PDA

View Full Version : Does AB962 give AG/LE unlimited authority?


Deamer
10-12-2009, 11:30 PM
Was reading the bill and came across this. Emphasis in bold.

(5) Commencing February 1, 2011, the records referred to in
paragraph (3) shall be subject to inspection at any time during
normal business hours by any peace officer employed by a sheriff,
city police department, or district attorney as provided in
subdivision (a) of Section 830.1, or employed by the department
as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 830.1, provided the officer
is conducting an investigation where access to those records is or
may be relevant to that investigation, is seeking information about
persons prohibited from owning a firearm or ammunition, or is
engaged in ensuring compliance with the Dangerous Weapons
Control Law (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 12000) of Title
2 of Part 4), or any other laws pertaining to firearms or ammunition.

The way I read this 962 gives the AG and LE broad overreaching power to investigate any thing about guns and ammo they want, even if not part of an ongoing investigation.


I see a lot of what happened to the guy in SAC happening, where he was asked to submit his gun for ballistics testing because someone got shot with a 9mm and he had bought 9mm the night before.

I also see a visit from the police if you buy a large amount of ammo at one time.

It looks like LE are exempt from the tracking too.


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

(2) Sworn peace officers, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing
with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who are authorized to carry
a firearm in the course and scope of their duties.

Hunt
10-12-2009, 11:38 PM
we need to reverse all this and the citizens should be investigating ammunition purchases by armed agents of the State.

Scratch705
10-12-2009, 11:41 PM
this is why you purchase out of state, or setup a barter system with those that are going out of state to get ammo.

or get family/friends out of state to send you ammo and since it isn't a purchase but a gift, it doesn't have to be FTF

hoffmang
10-12-2009, 11:42 PM
Simply purchasing ammunition does not create probable cause for a search of the buyer. If someone comes to the door say "thanks, but you need to return with a warrant."

-Gene

Deamer
10-12-2009, 11:59 PM
With all the FUD we hear from LE I am just concerned that they will take advantage of the wording in the Dangerous Weapons compliance area.

Dr Rockso
10-13-2009, 12:03 AM
For instance, I buy a few boxes of .50 BMG to shoot through my Dad's Barrett in Vegas or a friend's registered .50 BMG in CA at an approved range. I abide by the law and give fingerprint and all required new information.

AG/LE browses the records to ensure compliance to the Dangerous Weapons Control Law and notice a .50 BMG ammo purchase. LE knowing that .50 BMG are evil they check my name against the .50 BMG registration and notice that I do not have one registered in my name. Next thing I know I got SWAT knocking down my door with a no-knock warrent to confiscate my non-existent .50 BMG.
Unless someone uses a really absurd definition of "ammunition principally for use in pistols" you won't need prints for .50 BMG ammo.

Deamer
10-13-2009, 12:30 AM
Unless someone uses a really absurd definition of "ammunition principally for use in pistols" you won't need prints for .50 BMG ammo.

Good catch, guess I am still pissed about him signing 962 into law and I am still not thinking clearly.

I guess the .50 BMG pistol didn't take off like they thought it would. :D

frankiejoe577
10-13-2009, 12:57 AM
For instance, I buy a few boxes of .50 BMG to shoot through my Dad's Barrett in Vegas or a friend's registered .50 BMG in CA at an approved range. I abide by the law and give fingerprint and all required new information.

AG/LE browses the records to ensure compliance to the Dangerous Weapons Control Law and notice a .50 BMG ammo purchase. LE knowing that .50 BMG are evil they check my name against the .50 BMG registration and notice that I do not have one registered in my name. Next thing I know I got SWAT knocking down my door with a no-knock warrent to confiscate my non-existent .50 BMG.

If that happens, I will be willing to move to your town and buy some .50 BMG even tho I do not own one as well. Sounds like a good law suite and I can use some extra cash.

Sunwolf
10-13-2009, 6:03 AM
Don`t think that these "new" police powers won`t be used.

CABilly
10-13-2009, 6:29 AM
I would love it if we could convince ammo wholesalers and dealers to refuse service to LEA/Os. I'm not saying they flat-out don't sell to them, but maybe get rid of their upsies in the backorder que. Also, don't most departments furnish their officers with ammo? So why are individual officers exempt?


Was reading the bill and came across this. Emphasis in bold.

(5) Commencing February 1, 2011, the records referred to in
paragraph (3) shall be subject to inspection at any time during
normal business hours by any peace officer employed by a sheriff,
city police department, or district attorney as provided in
subdivision (a) of Section 830.1, or employed by the department
as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 830.1, provided the officer
is conducting an investigation where access to those records is or
may be relevant to that investigation, is seeking information about
persons prohibited from owning a firearm or ammunition, or is
engaged in ensuring compliance with the Dangerous Weapons
Control Law (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 12000) of Title
2 of Part 4), or any other laws pertaining to firearms or ammunition.

The way I read this 962 gives the AG and LE broad overreaching power to investigate any thing about guns and ammo they want, even if not part of an ongoing investigation.


I see a lot of what happened to the guy in SAC happening, where he was asked to submit his gun for ballistics testing because someone got shot with a 9mm and he had bought 9mm the night before.

I also see a visit from the police if you buy a large amount of ammo at one time.

It looks like LE are exempt from the tracking too.


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

(2) Sworn peace officers, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing
with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who are authorized to carry
a firearm in the course and scope of their duties.

chris
10-13-2009, 6:58 AM
of course LE is exempt why would they have to comply with the rest of us serfs. what happened to equal pretection under the law? oh wait this is Kalifornia. i would hope LE would take the moral high ground and investigate real criminals instead of "joe gun owner" who happened to buy a new pistol a few days prior.

greasemonkey
10-13-2009, 7:15 AM
i would hope LE would take the moral high ground and investigate real criminals instead of "joe gun owner" who happened to buy a new pistol a few days prior.

Yeah but it's a lot easier to do, though. The average "joe gun owner" that plays by the asinine laws isn't likely to shoot at LE, so it's easier to go after them and "get guns off the street".:rolleyes:

badhabit90
10-13-2009, 7:22 AM
I would love it if we could convince ammo wholesalers and dealers to refuse service to LEA/Os. I'm not saying they flat-out don't sell to them, but maybe get rid of their upsies in the backorder que. Also, don't most departments furnish their officers with ammo? So why are individual officers exempt?

because some departments, like my own, dont furnish ammo for us to train with. we have what is called "annual refresher training" which is once a year. since i am on a collateral duty team, i take it upon myself to train on my own. public safety is top priority with me especially since i transport convicted criminals. heck, i could be driving right next to you and you wouldnt even know it.

however, i am in total agreeance with you about this whole bill. now this is the dumbest bill ever in CA. how is my dept supposed to order ammo and have it shipped to CA?? bit of confusion now....there is no prohibition from ammo dealers sending ammo to CA?? it just states "The bill would provide that no handgun ammunition vendor, as defined, shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the vendor or employee thereof." this does not apply to other states correct?? they dont have to abide by our laws, hence they just dont sell to CA....:mad:



i think we all need to just submit studies like this one to help out.....

http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/randstudy.shtml

http://calgunlaws.com/

Swatter911
10-13-2009, 7:26 AM
As a LEO I will be leaving my info and thumbprint along with everyone else for my personal ammo purchases. My duty ammo comes from my department. I don't think that a lot of retailers will ship to/honor the LEO exemption anyways. I don't like this law one bit BTW.

Since the centralized database was struck down, I don't see a whole lot of knock and talks based solely on ammo purchases happening (like the Sacto guy who commented in the city council hearing). Too man power intensive and most agencies don't have the idle personnel to devote to it. The gangsters/felons/crooks will adapt and use straw ammo purchasers anyways.

Gene's advice is right on.

GrizzlyGuy
10-13-2009, 8:11 AM
It gives them the authority to check the ammo sales records, but that's it. The 4th and 5th amendments are still in full effect. TheCilician wrote a nice summary of your rights here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230873

reidnez
10-13-2009, 8:31 AM
this is why you purchase out of state, or setup a barter system with those that are going out of state to get ammo.

or get family/friends out of state to send you ammo and since it isn't a purchase but a gift, it doesn't have to be FTF

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.


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.

Sale is not a requirement, only "delivery." Being a private citizen (rather than a vendor) does not exempt the shipper.

In other words, if I put a handgun round in the mail on or after Feb 2, 2011, and the addressee is within California (and not an exempted wholesaler, gunsmith, etc.), then I have broken the law. Someone will correct me if I am mistaken, but that's how it reads to me.

GrizzlyGuy
10-13-2009, 9:46 AM
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.


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.

Sale is not a requirement, only "delivery." Being a private citizen (rather than a vendor) does not exempt the shipper.

In other words, if I put a handgun round in the mail on or after Feb 2, 2011, and the addressee is within California (and not an exempted wholesaler, gunsmith, etc.), then I have broken the law. Someone will correct me if I am mistaken, but that's how it reads to me.

You'd be OK, it's the poor UPS delivery person that would be looking at a possible misdemeanor if they didn't check the recipient's ID as the law requires. That's one of the reasons why the federal government disallowed all such state and local laws, and why the CGF challenge will likely succeed. See bwiese's post here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230676

boats1
10-13-2009, 9:54 AM
Don`t think that these "new" police powers won`t be used.


Agreed.

geeknow
10-13-2009, 10:08 AM
I am happy to see some LEO's express that they feel this law sucks too....

reidnez
10-13-2009, 10:21 AM
You'd be OK, it's the poor UPS delivery person that would be looking at a possible misdemeanor if they didn't check the recipient's ID as the law requires. That's one of the reasons why the federal government disallowed all such state and local laws, and why the CGF challenge will likely succeed. See bwiese's post here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230676

That thought had occurred to me as well: that the burden of enforcement will fall mostly on USPS and UPS, which are obviously not law enforcement agencies.

This thing is so full of holes that I'll be pretty shocked if it survives court challenges and comes into effect. :D