PDA

View Full Version : AB962 - reloading & magazines restricted?


EBR Works
09-11-2009, 6:19 PM
I have not seen a discussion of this specific language in AB962:

(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.


If Arnold does not veto this, how will this language affect purchase of projectiles and brass for reloading? Purchase of mags and rebuild kits? Opinions?

Glock22Fan
09-11-2009, 6:22 PM
I have not seen a discussion of this specific language in AB962:



If Arnold does not veto this, how will this language affect purchase of projectiles and brass for reloading? Opinions?

It means face to face only. NO mail order. No buying things your local store doesn't stock and won't get for you.

dfletcher
09-11-2009, 6:23 PM
I think if this goes through on line vendors will treat CA the same way Midway treats San Francisco - they won't even mail me empty brass or plain old bullets.

BTW - am I to understand magazines are considered "ammunition" and will be restricted in some way?

kf6tac
09-11-2009, 6:28 PM
I think if this goes through on line vendors will treat CA the same way Midway treats San Francisco - they won't even mail me empty brass or plain old bullets.

BTW - am I to understand magazines are considered "ammunition" and will be restricted in some way?

Yep, looks like you won't even be able to buy new magazines for your firearms over the internet. Sucks if you own a gun with hard-to-get mags, like the Mini-30.

evollep3
09-11-2009, 6:28 PM
I have not seen a discussion of this specific language in AB962:



If Arnold does not veto this, how will this language affect purchase of projectiles and brass for reloading? Opinions?

this is worded to sond that way but i also may just refrence black powder bullets or projectile but then again ahhhhh.............. i dunno i will just wait for Bill to break this down later or Kes :confused:
lets see time to buy 10,000 more rounds!

halifax
09-11-2009, 6:29 PM
I think if this goes through on line vendors will treat CA the same way Midway treats San Francisco - they won't even mail me empty brass or plain old bullets.

BTW - am I to understand magazines are considered "ammunition" and will be restricted in some way?

And speed loaders, too. Who are these idiots that write this crap?

Shotgun Man
09-11-2009, 6:34 PM
I have not seen a discussion of this specific language in AB962:

(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.



If Arnold does not veto this, how will this language affect purchase of projectiles and brass for reloading? Opinions?

Just reading the text you quoted, I would conclude bullets are included, but brass is not.

bulgron
09-11-2009, 6:36 PM
Thank god I go to Nevada at least once a year, and Arizona at least once a year. There's still nothing to stop me from buying all I want while I'm out of state and driving it back in.

Hmmm.... I wonder if I'll be able to buy mags and have them shipped to my in-law's house in AZ?

Bah. Let's just hope Arnold vetos this thing.

CHS
09-11-2009, 6:39 PM
Just reading the text you quoted, I would conclude bullets are included, but brass is not.

"Cartridge" doesn't mean brass? huh?

Dr Rockso
09-11-2009, 6:46 PM
"Cartridge" doesn't mean brass? huh?

Cartridge typically refers to one unit of loaded ammunition (casing, primer, powder, bullet).

Yep, looks like you won't even be able to buy new magazines for your firearms over the internet. Sucks if you own a gun with hard-to-get mags, like the Mini-30.

Unless you have a Mini-30 handgun it wouldn't apply...

G17GUY
09-11-2009, 6:48 PM
"Cartridge" doesn't mean brass? huh?

It is the powder.

dsmoot
09-11-2009, 7:06 PM
(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.
I think this is the key here. How is a magazine, clip, or speed loader "capable of being fired from a firearm with deadly consequence."?

These people are morons if they think that a magazine is capable of deadly consequence.

leitung
09-11-2009, 7:08 PM
Idiots... The thing is, those who have handguns in calibers that are obsecure, i.e. 8mm Nambu or 7.62X25 wont be able to find ammo for thier handguns. They are effectively banning the use of those handguns.

Surefire
09-11-2009, 7:11 PM
Arnold will probably sign this.

He has turned into a gun hating liberal, especially when he showed his true colors and signed micro-stamping a few years back.

I think the only hope is for the NRA to sue ... which could get hung up in court for YEARS... and chances are won't be overturned anyway.

Things look really bleak in this state.

pwall
09-11-2009, 7:13 PM
man. All I have to say is that we get what we deserve.

Chunky_lover
09-11-2009, 7:15 PM
yeah thats what we get for being law abiding citizens.

jumbopanda
09-11-2009, 7:21 PM
Doesn't that definition only apply to this subdivision, and not the part regarding internet sales?

(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.

joefrank64k
09-11-2009, 7:26 PM
The only ray of light is this:

Subdivision (a) shall not apply to or affect the deliveries,
transfers, or sales of, handgun ammunition to any of the following:

(6) Persons licensed as collectors of firearms pursuant to Chapter
44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States
Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto whose licensed
premises are within this state who has a current certificate of
eligibility issued to him or her by the Department of Justice
pursuant to Section 12071.

Sub (a) is the provision effectively banning internet sales, which doesn't seem to apply to 03/COE holders...so it's time for everyone to get their 03 FFL and COE...and BOMBARD the Governor!!!

EBR Works
09-11-2009, 7:34 PM
Doesn't that definition only apply to this subdivision, and not the part regarding internet sales?

(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.

You may be correct. We'll have to wait for an analysis by the right people to know for sure.

joe4702
09-11-2009, 7:36 PM
What's really sad is 99.99% of the citizens of CA don't know about this bill and at best wouldn't care one way or another if it passed.

Brian617
09-11-2009, 7:58 PM
I haven't had time to read through everything, but does anyone know if Law Enforcement Officers will be exempt from this new ammo law, granted Arnold signs it? I'm not talking about getting ammo through their dept., but I wonder if an online vendor would sell handgun ammo to a LEO.

piglith
09-11-2009, 8:04 PM
I haven't had time to read through everything, but does anyone know if Law Enforcement Officers will be exempt from this new ammo law, granted Arnold signs it? I'm not talking about getting ammo through their dept., but I wonder if an online vendor would sell handgun ammo to a LEO.

I read as requires Face to Face proof.

Librarian
09-11-2009, 8:06 PM
I have not seen a discussion of this specific language in AB962:



If Arnold does not veto this, how will this language affect purchase of projectiles and brass for reloading? Purchase of mags and rebuild kits? Opinions?

That definition is existing law, not part of 962. And it applies only inside its numbered section - there are no changes in 962 regarding magazines or reloading things.

freonr22
09-11-2009, 8:15 PM
and we sit here and take it

formula502
09-11-2009, 8:40 PM
I see the magazine/speedloader/projectile language in two places...

The first is in Section 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.
(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.


This appears to say that "bad guys" can't possess mags etc. NO PROBLEM!

Then second is in section 12317.

(a) Any person, corporation, or firm who supplies,
delivers, sells, or gives possession or control of, any ammunition to
any person who he or she knows or using reasonable care should know
is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under his or her
custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition pursuant to
paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 12316, is guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

...continued...

(c) For purposes of this section, "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 deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include
blanks.

This seems to read that you cannot TRANSFER mags etc. to anyone you should reasonably know to be a "bad guy". BIG @#$%ING PROBLEM!

Who would want to worry about determining whether or not you're a "bad guy" just to sell some magazines? Especially through the mail / internet!

Shotgun Man
09-11-2009, 8:42 PM
I think this is the key here. How is a magazine, clip, or speed loader "capable of being fired from a firearm with deadly consequence."?

(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.

These people are morons if they think that a magazine is capable of deadly consequence.

Good point, but "capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence" will be construed to modify only "projectile," not magazine, etc.

Shotgun Man
09-11-2009, 8:43 PM
"Cartridge" doesn't mean brass? huh?

Brass-- empty cartridges, either spent or new.

kdm
09-11-2009, 8:45 PM
+1, Joe4750. Most don't know about this, and wouldn't care. Long as there's granola to eat, bunnies to stroke and Mommy Government to wipe their little tushies, the populace has their opium.

Also,there's lots of NIMBY. One co-worker, when told of AB962, asked if it affects those who reload. Told him, "No". "Doesn't really concern me", was his paraphrased reply.

Well, I said no before this particular part of the thread. He'll probably start taking action on Monday when told of this little wrinkle.

jumbopanda
09-11-2009, 8:53 PM
Guys, read the bill before jumping to conclusions. This definition only applies to a certain subdivision.

formula502
09-11-2009, 9:01 PM
If I'm reading it right, it applies to two subdivisions/sections.

One is benign, the other really looks like trouble.

Please check out my post just a few spots above.

Stormtrooperthunder
09-11-2009, 9:03 PM
quick question, would it be okay for me to buy a ****ton of ammo right now?
:TFH:

Librarian
09-11-2009, 9:05 PM
I see the magazine/speedloader/projectile language in two places...

The first is in Section 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.
(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.


This appears to say that "bad guys" can't possess mags etc. NO PROBLEM!

Then second is in section 12317.

(a) Any person, corporation, or firm who supplies,
delivers, sells, or gives possession or control of, any ammunition to
any person who he or she knows or using reasonable care should know
is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under his or her
custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition pursuant to
paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 12316, is guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

...continued...

(c) For purposes of this section, "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 deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include
blanks.

This seems to read that you cannot TRANSFER mags etc. to anyone you should reasonably know to be a "bad guy". BIG @#$%ING PROBLEM!

Who would want to worry about whether or not you're a "bad guy" just to sell some magazines? Especially through the mail / internet!

Again, this language is not something introduced by AB 962 - it's all already law.

When a bill is introduced and wants to change something, it will say "Section 12345 is amended to read ..." and then the entire existing section is inserted; bits to be removed are in strikeout type and bits added are in italic.

In the bill as introduced, the paragraphs quoted are in normal type. They're already there in the law.

EBR Works
09-11-2009, 9:06 PM
quick question, would it be okay for me to buy a ****ton of ammo right now?
:TFH:

If it passes, we'll have almost 16 months to stock up before the law becomes effective.

formula502
09-11-2009, 9:26 PM
Librarian - Thank you for the clarification!

Maestro Pistolero
09-11-2009, 9:31 PM
Since The CA attorney general concedes that the Second is incorporated against the states, I am led to wonder what exactly the word infringe means to lawmakers in CA? This makes me want to throw up.

barrykay
09-11-2009, 9:37 PM
Idiots... The thing is, those who have handguns in calibers that are obscure, i.e. 8mm Nambu or 7.62X25 wont be able to find ammo for thier handguns. They are effectively banning the use of those handguns.

Just buy it from a Ca. Dealer. I don't see this ammo bill as being any big deal.
In fact I see this bill being good for Ca. FFL's and the state in general as more sales tax would be generated.:)

Chunky_lover
09-11-2009, 9:40 PM
Just buy it from a Ca. Dealer. I don't see this ammo bill as being any big deal.
In fact I see this bill being good for Ca. FFL's and the state in general as more sales tax would be generated.:)

at a 6x markup. its bad enough that I get ammo online for half the stores price, and I dont even have to leave the house. the whole online thing is what really gets me

piglith
09-11-2009, 9:44 PM
Just buy it from a Ca. Dealer. I don't see this ammo bill as being any big deal.
In fact I see this bill being good for Ca. FFL's and the state in general as more sales tax would be generated.:)


Ha ha, Good luck, You will be paying 2-4x more. How will that make you feel as a big deal? There is also a very good possibility that distributors stop shipping to California all together because of the extra paperwork. You think there is a shortage now. Just wait. Give it about 1 week if Arnold doesn't veto it.

Gator Monroe
09-11-2009, 9:45 PM
And speed loaders, too. Who are these idiots that write this crap?

Democrats everyone.

Shotgun Man
09-11-2009, 9:55 PM
Just buy it from a Ca. Dealer. I don't see this ammo bill as being any big deal.
In fact I see this bill being good for Ca. FFL's and the state in general as more sales tax would be generated.:)

If you're kidding, you should make it more clear. A smiley face doesn't cut it.

If you're serious, I'm thinking you're part of the problem.

Gator Monroe
09-11-2009, 10:02 PM
If you're kidding, you should make it more clear. A smiley face doesn't cut it.

If you're serious, I'm thinking you're part of the problem.

It's like the Democrat posters here at CGN defending their voting habits by saying that "Some Republicans are Anti'S, and that they have other issues than 2A that get their vote .

smallshot13
09-11-2009, 10:09 PM
The bill adds Section 12317, thus it does add this language into law, even though 12316 (which already includes the language) is just amended to include handgun ammunition ban to under 21 yrs of age, unless that ammunition is sold to be used in a long gun. 12317 is new, and is the kill shot for sales in the State.

"SEC. 6. Section 12317 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12317. (a) Any person, corporation, or firm who supplies,
delivers, sells, or gives possession or control of, any ammunition
to any person who he or she knows or using reasonable care should
know is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under his
or her custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition
pursuant to paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section
12316, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment
in a county jail not exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and
imprisonment.
(b) The provisions of this section are cumulative and shall not
be construed as restricting the application of any other law.
However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by this
section and another provision of law shall not be punished under
more than one provision.
(c) For purposes of this section, “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 deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include
blanks."

If this law can apply to out of State entities, then we are indeed... "toast" as they say because no one can control who in the delivery chain, including the US Postal Service, is not a prohibited person. No bullets, magazines, etc..

The bill also adds Section 12318 which requires that transfers be made face to face, with identification requested and shown. This section does not include the reference to bullets, magazines, etc., and is the section that is interpreted to ban internet sales. The language is sufficiently ambiguous to frighten most out of state vendors into not shipping hand gun ammo as more traditionally defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12323. For us reloaders, we will need to be aware of and be able to quote and provide interpretation to assure that they don't restrict bullet sales. Face to face transfer with ID asked and received can be dealt with just like your primer and powder shipments are now, proof of age and signature.

If the Gov signs it, think of the shortages that will occur between now and February 2011. Now, do you think that CA retailers are going to not stockpile every round of handgun ammunition that hits their wholesalers over the next year. That giant sucking sound the rest of the country will hear?

Now, the new language that requires a thumb print is the big problem for internet sales. I just see that as the kill shot, right up front. The rest is belt and suspenders language to make sure they did not miss any loop holes. Well, is this a potential loop hole? Does the convoluted definition of vendor only really apply to in-State vendors? If it does, then someone on their side messed up. Their side in my definition is still the CA ammo retailers, whom I have suspected all along as backing this bill. I just don't know how the State can believe they can pass a law that applies to out of State residents. If indeed they can't, then 12060 simply impedes in state retailers, but does not impede out of state vendors.

MonsterMan
09-11-2009, 10:25 PM
Can we still buy ammo in other states and bring it back when this bill goes into effect? Or do we have to buy it here?

sd_shooter
09-11-2009, 10:26 PM
If the ban allows ammo to be shipped to a gun dealer, what does it take to become such a dealer? A fee of a few hundred dollars?

piglith
09-11-2009, 10:27 PM
If the ban allows ammo to be shipped to a gun dealer, what does it take to become such a dealer? A fee of a few hundred dollars?

Also a business license and it can not be a home business from my understanding.

Shotgun Man
09-11-2009, 10:40 PM
It's like the Democrat posters here at CGN defending their voting habits by saying that "Some Republicans are Anti'S, and that they have other issues than 2A that get their vote .

I'm a one-issue voter these days, therefore I will vote for Jerry Brown, barring the unforseen.

freonr22
09-11-2009, 10:41 PM
Are you ****ing serious? You post this **** in all these threads, but what are you going to do? You're gonna email, call, fax, and then sit there and take it like a *****. Stop trying to stir up **** and getting more people in trouble.

Originally Posted by freonr22 file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PCMECH%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3050772#post3050772)
Hey I posted in the 3 threads on PURPOSE. I am so MAD Right now. I know the Calgunners are doing something. I UNDERSTAND I am one of US. BUT as a WHOLE, US AMERICANS, US CALIFORNIANS, ARE SITTING on our Butt. WE are not out in the streets, (if that would even be the right thing. We are not doing a Million man march. we are typing on our computers and complaining. So we send emails. SO


WE NEED TO GET OFF OUR BUTTS AND DO SOMETHING. HOW ABOUT A CALGUNS (I MEAN ALL CALGUNS) go to Sacremento and protest. I will, WILL YOU? WHO IS WITH me????


The other side does it. they even pay people to goto town halls, to protest. I pm'd Dirty j this right now:

"I mean no disrespect to you or anyone, I am trying to get people motivated, what is your thought? what we are doing is not working. what is your commitment? I am not trying in any way to be an ***. whats is your solution? I am open. my cell # is 408.898.6423
paul

Gator Monroe
09-11-2009, 10:43 PM
I'm a one-issue voter these days, therefore I will vote for Jerry Brown, barring the unforseen.

He will throw 2A under the bus in a heartbeat , but hey whose counting.

Gator Monroe
09-11-2009, 10:45 PM
I'm a one-issue voter these days, therefore I will vote for Jerry Brown, barring the unforseen.

He was against Prop H8te (Gay Marrage):D before he was for it .

Shotgun Man
09-11-2009, 10:51 PM
He will throw 2A under the bus in a heartbeat , but hey whose counting.

I haven't seen that yet.

Right after Heller, JB was interviewed by the MSM, and he said (words to the effect), if the Supreme Court didn't say that the 2A didn't mean what it said, a lot of folks would be rightfully disappointed.

He fully supports Heller. Name a viable Repubican candidate who says the same.

Gator Monroe
09-11-2009, 10:56 PM
I haven't seen that yet.

Right after Heller, JB was interviewed by the MSM, and he said (words to the effect), if the Supreme Court didn't say that that 2A didn't mean what it said, a lot of folks would be rightfully disappointed.

He fully supports Heller. Name a viable Repubican candidate who says the same.

Doug LaMalfa (If he would run ) and a host of others who will surface soon enough.

Sam1
09-11-2009, 11:06 PM
Just buy it from a Ca. Dealer. I don't see this ammo bill as being any big deal.
In fact I see this bill being good for Ca. FFL's and the state in general as more sales tax would be generated.:)

local dealers will only stock glock mags, 9mm, 223 and 45acp ammo but what about people who have more rare calibers like 38 super 10mm 357sig 5.7 etc

special ordering ammo and mags = extra $$ and long wait times

darkwater
09-11-2009, 11:20 PM
I haven't seen that yet.

Right after Heller, JB was interviewed by the MSM, and he said (words to the effect), if the Supreme Court didn't say that that 2A didn't mean what it said, a lot of folks would be rightfully disappointed.

He fully supports Heller. Name a viable Repubican candidate who says the same.

Here's a quote from JB's amicus brief filed on behalf of the State of CA in re: NRA v. Chicago, as printed in The Firing Line:

"These petitions should be granted to affirm the applicability of the Second Amendment to the States and to provide guidance on the scope of permissible firearms regulations."

"Further guidance on these issues is needed in California, which has been a national leader in passing common-sense legislation to regulate firearms. The Unsafe Handgun Act, for example, aims to reduce handgun crime and promote handgun safety. This law has furthered important governmental interests while not interfering with the ability of our state's residents to purchase and possess a wide range of handguns: Over 1,300 handguns have been certified by California as meeting the law's requirements. See http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/. Nonetheless, California is presently defending the law against a federal constitutional challenge, Pena v. Cid."

You be the judge...in my book, JB is saying, "hey, SCOTUS, give us the framework by which we can regulate firearms in California". He even has the audacity to mention a challenge to the Unsafe Handgun Act, the Pena v. Cid case, in which plaintiffs are suing for not being allowed to own certain handguns because they are not specifically listed on the certified handgun roster, one of which I know has to do with a gun being of a different color but of the same make as one already on the roster. JB appears to be a 2A supporter only to the extent he can further regulate it, because he believes all CA firearm laws passed to date are "common sense" and he is proud that CA has led the pack into this brave new world of 2A regulation.

Shotgun Man
09-11-2009, 11:25 PM
Here's a quote from JB's amicus brief filed on behalf of the State of CA in re: NRA v. Chicago, as printed in The Firing Line:

"These petitions should be granted to affirm the applicability of the Second Amendment to the States and to provide guidance on the scope of permissible firearms regulations."

"Further guidance on these issues is needed in California, which has been a national leader in passing common-sense legislation to regulate firearms. The Unsafe Handgun Act, for example, aims to reduce handgun crime and promote handgun safety. This law has furthered important governmental interests while not interfering with the ability of our state's residents to purchase and possess a wide range of handguns: Over 1,300 handguns have been certified by California as meeting the law's requirements. See http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/. Nonetheless, California is presently defending the law against a federal constitutional challenge, Pena v. Cid."

You be the judge...in my book, JB is saying, "hey, SCOTUS, give us the framework by which we can regulate firearms in California". He even has the audacity to mention a challenge to the Unsafe Handgun Act, the Pena v. Cid case, in which plaintiffs are suing for not being allowed to own certain handguns because they are not specifically listed on the certified handgun roster, one of which I know has to do with a gun being of a different color but of the same make as one already on the roster. JB appears to be a 2A supporter only to the extent he can further regulate it, because he believes all CA firearm laws passed to date are "common sense" and he is proud that CA has led the pack into this brave new world of 2A regulation.

Good post, but understand that JB is constrained by his obligation as a lawyer to further his despicable client's goal. No different really than a public defender mounting a defense for a child rapist caught in the act. He is executing his duty under the law. He can't easily just submit a brief saying, you know what-- all this gun regulation is unconstitutional.

I would expect as governor for him to actually recognize the 2A. So few pols do.

dantodd
09-11-2009, 11:48 PM
Good post, but understand that JB is constrained by his obligation as a lawyer to further his despicable client's goal. No different really than a public defender mounting a defense against a child rapist caught in the act. He is executing his duty under the law. He can't easily just submit a brief saying, you know what-- all this gun regulation is unconstitutional.

I used to think this was true, and then there was prop 187 and then there was prop 8. To think that the AG will automatically defend something just because it is the law of the land would be naive at this point in history.

darkwater
09-11-2009, 11:49 PM
local dealers will only stock glock mags, 9mm, 223 and 45acp ammo but what about people who have more rare calibers like 38 super 10mm 357sig 5.7 etc

special ordering ammo and mags = extra $$ and long wait times

Went to my local gun store today, a mom-n-pop kind of place as we do not have a Big 5 or Walmart in our county, and compared prices against mail order. A box of the aluminum CCI Blazer .38 specials sells for $26 at the local store, but Cabela's is selling brass .38 specials for $17. Even the local shop's Wolf ammo sells for $9-10 a box less thru Cabela's online. Cabela's shipping costs would be covered by the savings on the first box of ammo alone.

So for rural people like me, buying local is going to be a very expensive proposition, especially if local vendors decide to bump up their ammo prices even more because of the AB 962 requirements.

darkwater
09-12-2009, 12:02 AM
Good post, but understand that JB is constrained by his obligation as a lawyer to further his despicable client's goal. No different really than a public defender mounting a defense for a child rapist caught in the act. He is executing his duty under the law. He can't easily just submit a brief saying, you know what-- all this gun regulation is unconstitutional.

I would expect as governor for him to actually recognize the 2A. So few pols do.

True, you have a point about his duties in his current position...but I think he could have said what he said in his brief without sounding so boastful, using words like "common-sense" (because they really aren't, are they?) and "leader" (only Lucifer would say "it is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven"). He could have just simply stated that CA has no 2A reference in its state constitution and therefore needs federal guidance, and left it at that...he would still have performed his duty in that situation without sounding so gung-ho on firearm regulations.

steelrain82
09-12-2009, 12:54 AM
Seriously ammo is expensive enough and prices are gonna skyrocket at my local shop it cost $40 for a box of .303 and $35 for a brick of Remington .22lr. When online I can get privi .303 for $12.50 and to me that is better than the $40 core-lokt soft point that I find so for $140 I get 200rnds shipped to my door or 60rnds for the same price soon I'll probably be paying the same amount for 40 rnds. When I bought my first box of core-lokt it was $20 now it's doubled

Meplat
09-12-2009, 1:48 AM
Who the hell are they trying to bamboozle? If you are an ordinary Joe with a job, family, or mortgage, six months or a year will destroy your life. If you are a gangster (whom they claim they are targeting) it just enhances your résumé. "YOU LIE!!!":mad:

We may well be able to get Arnold to veto this.

I intend to give JB a careful look, he has actually started to make a little sense in his old age. It will depend on who runs against him.

halifax
09-12-2009, 4:59 AM
Just buy it from a Ca. Dealer. I don't see this ammo bill as being any big deal.
In fact I see this bill being good for Ca. FFL's and the state in general as more sales tax would be generated.:)

If the ban allows ammo to be shipped to a gun dealer, what does it take to become such a dealer? A fee of a few hundred dollars?

For me, my business license is dependant on submission to the local Fire Chief and his determination of whether or not I pose a public hazard. I had to convince him I would not stock over a minimal amount of ammunition or powder. Clearly AB962 will put my business in jeopardy if he decides my increased inventory (due to increased demand) makes me a danger to the public. On a whim, he could have my license revoked. :mad:

cortayack
09-12-2009, 9:13 AM
I will take a day off work or drive up to Sac on the weekend to march, if none people will get together and go........Its time to speak out bc we are not being heard!!!!!!!!!!!

Gryff
09-12-2009, 9:59 AM
Has every person here contacted the Governor asking him to veto this yet?

halifax
09-12-2009, 11:13 AM
Has every person here contacted the Governor asking him to veto this yet?

Done deal.

Chunky_lover
09-12-2009, 11:24 AM
Weird had to use Internet Explorer to access his e mail. Sent it in with VETO all over with a short statement and the AB962 so he knows what im talking about. Included I was a law abiding US citizen with my full name and address.

singleshotman
09-12-2009, 11:28 AM
I've never read so much BS in my life. I agree this is a bad bill, but you guys talk as if it's the END OF THE WORLD. GET A GRIP ON REAILITY.This is no different than the old 1968 GCA. I HAD NO TROUBLE GETTING ALL THE AMMO I NEEDED OR WANTED. I also bought lots of empty brass over the net for strange calibers.Of course i learned to reload, you need to too, it's fun, easy and a lot cheaper than buying ammo. I've always been a "beer" budget shooter,as i never had a job paying over $15/hour.So learn to reload, i't much easier and cheaper than driving to NV or AZ.

Shotgun Man
09-12-2009, 11:34 AM
I've never read so much BS in my life. I agree this is a bad bill, but you guys talk as if it's the END OF THE WORLD. GET A GRIP ON REAILITY.This is no different than the old 1968 GCA. I HAD NO TROUBLE GETTING ALL THE AMMO I NEEDED OR WANTED. I also bought lots of empty brass over the net for strange calibers.Of course i learned to reload, you need to too, it's fun, easy and a lot cheaper than buying ammo. I've always been a "beer" budget shooter,as i never had a job paying over $15/hour.So learn to reload, i't much easier and cheaper than driving to NV or AZ.

I'll reload, but I would prefer not to make my own bullets. This bill regulates sales of bullets.

liquidmx
09-12-2009, 11:43 AM
I just drafted this message, faxed and sent an email to everyone I know.

To: The Governor

Subject: AB 962 - Veto

Fax: 1-916-558-3160

From:







After a push by the democratic leadership in the State Senate, Assembly

Bill 962 and Senate Bill 585 passed yesterday afternoon with the

bare-minimum 21 votes. No member of the Senate Republican Caucus voted

to pass either bill.



AB 962 is a far-reaching measure which implements extensive reporting

and record-keeping requirements for all licensed gun dealers who sell

handgun ammunition. The bill also requires handgun ammunition sales to

occur in face-to-face transactions, effectively prohibiting internet

sales to residents of California. The requirements listed in this

measure are impractical and would do more to inconvenience lawful gun

owners more than deter criminals. Prior versions of the bill outlawed

the transfer of more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in a month;

however, that provision was removed from the final version of the bill.

I URGE YOU TO VETO THIS BILL!!!





Thank you for your time,

Sincerely







Name

Glock22Fan
09-12-2009, 12:06 PM
I've never read so much BS in my life. I agree this is a bad bill, but you guys talk as if it's the END OF THE WORLD. GET A GRIP ON REAILITY.This is no different than the old 1968 GCA. I HAD NO TROUBLE GETTING ALL THE AMMO I NEEDED OR WANTED. I also bought lots of empty brass over the net for strange calibers.Of course i learned to reload, you need to too, it's fun, easy and a lot cheaper than buying ammo. I've always been a "beer" budget shooter,as i never had a job paying over $15/hour.So learn to reload, i't much easier and cheaper than driving to NV or AZ.

I don't know of anywhere within a day's drive that sells some of the bullets I want for reloading. You think that's OK? I think that it is you who needs to get the grip on reality you are shouting rudely about.

MrSigmaDOT40
09-12-2009, 12:11 PM
This is horrible, that looks too me like it is worded to hurt Reloading as well.

MrSigmaDOT40
09-12-2009, 12:13 PM
I don't know of anywhere within a day's drive that sells some of the bullets I want for reloading. You think that's OK? I think that it is you who needs to get the grip on reality you are shouting rudely about.


+100

steelrain82
09-12-2009, 12:21 PM
I've never read so much BS in my life. I agree this is a bad bill, but you guys talk as if it's the END OF THE WORLD. GET A GRIP ON REAILITY.This is no different than the old 1968 GCA. I HAD NO TROUBLE GETTING ALL THE AMMO I NEEDED OR WANTED. I also bought lots of empty brass over the net for strange calibers.Of course i learned to reload, you need to too, it's fun, easy and a lot cheaper than buying ammo. I've always been a "beer" budget shooter,as i never had a job paying over $15/hour.So learn to reload, i't much easier and cheaper than driving to NV or AZ.

your so right you if you can't find it order itof the net or reload. oh wait! this bill will ban all Internet sales even on just the bullet tips especially since those are the part that are the expelled projectile. but don't worry you can find all YOUR parts locally I bet. I'm sure even then your pbr beer budget is gonna go up to a premium beer budget

spencerhut
09-12-2009, 1:02 PM
Just buy it from a Ca. Dealer. I don't see this ammo bill as being any big deal.
In fact I see this bill being good for Ca. FFL's and the state in general as more sales tax would be generated.:)

You sir, are a moron.

Chunky_lover
09-12-2009, 2:02 PM
maybe online stores will do a fax in order with dl attached or something to help us, that way its not an internet order

Cranium
09-12-2009, 3:19 PM
maybe online stores will do a fax in order with dl attached or something to help us, that way its not an internet order

And maybe pigs might...
ahhh, nevermind.

FeuerFrei
09-12-2009, 4:19 PM
Huh???

(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.

Blanks can be VERY deadly when fired up close. It's possible.
How do they write this legislation with their collective heads up their @ZZ?

barrykay
09-12-2009, 4:34 PM
local dealers will only stock glock mags, 9mm, 223 and 45acp ammo but what about people who have more rare calibers like 38 super 10mm 357sig 5.7 etc

special ordering ammo and mags = extra $$ and long wait times

I do not see that as a problem. I believe that any full line dealer will see the light and stock 95% of hand gun calibers. The FFL's however may go a little less in the rifle ammo. The biggest gripe about this bill is the fear of high ammo cost. Most likely there will be some small increase in cost but it is not the end of the world.
I hold higher hopes that the Governor will veto the Cow Place Bill.:o

Mstrty
09-12-2009, 4:48 PM
Blanks can be VERY deadly when fired up close. It's possible.
How do they write this legislation with their collective heads up their @ZZ?

Yea but the blanks are for their Hollywood friends. The legislators knew Arnold wouldn't sign a bill that would limit their Twitter buddies from buying bulk blanks with their Crackberrys. This would be unsignable if they don't allow any future "Terminator" access to the blanks in order to blow up things on the silver screen.:rolleyes:

JoeC
09-12-2009, 4:51 PM
I'll reload, but I would prefer not to make my own bullets. This bill regulates sales of bullets.

Yeah right. Then it would only be a matter of time before they try and regulate lead. They'd excuse it as helping the environment and protecting us from ourselves.

If by some twist of fate Arnold does veto this how long until De Leon tries to run this through again? Next year? We already know he can get away with introducing this whenever he wants.

The best bet would be to find a way to get rid of De Leon and anyone else who could potentially try this stuff in the future.

Glock22Fan
09-12-2009, 6:33 PM
I do not see that as a problem. I believe that any full line dealer will see the light and stock 95% of hand gun calibers. The FFL's however may go a little less in the rifle ammo. The biggest gripe about this bill is the fear of high ammo cost. Most likely there will be some small increase in cost but it is not the end of the world.
I hold higher hopes that the Governor will veto the Cow Place Bill.:o

Have you ever looked at the sheer range of ammo stocked by any of the big internet stores, or even Natchez, Midway or Cabelas? If a local retailer stocked 95% of the loads in 95% of the calibers, he'd need a much bigger store, and most of it would sit there unsold for years. Ammo costs would go through the roof. And there's still be specialized rounds that nobody local stocked.

You guys that just buy a few bags of factory reloads every few years and don't give a monkey's about the weight, shape, ballistic coefficient, jacket, bonding or other composition of the bullet, or what powder or how much powder it has behind it, shouldn't express opinions on subjects you obviously know so little about. Small increase in cost? I'd say at least double, even if you can find what you want.

railroader
09-12-2009, 8:42 PM
Originally Posted by barrykay View Post
I do not see that as a problem. I believe that any full line dealer will see the light and stock 95% of hand gun calibers. The FFL's however may go a little less in the rifle ammo. The biggest gripe about this bill is the fear of high ammo cost. Most likely there will be some small increase in cost but it is not the end of the world.
I hold higher hopes that the Governor will veto the Cow Place Bill

I bought a 250 round pack of 9mm at walmart the other day for $50. Turner's sells the same ammo for $89. Who do you think will be selling ammo if this bill is signed? It sure won't be walmart. Mark

Quemtimebo
09-12-2009, 8:46 PM
I agree. This bill will effectively make ammunition that many people use impossible to aquire. How many gangbangers use rounds like .458 SOCOM as their prefered round for killing other fellow POS gangbangers? Local stores aren't going to stock anything other than typical ammo they currently stock, 9mm, 45ACP etc.

In fact, aren't the majority of gangbangers using .22lr anyway because it's so cheap and the guns can be so small? I thought I read that somewhere, could be wrong.

Thankfully, .458 SOCOM brass will take most of the .458 bullets that gun shops are likely to have (Thank you, lever guns!). But yeah, we'll probably never see any of the shops here in socal selling completed ammo in .458 SOCOM. I pity the gangbanger who breaks into MY house armed with a .22lr snubby. Or well, I would if I could get frangible .458 SOCOM bullets after AB 962 goes into effect... meh.

jumbopanda
09-12-2009, 9:15 PM
Good to see that half the people in this thread haven't even read it and are just jumping to conclusions.

steven_m64
09-12-2009, 9:43 PM
The biggest gripe about this bill is the fear of high ammo cost. Most likely there will be some small increase in cost but it is not the end of the world.

Frankly the prices for ammo from all local stores where i am are insane even a slight increase will make it so i will never be able to afford to shoot my firearms at a range again.

only way to get sane priced ammo is to drive far out of Sacramento and Hope one of the sprawlmart's has the caliber you want in stock witch they never do anymore.

tenpercentfirearms
09-13-2009, 8:42 AM
I have no problems admitting my ammo is much more expensive than you can find it elsewhere. It isn't that I hate you guys and just want to rob you, I just can't get it as cheap as some people can get it and their overhead is lower.

If this thing passes, can you imagine the tremendous demand on handgun ammo between now and implementation? I already have guys coming in and buying all of my super expensive .40 S&W ammo out.

California could easily suck dry a large portion of the already small handgun ammo supply that still hasn't recovered from the Obama Panic.

Those of you thinking this won't be a big deal just don't get it. It will be a big deal. Unless you just plan on violating the law.

You might be lucky to find a gun store that has a single box of handgun ammo in. You are already lucky to find it. Yes the ammo is showing back up at the gun shows, but it won't be for long if this passes.

Call the governor Monday morning. Call him daily. E-mail him. Fax him. Get busy or be prepared for a really crappy deal.

calixt0
09-13-2009, 9:33 AM
ok so whos with me in going up to SAc and have a visit with arny... maybe a large group on the "hill" may send a message that this should be vetod

freonr22
09-13-2009, 10:04 AM
Im in san jose and will go, It needs to be organasized

smallshot13
09-13-2009, 10:11 AM
ok so whos with me in going up to SAc and have a visit with arny... maybe a large group on the "hill" may send a message that this should be vetod

On the face of it, a good idea.... but. On August 28th I attended the Tea party event at the Capitol. There were clearly 8-10 thousand people there (majority of estimates). The Sacramento Bee reported the crowd at around 1500-4000. In the crowd there were only a few RTKB protestors carrying squirt guns. The people inside the capitol did not hear one word of what that crowd was saying, they still passed this and other anti citizen legislation. They just don't care. It is highly unlikely that any semi-organized protest at the capitol would not find the governor in the building. It is also highly likely that the group would be totally ignored in the press, and possibly harassed by the CHP/State police, and certainly by the throngs of far left leaning State Workers who are there day in and day out. We my friend are the minority anywhere within a 5 mile radius of any urban center, much less the capitol. People of the government, for the government and by the government.

Invisible_Dave
09-13-2009, 10:32 AM
The whole "cost a little more" is just the tip of the iceberg. Wal Mart already doesn't sell ammo in Contra Costa county, Alameda County, and the city of Sacramento. (Maybe more but these are the 3 area I know) They did this because the restrictions placed on sales in these areas. Do you this Wal mart is going to change its store layout and get the required licenses to sell ammo? I'd submit that nationwide stores like Big 5 and Wal Mart will stop selling ammo due to this. Its not only cost but availability.

BiggSean
09-13-2009, 11:35 AM
So, just to get this thread back into the direction that it originally started in, is the proposed language going to effectively restrict the sales of projectiles and magazines over the internet? Or is it merely going to create a higher duty of care as it concerns out of state retailers doing their due diligence as it relates to confirming that they are not selling to a "prohibited" person?

There was some debate early on in the thread about whether in fact this was it's design, but I did not see that a general consensus had been reached.

Librarian
09-13-2009, 11:41 AM
So, just to get this thread back into the direction that it originally started in,

is the proposed language going to effectively restrict the sales of projectiles and magazines over the internet?
Or is it merely going to create a higher duty of care as it concerns out of state retailers doing their due diligence as it relates to confirming that they are not selling to a "prohibited" person?




I read it as the second.

BiggSean
09-13-2009, 11:45 AM
Thank you. This is how I interpreted the language as well. We shall see how it plays out in the real world.

Glock22Fan
09-13-2009, 2:07 PM
I read it that you can't buy projectiles without a face to face meeting and a thumbprint. Don't see at all how this is going to work over the internet. I'm absolutely sure that the intent was to kill internet transactions stone dead, and I think that you are kidding yourselves if you think otherwise.

And if there are loopholes, just look at the current situation. Out of state suppliers couldn't give a darn about learning our stupid laws. Like CTD, they'll just say "No sales to California."

Librarian
09-13-2009, 4:48 PM
I read it that you can't buy projectiles without a face to face meeting and a thumbprint. Don't see at all how this is going to work over the internet. I'm absolutely sure that the intent was to kill internet transactions stone dead, and I think that you are kidding yourselves if you think otherwise.

And if there are loopholes, just look at the current situation. Out of state suppliers couldn't give a darn about learning our stupid laws. Like CTD, they'll just say "No sales to California."

I don't think so - the FTF part is 12061(a)(3), and that [12060(b)] uses the (more or less reasonable) 'ammunition' definition of 12323. 12317 and 12318 don't apply to the FTF.

But this "Out of state suppliers couldn't give a darn about learning our stupid laws. Like CTD, they'll just say "No sales to California." is highly likely.

bomb_on_bus
09-13-2009, 4:59 PM
maybe we should do a million 2nd amendment march on capital hill.............. heck even a thousand would prove something.

I mean we should have the same rights to do a march just like we all saw on TV a few years back.

Sam1
09-14-2009, 7:08 PM
if it passes there will be more californias visiting arizona and nevada and spending cash there instead of spending it here, so it's pretty bad for the local economy as well :29:

five.five-six
09-14-2009, 7:18 PM
I wonder if I can still order ammo from CMP?

Dr Rockso
09-14-2009, 7:22 PM
I wonder if I can still order ammo from CMP?
Garand and .30 carbine ammo, yes (unless they classify .30 carbine as a handgun load because of the .30 carbine revolvers out there). As for .22LR, probably not unless you have a C&R+COE.

five.five-six
09-14-2009, 8:00 PM
I thought CMP had the federal trump card, AFIK, many of the garands they ship are not C&R

Dr Rockso
09-14-2009, 8:14 PM
I thought CMP had the federal trump card, AFIK, many of the garands they ship are not C&R
They have a federal trump card from the standpoint of being able to ship rifles directly to non-FFLs which would typically be against federal law (as an aside I'm pretty sure all USGI Garands are C&R), but I don't think that's going to help them with a state law against shipping handgun ammo. Still, I doubt that the DOJ will try and interpret "handgun ammo" so broadly as to include .30 carbine or .30-06. If they do then CGF will be on them even more than usual.

chris
09-14-2009, 8:42 PM
i have a response that would not be appropriate but the way our country was founded is the way we should go.

pMcW
09-14-2009, 9:32 PM
would AB962 restrict internet and mail-order sales for rifle ammunition and components, or does it apply only to "handgun" ammunition and components?

LAK Supply
09-14-2009, 9:33 PM
Well in that case you would need to get in touch with your friendly out of state mag repair kit dealer. :)

Is there anything in this law about manufacturing new 10rd mags from kits?



local dealers will only stock glock mags, 9mm, 223 and 45acp ammo but what about people who have more rare calibers like 38 super 10mm 357sig 5.7 etc

special ordering ammo and mags = extra $$ and long wait times

sd_shooter
10-09-2009, 10:48 AM
This thread needs to be kicked up to the top again. I read most of the thread but it's also mostly off topic.

Is there any conclusion to the original question?

EBR Works
10-09-2009, 11:41 AM
Doesn't that definition only apply to this subdivision, and not the part regarding internet sales?

(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.


That definition is existing law, not part of 962. And it applies only inside its numbered section - there are no changes in 962 regarding magazines or reloading things.

From these posts, it appears that handgun ammo is the only restriction. No restriction on reloading components or anything else. Correct?

DisgruntledReaper
10-09-2009, 4:43 PM
'(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. '

WHAT A CROCK OF KRAAP--making up arbitrary definitions of what 'ammunition' is .....these aholes need to use a frikkin dictionary and actually UNDERSTAND what ammunition is.... this bill should be tossed out on this blatant inability to properly write a discription and defining of what is what..and including words and items into a 'definition' of what is 'ammunition'

I take these are the same writers who are constantly calling 'taxes' 'fees' so that they dont have to put it to a public vote and just continue to make life hell for us in this broken and failing state.....

So i guess if you put a spitwad in your .22 and use a blank or maybe a 22 nail gun charge to fire it, you are breaking the law....

Guess BP is now going to be banned.....er..regulated....more

Librarian
10-09-2009, 5:14 PM
'(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. '

WHAT A CROCK OF KRAAP--making up arbitrary definitions of what 'ammunition' is .....these aholes need to use a frikkin dictionary and actually UNDERSTAND what ammunition is.... this bill should be tossed out on this blatant inability to properly write a discription and defining of what is what..and including words and items into a 'definition' of what is 'ammunition'

I take these are the same writers who are constantly calling 'taxes' 'fees' so that they dont have to put it to a public vote and just continue to make life hell for us in this broken and failing state.....

So i guess if you put a spitwad in your .22 and use a blank or maybe a 22 nail gun charge to fire it, you are breaking the law....

Guess BP is now going to be banned.....er..regulated....more

People keep finding that. Except for the "blanks" part, that language is not part of AB 962 - that's existing law.

When changing part of PC, the bill has to write out the whole section the way it would read if signed by the gov.

Don't disagree about the Crock analysis, though.

EBR Works
10-09-2009, 6:43 PM
So, just to be absolutely clear, reloading components will not be unaffected by AB962? I only ask for clarification since bwiese has posted that projectiles for reloading would be restricted:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3172356&postcount=3

Randall,

Unsure if that's the final bill up for vote/veto by Gov: the actual 'enrolled' bill, with Legislative Counsel's digest, is at

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html

1. Yep, the bill's orig. face-to-face limit of 50rds, etc. was amended out shortly before passage. Perhaps DeLeon & crew were trying to bait support (or lack of opposition) from non-NRA/CRPA gun groups.

2. It does include reloading componentry (at least bullets).

3. Publicly, NSSF's arm in CA, CAFR, is opposing this. NSSF has sent email blasts too. Unsure if CAFR is making noise about this trying to restore their reputation, etc.... but their puzzling behavior about trivial SB41 'mouse bait' indicates their ability to understand how we "play ball" in CA is limited.

4. Although this is currently really a mail-order ammo bill with some dress-up about prohibited persons/minors, the infrastructure is in place to easily drop in a few lines banning or severely limiting F2F private sales/transfers.


This needs clarification, please!

Librarian
10-09-2009, 7:19 PM
So, just to be absolutely clear, reloading components will not be unaffected by AB962? I only ask for clarification since bwiese has posted that projectiles for reloading would be restricted:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3172356&postcount=3



This needs clarification, please!

I don't get why this is difficult. All you have to do is read the bill.

The bill proposes to add 12060 : 12060. As used in this article, the following terms apply:
(a) "Department" means the Department of Justice.
(b) "Handgun ammunition" means handgun ammunition as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 12323, but excluding ammunition designed
and intended to be used in an "antique firearm" as defined in Section
921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code. Handgun ammunition
does not include blanks.


12060 (proposed) says ammunition is defined in (existing) 12323 (a) :12323. As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply:
(a) "Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles.



Further down is the FTF language: SEC. 7. Section 12318 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12318. (a) Commencing February 1, 2011, the delivery or transfer
of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face
transaction with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide
evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee. A
violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Bona fide evidence of identity" means a document issued by a
federal, state, county, or municipal government, or subdivision or
agency thereof, including, but not limited to, a motor vehicle
operator's license, state identification card, identification card
issued to a member of the Armed Forces, or other form of
identification that bears the name, date of birth, description, and
picture of the person.
(2) "Handgun ammunition" means handgun ammunition as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 12323, but excluding ammunition designed
and intended to be used in an "antique firearm" as defined in Section
921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code. Handgun ammunition
does not include blanks.

That's it. That's what the bill would regulate - handgun ammunition as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12323. Full stop.


Now, the bill ALSO adds 12317: SEC. 6. Section 12317 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12317. (a) Any person, corporation, or firm who supplies,
delivers, sells, or gives possession or control of, any ammunition to
any person who he or she knows or using reasonable care should know
is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under his or her
custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition pursuant to
paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 12316, is guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) The provisions of this section are cumulative and shall not be
construed as restricting the application of any other law. However,
an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and
another provision of law shall not be punished under more than one
provision.
(c) For purposes of this section, "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 deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include
blanks.
(and I overstated the 'existing law' in my post above - apologies, and see below) THAT section makes it a crime to sell all the things in (c) to ineligible persons. But it does NOT 'regulate' the sale of such things; those are NOT subject to the FTF rules, the fingerprint, etc.

And that (c) definition is a repeat of existing 12316(b)(2), which regulates sales to what looks to me to be another statement of ineligible persons.: (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.
(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.

(ETA: the distinction: existing 12316 makes it a crime for the ineligible person; proposed 12317 makes it a crime to sell to those ineligible persons)

This whole piece of garbage is another example of incredible lack of clarity in legislation, not to mention it has no hope of doing anything its supporters claim for it.

So stop worrying about what it might do, and continue to bug Arnold to veto the darn thing.

YubaRiver
10-09-2009, 7:19 PM
I do not see that as a problem. I believe that any full line dealer will see the light and stock 95% of hand gun calibers. The FFL's however may go a little less in the rifle ammo. The biggest gripe about this bill is the fear of high ammo cost. Most likely there will be some small increase in cost but it is not the end of the world.
I hold higher hopes that the Governor will veto the Cow Place Bill.:o

No one within an hours drive of where I lived stocks any reloading supplies
anymore and only one place will do the transfer for a firearm. I suppose
I could drive 3 hours to Sacramento to purchase stuff, but when their are
shortages like now, even that won't work. Try buying large rifle primers.

GrizzlyGuy
10-09-2009, 7:25 PM
This needs clarification, please!

Bullets and reloading supplies are not affected. AB 962 uses the EXISTING definition of "Handgun Ammunition" from 12323:

""Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles."

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12323.html

What is probably freaking people out is finding stuff like this in AB 962:

" 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."

:eek: :eek: AHHHHHHH!!! It says bullets, and cartridges, and magazines, and all kinds of stuff that isn't "ammo"! AHHHHHHHH!!! :eek: :eek:

Paraphrasing from Pulp Fiction: "Jules, chill those gunners out!"

Relaxxxxx......

What some folks have ignored was this little phrase up in the front of the nasty/scary text: "For purposes of this subdivision"

Those two subdivisions say you can't do things like provide ammo and ammo-like stuff to people who are prohibited from owning firearms. We wouldn't do that anyway, and don't do it now, because we're law-abiding gun owners. Right? Right. So no worries there.

Yeah it's bad, but it ain't quite as bad as some of the rumors make it out to be. You'll legally be able to buy bullets over the Internet IF there is anyone willing to sell and ship them to you. That's the big IF. The FUD will hit the gun supply folks too.

Here is the text of the new/proposed laws in AB 962:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html

EBR Works
10-09-2009, 9:44 PM
Thanks very much.

Beelzy
10-10-2009, 8:37 AM
Jeezus!

If we have this much mis-undertsanding of our own State's Law, how can we
expect out of state vendors to undertsntand this crap?? They won't, just like
they didn't with the interstate gun/mag B.S.

We're going to see California banned by even more Vendors now.

GrizzlyGuy
10-10-2009, 9:04 AM
Yup, a lot of those vendors would take the play-it-safe route like Cabelas. Legal or not, it will be harder to get reloading supplies and even long gun ammo.

Arnie needs to come through for us and veto this blasted thing! :mad:

smallshot13
10-10-2009, 7:49 PM
Librarian and Grizzly Man:
I do not presume to know as much as either of you on the interpretation of 962. That said, section 12017 newly added to the PC states:

12317. (a) Any person, corporation, or firm who supplies,
delivers, sells, or gives possession or control of, any ammunition to
any person who he or she knows or using reasonable care should know
is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under his or her
custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition pursuant to
paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 12316, is guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

And then goes on to say: (c) For purposes of this section, "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 deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include
blanks.

How will any out of sate vendor figure out who in the shipping and delivery chain is not a person banned from handling ammunition? They can't know every person in UPS or FED EX, or even the US postal service. They simply can't excersize reasonable caution and thus are subject to prosecution.

Librarian
10-10-2009, 9:03 PM
How will any out of sate vendor figure out who in the shipping and delivery chain is not a person banned from handling ammunition? They can't know every person in UPS or FED EX, or even the US postal service. They simply can't excersize reasonable caution and thus are subject to prosecution.

The same way they know now, since it's illegal under Federal law ( 18 USC 922 (a)(6) and (c) ) to lie about one's prohibited status to a vendor and for anyone to sell ammunition to prohibited persons.

But would out of state vendors want to deal with CA law on top of Federal? It's a good guess that they would not.

bwiese
10-10-2009, 9:08 PM
Kudos to Librarian for de-FUDing analysis.

Davidoff
10-11-2009, 3:10 AM
I think that with direction from some of the fine folks here, the solution is simple. Online reloading component vendors would be able to simply add the prohibited person language to the disclaimers and legal mumbo-jumbo that already exists to protect them from liability for under-21 handgun ammo sales. Many sites already have a checkbox for "I certify that I am over 21 years of age and not prohibited from purchasing ammunition", so I don't see it affecting component sales significantly.

But he needs to veto it anyway. 21 hours left.

smallshot13
10-11-2009, 9:29 AM
Thank you Librarian:
Now, how will an out of state vendor know the name of every dock handler, sorter, truck driver, delivery person in the chain of delivery, and how will they have time to check out each and every one of them by asking them the question? I think your last statement is agreeing that there will be incentive to not sell to CA State residents any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed
loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a
firearm with deadly consequence. Hopefully we will get a veto and this discussion will be moot. If not, hopefully this will not be the prevailing interpretation.

Librarian
10-11-2009, 11:00 AM
Thank you Librarian:
Now, how will an out of state vendor know the name of every dock handler, sorter, truck driver, delivery person in the chain of delivery, and how will they have time to check out each and every one of them by asking them the question?
Evidently there is some mechanism satisfactory to keep them in business; a similar restriction is on shipping alcoholic beverages (with fewer disqualifiers than ammo, of course) and that seems to work.
I think your last statement is agreeing that there will be incentive to not sell to CA State residents any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed
loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a
firearm with deadly consequence.

Yes, I agree that's fairly likely. And supporters of this mess are well aware of it.

not-fishing
10-12-2009, 12:50 PM
The only way I know to prove your Not Prohibited is a Certificate of Exemption or Law Enforcement Officer's ID.

Am I right? I'm so confused my head hurts - I need some coffee with my Wild Turkey sweetener - Three fingers of sweetener & three fingers of coffee