PDA

View Full Version : AB962 - Out of State Purchase Practicality


Phil3
10-10-2009, 8:20 AM
I am still hopeful AB962 dies, but given past history, fully expect it to be back if not passed this time. Given that, I really wonder about the practicality of out of state purchases.

Buying out of state will work, but the selection of ammo and/or reloading components (bullets & "cartridges") at NV and AZ stores can not possibly match Midway, Natchez, Grafs, etc. What over the border dealer is going to have on the shelf a few thousand bullets of a certain brand, weight, and type, or the exact type of 45ACP ammo you wish? I doubt any store will have exactly what one wants, unless it is very common or you the customer aren't selective. One could possibly pay the store and have products special ordered and then pick up, but will they do this? Will prices rise?

IF, the products desired can only be obtained through mail-order or the Internet, the bill effectively prohibits the purchase of specific products . I am no expert, but could that withstand legal scrutiny? Indeed, the bill seems to assume that all ammo and other components ARE available at the dealer. They are not.

I can not think off-hand of any item that is mail-order only, or would not be stocked by a dealer, but if this bill was applied to such items, it would effectively say, "Californians are now prohibited from purchasing a specific named product".

It may be argued that the state is not prohibiting such sales, and that the local dealer is free to stock, or not stock, what they want. That assumes the manufacturer sells their product to distributors, but fails to address those that are direct only. By limiting methods of purchases, the state in interfering with free commerce. Again, I am no legal expert.

Thoughts?

- Phil

Wildhawk66
10-10-2009, 8:38 AM
Interesting point Phil3.

Is anyone aware of specific components regulated by this bill that are not sold via distributors and that can only be obtained via special order through an out of state manufacturer? If so, then I would agree that this would seem to be a ban on those items and not a reasonable restriction. On the otherside, while this bill might effectively prohibit the purchase of those items, is there anything that prohibits the Leg. from do such?

Librarian
10-10-2009, 8:57 AM
Reloading components are not subject to the FTF rules imposed on handgun ammunition.

Still, call the Governator's office to encourage the veto.

loather
10-10-2009, 8:59 AM
I'm not sure about any specific components, but this is certainly another legal avenue to have the bill defeated in court.

And like you said: who's to say the shelves in the out-of-state stores are actually going to be stocked? Sure, the ammo crisis hits California harder than other states, but if California residents start going out-of-state for their purchases, well, the other states will suffer too. Unless you call ahead and place an "ammo order" with the dealer you intend to patronize, expect their shelves to be just as empty as Wal Mart's.

This has been hashed and hashed before, but what about C&R shooters who simply can't find ammo for their weapons? What about match shooters who only use a specific type of ammo (OK, the ones that *don't* reload)? Cowboy loads? Special hunting loads? Other special-purpose stuff? You simply won't be able to get it unless you special-order it through a dealer, or buy it online and have it shipped to a local dealer (and pay the inevitable transfer fee).

No, buying out-of-state is simply as impractical, if not moreso, than buying in-state after AB962. I'd rather special-order anything I need from a local dealer who normally doesn't stock what I'm looking for. It's sad, it's unfortunate, but that's simply the reality of it. They've got us by the balls with this bill and they know it.

bulgron
10-10-2009, 9:14 AM
They don't have me by the balls. I already buy a lot of my ammo out of state when I go to Reno for the gun shows. This bill is only going to encourage me to go out of state to buy even more often.

More and more, it's clear that Sacramento really doesn't want my tax dollars. That cesspool can't go broke fast enough.

Phil3
10-10-2009, 9:32 AM
Reloading components are not subject to the FTF rules imposed on handgun ammunition.

Still, call the Governator's office to encourage the veto.

From what the bill says, it says it applies to "bullets", as well as "cartridges" (however that is defined, brass or..??). Am I missing something?

- Phil

GrizzlyGuy
10-10-2009, 9:33 AM
From what the bill says, it says it applies to "bullets", as well as "cartridges" (however that is defined, brass or..??). Am I missing something?

Yes, see here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3185752#post3185752

Scratch705
10-10-2009, 9:42 AM
this is why for me, i'm shipping it all to family in vegas. i don't need to raid their gun stores for ammo. so glad i have family in vegas :)

Phil3
10-10-2009, 9:43 AM
Got it. I would expect however, that some vendors will simply play it safe and not ship any ammo component to California. I surely hope not, but would not surprise me at all. I would hope they would see they are missing out on a good opportunity for increased sale by shunning California.

- Phil

BigBamBoo
10-10-2009, 9:47 AM
............

gobears1997
10-10-2009, 9:51 AM
I may just set up a Calguns ammo depot in Stateline. Any Calguns member can have their special purpose ammo shipped there and then come pick it up. For a small fee of course. :devil:

bodger
10-10-2009, 9:57 AM
I'll get what I can off the shelves when I drive to AZ.

I also have someone who lives in AZ that will make my internet purchases for me, accept the shipment, and I will then go there periodically and pick up the ammo.

It sucks, but at least I won't have to rely on what is available at local retail shops in the free states.

So I can purchase from the internet all I want, let it stockpile at my relative's house, and go pick it up.

And DeLeon can kiss my Irish arse.

Hunt
10-10-2009, 10:49 AM
I'll get what I can off the shelves when I drive to AZ.

I also have someone who lives in AZ that will make my internet purchases for me, accept the shipment, and I will then go there periodically and pick up the ammo.

It sucks, but at least I won't have to rely on what is available at local retail shops in the free states.

So I can purchase from the internet all I want, let it stockpile at my relative's house, and go pick it up.

And DeLeon can kiss my Irish arse.

well the next bill will be the ammo transportation restrictions act---you know because America causes the crime in Mexico, haven't you been watching the news? If you think they will let Californians go out of State to buy ammo you better wake up. Can you buy a gun out of State? same will happen to ammo sales so we better fight now.

advocatusdiaboli
10-10-2009, 11:25 AM
What some folks fail to understand is that the mail order/internet vendors have to INTERPRET the CA. law. When they see things like the wording of the Bill I believe they will just stop shipping any ammo or reloading components to cover their butts.

I agree we likely see that unfortunate scenario and that is the intent of the law. The sponsors are having a hard time getting at our guns so they do an end run around the 2A by denying us ammunition. They know the increased difficulties and costs associated with selling ammunition in smaller quantities will drive up the prices substantially, lower California demand, and force many shops out of business. Thus making gun ownership more and more difficult and expensive--end run around the 2A. Clever malicious evil inglorious bastards.

Quser.619
10-10-2009, 12:11 PM
Personally I've kept all of my receipts from my little out of state journey in which I stocked up. If AB 962 passes I've debated sending them to my local State Senator who supported the Bill & let her know just how much sales tax she lost & will continue to lose.

She did write me back & explained that she believes that the amount of money saved from gun shot victims not going to the hospital would justify the lose of revenue. Like that's going to stop those not mature enough to safely handle a firearm, while neglecting that Britain's violent crimes w/ knives has increased every year since they've elimated, or close to, firearm ownership. After the guns comes the knives & then they outlaw sticks & stones.

Phil3
10-10-2009, 1:45 PM
Like a previous poster said, have it sent to a friends house out of state, and then pick it up. And while I'm at it, I can make any other large purchases I need to out of state. **** you California.

I've got no family or friend in Nevada, my nearest state. Need to get creative, some how. Even if the bill does not pass, I expect it will be back, and it may pass, so thinking ahead.

Like having some family members I have in Florida to take advantage of the Post Office's ad for unlimited weight in their priority mail flat rate boxes to send me bullets for reloading. Not sure the post office would permit bullets, but that is a lot of weight for a low shipping cost.

- Phil

RudyN
10-10-2009, 2:34 PM
I am lucky as I have a friend that lives in Idaho, so I can have him pick me some stuff up and hold it for me. Then I can get it when I need it or have him send it to me.

bodger
10-10-2009, 3:15 PM
well the next bill will be the ammo transportation restrictions act---you know because America causes the crime in Mexico, haven't you been watching the news? If you think they will let Californians go out of State to buy ammo you better wake up. Can you buy a gun out of State? same will happen to ammo sales so we better fight now.


Let's hope like hell we wake up Monday morning to find that Arnie did the right thing.

If not, you're right, they'll regulate out of state purchases somehow. probably amend the law before it even takes effect to make it illegal to bring ammo in.

SKSer
10-10-2009, 3:27 PM
I can only imagine what my local FFL will charge for a ammo transfer fee :o. Seriously, its no wonder gun stores are not fighting this very hard.

tba02
10-10-2009, 3:34 PM
So, were one to have a property in AZor NV, what is stopping the creation of a co-op?

I personally think the "what next" concept is BS, but for the sake of discussion ...

GearHead
10-10-2009, 3:41 PM
If anything, this bill helps the gun stores that already charge an arm and a leg for ammo

advocatusdiaboli
10-10-2009, 3:42 PM
I personally think the "what next" concept is BS, but for the sake of discussion ...

Yeah, I agree. I have a strong belief that the governor intends to veto, he is just holding a lot of bills up to force the water issue resolution--why make a special trip to his desk to veto one bill when he can do them all at once in the last minute?

But, what the heck: It's either reload, travel across state lines and bring back, pay the freight to buy here (and it will be steep in price and sweat), or pray for the Supreme Court to go our way next Spring.

bulgron
10-10-2009, 3:50 PM
If not, you're right, they'll regulate out of state purchases somehow. probably amend the law before it even takes effect to make it illegal to bring ammo in.

There's a little thing called the Interstate Commerce Clause that they have to get around first. Only the feds have the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

advocatusdiaboli
10-10-2009, 3:56 PM
There's a little thing called the Interstate Commerce Clause that they have to get around first. Only the feds have the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Bingo--they wont go that way. Besides, this bill fulfills their intent very nicely--it makes firearms difficult and expensive to use. They couldn't get around 2A so they did an end run. Too bad 2A doesn't cover ammunition--but then again, firearms being useless without ammunition, maybe there's a case there. I believe there is legal precedent in other areas for suck linking argument. Some arcane voting laws in the Deep South meant o obliquely prevent certain classes from voting with airtight logic maybe. I ain't no lawyer, but maybe there is something there. But I think he'll veto.

bodger
10-10-2009, 3:59 PM
There's a little thing called the Interstate Commerce Clause that they have to get around first. Only the feds have the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

These legislative antis are a creative bunch though, aren't they.

If AB962 becomes law, how long do you think it will be before they will figure out a way to stop us from going out of state and buying ammo and bringing it back into CA?

Number of allowable rounds in posession in a vehicle, or some such crap. There are laws that exist right now that are more ridiculous than that.

They'll figure it out. Interstate commerce, that they'll leave alone.
CA gunny with a couple of thousand freshly purchased out-of-state rounds in their truck and on the way home...that's what they'll go for.

But we aren't there yet are we. Let's hope this POS gets the veto and we can concentrate on the next (or other ongoing) battles.

bodger
10-10-2009, 4:06 PM
Bingo--they wont go that way. Besides, this bill fulfills their intent very nicely--it makes firearms difficult and expensive to use. They couldn't get around 2A so they did an end run. Too bad 2A doesn't cover ammunition--but then again, firearms being useless without ammunition, maybe there's a case there. I believe there is legal precedent in other areas for suck linking argument. Some arcane voting laws in the Deep South meant o obliquely prevent certain classes from voting with airtight logic maybe. I ain't no lawyer, but maybe there is something there. But I think he'll veto.


I can imagine hearing about "The Ammunition Loophole". Rabid ammo-starved CA gunnies driving out of state to buy.

"Something has to be done, now they are going to AZ to get ammo. Think of the children.."

bulgron
10-10-2009, 5:24 PM
Bingo--they wont go that way. Besides, this bill fulfills their intent very nicely--it makes firearms difficult and expensive to use. They couldn't get around 2A so they did an end run. Too bad 2A doesn't cover ammunition--but then again, firearms being useless without ammunition, maybe there's a case there. I believe there is legal precedent in other areas for suck linking argument. Some arcane voting laws in the Deep South meant o obliquely prevent certain classes from voting with airtight logic maybe. I ain't no lawyer, but maybe there is something there. But I think he'll veto.

Actually, go back and read your history, especially with regards to what the British were coming to confiscate in Lexington and Concord all those many years ago. Hint: it wasn't just guns they were after ....

I think any kind of an honest historical reading of the 2A will show that 'arms' also means the ammunition (powder AND ball (bullets)) that goes into guns.

Actually, for that matter, 'arms' could also be taken to mean the clothing, food, shoes, transportation, holsters, backpacks, communications devices, medicine and water that any army needs to fight a conflict. But we can just leave that to our children's children to argue about.

Mayhem
10-10-2009, 11:21 PM
Whats Next isn't BS. It's Real and most likely will happen.

We saw it with the original 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act.

We saw it with the "Safe" handgun list.

Look at the lead ban.

We all know ab962 is the first step to further ammo restrictions when it fails to put a dent in the crime rate. It doesn't even stop a prohibited person from walking into a store buying ammo it can only punish them after the fact. It's failure will be an excuse for further restriction we have seen this time and time again. It will most likely lead to ammo limits (it was the original language of the bill) and mandatory back ground checks with waiting periods and fees for those checks.

Every single time we give an Inch the Anti's run with it and take a mile or even worse yet Take it nation wide!

MrSigmaDOT40
10-11-2009, 1:59 AM
Would it be illegal to have an out of state P.O Box to send orders to? (for the sellers that will ship to P.O Boxes if any)

CalNRA
10-11-2009, 3:51 AM
It doesn't even stop a prohibited person from walking into a store buying ammo it can only punish them after the fact.

we all know criminals don;t use fake IDs.:mad:

dustoff31
10-11-2009, 5:57 AM
well the next bill will be the ammo transportation restrictions act---you know because America causes the crime in Mexico, haven't you been watching the news? If you think they will let Californians go out of State to buy ammo you better wake up. Can you buy a gun out of State? same will happen to ammo sales so we better fight now.

That wouldn't surprize me at all.

However the reality in buying off the shelf from surrounding states is availability. For example, In AZ, we are somewhat better off than CA, but by no means rolling in ammo. The Walmart ammo shelves in Lake Havasu and San Bernardino don't look all that different.

bodger
10-11-2009, 7:37 AM
That wouldn't surprize me at all.

However the reality in buying off the shelf from surrounding states is availability. For example, In AZ, we are somewhat better off than CA, but by no means rolling in ammo. The Walmart ammo shelves in Lake Havasu and San Bernardino don't look all that different.


Yeah, mail order to an addres in a free state is the only way to go. IF we don't get the veto.

Mayhem
10-11-2009, 12:42 PM
we all know criminals don;t use fake IDs.:mad:

Exactly CalNRA but my point here is unlike firearms, a prohibited person under ab962 can walk into a store show his real ID and get finger printed, and walk out with as much available ammo as he can afford. at best AB962 can punish him after the fact if some one is checking and prosecuting, that's it that's all it can do. This also assuming said prohibited person doesn't a legal work around like the rest of us or an illegal work around (false ID, Theft, Ect).

So when ab962 if it becomes law, fails to curb crime and it will fail. The anti's will push for more restrictions on ammo like they do with guns, maybe even the same restrictions such as importation ban (no going out of state for ammo), wait periods, purchase limits, mandatory background checks with fee's ect. I would not be surprised one bit within the next 10 years we see a "Safe" Cartridge list.

I'm also willing to bet that if they do actially check the background of state ammo purchases rather then prosecute they will use it to show how many prohibited persons are still buying ammo and as an excuse to why we need further restrictions.