PDA

View Full Version : AB 962 does NOT require FTF sales of magazines or reloading components


Librarian
10-12-2009, 11:07 PM
Read the bill at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html

The FTF part is new section 12318: 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.


PC 12323 says 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.

All that stuff about magazines etc is in new 12317 (and existing 12316) (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.
, making it a crime (duplicating part of Federal law, 18 USC 922 (d) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html)) to sell that stuff to ineligible persons -- and that definition applies only to "this section" -- 12317 -- not any other part of the law.

Note also that there ONCE WAS

a requirement that ammunition dealers be licensed
a 50-round transfer limit exempted from use of a licensed ammunition dealer

but BOTH ideas were amended out in June and are NOT part of the bill as signed.

nn3453
10-12-2009, 11:10 PM
Thank you for confirming what I thought I read myself. Much appreciated.

Dr Rockso
10-12-2009, 11:38 PM
Thanks. If you have any definitive insight about what calibers would be considered "ammunition principally for use in pistols" we could use a thread on that as well.

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-12-2009, 11:39 PM
Thanks. If you have any definitive insight about what calibers would be considered "ammunition principally for use in pistols" we could use a thread on that as well.

I hope that loophole is so big that Arnold can drive his Hummer through it.

.454
10-12-2009, 11:42 PM
That's good news for us reloaders.
I stopped buying factory ammo two years ago. I just hope more gun owners will start learning how to make their own ammo. It's easy and inexpensive to start.

bsim
10-12-2009, 11:55 PM
Thanks Bill...

Once A Marine
10-13-2009, 12:05 AM
Thanks. If you have any definitive insight about what calibers would be considered "ammunition principally for use in pistols" we could use a thread on that as well.

I would expect this to be applied liberally - if a pistol exists that can chamber that round, it will be included.

Dr Rockso
10-13-2009, 12:07 AM
I would expect this to be applied liberally - if a pistol exists that can chamber that round, it will be included.
So you think they're going to ignore the word "principally" altogether? I imagine our side would have a field day with that.

Once A Marine
10-13-2009, 12:12 AM
So you think they're going to ignore the word "principally" altogether? I imagine our side would have a field day with that.

Check out http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230745.

Technically, it does mean pistol oriented ammo - 9mm, 10mm, .44, .50AE, .357, .38, etc.

I'd expect 5.7x28 to be included.

I'd also expect FUD to reign supreme with most vendors.

Finally, I don't expect this law to actually make it to Feb 2011.

obeygiant
10-13-2009, 12:15 AM
Read the bill at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html

The FTF part is new section 12318:

PC 12323 says

All that stuff about magazines etc is in new 12317 (and existing 12316), making it a crime (duplicating part of Federal law, 18 USC 922 (d) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html)) to sell that stuff to ineligible persons -- and that definition applies only to "this section" -- 12317 -- not any other part of the law.

I think a sticky is definitely in order for this one as well as a page on the wiki. Thank you Librarian

Dr Rockso
10-13-2009, 12:19 AM
Check out http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230745.

Technically, it does mean pistol oriented ammo - 9mm, 10mm, .44, .50AE, .357, .38, etc.

I'd expect 5.7x28 to be included.

I'd also expect FUD to reign supreme with most vendors.

Finally, I don't expect this law to actually make it to Feb 2011.

Yeah, I saw that thread. To tell you the truth the only caliber that I really consider to be ambiguous is .22 rimfire. My hunch is that it is not "primarily" handgun ammunition, but how does one go about proving that? Sorry to say that in California 5.7x28 probably would be considered handgun ammo since AR-57s and PS-90s are uncommon, but the Five-seveN is on the roster and (again, just a hunch) more common than the rifles.

squatting_caveboy
10-13-2009, 12:34 AM
(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 could be interpreted many ways, inclusive of BB or pellet "projectiles". This may have even farther reaching tenticles than we may think.

Retailer's liability will be under a microscope as well!

- Ammo prices will climb dramatically as demand rises before 2011

-Price elasticity rules will not apply as panic sets in from buyers and price gouging takes effect

-Paper trails will prove to be ineffective and inefficient, thereby forcing retailers to adopt expensive electronic tracking systems.

-Many shops and big box stores will simply cease selling ammunition due to the costs of tracking and potential liability in selling ammunition.

- Interstate ammunition sales will skyrocket and Fed's will crack down on any inter-state sale of ammunition into CA

- Internet sale of ammo into CA will cease. Web-based gun/ammo businesses will be financially impacted

- Ranges, both public and private will certainly be "cleaner" with everyone picking up their spent casings in either fear of someone else getting a hold of "your" casings or using to reload them their own.

-Reloading supplies and devices will be in short supply and prices will dramatically climb for supplies and re-loaders

- Ammo-only retailers may flourish as separating gun-from-ammo may be a sound business strategy for retailers.

- Is your range ammo really "purchased"? or is it "rented"? (you don't keep brass) and therefore exempt?

- Gun sales will decline as will interest in a fantastic sport

Anything I've missed?

Dr Rockso
10-13-2009, 12:39 AM
- Ranges, both public and private will certainly be "cleaner" with everyone picking up their spent casings in either fear of someone else getting a hold of "your" casings or using to reload them their own.
Are you commenting on microstamping here? There's nothing about AB962 that would link a specific cartridge to a specific person (unless you mean via thumbprint, which seems enormously unlikely).

squatting_caveboy
10-13-2009, 12:52 AM
Microstamping is the next "logical" pathway for CA and the Feds....yes?

Dr Rockso
10-13-2009, 1:01 AM
Microstamping is the next "logical" pathway for CA and the Feds....yes?
Well lets make sure we have our terminology straight. There's microstamping, which was already passed in CA, but for a bunch of reasons will likely never go into effect. This is where the firearm itself would have to stamp a code onto fired casings (firing pin and one other area IIRC). Then there's serialized ammunition, which I think is closer to what you're talking about. I don't see serialized ammo being politically feasible on the federal level at any point in the forseeable future. The state level may be another story, but the impact of something like that on law-abiding shooters is much more readily apparent than AB 962 was.

kcbrown
10-13-2009, 1:18 AM
I don't see serialized ammo being politically feasible on the federal level at any point in the forseeable future. The state level may be another story, but the impact of something like that on law-abiding shooters is much more readily apparent than AB 962 was.

What makes you think the state legislature and governor will give a damn about the effect of serialized ammo on law abiding shooters? Just like with AB 962, they'll ascribe magical powers to the bill's ability to cut crime by making it possible to track a bullet back to its "owner". Of course it's nonsense, but that's how they'll sell it, and only people who know and care about firearms will see through it.

To the politicians, the only "law abiding shooters" are law enforcement, which is why they get all the exemptions. The rest of us are criminals that should be locked up for our own good as far as they're concerned. :mad:

"Gun control" (or any sort of personal arms control) is a power grab, pure and simple. Once the state has disarmed the population, it can push anything onto the population and there won't be a thing the population can do about it. This has happened far too many times throughout history to be considered anything else, and is happening right before our eyes in the UK.

chris
10-13-2009, 6:53 AM
Check out [url]I'd also expect FUD to reign supreme with most vendors.



oh man there is gonna be alot of FUD on the vendors part. they will start Jan 1 2010. this state is so stupid.

smallshot13
10-15-2009, 3:59 PM
12317 criminalizes activities of a vendor "...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...". The offensive definition of handgun ammunition pertaining only to this section does mention bullets, magazines, speed loaders, etc. This section may act as a deterrant, if not an outright ban on out of state vendors selling and shipping these items into the state, because they cannot know who in the delivery chain might be a prohibited person. This would require that all personnel within the shipping chain be certified as not being prohibited person in the eyes of the CA PC.

Mac Attack
10-15-2009, 4:14 PM
I haven't read the entire bill but wasn't there a limitation on how much ammo a person could have at one time?

How long do you think it will be before they go after the reloaders as well. :(

tiko
10-15-2009, 5:53 PM
Thank you for your confirmation, I was not so sure about it :)

rklute
10-15-2009, 9:05 PM
I haven't read the entire bill but wasn't there a limitation on how much ammo a person could have at one time?
:(

Nope. There was a provision limiting the size of non immediate family private transfers to 50 rounds per month. But that was dropped when the provisions for registering ammunition vendors were removed.