PDA

View Full Version : Focus on ammo as subject of 2A protection


Esquire
12-17-2009, 9:52 AM
Increasingly, the detractors of 2A rights are targeting ammo. Unjust law such as AB962 is a telling example of this approach by the anti's. I feel like ammo is the vulnerable point in the 2A rights struggle. All the cases seem to focus on overturning gun bans, but what about unreasonable restrictions that make ammo purchases expensive, unduly burdensome, and if the trend continues, impracticable? If the proponents of 2A do not also protect ammo, the victory over gun bans will be a hollow one. Without ammo, a gun is just a nice display in the cabinet. This is the reason the likes of AB962 should scare all of us into alert.

kf6tac
12-17-2009, 10:00 AM
All in due time. It's premature to mince words about whether or not ammo is protected within the scope of the Second Amendment when we haven't even established that the Second Amendment applies to the states yet.

Cougar
12-17-2009, 10:03 AM
... interfering with, no downright obstruction of interstate commerce with the ban on anything except face to face purchases and "your papers, please".


I guaran-damn-tee that this kid will not submit to their bologna.

Ammo purchases will be made during out of state trips. And I will take a look at re-loading.

The bad news is that killing local sales and local sellers gives them a "win".

Sgt Raven
12-17-2009, 11:03 AM
... interfering with, no downright obstruction of interstate commerce with the ban on anything except face to face purchases and "your papers, please".


I guaran-damn-tee that this kid will not submit to their bologna.

Ammo purchases will be made during out of state trips. And I will take a look at re-loading.

The bad news is that killing local sales and local sellers gives them a "win".

The bad news is killing local sales kills sales of firearms too. The profit a FFL makes off of gun sales is not enough to keep them in business. :eek:

bwiese
12-17-2009, 11:06 AM
I believe ammo will be protected post-incorporation.

Ammo will be seen as an essential part of an operational, useful firearm - otherwise the latter is just one of Allison's paperweights. Defeating "safe storage" laws and wording from Heller already supports this.

wildhawker
12-17-2009, 11:11 AM
Not sure where you've been, but please do join us often as this subject (especially during/since AB962) has received quite a bit of attention. I'm quite certain the Right People are paying attention, as are thousands of gunnies who took an active role in opposing the bill.

Increasingly, the detractors of 2A rights are targeting ammo. Unjust law such as AB962 is a telling example of this approach by the anti's. I feel like ammo is the vulnerable point in the 2A rights struggle. All the cases seem to focus on overturning gun bans, but what about unreasonable restrictions that make ammo purchases expensive, unduly burdensome, and if the trend continues, impracticable? If the proponents of 2A do not also protect ammo, the victory over gun bans will be a hollow one. Without ammo, a gun is just a nice display in the cabinet. This is the reason the likes of AB962 should scare all of us into alert.

Kid Stanislaus
12-17-2009, 11:20 AM
Our man Hoffman is right on top of it!

hoffmang
12-17-2009, 11:44 AM
Ammo is clearly protected. The right to keep arms was defined as "functional firearms" and ammunition is a core component of "functional."

962 has non constitutional problems that will doom it shortly.

-Gene

Swatter911
12-17-2009, 12:48 PM
Ammo is clearly protected. The right to keep arms was defined as "functional firearms" and ammunition is a core component of "functional."

962 has non constitutional problems that will doom it shortly.

-Gene

Good!

Quser.619
12-17-2009, 2:55 PM
Ammo is clearly protected. The right to keep arms was defined as "functional firearms" and ammunition is a core component of "functional."

962 has non constitutional problems that will doom it shortly.

-Gene

Ooooo a belated Christmas present...

LiberalGunner
12-17-2009, 8:11 PM
I can't believe so many people are calling simple tracking of ammunition sales "unreasonable" and "an obstruction" and are talking about methods to skirt the laws by buying out of state. I'm sure everyone on this blog frequents walmarts. have you noticed the ammo is already locked in a case?? Have you also noticed that they sell the cheapest ammo in town? Do the math. Ammunition prices will not become prohibitively expensive just because the sale of ammo is tracked. How easy do you want to make it for terrorists to stockpile thousands of rounds? I say if you're so worried about giving a thumb print, what do you have to hide? I would personally like authorities to know if the ex con down the street is stocking up on deershot, or if someone on a terror watchlist is cleaning out the local gunshops.

wash
12-17-2009, 8:35 PM
It's not skirting the law to do something that is perfectly legal.

If you give the anti's an inch, they'll take a mile.

We are starting to win, I won't give them anything. That's why I was in the San Mateo county board of supervisors meeting.

NiteQwill
12-17-2009, 8:39 PM
I can't believe so many people are calling simple tracking of ammunition sales "unreasonable" and "an obstruction" and are talking about methods to skirt the laws by buying out of state. I'm sure everyone on this blog frequents walmarts. have you noticed the ammo is already locked in a case?? Have you also noticed that they sell the cheapest ammo in town? Do the math. Ammunition prices will not become prohibitively expensive just because the sale of ammo is tracked. How easy do you want to make it for terrorists to stockpile thousands of rounds? I say if you're so worried about giving a thumb print, what do you have to hide? I would personally like authorities to know if the ex con down the street is stocking up on deershot, or if someone on a terror watchlist is cleaning out the local gunshops.

You have to be kidding me. :rolleyes:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin

It's not about just fingerprints or locking ammo up or internet sales. It's about the right to privacy. This is along the same lines of "gun registration."

OleCuss
12-17-2009, 9:29 PM
I can't believe so many people are calling simple tracking of ammunition sales "unreasonable" and "an obstruction" and are talking about methods to skirt the laws by buying out of state. I'm sure everyone on this blog frequents walmarts. have you noticed the ammo is already locked in a case?? Have you also noticed that they sell the cheapest ammo in town? Do the math. Ammunition prices will not become prohibitively expensive just because the sale of ammo is tracked. How easy do you want to make it for terrorists to stockpile thousands of rounds? I say if you're so worried about giving a thumb print, what do you have to hide? I would personally like authorities to know if the ex con down the street is stocking up on deershot, or if someone on a terror watchlist is cleaning out the local gunshops.

There is a certain reasonableness to what you are saying but it doesn't work in the long-run.

Ever read an article about how some crook was caught and they had "hundreds of rounds" of ammo in their possession? The implication is that in our society we've had the idea ingrained that anyone with hundreds thousands of rounds of ammo is clearly up to no good. If something like AB962 is allowed to stand I promise you that the Kalifornia legislature will eventually extend things to limit the number of rounds you can buy (not sure they'll succeed but the attempt will be made).

And I'd just love to know how AB962 is going to decrease terrorism? You don't think terrorists could smuggle a few thousand rounds of ammo into the country or break into a WalMart or gun store and get all they want? Or terrorists couldn't make contact with a gang and buy ammo from them? For that matter, I don't see how it would keep the ammo away from the regular crooks, either.

Actually, the idea that this would stop terrorists is utterly laughable.

First, who is going to investigate ammo sales? Law enforcement doesn't have the time to do their job right now. In my city I called in a report of what was probably a stolen car and the cops never did respond - and our budget is better than most.

So what is law enforcement going to do? Start profiling those who buy ammo? So if you have a foreign-sounding name like Ayoob are they going to investigate you as a possible terrorist because you bought several hundred rounds of ammo? Utterly ridiculous.

Some of what AB962 is going to do is:
1. Make it more expensive to obtain ammo (additional paperwork and time means more money).
2. Make ammo less available
a. Increased hassle factor means some places just won't sell the ammo.
b. Increased liability means some won't choose to sell ammo because a paperwork error could get you in all kinds of legal trouble.
c. This will make gun owners look like nuts to the ill-informed. If I choose to buy locally, because of the increased hassle factor I'll buy in higher volume and if others do the same they'll see statistics coming back of a whole bunch of people buying ammo by the hundreds or thousands of rounds. Then they'll go to the media with the statistics on ammo purchases and say that this is unnecessary and unreasonable and try to limit ammo sales.
d. It's an invasion of privacy. Why on Earth would a government who believes killing the unborn is covered by a right to privacy think that if I buy one round of .22LR that they need to know about that? If you are talking about a danger to others - then why aren't they tracking alcohol purchases?

So you have a law which doesn't protect anyone but will increase prices and decrease availability. This is not a benign item - but is an anti-gun rights dream.

oaklander
12-17-2009, 9:36 PM
Folks - this person is a troll, probably a Brady-ite. I've reviewed his/her posts and it appears that he/she made a number of somewhat anti-gun posts, all in just the last few minutes.

IMHO - OK to put on ignore list.

I can't believe so many people are calling simple tracking of ammunition sales "unreasonable" and "an obstruction" and are talking about methods to skirt the laws by buying out of state. I'm sure everyone on this blog frequents walmarts. have you noticed the ammo is already locked in a case?? Have you also noticed that they sell the cheapest ammo in town? Do the math. Ammunition prices will not become prohibitively expensive just because the sale of ammo is tracked. How easy do you want to make it for terrorists to stockpile thousands of rounds? I say if you're so worried about giving a thumb print, what do you have to hide? I would personally like authorities to know if the ex con down the street is stocking up on deershot, or if someone on a terror watchlist is cleaning out the local gunshops.

demnogis
12-17-2009, 10:39 PM
IIRC, wasn't there some huge war oh-so-long-ago, whose tensions were sparked as powder being seized?

hoffmang
12-17-2009, 10:40 PM
I can't believe so many people are calling simple tracking of ammunition sales "unreasonable" and "an obstruction" and are talking about methods to skirt the laws by buying out of state.

You may be a troll but I want others to understand one other issue.

Pre-purchase screening may be legal and acceptable. It is the minimally invasive way to keep prohibited people from buying ammunition. Keeping a log has all sorts of downsides including raising serious 4th and 5th amendment issues for the prosecutions of criminals. The state really can't compel felons to self report - even when they're buying ammo.

-Gene

niceguy
12-17-2009, 10:55 PM
All in due time. It's premature to mince words about whether or not ammo is protected within the scope of the Second Amendment when we haven't even established that the Second Amendment applies to the states yet.

I'm just an ignorant guy when it comes to some of the deeper legalities of the Constitution, but what does "the right of the people" refer to, if not the states? Outside of the states, are there any people?

Does it really matter where you live, or how it's classified, since it refers to people, and we're all people?

niceguy
12-17-2009, 10:59 PM
I can't believe so many people are calling simple tracking of ammunition sales "unreasonable" and "an obstruction" and are talking about methods to skirt the laws by buying out of state. I'm sure everyone on this blog frequents walmarts. have you noticed the ammo is already locked in a case?? Have you also noticed that they sell the cheapest ammo in town? Do the math. Ammunition prices will not become prohibitively expensive just because the sale of ammo is tracked. How easy do you want to make it for terrorists to stockpile thousands of rounds? I say if you're so worried about giving a thumb print, what do you have to hide? I would personally like authorities to know if the ex con down the street is stocking up on deershot, or if someone on a terror watchlist is cleaning out the local gunshops.

It's unreasonable since there's no reason to make me get your permission to buy what I can legally buy.

I have nothing to hide, until you want to look. It's none of your damned business how much ammo I buy.

If they're on a watch list, then friggin watch them! Leave me alone. You don't need to watch me. If the DHS and the rest did their jobs, instead of grandstanding and picking the low fruit (us), we wouldn't have these issues.

Dwight K. Schrute
12-17-2009, 11:16 PM
I can't believe so many people are calling simple tracking of ammunition sales "unreasonable" and "an obstruction" .... bla bla bla

Guys... this has got to be the anti's payback for you guys joining the Brady Campaign. Junling is laughing her butt off now. Darn, they got us.

hoffmang
12-17-2009, 11:19 PM
I'm just an ignorant guy when it comes to some of the deeper legalities of the Constitution, but what does "the right of the people" refer to, if not the states? Outside of the states, are there any people?

Does it really matter where you live, or how it's classified, since it refers to people, and we're all people?

Quick refresher though this is hashed out deeply in other posts.

The Federal Constitution and its amendments were meant to bind the Federal government. In Barron v. Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore) (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Constitution didn't bind the states directly. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 to change that. However, due to some racist history, the original intent of the 14th amendment has not been followed. McDonald serves to rectify that problem.

-Gene

LiberalGunner
12-17-2009, 11:39 PM
Ok, I'm called an anti gunner, a troll, whatever else. I can't believe shooters are saying "just don't listen to him". I truly apologize if I'm offending any of you...I'm just trying to express a reasoned opinion. I find it sad that when faced with a different point of view, instead of thinking about it, Oaklander needs to put it on his "ignore" list. Niceguy seems to think I'm pushing the requirement of "permission" to buy ammo. Don't be a walking stereotype guys!

My point was that Walmart locks up their ammo, with no negative price consequences. Requiring recording the name of who purchased ammo isn't going to push prices thru the roof - it isn't requiring government permission to purchase. I say, if you're an honest, law abiding citizen, what do you have to fear?

On the other hand, the part of the bill banning mail order/internet sales of ammo, I disagree with like many of you. It restricts commerce and makes no sense if they can get the info of the buyers just as easily.

I wonder if you guys are all this opposed to the patriot act as well? If you feel that having a government that's alert for crime/terrorism is an impingement on your rights. Or maybe you're like the pro-abortion left and feel that somewhere in the constitution, you've got a "right" to privacy. Sorry to inform you, but that isn't in there. There is no "right" to buy your ammo in secret.

Electricboy
12-17-2009, 11:49 PM
There is no good reason for anyone to know how much ammo i shoot or what caliber

NiteQwill
12-17-2009, 11:54 PM
Ok, I'm called an anti gunner, a troll, whatever else. I can't believe shooters are saying "just don't listen to him". I truly apologize if I'm offending any of you...I'm just trying to express a reasoned opinion. I find it sad that when faced with a different point of view, instead of thinking about it, Oaklander needs to put it on his "ignore" list. Niceguy seems to think I'm pushing the requirement of "permission" to buy ammo. Don't be a walking stereotype guys!

My point was that Walmart locks up their ammo, with no negative price consequences. Requiring recording the name of who purchased ammo isn't going to push prices thru the roof - it isn't requiring government permission to purchase. I say, if you're an honest, law abiding citizen, what do you have to fear?

On the other hand, the part of the bill banning mail order/internet sales of ammo, I disagree with like many of you. It restricts commerce and makes no sense if they can get the info of the buyers just as easily.

I wonder if you guys are all this opposed to the patriot act as well? If you feel that having a government that's alert for crime/terrorism is an impingement on your rights. Or maybe you're like the pro-abortion left and feel that somewhere in the constitution, you've got a "right" to privacy. Sorry to inform you, but that isn't in there. There is no "right" to buy your ammo in secret.
It has nothing to do with the price of ammo.

Again, it's the issue of privacy.

I don't understand what you're saying... you're saying that recording your name is NOT giving the government permission to purchase ammo? Did you realize what you just said?

You are giving the government permission to track private purchases during a legal sale. Last time I checked, the government is supposed to ask permission FROM the people, not the other way around. It's not their stinking business to know what, how much, or where I buy ammo.

You're one of very, very few that feels the government should invade my privacy to enable sense of false safety.:rolleyes:

bigcalidave
12-18-2009, 12:58 AM
Ok, I'm called an anti gunner, a troll, whatever else. I can't believe shooters are saying "just don't listen to him". I truly apologize if I'm offending any of you...I'm just trying to express a reasoned opinion. I find it sad that when faced with a different point of view, instead of thinking about it, Oaklander needs to put it on his "ignore" list. Niceguy seems to think I'm pushing the requirement of "permission" to buy ammo. Don't be a walking stereotype guys!

My point was that Walmart locks up their ammo, with no negative price consequences. Requiring recording the name of who purchased ammo isn't going to push prices thru the roof - it isn't requiring government permission to purchase. I say, if you're an honest, law abiding citizen, what do you have to fear?

On the other hand, the part of the bill banning mail order/internet sales of ammo, I disagree with like many of you. It restricts commerce and makes no sense if they can get the info of the buyers just as easily.

I wonder if you guys are all this opposed to the patriot act as well? If you feel that having a government that's alert for crime/terrorism is an impingement on your rights. Or maybe you're like the pro-abortion left and feel that somewhere in the constitution, you've got a "right" to privacy. Sorry to inform you, but that isn't in there. There is no "right" to buy your ammo in secret.

Maybe you don't understand. Walmart, Big 5, Sports Authority, name the other barely intelligent discount stores that sell ammo, they won't play the fingerprinting and record keeping game. They will just stop selling handgun ammo. This WILL drive up the price of all ammunition. This WILL make it impossible to get anything other than whatever crappy ammo makes it to the shelves at whats left of the gun business. And you just made a ton of troll posts in a short while, you are going to piss a lot of us off.

OleCuss
12-18-2009, 3:21 AM
I dunno if he is a troll or not. Doesn't bother me if he is - but I think his questioning reflects that of much of the population.

So why not take his posting at face value and use the opportunity to hone the argument with people who don't get what this legislation is about?

oaklander
12-18-2009, 4:54 AM
Ok, I'm called an anti gunner, a troll, whatever else. I can't believe shooters are saying "just don't listen to him". I truly apologize if I'm offending any of you...I'm just trying to express a reasoned opinion. I find it sad that when faced with a different point of view, instead of thinking about it, Oaklander needs to put it on his "ignore" list. Niceguy seems to think I'm pushing the requirement of "permission" to buy ammo. Don't be a walking stereotype guys!

LOL - I actually *thought* about your point of view for about one second. Then I decided that you WERE/ARE a troll. Prove me wrong. Also, there is no need to apologize. We find it fun shooting holes in your weak arguments.

Keep up the "good" work.

With respect to "reasoned opinion" - there is nothing reasonable about recording ammo sales. It's simply another infringement, and will NOT deter crime.

Unlike law-abiding citizens, criminals simply don't need that much ammo. They can get what they need on the black market. It's people like me and others here who shoot thousands of rounds per year that will be harmed.

My point was that Walmart locks up their ammo, with no negative price consequences. Requiring recording the name of who purchased ammo isn't going to push prices thru the roof - it isn't requiring government permission to purchase. I say, if you're an honest, law abiding citizen, what do you have to fear?

Using your reasoning, we should also create a central registry of people who own DSL and cable-modems, and also register their IP addresses, since *some* people use the internet to download and share child porn.

On the other hand, the part of the bill banning mail order/internet sales of ammo, I disagree with like many of you. It restricts commerce and makes no sense if they can get the info of the buyers just as easily.

You seem preoccupied with getting this info. Which anti-gun organization do you work for???

I wonder if you guys are all this opposed to the patriot act as well? If you feel that having a government that's alert for crime/terrorism is an impingement on your rights. Or maybe you're like the pro-abortion left and feel that somewhere in the constitution, you've got a "right" to privacy. Sorry to inform you, but that isn't in there. There is no "right" to buy your ammo in secret.

I'm trying to figure out your politics. You seem like a law-and-order kind of woman. At least I think you are a woman, based on the fact that you referred to us all as "guys" (twice) when in reality there are many women on this board.

With respect to the stereotype thing, you are way off base. But you seem to have already made your mind up about what gun owners must "look like."

You are, again, sadly wrong.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-18-2009, 7:02 AM
Ok, I'm called an anti gunner, a troll, whatever else. I can't believe shooters are saying "just don't listen to him". I truly apologize if I'm offending any of you...I'm just trying to express a reasoned opinion. I find it sad that when faced with a different point of view, instead of thinking about it, Oaklander needs to put it on his "ignore" list. Niceguy seems to think I'm pushing the requirement of "permission" to buy ammo. Don't be a walking stereotype guys!


Well, you ARE pushing for "permission" to buy ammo. If I refuse to give my name, I'll be turned down, right? That's the very essence of seeking "permission." So, right off the bat, your opinion just ain't all that "reasoned," since the illogic of your opinion didn't occur to you.


My point was that Walmart locks up their ammo, with no negative price consequences. Requiring recording the name of who purchased ammo isn't going to push prices thru the roof - it isn't requiring government permission to purchase. I say, if you're an honest, law abiding citizen, what do you have to fear?


If I'm an honest, law-abiding citizen, what objection could I have to 'showing my papers' to every cop who just wants to ask for them (keeping in mind that being allowed to pass is dependent on my having & presenting them)?

What objection could I have to seeking permission to drive to the local hills (keeping in mind that being allowed to do so is dependent on my having & presenting them)?

What objection could I have to having the cops walking into my house every once in a while so they can scan my computer just to make sure that I don't have kiddie porn on it (keeping in mind that being allowed to have the computer is dependent on my allowing such a search)?

There are many other examples I could cite. But, do ya see where I'm going with this? The Law has no business doing any of this UNLESS & UNTIL I break the law. In free countries, & to people who value freedom, the recognition of this is not a problem.


On the other hand, the part of the bill banning mail order/internet sales of ammo, I disagree with like many of you. It restricts commerce and makes no sense if they can get the info of the buyers just as easily.


And this is where you're 'reasoning' falls apart. People use fake names on the 'net. I do, for example (unless you really think that I'm the Lord of the Rif). Or, I could just use my neighbor's name if I didn't want to go so obscure. So what you're really pushing is that we should have a secure way to check ID, UNLESS the person wants to use a way around that even a child can figure out? Or maybe the felon will just have his little brother/sister, or a friend, or whomever, go into the store to buy the ammo?

And this leads to the biggest problem. IT JUST WON'T DO ANYTHING USEFUL AT ALL. The law will add to the price of ammo, because all the extra steps will have to paid for. And all of the $$$ wasted will be wasted because long experience has shown conclusively that bad guys will get their hands on the stuff anyway. Laws should not be passed that can't accomplish their stated purpose. Laws should NOT be passed that do not accomplish a good purpose. Laws should not be passed that fly in the face of basic freedoms.


I wonder if you guys are all this opposed to the patriot act as well? If you feel that having a government that's alert for crime/terrorism is an impingement on your rights. Or maybe you're like the pro-abortion left and feel that somewhere in the constitution, you've got a "right" to privacy. Sorry to inform you, but that isn't in there. There is no "right" to buy your ammo in secret.


As for DHS, I have no problem at all with having my govt being "alert for crime/terrorism." Laying the groundwork for becoming a police state? THAT I do have a problem with.

As it happens, there is a Right to privacy. Remember where the IXA talks about "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"? THAT is where you find it.

And it isn't that I want to buy ammo "in secret" so much as I realize that limiting govt is what keeps a people free. Preventing stupid & useless laws helps also.

But while I'm posting, lets take a look at how you chose to phrase that. Its not that I want to buy ammo "in secret." Just as its not that I want to use my computer "in secret." Or that I want to read books "in secret." Or to watch my TV "in secret." As a free man, I would call doing all of the above as being done "in private." As in maintaining something (my privacy) that is just another Right that a free people have. Something that is a hallmark of a free people. Something that a person who appreciates freedom should have no problem labeling properly.

And yet, you pretty clearly can't.

Hmmmm.


The Raisuli

LiberalGunner
12-18-2009, 10:30 AM
Well, you ARE pushing for "permission" to buy ammo. If I refuse to give my name, I'll be turned down, right? That's the very essence of seeking "permission." So, right off the bat, your opinion just ain't all that "reasoned," since the illogic of your opinion didn't occur to you.





If I'm an honest, law-abiding citizen, what objection could I have to 'showing my papers' to every cop who just wants to ask for them (keeping in mind that being allowed to pass is dependent on my having & presenting them)?

What objection could I have to seeking permission to drive to the local hills (keeping in mind that being allowed to do so is dependent on my having & presenting them)?

What objection could I have to having the cops walking into my house every once in a while so they can scan my computer just to make sure that I don't have kiddie porn on it (keeping in mind that being allowed to have the computer is dependent on my allowing such a search)?

There are many other examples I could cite. But, do ya see where I'm going with this? The Law has no business doing any of this UNLESS & UNTIL I break the law. In free countries, & to people who value freedom, the recognition of this is not a problem.





And this is where you're 'reasoning' falls apart. People use fake names on the 'net. I do, for example (unless you really think that I'm the Lord of the Rif). Or, I could just use my neighbor's name if I didn't want to go so obscure. So what you're really pushing is that we should have a secure way to check ID, UNLESS the person wants to use a way around that even a child can figure out? Or maybe the felon will just have his little brother/sister, or a friend, or whomever, go into the store to buy the ammo?

And this leads to the biggest problem. IT JUST WON'T DO ANYTHING USEFUL AT ALL. The law will add to the price of ammo, because all the extra steps will have to paid for. And all of the $$$ wasted will be wasted because long experience has shown conclusively that bad guys will get their hands on the stuff anyway. Laws should not be passed that can't accomplish their stated purpose. Laws should NOT be passed that do not accomplish a good purpose. Laws should not be passed that fly in the face of basic freedoms.





As for DHS, I have no problem at all with having my govt being "alert for crime/terrorism." Laying the groundwork for becoming a police state? THAT I do have a problem with.

As it happens, there is a Right to privacy. Remember where the IXA talks about "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"? THAT is where you find it.

And it isn't that I want to buy ammo "in secret" so much as I realize that limiting govt is what keeps a people free. Preventing stupid & useless laws helps also.

But while I'm posting, lets take a look at how you chose to phrase that. Its not that I want to buy ammo "in secret." Just as its not that I want to use my computer "in secret." Or that I want to read books "in secret." Or to watch my TV "in secret." As a free man, I would call doing all of the above as being done "in private." As in maintaining something (my privacy) that is just another Right that a free people have. Something that is a hallmark of a free people. Something that a person who appreciates freedom should have no problem labeling properly.

And yet, you pretty clearly can't.

Hmmmm.


The Raisuli

All right Mulay. The next time you go to 7Eleven to buy a Slurpee with your credit card, and when you refuse to show ID, you're turned down, tell her you don't need "permission" to buy your slushy drink in this free country.

Oh, while you're at it, why don't you discuss how to make a silencer and and convert your semis to autos on this site. Bet you won't. Why? Because this site is monitored by law enforcement. Like you said "the law has no business doing this, unless and until I break the law".

You need to wake up and realize what world you live in. It's sad when "constitutionalists" decry all the government 'intrusion', but are silent on things like the patriot act, because they still have their "W in 04" bumper sticker on the pickup.

Yes, I'm liberal, but I feel the patriot act makes me safer. I've got nothing to hide in my international emails. If I called Pakistan to inquire about persian rugs, I would have no problem if DHS wanted to know what I was talking about. Just like I've got no problem if DOJ assigns an officer to troll these sites, looking for extremists...which I am getting more and more worried about.

So go ahead, the next time you get pulled over by a cop for a bad tail light and he asks for your license and registration, tell him no. Hows about you refuse to disclose your personal financial information on the next 1040 you file with the IRS. And the next time you buy a 6-pack and the cashier asks to see your ID, tell him your rights. Of course you haven't done anything illegal, so plop down the correct change and walk right out with the buds. We'll see how far you get.

oaklander
12-18-2009, 10:36 AM
You are confusing "rights," and "privileges." But you can't see this.

p.s. - how's the weather in Florida?

All right Mulay. The next time you go to 7Eleven to buy a Slurpee with your credit card, and when you refuse to show ID, you're turned down, tell her you don't need "permission" to buy your slushy drink in this free country.

Oh, while you're at it, why don't you discuss how to make a silencer and and convert your semis to autos on this site. Bet you won't. Why? Because this site is monitored by law enforcement. Like you said "the law has no business doing this, unless and until I break the law".

You need to wake up and realize what world you live in. It's sad when "constitutionalists" decry all the government 'intrusion', but are silent on things like the patriot act, because they still have their "W in 04" bumper sticker on the pickup.

Yes, I'm liberal, but I feel the patriot act makes me safer. I've got nothing to hide in my international emails. If I called Pakistan to inquire about persian rugs, I would have no problem if DHS wanted to know what I was talking about. Just like I've got no problem if DOJ assigns an officer to troll these sites, looking for extremists...which I am getting more and more worried about.

So go ahead, the next time you get pulled over by a cop for a bad tail light and he asks for your license and registration, tell him no. Hows about you refuse to disclose your personal financial information on the next 1040 you file with the IRS. And the next time you buy a 6-pack and the cashier asks to see your ID, tell him your rights. Of course you haven't done anything illegal, so plop down the correct change and walk right out with the buds. We'll see how far you get.

LiberalGunner
12-18-2009, 11:58 AM
My point is that it's ridiculous to feel that asking you to produce some ID is a violation of your freedom. You do it every day.

dustoff31
12-18-2009, 12:08 PM
My point is that it's ridiculous to feel that asking you to produce some ID is a violation of your freedom. You do it every day.

Is it more ridiculous than making someone produce ID and a thumbprint for no purpose?

You are aware than the personal info and print simply goes into the sellers record and goes nowhere, right?

So there is no checking at the time of sale to determine whether the person buying the ammo is a felon or a terrorist or whatever. The info just lays around in the dealers books until maybe someday, the police come around to find out where the mass murderer got his ammo, 6 months after the fact.

How ridiculous is that?

7222 Hawker
12-18-2009, 12:11 PM
My point is that it's ridiculous to feel that asking you to produce some ID is a violation of your freedom. You do it every day.

They don't take my thumbprint or record my information when I buy beer. The government needs to stop trying to regulate every single aspect of our lives. Period.

7222 Hawker
12-18-2009, 12:14 PM
And... LiberalGunner, would you please stop posting? You're stinking up the place. I don't leave comments on your Huffington Post site so please return the courtesy.

GrizzlyGuy
12-18-2009, 1:30 PM
I wonder if you guys are all this opposed to the patriot act as well? If you feel that having a government that's alert for crime/terrorism is an impingement on your rights. Or maybe you're like the pro-abortion left and feel that somewhere in the constitution, you've got a "right" to privacy. Sorry to inform you, but that isn't in there. There is no "right" to buy your ammo in secret.

The right to privacy is explicitly stated in our state's constitution (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1):

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


Since you're from Florida, I imagine you wouldn't have known that.

GuyW
12-18-2009, 1:40 PM
Oh, while you're at it, why don't you discuss how to make a silencer and and convert your semis to autos on this site. Bet you won't. Why? Because this site is monitored by law enforcement.

Pefectly legal to discuss those topics - perhaps I can introduce you to the 1st Amendment?

.

GrizzlyGuy
12-18-2009, 3:08 PM
Oh, while you're at it, why don't you discuss how to make a silencer and and convert your semis to autos on this site. Bet you won't. Why? Because this site is monitored by law enforcement. Like you said "the law has no business doing this, unless and until I break the law".

Did you miss the recent silencer discussion here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=232161)? 9 pages, complete with diagrams. No laws were broken by simply discussing them, and this forum has many members from law enforcement. So many that they have a dedicated subforum (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=167).


You need to wake up and realize what world you live in. It's sad when "constitutionalists" decry all the government 'intrusion', but are silent on things like the patriot act, because they still have their "W in 04" bumper sticker on the pickup.


Uh, the constitutionalists are opposed to the PATRIOT Act as well, here is their party platform on that issue (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Terrorism%20and%20Personal%20Li berty):

We deplore and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action that deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism" or "protecting national security." Examples of such legislation are the National Security Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the proposed Domestic Securities Enhancement Act (colloquially known as "Patriot II"), and the Military Commissions Act.


Yes, I'm liberal, but I feel the patriot act makes me safer.

I disagree, and instead agree with constitutional law professor and liberal icon Barack Obama: (http://obamaspeeches.com/041-The-PATRIOT-Act-Obama-Speech.htm)

This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law. When National Security Letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary.


I've got nothing to hide in my international emails. If I called Pakistan to inquire about persian rugs, I would have no problem if DHS wanted to know what I was talking about. Just like I've got no problem if DOJ assigns an officer to troll these sites, looking for extremists...which I am getting more and more worried about.

It's interesting that you used the phrase "troll these sites". Some might reasonably surmise that you are the one doing that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll):

The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

hoffmang
12-18-2009, 4:33 PM
My point is that it's ridiculous to feel that asking you to produce some ID is a violation of your freedom. You do it every day.

So I assume you're a supporter of Show ID voting requirements?

(I suspect you have a problem with states requiring ID to vote, but I look forward to your response.)

-Gene

PatriotnMore
12-18-2009, 4:41 PM
So many great responses here, I am very impressed with the mental caliber of many who frequent here.

BTW, I would bet most of the participants here are firmly against the "Patriot Act" in its current form, I know I am vehemently against it.

NovaTodd
12-18-2009, 4:55 PM
Ammo is clearly protected. The right to keep arms was defined as "functional firearms" and ammunition is a core component of "functional."

962 has non constitutional problems that will doom it shortly.

-Gene



Most definately a Christmas present for all of us.

Hopi
12-18-2009, 4:58 PM
Guys... this has got to be the anti's payback for you guys joining the Brady Campaign. Junling is laughing her butt off now. Darn, they got us.

Is this chick the best they've got? I hope they're sending us their scrubs...

OleCuss
12-18-2009, 5:45 PM
I think there are some things which are being missed or just not bothered with in the discussion of privacy rights.

Please, when reading this remember that I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV so there are likely to be some inaccuracies - I'm counting on others to correct me where I am wrong.

The State has an interest in preserving the life and rights of the individual. Perhaps the best way to recall this is that (for example) OJ had two trials with regard to the murder of his ex-wife and her acquaintance. The state conducted a criminal trial as the murders were considered a crime against the state - and only the state can criminally prosecute. The family of at least one family then brought civil suit for their loss - considered very separate from the criminal trial and not subjecting OJ to "double jeopardy" in any fashion.

The point is that the State has an explicit interest in the life and liberty of its citizens and if it can demonstrate a clear endangerment or action against that life and liberty then it has an interest in preventing that action.

So the Patriot act - type actions should be legitimate only insofar as they are acting against well-defined threats against the life and liberty of its citizens. What's more, when it is directed against foreign nationals and/or individuals illegally within the U.S. it is not clear that they are due any protective rights under the Constitution. One other thing to remember about the Patriot Act is that in some senses it's not even new - just more direct. I think it may have been Echelon which was used to do widespread domestic spying for years by the simple expedient of having a foreign government spy on our citizens and then give us the take - and vice versa.

Now that the preface is over? What's the point?

I've not been able to find any way in which AB962 is going to reduce any threat or prevent any action against the life or liberty of any of its citizens. So in what way does government have a legitimate interest in diminishing our privacy in this area?

Yet the people who passed this bill are ardent supporters of the right to kill the unborn invoking a right to privacy which at least in this case would seem dubious - particularly since it involves killing a future citizen of the State. It is asinine beyond belief to invoke the right to privacy to ensure the killing of the unborn and then deny it when there is no legitimate state interest. (Oh, and I'm technically "Pro-Choice" so don't get off on a tangent claiming that I'm just a sour anti-abortionist.)

As has been mentioned several times on this thread, the use of alcohol without careful use is very dangerous (a drunk driver killed my dad and put my mom in the hospital). Yet we do not collect AB962-equivalent information on the purchase of alcohol? There is a logical inconsistency here - especially since the right to keep and bear arms is a specifically defined Constitutional right while abortions and the use of alcohol are not.

What is more, while the careful and judicious use of alcohol and firearms/ammo result in no danger to anyone - the use of tobacco specifically damages everyone who uses it. Yet AB962-equivalent data is not collected in an attempt to prevent that ensured harm to its citizenry.

The above having been said, I really don't much care that the government knows how much ammo I buy. I'm a professional and recently a soldier with a security clearance - and I have a CCW in my State - and three pistols and an AR-15 which are duly registered (well, one pistol is one of those where the state lost the registration so I legally registered it but they don't track it). It is already clear that the government knows I have firearms so what do I care if they know I buy ammo for them?

The problem is that the statute is going to increase the cost of ammo and decrease its availability in my area - and to no good purpose. What's more, it is highly likely that the information obtained is going to be used as anti-gun propaganda.

I probably should proofread this but I need to go elsewhere. . .

demnogis
12-18-2009, 5:55 PM
All I should say is, Boston, September 1, 1774.

LiberalGunner
12-18-2009, 10:18 PM
So I assume you're a supporter of Show ID voting requirements?

(I suspect you have a problem with states requiring ID to vote, but I look forward to your response.)

-Gene

Of course not...specifically because certain groups who I won't name have historically used this technique to dissuade minority voters from showing up at the poles.

I realize I'll get static back on this, but I've come to see that it's just hard for white males to understand this viewpoint. Their worldview just won't allow for it, and I understand that.

Hopi
12-18-2009, 10:26 PM
Of course not...specifically because certain groups who I won't name have historically used this technique to dissuade minority voters from showing up at the poles.

I realize I'll get static back on this, but I've come to see that it's just hard for white males to understand this viewpoint. Their worldview just won't allow for it, and I understand that.

apparently, you didn't understand the question Gene presented.

Of course, the root of these Jim Crow laws grow from the political pressures from those *certain groups*.....but you knew that you have been supporting the KKK's reasoning in just about every post you've made since you decided to troll this site right?

I would have made the bet that self-described liberals such as yourself would want to distance themselves from groups like the KKK.....who knew....

SJ78
12-18-2009, 10:34 PM
I can't believe so many people are calling simple tracking of ammunition sales "unreasonable" and "an obstruction" and are talking about methods to skirt the laws by buying out of state. I'm sure everyone on this blog frequents walmarts. have you noticed the ammo is already locked in a case?? Have you also noticed that they sell the cheapest ammo in town? Do the math. Ammunition prices will not become prohibitively expensive just because the sale of ammo is tracked. How easy do you want to make it for terrorists to stockpile thousands of rounds? I say if you're so worried about giving a thumb print, what do you have to hide? I would personally like authorities to know if the ex con down the street is stocking up on deershot, or if someone on a terror watchlist is cleaning out the local gunshops.


If you think this is for our public safety ! it's not . It's about having a tracking method to monitor gun owners . Criminals don't buy ammo where they have to give finger prints . Just like they dont buy guns the same way .
The only people this hurts is non criminals .

bwiese
12-18-2009, 10:37 PM
My point was that Walmart locks up their ammo, with no negative price consequences.

They're far more expensive than buying a pallet of 223 at the gunshow or mailordering from Outdoor Marksman or Ammoman.

So yes, the small volume combined with the excess retail handling requirements indeed raises the price. I find Walmart ammo to be horribly expensive in the quantities I buy in.

Requiring recording the name of who purchased ammo isn't going to push prices thru the roof - it isn't requiring government permission to purchase.

[quote]I say, if you're an honest, law abiding citizen, what do you have to fear?

Weren't statists saying that about the Patriot Act?

Ah love it. So I'm gonna put a "I waive my 4th Amend. rights bumper sticker on your car".

Until the RKBA is fully established as a robust, incorporated right ammo reg in CA will be regarded as privacy-violating. Only if the violation of privacy can have no real legal consequences or the data is so dilute (i.e, everyone in the area owns guns) will it be a nonissue.

BTW, fair chance cops will be able to take data from gunshops and it can be PRARd from LE and the antis can find out what caliber guns you own - just like news orgs publishing CCW records.


[quote]Or maybe you're like the pro-abortion left and feel that somewhere in the constitution, you've got a "right" to privacy.

Actually the existence of abortion legality and the found unenumerated right to privacy by the Supremes is helpful to gunnies' cause. If that unenumerated right exists, surely the RKBA exists and is incorporated. This is actually creating some friction on the Right who may be willing to trade gun rights for supposed 'state's rights'.

Werewolf1021
12-19-2009, 4:24 AM
Of course not...specifically because certain groups who I won't name have historically used this technique to dissuade minority voters from showing up at the poles.

I realize I'll get static back on this, but I've come to see that it's just hard for white males to understand this viewpoint. Their worldview just won't allow for it, and I understand that.

I didn't realize we voted at strip clubs....

"it's just hard for white males to understand this viewpoint. Their worldview just won't allow it"

Ein Esel nennt den andern Langohr...

GrizzlyGuy
12-19-2009, 5:23 AM
So I assume you're a supporter of Show ID voting requirements?

(I suspect you have a problem with states requiring ID to vote, but I look forward to your response.)

-Gene

Of course not...specifically because certain groups who I won't name have historically used this technique to dissuade minority voters from showing up at the poles.

I realize I'll get static back on this, but I've come to see that it's just hard for white males to understand this viewpoint. Their worldview just won't allow for it, and I understand that.

At the polls, how then do you propose excluding felons, illegal aliens, and people adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, thereby enforcing our state laws that prohibit them from voting? Laws without a means of enforcement become meaningless. Or would you prefer that those prohibited persons be allowed to vote?

I'm a white male with a worldview that (based on your posts) you clearly wouldn't agree with, so please help me understand.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-19-2009, 5:55 AM
All right Mulay. The next time you go to 7Eleven to buy a Slurpee with your credit card, and when you refuse to show ID, you're turned down, tell her you don't need "permission" to buy your slushy drink in this free country.


WOW! The difference between what I posted & what you "responded" to is just so different as to simply amaze me! Anyway, most of what you posted has been addressed by others, so I'll keep this short.

As it happens, I don't have a Right to use a credit card (which is what I'd be asked to ID myself for in your example). So, since you haven't actually countered my example, this doesn't rate as a "reasoned" response. Pointed out to show your lack of logic.



So go ahead, the next time you get pulled over by a cop for a bad tail light and he asks for your license and registration, tell him no. Hows about you refuse to disclose your personal financial information on the next 1040 you file with the IRS. And the next time you buy a 6-pack and the cashier asks to see your ID, tell him your rights. Of course you haven't done anything illegal, so plop down the correct change and walk right out with the buds. We'll see how far you get.



THIS is where you FAIL completely though. If I have a busted (bad) tail light, then I HAVE broken the law, haven't I? This then is the time where it's entirely correct & proper for a cop to ask for my license & registration. It isn't just that you're not really responding that matters here. Its the fact that you really do think that you have that is revealing here also.

The tax example is better. But, even here, what I have to reveal to the IRS isn't as broad as many think. And even with that, they still have to PROVE the liability. It isn't a matter of me (or any taxpayer) having to prove that I don't owe the tax.

The beer example is best. Yes, I have to prove that it's legal for me to buy beer (actually, it's been decades since anyone has actually asked). But even with that, it's NOT to The State that I must ID myself; no record is kept (in spite of there being reasons for doing so), & my age is the ONLY information required. I don't have show where I live or anything else, for example. I don't think I need even show the name on the ID. Even when I was being carded all they ever wanted was to see that the pic matched the smiling face before them & the birth date. So, even this doesn't anywhere close to what I'm being forced to provide to The State when it comes to exercising the Constitutional Right being discussed here.

And it's the fact that we ARE discussing a Constitutional Right that seems to have escaped your notice. Do you think it would be OK for The State to require ID (meaning thumb print, etc) before I carried a sign that said:

"The King is a fink"

or similar?

Do you think it OK for The State to require that I present ID before I published a pamphlet that explained just why the King is a fink?

Do you think it OK for The State to require my priest to present ID before he gives a sermon?

Do you think it OK for The State to require an ID before I listen to that sermon?

I'm guessing, from another post of yours:

"My point is that it's ridiculous to feel that asking you to produce some ID is a violation of your freedom. You do it every day."

That you're quite happy with the thought of the harshly speaking fellow on the corner demanding that I "show my papers" (just to complete the stereotype). People who value their freedom aren't.

As to the specific point raised by you here, while I don't produce my ID every day, I do produce it frequently. When I want to. The difference is that that's quite a bit different from HAVING to do so. More different still from HAVING to do so whenever the idea of exercising a Constitutional Right comes into my head.

Free people recognize the differences. Too bad you don't.

The Raisuli

bodger
12-19-2009, 6:26 AM
Ammo is clearly protected. The right to keep arms was defined as "functional firearms" and ammunition is a core component of "functional."

962 has non constitutional problems that will doom it shortly.

-Gene


Are we having a party, like the one Arnie attended with DeLeon in downtown LA? The ceremonial photo op signing.

Getting AB962 dumped will be a fine victory. I don't know about the rest of you, but I intend to gloat.

LiberalGunner
12-19-2009, 9:52 AM
At the polls, how then do you propose excluding felons, illegal aliens, and people adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, thereby enforcing our state laws that prohibit them from voting? Laws without a means of enforcement become meaningless. Or would you prefer that those prohibited persons be allowed to vote?

I'm a white male with a worldview that (based on your posts) you clearly wouldn't agree with, so please help me understand.

You know Grizzly, I think you're absolutely right. I hate the fact that minorities are often intimidated at polling places, but I think we need to find another way to combat the racism and class-ism that exists. How can I say no to ID's at the polling place, but yes to ID's and background checks at gunshows. I'll have to look to some of the great progressive thinkers for a better solution to this issue. Thanks for bringing it up!

triaged
12-19-2009, 10:20 AM
Of course not...specifically because certain groups who I won't name have historically used this technique to dissuade minority voters from showing up at the poles...I don't think many people would be upset when you name the Democrat party as the group that tried to dissuade minority voters from showing up at the poles. People here know their history.

GaryV
12-19-2009, 11:02 AM
You know Grizzly, I think you're absolutely right. I hate the fact that minorities are often intimidated at polling places, but I think we need to find another way to combat the racism and class-ism that exists. How can I say no to ID's at the polling place, but yes to ID's and background checks at gunshows. I'll have to look to some of the great progressive thinkers for a better solution to this issue. Thanks for bringing it up!

You seem to be forgetting that you're not just talking about "showing ID", you're talking about recording and tracking purchases, maintaining a permanent record of what private citizens have done in exercising their Constitutional rights, so that such information is available later if/when the state decides that it might have a reason or desire to prosecute the person. This is not simply ensuring that prohibited persons are not buying ammo. That could be done WITHOUT a permanent record being kept.

What you're advocating is not in any way fundamentally different than the government installing video cameras in everyone's private residence and implanting GPS trackers in their bodies, and then keeping a permanent recording of all your movements and activities, just in case they think that they might later have a reason to prosecute you for something. After all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind, right? Wouldn't that significantly aid in the apprehension of felons and terrorists? And if that is all we need to show in order to validate a law, what's the difference? The whole point of the Bill of Rights is that while there are all kinds of laws that would make the government's job easier in carrying out its legitimate functions, most of them step over a line that makes them too intrusive to be tolerated in a free society. I submit that tracking the exercise of one's Constitutional rights just in case he or she might be suspected of something illegal at a later date is way over that line.

The logic behind this law (if we simply go with its stated motive, not its ulterior one) is that the perfectly lawful activities of people whom the state has no reason to believe are or will be criminals are tracked and recorded just in case some minute fraction of them are suspected to be criminals later. That's quite clearly a violation of our reasonable expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment. Unless the state has a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe you are, or are about to become, a criminal, they are prohibited by the Constitution from invading the privacy of your affairs. They can't violate your privacy first, just in case they have a reason to later.

By your standard, the simple act of buying ammo should constitute reasonable suspicion that you are a criminal, and therefore justify such an intrusion. That is quite offensive to most law-abiding gun owners, because it implies that the very act of owning a functional gun is prima facia evidence of criminal intent.

GrizzlyGuy
12-19-2009, 11:08 AM
You know Grizzly, I think you're absolutely right. I hate the fact that minorities are often intimidated at polling places, but I think we need to find another way to combat the racism and class-ism that exists. How can I say no to ID's at the polling place, but yes to ID's and background checks at gunshows. I'll have to look to some of the great progressive thinkers for a better solution to this issue. Thanks for bringing it up!

Glad to help, and I'm against those same things (racism, class-ism and voter intimidation). But I don't think you'll find the solution from great progressive thinkers. The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (http://www.wilpf.org/racism_in_progressive_movements) held a forum and concluded that there is still racism in progressive movements (http://www.wilpf.org/racism_in_progressive_movements):

The main thing it all boiled down to is that white progressive organizations are riddled with racism, but we don't want to see we have this problem. Following are some of the many forms our racism takes that persons of color at this forum believe we need to stop denying and look at straight...

That's now, and from the past, I'll bet you are familiar with the writings of progressive Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood). she said (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=443):

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. :eek:

And also said (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=443):

As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit," admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feebleminded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.

:eek: :eek:

The Progressive Era has a pretty shameful record on race (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_1_38/ai_n16439695/):

Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism. In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow.


:eek: :eek:

I think you should instead consider following in the footsteps of this brave lady from the left (http://brika.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/from-the-left/) who rediscovered her core beliefs and joined us over on the libertarian (classical liberal) side that condemns discrimination and intimidation of any form. We might think it's OK to have guns near schools, and believe that we shouldn't have to present ID to buy ammo, but we aren't all bad. :D

GaryV
12-19-2009, 11:35 AM
Comparing the RKBA to voting is also not valid. The RKBA is considered under our Constitution to be a fundamental right of all people, what we would consider a basic human right that everyone has, no matter who they are or where they live. As such the 2nd Amendment limits the government's ability to interfere with that right in all circumstances. Voting, however, is a right only of citizens, not of all people. There is, therefore, a compelling government interest in requiring people to show that they belong to the limited subclass who have the right before allowing them to exercise it.

Another difference is that the purchasing ammo, even by prohibited persons such as felons, or dangerous individuals such as terrorists, is not in itself a harmful act against others. While it may certainly make harmful acts easier, the purchase itself causes no direct harm. However, voting by persons who do not have a right to vote in a particular election is a directly harmful act against those who do. Their votes are automatically damaged by the illegitimate votes, and it is the clear duty of the government to prevent that harm. So, while the government might have a legitimate interest in ammunition sales to prohibited persons, since the sale itself causes no direct harm to anyone, such interest is less than that of preventing fraudulent voting, and the justification for laws enabling the government to pursue those interests is therefore weaker.

fourdoorchevelle
12-19-2009, 12:26 PM
I hate the fact that minorities are often intimidated at polling places

do you have any thing current?

stuff like this is the only thing I could find

neGbKHyGuHU

pbchief2
12-19-2009, 1:06 PM
All right Mulay. The next time you go to 7Eleven to buy a Slurpee with your credit card, and when you refuse to show ID, you're turned down, tell her you don't need "permission" to buy your slushy drink in this free country.


You do know it is violation of most credit card policies to ask for ID when purchases are made with a signed card right? Matter of fact your name does not even have to be on the card as long as it's your signature. I've never shown ID for a credit card purchase and even had a few places fined by the credit card companies for not selling to me, as well as having it "made up to me" by a few major corporations.

OleCuss
12-19-2009, 1:37 PM
You know? I think LiberalGunner has shown he/she is not simply a troll. I'm very happy that so many are working the issues. I like fascists who think - even if I vehemently disagree with them.

And I use the term fascist advisedly. Our modern "Liberalism" is a version of fascism.

Hopi
12-19-2009, 2:03 PM
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

To the letter.

hoffmang
12-19-2009, 2:11 PM
Of course not...specifically because certain groups who I won't name have historically used this technique to dissuade minority voters from showing up at the poles.

I realize I'll get static back on this, but I've come to see that it's just hard for white males to understand this viewpoint. Their worldview just won't allow for it, and I understand that.

And why would you think that ammo purchase logs couldn't or wouldn't be used against disfavored minorities? As a practical matter I bet that Sacramento's ammo ordinance has not lead to a racially balanced set of prosecutions. I shudder to think what would have been going on in Jonesboro Alabama in 1964 if the local sheriff had had ammo logs to track the Deacons and pressure sellers to not sell to them.

You're viewpoint is a hypocritical and I need no particular worldview to see that.

-Gene

LiberalGunner
12-19-2009, 11:18 PM
You know? I think LiberalGunner has shown he/she is not simply a troll. I'm very happy that so many are working the issues. I like fascists who think - even if I vehemently disagree with them.

And I use the term fascist advisedly. Our modern "Liberalism" is a version of fascism.

Wow, I think that's the nicest thing anybody's said about me on this board. Thank you OleCuss. I'll try my best to be thoughtful about my arguments, concede when I'm wrong, and to see eye-to-eye at least once in awhile.

LiberalGunner
12-19-2009, 11:23 PM
And why would you think that ammo purchase logs couldn't or wouldn't be used against disfavored minorities? As a practical matter I bet that Sacramento's ammo ordinance has not lead to a racially balanced set of prosecutions. I shudder to think what would have been going on in Jonesboro Alabama in 1964 if the local sheriff had had ammo logs to track the Deacons and pressure sellers to not sell to them.

You're viewpoint is a hypocritical and I need no particular worldview to see that.

-Gene

Hi Hoff - I'm sorry you think I'm a hypocrite & I'll try to be fair in my response. I don't know how the new ammo laws will play out - since they have already been codified, and I hope we don't end up with a situation similar to the 1964 instance you sited. Could I see a situation where the logs could be used to intimidate minorities? Definitely, but I think that is completely different from voting. The issue with ammo sales wouldn't be a systemic one - you can go across town to buy your ammo at a more open minded venue if you feel uncomfortable with a certain seller. I know many people of color, who, maybe wrongly, feel that they are looked on with suspicion at their local gun shop. I think most of you can describe the demographic that is most typical in gun shops. Sometimes it's people of color, but unfortunately, it usually isn't. But in a free market, that person can walk across the street to a shop where they feel more comfortable. If you're intimidated at your polling place on election day, in either direction, can have dire consequences to the electoral process.

oaklander
12-19-2009, 11:30 PM
Gene was saying that it WOULD/COULD be a systemic issue.

How can you be "progressive" and support laws that would work to deprive minorities of their rights?

Hi Hoff - I'm sorry you think I'm a hypocrite & I'll try to be fair in my response. I don't know how the new ammo laws will play out - since they have already been codified, and I hope we don't end up with a situation similar to the 1964 instance you sited. Could I see a situation where the logs could be used to intimidate minorities? Definitely, but I think that is completely different from voting. The issue with ammo sales wouldn't be a systemic one - you can go across town to buy your ammo at a more open minded venue if you feel uncomfortable with a certain seller. I know many people of color, who, maybe wrongly, feel that they are looked on with suspicion at their local gun shop. I think most of you can describe the demographic that is most typical in gun shops. Sometimes it's people of color, but unfortunately, it usually isn't. But in a free market, that person can walk across the street to a shop where they feel more comfortable. If you're intimidated at your polling place on election day, in either direction, can have dire consequences to the electoral process.

Carlosa
12-19-2009, 11:48 PM
Is it more ridiculous than making someone produce ID and a thumbprint for no purpose?

You are aware than the personal info and print simply goes into the sellers record and goes nowhere, right?

So there is no checking at the time of sale to determine whether the person buying the ammo is a felon or a terrorist or whatever. The info just lays around in the dealers books until maybe someday, the police come around to find out where the mass murderer got his ammo, 6 months after the fact.

How ridiculous is that?
was just about to make the same point.
This records will be kept by the store selling ammo.
So in order for investigators to use the records, a crime must happen first and some thing will have to lead them to the place of purchase.
Oh yeah and the records have no use in court what so ever.
Becuse buying ammo does not prove intent of any kind.
So this in no way keeps gang members or "terrorrist" from stock pileing ammo. It will just make it impossible for guys like me to shoot ipsc matches.
I do hope this one gets burned down before it takes effect.

CalNRA
12-20-2009, 6:02 AM
You are confusing "rights," and "privileges." But you can't see this.

p.s. - how's the weather in Florida?

wait.:eek:

:rofl:

hoffmang
12-20-2009, 9:27 AM
The issue with ammo sales wouldn't be a systemic one - you can go across town to buy your ammo at a more open minded venue if you feel uncomfortable with a certain seller.

Ammo tracking and must show ID voting suffer the same problem. It's equally systemic. Are you in favor of felons and non-citizens voting? I'd expect we actually agree that the problem with non-citizens is how hard it is to become a citizen if you aren't of the right national background. Tell me how far a Deacon would have had to drive from Jonesboro Alabama in 1964? What about a gay man in certain parts of Texas today? How far does he have to drive to hope he can find a sympathetic owner who will let him exercise his right to self defense?

The other main issue here is that there are next better ways to keep ammo out of the wrong hands. There are systems that can run a background check that doesn't retain data before people buy. However this bankrupt state can't afford it. Even then, its not very likely to actually stop any people with real criminal intent from obtaining ammo. Think about it. If they're already prohibited then how did they obtain a firearm in a state with background checks on all transactions?

It's basically a pointless gesture that creates privacy and oppression risks for law abiding and law abiding minorities.

-Gene

Pont
12-20-2009, 12:44 PM
LiberalGunner:

I can empathize with your opinion that providing ID and tracking ammo purchases would deter crime. On the surface, it seems reasonable. However, it breaks down quickly under the slightest critical thought.

1) It will inconvenience legitimate purchasers and sellers and raise prices as many vendors stop selling simply to avoid dealing with the paperwork. This is a given. Both sides accept that this *will* be a consequence.

2) Ammunition is not hard to manufacture. In a fantasy world where the state could effectively prevent criminal enterprises from importing vast quantities of ammo, they could simply manufacture their own. The equipment necessary to manufacture ammo is inexpensive. If you banned the sale or import of ammunition making equipment, anybody with a machine shop could simply make one of their own. It is centuries-old technology.

3) The border is porous and there is already a black market for ammunition in California. Making legal sales of ammunition more expensive and inconvenient only strengthens the black market. Any time you make the illegitimate channels more convenient than the legitimate channels, you are doing damage to both the consumers and the interests you are trying to protect.

You self-identify as a liberal and wear it proudly. I consider myself a genuine liberal as well. Being pro-gun *is* a radical position in CA. But there is a reason "bleeding-heart liberal" is an epithet. "“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” There is truth in that. It's not that you have to stop caring about the world and wishing that things could be better to stop being liberal and have a brain. At twenty, we see so much wrong with the world and want to change it. At forty, you've seen so many poorly done attempts to change things go so horribly wrong (see: Communism) because they were naively implemented that you naturally tend towards a more conservative (as in careful, not Glenn Beck capital-C Conservative) pace.

lumwilliam
12-20-2009, 1:28 PM
LiberalGunner:

I can empathize with your opinion that providing ID and tracking ammo purchases would deter crime. On the surface, it seems reasonable. However, it breaks down quickly under the slightest critical thought.

1) It will inconvenience legitimate purchasers and sellers and raise prices as many vendors stop selling simply to avoid dealing with the paperwork. This is a given. Both sides accept that this *will* be a consequence.

2) Ammunition is not hard to manufacture. In a fantasy world where the state could effectively prevent criminal enterprises from importing vast quantities of ammo, they could simply manufacture their own. The equipment necessary to manufacture ammo is inexpensive. If you banned the sale or import of ammunition making equipment, anybody with a machine shop could simply make one of their own. It is centuries-old technology.

3) The border is porous and there is already a black market for ammunition in California. Making legal sales of ammunition more expensive and inconvenient only strengthens the black market. Any time you make the illegitimate channels more convenient than the legitimate channels, you are doing damage to both the consumers and the interests you are trying to protect.

You self-identify as a liberal and wear it proudly. I consider myself a genuine liberal as well. Being pro-gun *is* a radical position in CA. But there is a reason "bleeding-heart liberal" is an epithet. "“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” There is truth in that. It's not that you have to stop caring about the world and wishing that things could be better to stop being liberal and have a brain. At twenty, we see so much wrong with the world and want to change it. At forty, you've seen so many poorly done attempts to change things go so horribly wrong (see: Communism) because they were naively implemented that you naturally tend towards a more conservative (as in careful, not Glenn Beck capital-C Conservative) pace.

Wow Pont, that was awesome - very well put. Sad to hear that Liberal Gunner was banned and that we won't be hearing a rebuttal to that very intellectual argument.

MikeinnLA
12-20-2009, 1:38 PM
Maybe you don't understand. Walmart, Big 5, Sports Authority, name the other barely intelligent discount stores that sell ammo, they won't play the fingerprinting and record keeping game. They will just stop selling handgun ammo. This WILL drive up the price of all ammunition.

Just an FYI, I picked up 8 .22 bulk paks at my local Big Five just yesterday and they recorded my info AND required a thumbprint. I questioned it and they said it was an L.A. City requirement. I guess I've always bought ammo outside the city. Anyway, the point is that it looks like they are OK with the recordkeeping, so maybe it won't affect their willingness to sell ammo or raise prices. This doesn't mean I don't think it SUCKS, however.

Mike

MikeinnLA
12-20-2009, 1:50 PM
I should add that this whole issue is the very reason that I continue to buy ammo WAY beyond my current need for it. I suspect I'm not the only one thinking this way.

Mike

Carlosa
12-20-2009, 4:44 PM
Ignore

Carlosa
12-20-2009, 4:46 PM
Just an FYI, I picked up 8 .22 bulk paks at my local Big Five just yesterday and they recorded my info AND required a thumbprint. I questioned it and they said it was an L.A. City requirement. I guess I've always bought ammo outside the city. Anyway, the point is that it looks like they are OK with the recordkeeping, so maybe it won't affect their willingness to sell ammo or raise prices. This doesn't mean I don't think it SUCKS, however.

Mike
I think the biggest threat towards the market is the banning of mail orders.
I think most serious shooters shop online for the best deals on bulk.
This means that the folks that shoot over a 1000 rounds of ammo a month like ipsc and idpa shooters will be affected the most.
So yeah, the city of LA might already keep records and you might be ok with that. But not one place can beat the deals you can find online.

Let's not forget how it will also affect those that shoot surplus and rare calibers (8mm mauser,yugo 7.62x54r, 357sig,7.62 Luger, 303 British, etc) most places don't carry this stuff.
It's esier and cheaper to find this ammo online and even dough this restriction doest affect riffle amunition most of the main onlie retailers will stop selling alltogather as not to deal with the hassle of what CAN and CANNOT be ordered.
We're giving up allot for a system that doesn't meet the standards needed to be midiocare.

This will defenetly have an ngativr impact.

chris
12-20-2009, 4:52 PM
Ammo is clearly protected. The right to keep arms was defined as "functional firearms" and ammunition is a core component of "functional."

962 has non constitutional problems that will doom it shortly.

-Gene

and may this law burn in hell where it rightly belongs.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-21-2009, 5:03 AM
Of course not...specifically because certain groups who I won't name have historically used this technique to dissuade minority voters from showing up at the poles.

I realize I'll get static back on this, but I've come to see that it's just hard for white males to understand this viewpoint. Their worldview just won't allow for it, and I understand that.


The problem here is that if "this technique" dissuades minorities from exercising their rights, it'll dissuade anyone from doing so. LG's worldview seems to be that dissuading minorities from exercising one civil right is bad, but dissuading people in general from exercising another is OK.

The Raisuli

ALSystems
12-22-2009, 7:20 AM
I think the biggest threat towards the market is the banning of mail orders.
...
Let's not forget how it will also affect those that shoot surplus and rare calibers (8mm mauser,yugo 7.62x54r, 357sig,7.62 Luger, 303 British, etc) most places don't carry this stuff.
It's easier and cheaper to find this ammo online and even though this restriction doesn't affect rifle amunition most of the main online retailers will stop selling alltogether as not to deal with the hassle of what CAN and CANNOT be ordered.
We're giving up a lot for a system that doesn't meet the standards needed to be midiocare.

This will definatly have an negative impact.
I agree.

A local store might sell some 8mm Mauser for example. But there is a big price difference between hunting ammo and military surplus practice ammo. The local store is likely to sell only small quantities of the expensive hunting ammo. The same pattern is true with handgun ammo. Try finding some cheap 380 practice ammo in a local store these days.

Where is one supposed to buy rare calibers with an online ban?

A significant number of online vendors already don't sell to CA or various parts of CA that they are legally able to because:
(1) they don't want to deal with the everchanging and restrictive laws that already exist in CA
(2) they are misinformed and their lawyers are overly cautious
(3) they assume if big online sellers won't sell to certain parts of CA, there must be a real reason not to.
(4) they have been harassed by various CA agencies.

Kyle1886
12-22-2009, 11:21 AM
I may have missed it somewhere in this thread, and I may be incorrect, but I believe AB-962 had a limit of a 50 round purchase in a thrity day period in one of original incarnations. I remember speaking to my Assemblyman M. Garrick about that. The 30 day restriction was deleted at some point before passage.

postal16
12-22-2009, 11:47 AM
I may have missed it somewhere in this thread, and I may be incorrect, but I believe AB-962 had a limit of a 50 round purchase in a thrity day period in one of original incarnations. I remember speaking to my Assemblyman M. Garrick about that. The 30 day restriction was deleted at some point before passage.

the 50 round requirement was also deleted