtcrime, or won't be seen as an actionable threat by an agent of the State.

Well, now you can say "All you Calgunners, write your Rep and tell him/her to oppose AB 962". You can even say "Remind your Rep that AB 362 failed last session, and it isn't any better this time around, so let's move on to something serious, OK?"

That's a bit more focused than writing your Rep and saying "Please vote against everything that statist b*****d DeLeon submits."

Though that action by your Rep probably would be good, too.

mattmcg
02-27-2009, 5:52 PM
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb..................................

DeLeon is a moron and his district voters should throw him out on his ***...........

Synergy
02-27-2009, 5:56 PM
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb..................................

DeLeon is a moron and his district voters should throw him out on his ***...........

Maybe you should look at his district.
45th District
Angelino Heights, Atwater Village, Chinatown, Cypress Park, City Terrace, Echo Park, El Sereno, Elysian Valley, Glassell Park, Highland Park, Historic Filipinotown, Hollywood, Ramona Gardens, Silverlake, Temple-Beverly & Thai Town

For non-LA guys, its the area around Dodger Stadium

CSACANNONEER
02-27-2009, 5:57 PM
Damn, if this one had passed, it would have bankrupted California due to the man hours needed to file the info, used 1000s of reams of paper a year, and filled up DOJs vaults so high that they never could have found the old DROS paperwork they have on file.

sb_pete
02-27-2009, 6:11 PM
Damn, if this one had passed, it would have bankrupted California due to the man hours needed to file the info, used 1000s of reams of paper a year, and filled up DOJs vaults so high that they never could have found the old DROS paperwork they have on file.

LOL, a CA assembly dem wanting to start a massive, Orwellian, unfunded bureaucratic nightmare? Never....:TFH:

Message dutifully sent to my assembly member. This bill is so friggin flawed and off the deep end, I can't imagine it going anywhere though. What was the end result of AB362? I know it got shot down in the end but how far did it make it? How many supporters did it have in the assmebly?

-Pete

Librarian
02-27-2009, 6:27 PM
L What was the end result of AB362? I know it got shot down in the end but how far did it make it? How many supporters did it have in the assmebly?

-Pete

Made it out of the Assembly to the Senate, passed 44-34.

Got amended in Senate Committee a couple of times and died in Appropriations.

Synergy
02-27-2009, 6:38 PM
Made it out of the Assembly to the Senate, passed 44-34.

Got amended in Senate Committee a couple of times and died in Appropriations.

Back in the 362 days, I thought a point was that DeLeon had reworded his previous attempt at a ammo ban from the previous session. Some had showed that re-submission of the same bill in a certain time frame is illegal. Doesnt this fall under the same rules?

glockman19
02-27-2009, 7:34 PM
Made it out of the Assembly to the Senate, passed 44-34.

Got amended in Senate Committee a couple of times and died in Appropriations.

DeLeon is the Chair of Appropriations.

Bet it passes this time. :)

Anthonysmanifesto
02-27-2009, 7:49 PM
Back in the 362 days, I thought a point was that DeLeon had reworded his previous attempt at a ammo ban from the previous session. Some had showed that re-submission of the same bill in a certain time frame is illegal. Doesnt this fall under the same rules?

No.

Sessions are 2 years.

The rule that was discussed here last year had to do with the introduction of the same measure twice in one session.

We are at the beginning of the 2009-2010 session.

fresh slate

Librarian
02-27-2009, 8:20 PM
DeLeon is the Chair of Appropriations.

Bet it passes this time. :)

Died in Senate Appropriations; DeLeon is in the Assembly.

But yes, I'd expect some 'courtesy' to a committee chair, however ill-deserved it may be.

DDT
02-27-2009, 9:11 PM
Boy, I can see the protest to this already.

"I'd like one round of 9mm ammunition please....."

domokun
02-27-2009, 10:22 PM
Hoard your ammo now! :TFH:

chris
02-28-2009, 7:51 AM
and people wonder why Democrats are hated in this state. look at the crazy bills they come up year after year. they know dam well this law will do nothing to prevent or reduce crime it is directly aimed at lawfull gun owners plain and simple.

BigDogatPlay
02-28-2009, 8:29 AM
and people wonder why Democrats are hated in this state. look at the crazy bills they come up year after year. they know dam well this law will do nothing to prevent or reduce crime it is directly aimed at lawfull gun owners plain and simple.

So if they are so "hated" in California, why do they keep getting elected to majorities in both houses of the Legislature time after time after time?

Solve that problem and you solve our problems.

dfletcher
02-28-2009, 8:42 AM
He did this in 2006-2007 also, violating rules on bringing the same legislation session after session. His problem is he's so left that no one else will co-sponsor the bill to make it legal. And, now he's the chair of the Assembly's appropriations committee.

Once again, This violates interstate commerce and is unenforceable. But...when was the last time they cared?

How would they enforce this? they have no jurisdiction out of CA. Will they now intercept UPS packages marked OREM-D?

DeLeon is a tool that needs to be sent back to the crib.

The state won't have to enforce it, not one bit. Companies like Sportsmans Guide, Natchez, Cheaper Than Dirt and Midway and others will all very quickly do the "No Sales to CA" bit just as they now do with so many items that ARE legal in CA. These folks will drop right in line and just stop shipping.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-28-2009, 9:09 AM
Sent this to my Assemblyman.
------------------------------------------
http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/30/?
Hi Danny,
Getting darn tired of these yahoos attacking firearms and now ammunition as if its the reason for all their woes. Now AB 962 is the same as last year's AB 362 which died in Appropriations. This year DeLeon is the Chair of that committee.

AB 362 failed last session, and it isn't any better this time around, so let's move on to something serious.

Good God, go after the criminals for once.

Also recommend a current drop down list be kept as each Bill is introduced. This will make it far easier for your staff to keep tally of subject matter. I expect you will be hearing quite a bit from me and my fellow Californians.

-------------------------------------------------

Vick

Mikeinblack
03-01-2009, 8:02 PM
Isn't this the same crap that attempted to include the registration of and tracking of purchasers last year? Is that in there somewhere again, or has he given up on that angle?

bwiese
03-01-2009, 8:20 PM
So if they are so "hated" in California, why do they keep getting elected to majorities in both houses of the Legislature time after time after time?

Solve that problem and you solve our problems.

Solve that problem by having a nonmarginalized viable Republican party that's electable outside the 'safe seats' they traded power for in the last decade, and who has candidates electable to statewide office.

Harrison_Bergeron
03-02-2009, 5:41 PM
Vote for open primaries in 2010 to go with the redistricting reform of Prop 11. If that doesn't fix things, nothing will.

So if they are so "hated" in California, why do they keep getting elected to majorities in both houses of the Legislature time after time after time?

Solve that problem and you solve our problems.

Gator Monroe
03-02-2009, 5:45 PM
Maybe you should look at his district.
45th District
Angelino Heights, Atwater Village, Chinatown, Cypress Park, City Terrace, Echo Park, El Sereno, Elysian Valley, Glassell Park, Highland Park, Historic Filipinotown, Hollywood, Ramona Gardens, Silverlake, Temple-Beverly & Thai Town

For non-LA guys, its the area around Dodger Stadium

(eMe) & the Avenues SHOULD should send him some letters or make calls to his office on this issue !

Solidmch
03-02-2009, 6:17 PM
This is the same guy that ghost votes for everyone. He seems to call votes on days no one is in town. He should be in prison!

tankerman
03-02-2009, 6:25 PM
Solve that problem by having a nonmarginalized viable Republican party that's electable outside the 'safe seats' they traded power for in the last decade, and who has candidates electable to statewide office.So you are implying that their democrat counterparts are somehow more electable? Why their 'position on the issues' is better?

A crock of sh-t, the deck is stacked, that's why dems win in this state, has nothing to do with issues.

glockwise2000
03-02-2009, 8:34 PM
Who the F*** DeLeon is? :confused:

domokun
03-02-2009, 8:38 PM
Who the F*** DeLeon is? :confused:

State Assemblyman from Southern California; more specifically the area around Dodger stadium. By banning or limiting access to ammo and guns, he's hoping to make the neighborhoods he represents "safer". Of course, I don't think he actually knows where all the real guns and ammo come from for those who do the bad deeds.

yellowfin
03-02-2009, 9:01 PM
^ You don't expect him to actually believe his own garbage, do you?

domokun
03-02-2009, 9:03 PM
^ You don't expect him to actually believe his own garbage, do you?

No I don't, but pretending to be will get him re-elected and show that he's "trying" to fix their problems.

yellowfin
03-02-2009, 9:56 PM
If he could put on that kind of an act he should be in movies rather than politics.

bulgron
03-03-2009, 12:37 AM
This thing had to go all the way to the Senate appropriations committee last time before it got killed. Do we have to watch it float like sewage all the way down that pipe again?

domokun
03-03-2009, 12:46 AM
This thing had to go all the way to the Senate appropriations committee last time before it got killed. Do we have to watch it float like sewage all the way down that pipe again?

Don't know. I hope it dies a horrible death prior to it even getting that far. It doesn't bode well for any sort of competitive shooting sports in the state that requires the use of a pistol since it is possible to burn through 1000+ rounds of handgun ammunition in a single weekend if you're competing a lot in such events. It'd probably do in a lot of indoor ranges since they're the ones that rely on handgun ammo sales to make a handy profit and stay in business.

MikeH1
03-03-2009, 11:01 AM
DeLeon's homies (constituents) will love this law, as unarmed citizens make their jobs easier. Remember their motto: All for us and nothing for anyone else. Long live The Race!

Taro
03-11-2009, 9:06 AM
Here we go again with new anti-gun legislation. Of all that are proposed, AB 962 is perhaps the worst of the worst that would ban purchase of more that 30 rounds of HANDGUN ammo per month. The is essentially the same legislation as AB 2062 that lost by only one vote last year. Everybody needs to contact their respective legislators to voice their support against AB 962 to stop it before committee votes and it gets to a full vote.

yellowfin
03-11-2009, 9:55 AM
I've never seen a 30 round box of pistol ammo before, have you?

NiteQwill
03-11-2009, 9:57 AM
So this idiot bill becomes legal in committee because he reduces the original bill by 20 rounds? Ridiculous

eflatminor
03-11-2009, 9:59 AM
Doesn't get much worse than Deleon. He's a true fascist. I've written my assemblymember urging him to oppose the bill. I also wrote Deleon, for all the good that will do.

Can'thavenuthingood
03-11-2009, 10:54 AM
LOL, a CA assembly dem wanting to start a massive, Orwellian, unfunded bureaucratic nightmare? Never....:TFH:

Message dutifully sent to my assembly member. This bill is so friggin flawed and off the deep end, I can't imagine it going anywhere though. What was the end result of AB362? I know it got shot down in the end but how far did it make it? How many supporters did it have in the assmebly?

-Pete

The Bill itself might not go anywhere but parts of it could end up somewhere else we'd least expect it.

Vick

USAFTS
05-29-2009, 1:08 PM
I was under the impression that the bill stated 50 rounds. Where did the 30 come from. Is that the "technical amendment?".

Seems to me that there is a conflict when you have a bill shot down as a member but pass it yourself as the chair. When is common sense and fairness ever going to play a role in government?

Gator Monroe
05-29-2009, 1:18 PM
aT SOME POINT WE WILL HAVE TO GET A PLEDGE FROM POSTERS HERE THAT THEY WILL NO longer support their Assembly persons or state senator or US congressperson or US Senator if they are either (an Anti or a Democrat) ?

USAFTS
05-29-2009, 1:34 PM
aT SOME POINT WE WILL HAVE TO GET A PLEDGE FROM POSTERS HERE THAT THEY WILL NO longer support their Assembly persons or state senator or US congressperson or US Senator if they are either (an Anti or a Democrat) ?

Sadly, pledges are useless, as demonstrated by the Governor of Tennessee yesterday. He pledged both verbally and in writing that he would support a bill allowing CCW holders to carry in restaurants. HE SIGNED A VETO of the bill.

Until the people wake up and join forces as a single unified power, this will just continue. BUT...the people all want to wage 1000 different losing battles, which only decreases their ability to win the overall war.

1BigPea
05-29-2009, 3:18 PM
Here we go again with new anti-gun legislation. Of all that are proposed, AB 962 is perhaps the worst of the worst that would ban purchase of more that 30 rounds of HANDGUN ammo per month. The is essentially the same legislation as AB 2062 that lost by only one vote last year. Everybody needs to contact their respective legislators to voice their support against AB 962 to stop it before committee votes and it gets to a full vote.

It's not 30 rounds...it's 50.

no person shall sell or transfer more than 50
rounds of handgun ammunition in any month

Glock22Fan
05-29-2009, 3:25 PM
It's not 30 rounds...it's 50.

Oh, thank goodness. He had me really worried there :D

1BigPea
05-29-2009, 3:31 PM
Oh, thank goodness. He had me really worried there :D

Hehehe...:willy_nilly:

pnkssbtz
05-29-2009, 3:32 PM
Heller = 2A is Individual Right
Nordyke = 2A is incorpoated.


Why isn't DeLeon brought up on Civil Rights violations for knowingly conspiring to infringe upon constitutional rights?

mfmayes49
05-29-2009, 5:24 PM
I expected this, I'm sure glad I'm moving out of this Commie state.
This is a round about way to disarm the public, Outlaw the ammo, Guns are useless without ammo. We have no one who represents us gun owners here.
Time for Californians who have guns to leave this state!!!

Gator Monroe
05-29-2009, 5:33 PM
I expected this, I'm sure glad I'm moving out of this Commie state.
This is a round about way to disarm the public, Outlaw the ammo, Guns are useless without ammo. We have no one who represents us gun owners here.
Time for Californians who have guns to leave this state!!!

No thanx , you can take that attitude with you and foist it on other unsuspecting blue staters elsewhere , enjoy !:)

762cavalier
05-29-2009, 5:34 PM
I expected this, I'm sure glad I'm moving out of this Commie state.
This is a round about way to disarm the public, Outlaw the ammo, Guns are useless without ammo. We have no one who represents us gun owners here.
Time for Californians who have guns to leave this state!!!

So, following your logic we should all abandon ship. then who will be here to fight. Once CA falls the anti's will focus on other states. Remember what starts in CA usually spreads to the rest of the US. Where are you going to run? Where do you draw the line and make a stand?

mfmayes49
05-29-2009, 5:41 PM
I'm leaving cause I'm tired of our reps not listening to us. And for the rest of you who said I didnt fight, I wrote,called, and attending meetings. Trouble is this state has liberal press, liberal money,liberal hollywood behind it. When was last time you saw anything on news positive about gun owners?..Natha!!


On top of everything else, look at the shape our state is in cause of our reps.
I do wish all of you luck in your fight here.

IW378
05-29-2009, 5:41 PM
I guess I'll be a felon if this passes. My brother comes to see me once or twice a month to shoot with me. I reload and I always give him the ammo to shoot with so it's cheaper for him. It's MY ammo, I can give it to my brother in any quantity that he needs, bottom line. What are they gonna do watch me reload and count the rounds ?? It's my stuff and I can do with it as I please.
Luke

mzimmers
06-05-2009, 8:03 AM
So, following your logic we should all abandon ship. then who will be here to fight. Once CA falls the anti's will focus on other states. Remember what starts in CA usually spreads to the rest of the US. Where are you going to run? Where do you draw the line and make a stand?

While CA often does serve as a political/cultural bellwether, this time I do believe we're out of step. At the national level, politicos everywhere are waking up to the realization that screwing with gun rights is not only unconstitutional (which they don't care about) but politically unpopular (witness the house democrats' rebuff of Holder's attempt at reinstating the AW ban).

CA, however, views itself as its own little island, when in reality, it's on the tip of a sinking ship. And there's no indication that things are going to improve anytime soon; to the contrary, our truly tough years seem to be just around the corner. CA has been my home for 50 years, and I never thought this day would come, but...I think it's "love it or leave it" time for me. And, I don't love it anymore.

soundwave
06-05-2009, 10:22 AM
I guess I'll be a felon if this passes. My brother comes to see me once or twice a month to shoot with me. I reload and I always give him the ammo to shoot with so it's cheaper for him. It's MY ammo, I can give it to my brother in any quantity that he needs, bottom line. What are they gonna do watch me reload and count the rounds ?? It's my stuff and I can do with it as I please.
Luke

I have a feeling, most of us would turn into felons if this makes it all the way through.

leitung
06-05-2009, 10:46 AM
Can I still get ammo in Nevada? Thankfully Cabelas in only a semi-short drive away for all my handgun ammo needs.

leitung
06-05-2009, 10:50 AM
I expected this, I'm sure glad I'm moving out of this Commie state.
This is a round about way to disarm the public, Outlaw the ammo, Guns are useless without ammo. We have no one who represents us gun owners here.
Time for Californians who have guns to leave this state!!!

+1.. I am out, screw these people. CalGuns is the best thing California Firearm owners have, but our legislators just wont listen anymore.

bulgron
06-05-2009, 11:04 AM
The reason why I'll become a felon is because when I take my kids shooting they go through a lot more than 50 rounds. And there's no exceptions for intra-family transfers, are there?

Anthonysmanifesto
06-05-2009, 11:22 AM
The reason why I'll become a felon is because when I take my kids shooting they go through a lot more than 50 rounds. And there's no exceptions for intra-family transfers, are there?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090601_amended_asm_v98.pdf

exemptions are on page 7, see line 33

USAFTS
06-05-2009, 2:12 PM
Can someone clear up a question for me. It seems that there are a lot of people concerned about the number 50. As much as this bill sucks and is only really about control and money, it does not limit the buyer to 50 rounds. It limits the seller to 50 if they are not licensed. Am I correct?

I would also imagine that we, as parents, have the ability to provide our minor children with practice rounds at whatever amount we choose. Is read the entire amended bill and don't remember that specifically addressed, other than the age to purchase. Any help? Thanks.

st.clouds
06-05-2009, 2:21 PM
Can someone clear up a question for me. It seems that there are a lot of people concerned about the number 50. As much as this bill sucks and is only really about control and money, it does not limit the buyer to 50 rounds. It limits the seller to 50 if they are not licensed. Am I correct?

I would also imagine that we, as parents, have the ability to provide our minor children with practice rounds at whatever amount we choose. Is read the entire amended bill and don't remember that specifically addressed, other than the age to purchase. Any help? Thanks.

This has been discussed a few times, but this thread just kept growing so kinda hard to find the information. No it limits the seller only. But this makes it extremely hard to get ammo of any kind. It'll also allow only face to face ammo transaction.

Heck the only thing helping the current ammo shortage is the fact you can still buy them from the internet. And will make it nearly impossible to find hotter than normal loads eg. the +P etc. Plus ammo price will only go up and become scarcer.

kmca
06-05-2009, 2:28 PM
Let's just say this thing becomes law. Does anyone know what the requirements and costs are for becoming a licensed ammunition vendor and if you are licensed, can you internet order?

spencerhut
06-05-2009, 3:07 PM
Let's just say this thing becomes law. Does anyone know what the requirements and costs are for becoming a licensed ammunition vendor and if you are licensed, can you internet order?

You are thinking about this all wrong. Why are you already planning for defeat?

The fees don't matter! Just get them to vote no and kill the stupid law!

st.clouds
06-05-2009, 3:12 PM
Let's just say this thing becomes law. Does anyone know what the requirements and costs are for becoming a licensed ammunition vendor and if you are licensed, can you internet order?

Apparently, they got that covered as well. IIRC You can only have an "ammunition vendor" license if you have a business and a physical store location.

Can you imagine what this'd do to firearm instructors? They can't even pass ammo to their students.

kmca
06-05-2009, 3:16 PM
You are thinking about this all wrong. Why are you already planning for defeat?

The fees don't matter! Just get them to vote no and kill the stupid law!

Okay, I'm a pessimist. :shrug:

HondaMasterTech
06-05-2009, 3:34 PM
This would be a rediculous law. How would this be taken as a good thing by anyone? What are the proposed benefits?

soundwave
06-05-2009, 3:35 PM
This would be a rediculous law. How would this be taken as a good thing by anyone? What are the proposed benefits?

The author of the bill (De Leon) claims AB 962 will cut down on gang violence.

I am not kidding.

krushem2000
06-05-2009, 3:44 PM
think this only affect handgun loads not rifle loads. I read the fine print and its only for handgun ammo not rifle ammo. :kest:
hypothetical problem is -- I walk in wally world buy 50 rounds and drive to another wally world and buy 50 more rounds. who's enforcing the law? I know sacramento fingerprints people for ammo buys but duh on rest?

sd_shooter
06-05-2009, 4:07 PM
think this only affect handgun loads not rifle loads. I read the fine print and its only for handgun ammo not rifle ammo.

Who decides what is handgun vs. rifle ammo? For example .22 LR is clearly both, and even 9mm could be used for both. What about all the guys who have .223 or 7.62x39 'pistols'?

Esquire
06-05-2009, 4:13 PM
22 LR may be classified as "handgun" ammo since it could be used in 22 pistols and revolvers. The language of the bill does not appear to except 22 LR from such classification. Imagine no Internet purchase of 22 LR. No one will be able to buy any 22 LR. Walmart is always out, so are Big 5 and Bass Pro. Even when available, you can bet the price will shoot, pun intended, through the roof. 50 rounds of 22 LR will last for all of 10 seconds at the range. As you reach for that 51st round, out comes the handcuffs and a misdemeanor charge.

This is a horrid piece of garbage legislation that flips a big middle-finger to the 2A rights and further drives down dwindling tax revenues.

Please, please everyone, vote Republican if you care to continue residing in Cali. Anyone who is of sound mind cannot help but to conclude that Democrats will not stop until California lies in utter fiscal ruin after driving out all manners of private business and citizens robbed of all liberties.

Once that's achieved, Democratic legislature might as well introduce a bill to officially rename California to the Democratic People Republic of Kalifornia (DPRK). How fitting an acronym....

think this only affect handgun loads not rifle loads. I read the fine print and its only for handgun ammo not rifle ammo. :kest:
hypothetical problem is -- I walk in wally world buy 50 rounds and drive to another wally world and buy 50 more rounds. who's enforcing the law? I know sacramento fingerprints people for ammo buys but duh on rest?

EBR Works
06-05-2009, 4:24 PM
This is a terrible bill but you guys are not understanding what it will do. You will still be able to buy all the HG ammo you want from a licensed dealer if this POS passes. You just cannot buy the ammo and then give/sell more than 50 rounds to a someone else per month. That being said, we must defeat this piece of garbage.

USAFTS
06-05-2009, 4:31 PM
This is my point and why I was confused. People keep talking like we will only be able to buy 50 rounds per month. The way I read it, we can buy 5000 rounds if they are available. Those rounds can only be transferred to us or someone else if the person doing the transferring is licensed. This bill is about back-door registration and grabbing more control of everything gun related.

22 LR may be classified as "handgun" ammo since it could be used in 22 pistols and revolvers. The language of the bill does not appear to except 22 LR from such classification. Imagine no Internet purchase of 22 LR. No one will be able to buy any 22 LR. Walmart is always out, so are Big 5 and Bass Pro. Even when available, you can bet the price will shoot, pun intended, through the roof. 50 rounds of 22 LR will last for all of 10 seconds at the range. As you reach for that 51st round, out comes the handcuffs and a misdemeanor charge.

This is a horrid piece of garbage legislation that flips a big middle-finger to the 2A rights and further drives down dwindling tax revenues.

Please, please everyone, vote Republican if you care to continue residing in Cali. Anyone who is of sound mind cannot help but to conclude that Democrats will not stop until California lies in utter fiscal ruin after driving out all manners of private business and citizens robbed of all liberties.

Once that's achieved, Democratic legislature might as well introduce a bill to officially rename California to the Democratic People Republic of Kalifornia (DPRK). How fitting an acronym....

EBR Works
06-05-2009, 4:39 PM
Let's just say this thing becomes law. Does anyone know what the requirements and costs are for becoming a licensed ammunition vendor and if you are licensed, can you internet order?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears from the text of the bill that FFL03 (C&R) and COE holders might be exempt. It would be easier to apply for and get those instead if the worst does happen.

(d) Paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) shall not apply to or affect
sales or other transfers of ownership of handgun ammunition by
licensed handgun ammunition vendors to any of the following that are
properly identified as such in a manner prescribed by the Department
of Justice:
(1) Persons licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
(2) A licensed handgun ammunition vendor.
(3) A person who is on the centralized list maintained by the
department pursuant to Section 12083.

Esquire
06-05-2009, 4:43 PM
As the bill was explained in the thread, we would be limited to buying from (1) licensed ammo dealer ; AND (2) face-to-face only; AND (3) purchaser fingerprinted each time. It also explicitly bans mail order purchases since that's not face to face. If this piece of **** passes, recreational shooting/plinking is practically impossible in California, unless someone is rich enough to plink with heavy centerfire rifle-only rounds. Besides, who's to say that another law will not soon follow and restrict even the rifle rounds?

This is my point and why I was confused. People keep talking like we will only be able to buy 50 rounds per month. The way I read it, we can buy 5000 rounds if they are available. Those rounds can only be transferred to us or someone else if the person doing the transferring is licensed. This bill is about back-door registration and grabbing more control of everything gun related.

soundwave
06-05-2009, 4:56 PM
As the bill was explained in the thread, we would be limited to buying from (1) licensed ammo dealer ; AND (2) face-to-face only; AND (3) purchaser fingerprinted each time. It also explicitly bans mail order purchases since that's not face to face. If this piece of **** passes, recreational shooting/plinking is practically impossible in California, unless someone is rich enough to plink with heavy centerfire rifle-only rounds. Besides, who's to say that another law will not soon follow and restrict even the rifle rounds?

Right, mail order would be a no-no. That would kill reloaders like me.

warlock
06-05-2009, 5:06 PM
And there are rifles that shoot 9mm and .45.I called his orfice yesterday and told them that I opposed this bill.Im sure they passed that on to him.:rolleyes:Also called all my area legislators.Some told me they had little input from the public.We really need a part time legislature so they can stop cranking out useless bills.

Phil3
06-05-2009, 8:03 PM
Right, mail order would be a no-no. That would kill reloaders like me.

Kills reloading because the bill requires face to face transaction for bullets?

cousinkix1953
06-05-2009, 8:10 PM
Well, now you can say "All you Calgunners, write your Rep and tell him/her to oppose AB 962". You can even say "Remind your Rep that AB 362 failed last session, and it isn't any better this time around, so let's move on to something serious, OK?"

That's a bit more focused than writing your Rep and saying "Please vote against everything that statist b*****d DeLeon submits."

Though that action by your Rep probably would be good, too.
Like banning those canned music concerts (raves) which attract drug dealers in the Cow Palace. Criminals are selling meth and ecstasy which can kill somebody...

bsim
06-05-2009, 8:21 PM
...You can only have an "ammunition vendor" license if you have a business and a physical store location.But then your physical location has to have ammo unaccessable by customers.:no:

motorhead
06-06-2009, 10:57 AM
here's some of our opposition
http://www.womenslegalresource.com/blog/archives/1273

Librarian
06-06-2009, 11:16 AM
here's some of our opposition
http://www.womenslegalresource.com/blog/archives/1273

And the comments there are perfect - no need to add any more. All 3 oppose the writer's goal and oppose the bill.

mzimmers
06-06-2009, 2:16 PM
And the comments there are perfect - no need to add any more. All 3 oppose the writer's goal and oppose the bill.
And it appears that the post is closed to further comment. I guess the author, in typical feminazi liberal spirit, didn't like opposing views and decided to shut them down.

I guess we're lucky she didn't delete them...

goober
06-06-2009, 2:30 PM
here's some of our opposition
http://www.womenslegalresource.com/blog/archives/1273

this is downright funny:

A 2006 RAND Corporation study found substantial amounts of ammunition purchased by felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms in sporting goods stores and gun shops. RAND reported that “guns and ammunition possessed by felons and others prohibited from owning weapons are more likely to be used in violent crimes than weapons and ammunition bought by people with no criminal histories.”

it took a RAND corp study to figure out that felons are more likely to commit violent crimes with a gun than non-felons?
and do people who read this actually think it somehow strengthens the argument for AB962?
hmmmm, lets see. felons who are prohibited from owning guns somehow get guns, and when they do, those guns are the most likely to be used in violent crimes... so if we make a law that tries to apply similar controls on ammunition as those that are intended to prevent felons from obtaining guns, at great expense and inconvenience to business owners and law-abiding gun owners, the felons won't be able to get ammo any more and violent crimes committed with guns will disappear.... :rolleyes:
yeah right.

motorhead
06-07-2009, 9:23 AM
i was trying to find current status. my idiot question of today, does/did this get a new number when it went to the senate?
here's an idea, for critical legeslation, howzabout a status sticky that's CLOSED TO POSTS/COMMENTS, just shows current status. i hate having to go back and reread the long ones to find the links for status, especially the ones with the text quoted every othe page.

HondaMasterTech
06-07-2009, 9:26 AM
I believe the bill links are listed on the CGF main page.

Anthonysmanifesto
06-07-2009, 9:35 AM
i was trying to find current status. my idiot question of today, does/did this get a new number when it went to the senate?
here's an idea, for critical legeslation, howzabout a status sticky that's CLOSED TO POSTS/COMMENTS, just shows current status. i hate having to go back and reread the long ones to find the links for status, especially the ones with the text quoted every othe page.

motorhead: check this site http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html , put in the bill number you want. and no it does not change in the senate on the natural, it is still AB 962.

when you get to the bill page you can check status or history among other things.

Librarian
06-07-2009, 8:35 PM
i was trying to find current status. my idiot question of today, does/did this get a new number when it went to the senate?
here's an idea, for critical legeslation, howzabout a status sticky that's CLOSED TO POSTS/COMMENTS, just shows current status. i hate having to go back and reread the long ones to find the links for status, especially the ones with the text quoted every othe page.

Last first - see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161600; I'll update it tomorrow afternoon; I've been busy this week.

The change-number thing is one I thought when first I moved back to California. When a bill is passed from one house to another, it keeps its identity.

But back in the early 90's there were two nearly identical bills, on in the Assembly and one in the Senate. Going only by the content, it looked as if it had changed numbers.

Shoulda seen the scathing reply I got from Dan Boatwright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Boatwright)!

motorhead
06-10-2009, 9:23 AM
Last first - see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161600; I'll update it tomorrow afternoon; I've been busy this week.

The change-number thing is one I thought when first I moved back to California. When a bill is passed from one house to another, it keeps its identity.

But back in the early 90's there were two nearly identical bills, on in the Assembly and one in the Senate. Going only by the content, it looked as if it had changed numbers.

Shoulda seen the scathing reply I got from Dan Boatwright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Boatwright)!

any updates.

maxmiller
08-05-2009, 5:51 PM
Below is an article copied from:

http://www.gunownersca.com/news/display/?id=606


Ammunition Registration Bill Suspended!

Posted on 07-27-2009

Late last Thursday evening, July 23rd, or, Early Friday Morning July 24th, whichever you like, the Senate Appropriations Committee, upon hearing testimony from GOC placed the bill AB 962 into the Suspense File.

AB 962 by Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon (D), which calls for registration of handgun ammunition by purchasers and dealers, and also calls for placing all ammunition behind counters in locked cases, like spray paint and certain drugs, was scheduled for hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday, July 23.

The author waived his right to present his testimony on the bill because it was recommended for the suspense file .

All bills with a cost of over $175,000 automatically go to the suspense file. while the legislature figures out how much money they will have to spend on new programs. Once the legislators have a dollar figure, they prioritize and cherry pick which programs they can pay for out of the suspense file.

The Senate Appropriations Committee analysis showed that the bill had an undetermined cost to the state but that it was probably more than $175,000. GOC testified that there are approximately $652 million in sales of handgun ammunition annually in California. Also, that since Assemblyman DeLeon has stated that the impact on the sale of ammunition would be the same as the impact on spray paint and pharmaceutical products when they placed them behind counters and in locked cases, GOC learned from the paint and drug industry that they saw a drop of as much as 30% in sales of those products as a result of those actions. GOC testified that even with a conservative estimate of a similar drop in sales of handgun ammunition, CA would experience a loss of $11 to $12 million in sales tax revenue. The Senate Appropriations Committee saw that as significant and requested more information for their review.

The legislature is out on recess until August 17, 2009. When they come back they will deal with the legislation that is still hanging (suspended) around. We may see this bill again. Thank you for all of your efforts, phone calls, letters, faxes and upkeep that you have done to help over come this bill that targets gun owners, hunters, and all handguns. Keep up the great work you do in coming alongside of the great work we do on behalf of all gun owners in the state.
GOC Website editor


------------

When considering CA's budget crisis, it seems unlikely that a law which will undoubtedly reduce CA's income from taxes will be passed. Let's keep our fingers crossed.....

Librarian
08-05-2009, 8:08 PM
Main thread for 962 is this one:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=176297

The interesting date to come is indeed Monday, August 17, when the Legislature comes back into session from Summer recess, and 962 may come OFF the Suspense file.

Until then, please send polite letters to the Senate Appropriations Committee itself, as well as the members, pointing out that we can't afford any more spending and that the Department of Finance opposes the bill, because the cost estimates are too low and no funding for the enforcement has been appropriated.

KylaGWolf
08-05-2009, 10:27 PM
Librarian I so hope it doesn't. I honestly wish this stupid bill will die a quick and painless death. The bad part is DeLeon seems to think this is a zombie bill and keeps bringing it back over and over again.

nick
08-05-2009, 11:07 PM
here's some of our opposition
http://www.womenslegalresource.com/blog/archives/1273

We Shall Conquer Untruth By Truth And In Resisting Untruth We Shall Put Up With All Suffering

What does that even mean? :confused:

Tried asking my girlfriend, she laughed and gave me this translation:

It means all truth shall come from the heart and it will oppose untruth and untruth will bring unhappiness but I guess we will oppose unhappiness with happiness and in opposing unhappiness we will put up with all suffering

Now I'm more confused, which was her purpose, I'm sure. Oh well, at least she was making fun of hippies.

7x57
08-05-2009, 11:10 PM
Tried asking my girlfriend, she laughed and gave me this translation:


Does that mean the GF is back, and if so is that why you didn't answer my message about hiking? What a lame excuse! :p

And here I was going to drop you a line about this weekend, too.

7x57

motorhead
08-06-2009, 7:30 AM
i believe it's a mantra for coping with PMS.

phamkl
08-06-2009, 8:42 AM
More than just cutting down on sales tax income don't forget that there will be an actual cost in setting up a new department at the DOJ and inpating for a staff to maintain and run it. Deleon is truly scum in placing his own reelection setup before the whole state's well being, economically and otherwise.

mfmayes49
08-06-2009, 12:01 PM
I called my rep and this time I didn't make a issue of our rights being violated, this time I said " we can't afford a law which we don't have the money to enforce, and it wont curb crime at all"

rojocorsa
08-23-2009, 9:36 PM
I was just informed about this bill today (better late than never) and I'm disgusted.

Do politicians forget that "criminals don't follow the law?"

Or is this not even about crime prevention?

Phil3
08-28-2009, 9:35 PM
A primary concern of mine is the oft-repeated claim that the bill will prohibit Internet sales. I am not entirely sure that is correct. A portion of the language from the bill, pulled off the State of California web site today, is below.
______________

The bill would provide, subject to exceptions, that commencing
July 1, 2010, the sale or other delivery or
transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a
face-to-face transaction, with the seller
deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of
identity of the purchaser or other transferee. A violation of these
provisions would be a misdemeanor.
______________

I know a thumbprint is required along with a host of other things that would EFFECTIVELY kill mail order sales, but the language above seems to indicate that the deliverer (UPS, Fed-X, etc..), obtain a evidence of the person signing for the ammo in a face-to-face way. Not the sales people. Where am I wrong?

- Phil

Librarian
08-28-2009, 9:52 PM
A primary concern of mine is the oft-repeated claim that the bill will prohibit Internet sales. I am not entirely sure that is correct. A portion of the language from the bill, pulled off the State of California web site today, is below.
______________

The bill would provide, subject to exceptions, that commencing
July 1, 2010, the sale or other delivery or
transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a
face-to-face transaction, with the seller
deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of
identity of the purchaser or other transferee. A violation of these
provisions would be a misdemeanor.
______________

I know a thumbprint is required along with a host of other things that would EFFECTIVELY kill mail order sales, but the language above seems to indicate that the deliverer (UPS, Fed-X, etc..), obtain a evidence of the person signing for the ammo in a face-to-face way. Not the sales people. Where am I wrong?

- Phil I think the author would argue that the delivery service is not the transferor-in-fact. The UPS or whatever folks would have to be licensed as provided by this bill so they could take info and fingerprint and make them available for inspection.

Now, if the seller hired the driver and rented the truck, the driver might be an agent of the transferor the same way a sales droid is in a shop.

That's what I'd argue if I were prosecuting under this piece of dreck.

dantodd
08-28-2009, 10:42 PM
I think the author would argue that the delivery service is not the transferor-in-fact. The UPS or whatever folks would have to be licensed as provided by this bill so they could take info and fingerprint and make them available for inspection.

Now, if the seller hired the driver and rented the truck, the driver might be an agent of the transferor the same way a sales droid is in a shop.

That's what I'd argue if I were prosecuting under this piece of dreck.

The statute does say delivery OR transfer. Which would seem to permit a non-FTF transfer as long as delivery is done FTF. However; I know of no service offered by the major carriers that includes ID verification so it's almost certainly a non-starter.

Roadrunner
08-29-2009, 7:48 AM
Does anyone have any other information on DeLeon (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a45/bio.aspx) besides his bio? He appears to be the quintessential uber liberal and has the typical profile of an antigun politician. I might also add that getting rid of him and his antigun politics should fall to progun groups like L.A. Pink Pistols, since he is in their neck of the woods. Are there any progun Hispanic organizations around there? I'm thinking the "Silver Lake" area specifically around Alvarado.

I also decided to post the coauthor Bonnie Lowenthal (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a54/Biography/default.aspx).

MrSigmaDOT40
08-29-2009, 8:06 AM
This is just pure BS. when they want to do something they are going to get it done period. We know how this stuff is going to turn out here in CA. I say we all move to nevada or something and do another free state project before the libs take over that state. They are going to continue to go after the ammo, they are not really worried about going directly after guns. All the writting and e-mails obviously means nothing to these people when they have there minds set on something. If it doesn't mean they will get kicked out or lose a lot of personal money/clout, they are going to do what they want regardless of if we flood there e-mails to the poitn there computer systems crash.

radioburning
08-29-2009, 10:41 AM
I also decided to post the coauthor Bonnie Lowenthal (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a54/Biography/default.aspx).

Lowenthal is in my district. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I remember reading somewhere that she had a son, or even her husband, that was murdered by a gangbanger with a handgun. So, she's always gonna be trying to get all guns banned. I plan on doing everything I can to get her out come next election...

Roadrunner
08-29-2009, 2:37 PM
I just wish People like Lowenthal listened. If what Radioburning writes is correct, I feel for her loss. Unfortunately, like Sarah Brady, she doesn't see the value of a gun in self defense. In her selfishness, and unlike Susanna Gratia Hupp, who witnessed the death of her parents a Luby's restaurant in Killeen, Texas, she wants everyone to be as defenseless as her family members were, and that's a sad statement about her character. Radioburning, I hope you and the pro2A people that you know succeed. If she's unwilling to listen, she needs to be gone.

Kestryll
08-30-2009, 8:11 PM
So... you'll notice that the rather idiotic remark and the responses which in some cases were just as idiotic, are gone.

This thread's topic is AB962, not keep it that way.

cousinkix1953
08-30-2009, 8:21 PM
Lowenthal is in my district. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I remember reading somewhere that she had a son, or even her husband, that was murdered by a gangbanger with a handgun. So, she's always gonna be trying to get all guns banned. I plan on doing everything I can to get her out come next election...
She sounds like a rep Carolyn McCarty clone to me.

Roadrunner
08-30-2009, 9:50 PM
She sounds like a rep Carolyn McCarty clone to me.

Very misguided. Ammunition restrictions did nothing before and the same will occur again.

hoffmang
08-30-2009, 9:52 PM
/side note: Sometimes I love watching my post count fall!

-Gene

22popnsplat
09-19-2009, 8:58 AM
I have not seen any mention of a very important fact , most all of the rifle ammo can be fired in a pistol . with the savage bolt pistols ,contender, encore,freedom arms just to name a few . We could be losing our rifle ammo too.

kmoney168
09-22-2009, 10:24 PM
I'll be printing and handing out flyers this week, I've posted on my Facebook page and stirred the pot with my pacifist gun shy friends (who I've tried to get to come to the range with me to learn and understand) i've called and e-mailed the Gov...i hope this does not pass...

If you do happen to e-mail the Governor i suggest hitting them where it hurts...the wallet! Early in my career a supervisor explained to me how to get upper management to listen to requests for more, or less, of anything. Put it into numbers. Show them the evidence for, or for not, doing something.

In my e-mail to the Gov i tried the "if you limit the number of bullets purchased each month you limit the amount of sales tax you can take in per person each month" and in our community that would be a significant reduction in funds.

Just a thought and a tactic that might get through to him easier if you do decide to write and call.

freonr22
09-22-2009, 10:37 PM
I have a silly question... Why would the sales tax go down by banning Internet sales? why would it not go up! as it would force you to buy here???

RRangel
09-22-2009, 10:37 PM
This is just pure BS. when they want to do something they are going to get it done period. We know how this stuff is going to turn out here in CA. I say we all move to nevada or something and do another free state project before the libs take over that state. They are going to continue to go after the ammo, they are not really worried about going directly after guns. All the writting and e-mails obviously means nothing to these people when they have there minds set on something. If it doesn't mean they will get kicked out or lose a lot of personal money/clout, they are going to do what they want regardless of if we flood there e-mails to the poitn there computer systems crash.

Is that you Paul Helmke? Give the defeatism as rest already because we're taking our rights back whether gun ban snobs like it or not.

kmoney168
09-22-2009, 11:14 PM
I have a silly question... Why would the sales tax go down by banning Internet sales? why would it not go up! as it would force you to buy here???

freonr22 - if' I'm not reading this right feel free to correct me, maybe i've missed something but i've read the entire bill here - http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090226_introduced.html

to simplify my point about sales tax, this statement in the bill leads me to belive that there will be a dramatic reduction in the volume of sales of ammo state wide - "no person shall sell or transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month"

If I go to the range twice a month and blow off 200+ rounds each time and I'm then limited to 50 rounds per month. that would be a reduction in sales tax of -87% per month? (if my 200 round per-person x2 per month was the average)

donstarr
09-23-2009, 5:32 AM
I have a silly question... Why would the sales tax go down by banning Internet sales? why would it not go up! as it would force you to buy here???

In California, you're *supposed* to report your untaxed purchases from out-of-state, and pay use tax on them, with your state income tax return (i.e. line 49 of the 2008 Form 540).

Presuming that people actually comply with the above, and if AB962 is not vetoed:
* If net ammunition sales decrease significantly, it's a decrease in tax revenue.
* If, however, ammunition sales do not decrease, it would probably result in an increase in tax revenue, presuming that ammunition purchased locally is more expensive than that purchased online (resulting in a higher base amount on which tax is calculated).

to simplify my point about sales tax, this statement in the bill leads me to belive that there will be a dramatic reduction in the volume of sales of ammo state wide - "no person shall sell or transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month"

That language has been removed in the amended versions (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html) of AB962 - there is no longer any mention of quantity restrictions.

Even when that language was there, it did not restrict how much ammo you could purchase - it limited how much you could sell or transfer without being a registered handgun ammunition vendor.

tcop143
09-23-2009, 7:43 AM
My buddy has an ammo order pending with Cabela's and he just received this email from them:

To: Cabela's California Customers
From: Cabela's Communications
Subject: California Assembly Bill 962
Date: Sept. 22, 2009

We are writing to inform you of pending legislation that will restrict purchases of handgun ammunition in California and will terminate our ability to service your needs for certain products.

On Friday, Sept. 11, the California Assembly passed Assembly Bill 962, by a 44-31 vote.

Among other regulations, AB 962 would:



• Ban all mail-order and Internet sales of handgun ammunition.
• Prohibit the retail sale, the offer for sale or the display of handgun ammunition in a
manner that allows ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without assistance of a
vendor or employee.
• Require that the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition occur in a
face-to-face transaction, with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide
evidence of identity of the purchaser or other transferee.

That evidence of identity, which must be legibly recorded at the time of delivery, includes:



• The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee.
• The date of the sale or other transaction.
• The purchaser's or transferee's driver's license or other identification number and the
state in which it was issued.
• The brand, type and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise transferred.
• The purchaser's or transferee's signature.
• The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or other transaction.
• The purchaser's or transferee's full residential address and telephone number.
• The purchaser's or transferee's date of birth.

The bill is on the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, where it awaits his consideration. He will have until Oct. 11 to sign or veto the bill. If he does not veto the bill, it will become law.

If you wish to comment on AB 962, you may contact Gov. Schwarzenegger by phone at (916) 445-2841, or via fax at (916) 558-3160. To e-mail Gov. Schwarzenegger, visit
http://gov.ca.gov/interact

We encourage all Cabela's customers who participate in the shooting sports to contact Gov. Schwarzenegger to voice their opposition to this initiative, which will limit your opportunities to shop with Cabela's, and will restrict the sale of handgun ammunition everywhere in California.

Just thought I would brighten everyone's day. FWIW, I contacted the governor's office and asked for his veto.

1BigPea
09-23-2009, 7:46 AM
^^^

That went out to everyone in California on Cabela's mailing list yesterday.

Mirage
09-23-2009, 8:22 AM
I remember having to sign for ammo purchases back in the 70's.
I saw in one of the many 962 threads someone mentioning this and the fact that it went away because it didn't work then.
Can anyone direct me to that topic?

obeygiant
09-23-2009, 8:52 AM
I remember having to sign for ammo purchases back in the 70's.
I saw in one of the many 962 threads someone mentioning this and the fact that it went away because it didn't work then.
Can anyone direct me to that topic?

It was the GCA of 1968, here' (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3051556&postcount=2401)s a post with the relevant quote

Mirage
09-23-2009, 9:10 AM
962 Deja Vu
That is what I needed.
Thanks

Mayhem
09-23-2009, 1:48 PM
Question

Is there a law that forbids a prohibited person (convicted felon, gang member, drug addict, wife beater, nutjob ect) from possessing hand gun ammunition?

I know there are laws forbidding them from possessing firearms but what about ammunitions.

donstarr
09-23-2009, 1:58 PM
Question

Is there a law that forbids a prohibited person (convicted felon, gang member, drug addict, wife beater, nutjob ect) from possessing hand gun ammunition?

I know there are laws forbidding them from possessing firearms but what about ammunitions.

PC 12316(b):
(1) No person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm
under Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103
of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall own, possess, or have
under his or her custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded
ammunition.

Mayhem
09-23-2009, 4:26 PM
PC 12316(b):
(1) No person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm
under Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103
of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall own, possess, or have
under his or her custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded
ammunition.

Whats the penalty. If it's not a felony it's useless and I'm betting at worse its a misdemeanor.

Because I don't see this doing jack to stop a prohibited person from walking into walmart and walking out with a box of 9mm.

A) there is no instant background check to see if said person is prohibited. therefore there is nothing stopping them from getting ammunition at walmart or any where else.

B) Some one would have to go threw every sales record and thumb print and check them to see if they are prohibited person .... i don't see this happening.

C) In cases of a false ID the only thing you have to go off of is a fingerprint wich means checking it against NICS. Again this is expensive and I don't see it happening.

D) There is nothing stopping a prohibited person from getting a non-prohibited person to purchase ammo for them. This is how underage gang bangers get around age restrictions on Ammunition.

E) There is nothing stopping a prohibited person from going out of state to purchase ammunition or having some else go out of state for them.

F) there is nothing stopping some one from having an out of state private party from sending them handgun ammunition.

G) there is nothing stopping a prohibited person that ab962 failed to keep from obtaining ammunition from local retailer using the same ammunition to commit other crimes.

H) ab962 is effectively useless if the prohibited person is already wanted for other crimes. at best you may get a clue as to were this person is IF some one is checking sales records and thumb prints (unlikely)

So effectively ab962 isn't going to jack at keeping Prohibited persons from walking into walmart and walking out with a box of handgun ammunition.

At best It may prosecute a few prohibited people after the fact IF some one is checking all the sales records and thumb prints which is going to be very very expensive.

However the law abiding citizen is going to pay more for ammunition, and be very limited on selection. Retailers will now have to document hand gun ammunition sales and keep/report those records.

ab962 is vague to vague. It does not define what is Handgun ammunition. take for example the .22lr which is used equally in handguns as it is rifles. How about .45 long Colt which is typically considered handgun ammunition but several lever action rifles also use it. Then there is .223 rem which one would normally be considered long gun ammunition but there are some handguns that can use it. In fact nearly all ammunition can qualify as handgun ammunition.

ab962 is useless. it will have absolutely no effect on violent crime at all. It's going to cost California allot of money to actually use it effectively which still will not put a dent in violent crime. ab962 is a perfect example why politicians shouldn't write laws or vote for laws on a subject they do not understand.

Me personally If Ab962 gets signed into law I'm going to start going out of state to purchase all my Shooting and Outdoor supplies and equipment. California can Kiss my tax dollars good bye.

bulgron
09-23-2009, 5:36 PM
Me personally If Ab962 gets signed into law I'm going to start going out of state to purchase all my Shooting and Outdoor supplies and equipment. California can Kiss my tax dollars good bye.

Hey, don't tell us, tell the Governor (http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email).

djbooya
09-23-2009, 11:47 PM
<snip>
ab962 is vague to vague. It does not define what is Handgun ammunition. take for example the .22lr which is used equally in handguns as it is rifles. How about .45 long Colt which is typically considered handgun ammunition but several lever action rifles also use it. Then there is .223 rem which one would normally be considered long gun ammunition but there are some handguns that can use it. In fact nearly all ammunition can qualify as handgun ammunition.
<snip>


On page 12 of AB962:


SEC. 5. Section 12316 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 12316. (a) (1) Any person, corporation, or dealer who does either of the following shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not to exceed six months, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the imprisonment and fine:
(A) Sells any ammunition or reloaded ammunition to a person under 18 years of age.
(B) Sells any ammunition or reloaded ammunition designed and intended for use in a handgun to a person under 21 years of age. As used in this subparagraph, “ammunition” means handgun ammunition as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12323. Where ammunition or reloaded ammunition may be used in both a rifle and a handgun, it may be sold to a person who is at least 18 years of age, but less than 21 years of age, if the vendor reasonably believes that the ammunition is being acquired for use in a rifle and not a handgun.


Emphasis added by me.

Mayhem
09-24-2009, 1:57 AM
Hey, don't tell us, tell the Governor (http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email).

I did 8)

Trlsmn
09-24-2009, 8:43 AM
The definition of Ammunition in this bill is interesting
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "ammunition" shall include,
but not be limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed
loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a
firearm with a deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include
blanks.

BigBamBoo
09-24-2009, 9:32 AM
The definition of Ammunition in this bill is interesting

Interesting indeed....with that kind of wording I am betting that most of the online vendors will stop shipping ANY ammo and or reloading supplies into CA.

Take care,Stan

gunrun45
09-24-2009, 12:38 PM
So...
This would mean that theoretcially I would have to purchase ANY magazine in kit form to legally ship it into CA?

I draw the line with this friggin state if I have to do that. Parts kitting in a 10 round mag...

Nice to know that the projectile (bullet) for reloading is banned but I can still mail order my powder, primers, casings and lead to pour in my mold to roll my own. I truely hate the incompetent BS that stands for politcs in this god-forsaken state.

nugun
10-04-2009, 9:30 PM
As a former San Diego resident who remembered walking around the mall as a small child, while my father carried his Ruger Security-Six on his hip.

Anyways, I couldn't sit on the sidelines silent. I felt compelled to support my fellow Americans on the Western Coast.

So below is the letter I sent to the Governator...


***

As a former San Diego resident who remembers a much freer California from his childhood days. I am greatly bothered by the unreasonable controls that California is pursuing on it's citizen's freedom.

Recently there has been talk of regulating the purchase of ammunition. Limiting it to 50 rounds a month. This is ridiculous and not even close to being reasonable. This proposed regulation will essentially eliminate sport shooting.

I participate in a small local shooting competition here in Pennsylvania. Our league would be considered very small by national standards. I will usually expend 50 rounds in a single competition. If there is a mechanical failure of equipment that requires me to re-do the course, I'll expend another 50 rounds. During league we have a competition each week. So we're talking 200-250 rounds. Just to compete...

Arnold, you're a competitor. You understand competition. If the only time you ever lifted weights was on stage during tournaments - you'd have lost. No, you practiced, often....probably daily.

Now I just do this for fun. But it easily equates to a few hundred rounds a month during league times. What I do is equivalent to "kicking the soccer ball around with friends at the park". There are those who compete much more actively, they may go through more than a thousand rounds in a week.

This regulation would essentially end the ability for my fellow Americans living in California to compete. And what would it accomplish? How many rounds does an L.A. gang-banger need to conduct a drive-by or gun down a rival gang member? One, two, five, ten, fifteen....at most thirty or so. As few magazines can hold more than that. And that's still under the 50 round limit.

This law will do NOTHING to reduce crime, Just reduce liberty. By this point, you might be wondering "Why someone in Pennsylvania would contact you. Or why I'd even care?"

1. I have a fondness in my heart for California. In fact, I am still a Padres fan (might even be the only one east of the Mississippi.)

2. I view this proposed regulation as a clear violation of our 2nd Amendment rights. And I am not going to stand aside and watch my fellow Americans lose their God/naturally-given rights.

3. To let you know just how truly useless this law will be. Because I, and many others, view this law as immoral and unconstitutional. Not only do we believe that we do not need to recognize this law's authority; we also believe we need to stand against it with civil disobedience.

In other words Arnold, this means that if a friend of mine in California needs ammunition. I believe it is my patriotic duty to help them acquire it - against the mandates of this law. And if that means driving to Nevada and throwing a case of ammo across the border into California....so be it.

And wouldn't that be interesting. I will have broken no law. In fact, I will not have even entered CA. Meanwhile, my friend will not have purchased any ammunition. He will merely have stumbled across a box of ammo lying in the desert near the border of California & Nevada.

What then....do you really want to waste precious resources trying to stop good, moral Americans from advocating their Constitutionally protected rights. Wouldn't you rather expend the energy of law enforcement on stopping the numerous gang bangers in L.A.?

And might I ask WHAT IN THE WORLD YOU GUYS ARE DOING trying to pass this legislation while the California budget is in shambles? The budget is in such a horrific state that California has been seeking billions in bailout money from the Federal government and issuing it's citizens I.O.U.s. But somehow the California legislature has enough time to waste energy taking away the rights of their citizens. Don't they have more important things to do?

Rest assured if you pass this law, we who are outside your state will contact all of our Congressmen and oppose ANY and ALL attempts by California to sequester aid funds from the Federal government.

obeygiant
10-04-2009, 10:46 PM
nugun,

Welcome to CGN and thank you for your support.

nugun
10-04-2009, 11:33 PM
No prob...

I've actually been bumping into a few of your members at both the Gun Rights Policy Conference in St. Louis and the NRA Annual Meeting Phoenix, AZ.

T7-1
10-07-2009, 9:02 AM
I just spent the last 20 minutes trying to find an update on the Governor's website - is it me or is it just not there?:confused:

CpuFixrMan
10-11-2009, 11:53 PM
I just checked http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/2009bills/ and it hasn't been posted as vetoed yet either. =/ So far, I can't find anything on it.

jrara
10-12-2009, 4:57 AM
I'm still calling because Its still on there.

Who knows If we still flood the lines He might still veto it.

reddenedbeard
10-12-2009, 7:45 AM
Well .. SB585 and SB41 have been vetoed. I hope AB962 slips in there.

HypersportFrank
10-12-2009, 9:59 AM
BAD NEWS - it's signed:
AB 962 by Assemblymember Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) - Ammunition. See attached signing message.

http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/2009bills/AB962_DeLeon_Signing_Message.pdf

Super Spy
10-12-2009, 10:06 AM
Will they now intercept UPS packages marked OREM-D?


It's ORM-D....and the same label is used on perfume and numerous other products...so I may be shipping myself "perfume" from Washington State...