PDA

View Full Version : Can Anyone Explain The Ammunition Bill AB 962?


SigSoldier
05-09-2010, 12:43 PM
From what I can gather the limit on 50 rounds per month was removed however since it requires a face-to-face transaction does that eliminate mail orders? What about private party transfers like the type taking place through the ammuniton for sale threads on this forum? Will those transactions become illegal? Will it be legal to drive out of state and bring the ammo back? And a stupid question is what exactly is this bill supposed to prevent? I mean from an anti-gun perspective what is the bill supposed to accomplish?

I heard that the bill is being challenged, can anyone confirm that or give an update on the progress?

Also heard that Walmart will stop selling ammo in CA when the bill takes effect. If Walmart stops and we can't get it through the internet the prices are going to skyrocket at the same time as the shortage and high prices are coming to an end nation wide! We will all be lined up at Big 5 spending a fortune.

Should we all be stocking up as much as possible now?

Sorry for all the questions especially if the answers can be found elsewhere but I did a search for ab 962 and came up empty handed.

oldyeller
05-09-2010, 12:46 PM
From what I understand, you have a pretty good handle on it!

bwiese
05-09-2010, 1:01 PM
1.) You can still buy ammo your buddy is getting rid of.

2.) You just can't mailorder ammo.

3.) You can drive to Reno and stock up.

4.) CGF in conjunction with other parties is in final stages of preparing
a lawsuit based on 962' conflict with existing Federal law and prior
near-duplicative Supreme Ct. precedent regarding control of shippers sending tobacco items into New Hampshire.

orangeusa
05-09-2010, 1:09 PM
+1 - we posted at the same time, and I defer to bwiese if this disagrees w/ his post!!! :)

There are literally hundreds of thread on this. The search function is your friend. AB962 works quite nicely. I used to have a link to the actual bill, and that is the most helpful. It's really quite simple.

1. Immediately, handgun ammo (still open to interpretation as to WHAT that means) is under lock and key at ammo sales outlets.

2. Feb, 2011, all ammo sales must be FTF. If from an ammo dealer - must include CA DOJ form w/ thumbprint. No limit by AB962 as to purchase qty. This MEANS no out of state credit card sales, since is not face to face. You have to assure you are not selling to a "known gang member" and other restrictions and need to get a copy of CA license from buyer, IIRC.

3. There is conjecture that Walmart will quit selling, since they quit selling guns since the employees were haveing so much problems w/ DROS forms.

4. There's a real good chance this will be dead before it is enacted, due to the McDonald vs. Chicago Supreme Court decision, which will come out in late June. Search McDonald. But, this is just a start. Each CA 2A law must be defeated in court is the current understanding.

5. There have been 1-2 challenges, one is stalled, but most folks are putting their faith in the Supreme Court decision, since the CA legislature is a non-event if Supreme Court rules on it.

Good luck, read a lot, learn a lot and you'll be amazed as how fascinating and confusing CA 2A laws are. I'm a relative noob to this, but am learning most from Calguns threads and links to various cases.

Cheers - this is the best place to be to get good information!! (Hope I got this right!!)

.

Quiet
05-09-2010, 1:14 PM
2. Feb, 2011, all ammo sales must be FTF. If from an ammo dealer - must include CA DOJ form w/ thumbprint. No limit by AB962 as to purchase qty. This MEANS no out of state credit card sales, since is not face to face. You have to assure you are not selling to a "known gang member" and other restrictions and need to get a copy of CA license from buyer, IIRC.

The part in bold is incorrect.

The new law only affects handgun ammo.
So, after 02-2011, rifle & shotgun ammo can still be legally purchased via internet/mail order.


Penal Code 12318
(a) Commencing February 1, 2011, the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(2) "Handgun ammunition" means handgun ammunition as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12323, but excluding ammunition designed and intended to be used in an "antique firearm" as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code. Handgun ammunition does not include blanks.

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

SigSoldier
05-09-2010, 1:40 PM
Thanks for clearing up my questions. If anyone knows of some way I can help to stop this thing in it's tracks please share.

bwiese
05-09-2010, 2:29 PM
4. There's a real good chance this will be dead before it is enacted, due to the McDonald vs. Chicago Supreme Court decision, which will come out in late June. Search McDonald.

I appreciate the sentiment, but not quite - for this particular matter.

For fighting AB962, we do not have to use a 2nd Amendment claim. In fact, our case will be stronger than a 2A-based one: CGF's et al case will be based on conflict with existng Federal law - one that is supported by directly-relevant Supreme Ct. precedence [control of shipping cigarrettes into New Hampshire - 'evil' product, interstate shipment, state regulation of common carrier behavior, etc.]

orangeusa
05-09-2010, 2:44 PM
Yes, CGF is addressing this issue wrt interstate commerce, but was trying to be terse.

Sorry, I just couldn't find the link to the law before posting. We don't need more FUD on this billl - ammo - yes it handgun. Slight problem in that - nobody can 100% say what ammo is handgun vs. rifle.... Slippery slope. The Desert Eagles can handle what were rifle only rounds. 22LR is still up for debate.

I support ANY way this thing GOES away.. :)

.

G17GUY
05-09-2010, 7:52 PM
1.)

4.) CGF in conjunction with other parties is in final stages of preparing
a lawsuit based on 962' conflict with existing Federal law and prior
near-duplicative Supreme Ct. precedent regarding control of shippers sending tobacco items into New Hampshire.


Hot Damn!

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate

oddjob
05-13-2010, 11:54 AM
Reloading components count? Doesn't look like it.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
05-13-2010, 11:58 AM
Reloading components count? Doesn't look like it.

Not unless you are an "ammunition vendor" selling to a minor or prohibited person. But the main portions of AB 962, the face-to-face and the "thumbprint-record" requirements do not apply to reloading components.

winnre
05-13-2010, 12:20 PM
So does this state have a bog problem with bad guys mail ordering ammo?

bwiese
05-13-2010, 12:24 PM
So does this state have a bog problem with bad guys mail ordering ammo?

Gun laws have little to do with stopping crime, and the folks proposing them don't care. They just want some legislation with their name on it to stick to the wall...

IrishPirate
05-13-2010, 12:33 PM
XypVcv77WBU

advocatusdiaboli
05-13-2010, 1:09 PM
Good luck, read a lot, learn a lot and you'll be amazed as how fascinating and confusing CA 2A laws are. I'm a relative noob to this, but am learning most from Calguns threads and links to various cases.

+1.0e6 I would have been arrested for ignorance long ago had it not been for Calguns. Things used to be so simple and common-sense-based when I lived in a free state.

advocatusdiaboli
05-13-2010, 1:12 PM
22LR is still up for debate.

I can answer that one definitively--no it's not--it's not covered. Centerfire ammunition only is covered--rimfire is not.

advocatusdiaboli
05-13-2010, 1:23 PM
Gun laws have little to do with stopping crime, and the folks proposing them don't care. They just want some legislation with their name on it to stick to the wall...

I think it's worse than that: I think anti-gun forces, realizing totally banning guns is off the table even in California, are trying to make the costs of ownership prohibitively high for most people in several ways: 1) create uncertainty in a morass of laws so people are discouraged from ownership through fear of prosecution, fines, and incarceration; 2) making the acquisition and operating costs increasingly higher;and 3) increasingly restricting when and where firearms can be legally used including self-defense.

I see it as a well-coordinated and thoughtful attack on a constitutional right brought to you by the same kinds of people who thought up sanctuary cities and want to ban meat. But that's just me going off n the weeds again I guess.

huck
05-13-2010, 1:25 PM
Here's the text:

http://ab962.org/ReadAB962.aspx

It says, ""Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person..."

It might suck to have a 9mm AR if this passes.

oddjob
05-13-2010, 1:33 PM
Although reloading components are allowed I see some vendors refusing to sell components to California residents. This law will have a far more reaching effect than most people realize. Thanks for the information though.

advocatusdiaboli
05-13-2010, 1:54 PM
It says, ""Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person..."

I see it and I am surprised. I was under the impression that the original only applied to centerfire ammunition predominantly used in pistols. But I don't see the adjective centerfire used in the code section or any of the referenced sections. I would still think .22 Long Rifle is likely to be exempt. But certainly not 9x19mm Parabellum as it is clearly avery common military, LEO, and civilian pistol round.

wildhawker
05-13-2010, 1:58 PM
I see it and I am surprised. I was under the impression that the original only applied to centerfire ammunition predominantly used in pistols. But I don't see the adjective centerfire used in the code section or any of the referenced sections. I would still think .22 Long Rifle is likely to be exempt. But certainly not 9x19mm Parabellum as it is clearly avery common military, LEO, and civilian pistol round.

I'm not sure how one distinguishes, for example, the 9x19mm Parabellum commonly used in various carbines and rifles from the 9x19mm Parabellum used in handguns. Rulemaking on this would be an amusing spectacle. ;)

msand951
05-13-2010, 2:10 PM
Hmm I was thumbprinted when i bought some ammo at the gunshow for my rifle 762X39 and my DL was asked for my DL#. Im just wondering why they did that if the law hasnt passed.:confused:

winnre
05-13-2010, 2:16 PM
I'm not sure how one distinguishes, for example, the 9x19mm Parabellum commonly used in various carbines and rifles from the 9x19mm Parabellum used in handguns. Rulemaking on this would be an amusing spectacle. ;)

Parabellum means FOR WAR. Shhhh or the liberals will say that by definition the ammo is not legal to have simply by name!

TempleKnight
05-13-2010, 4:14 PM
1.) You can still buy ammo your buddy is getting rid of.

2.) You just can't mailorder ammo.

3.) You can drive to Reno and stock up.



This is bigger deal than driving to Reno. I shoot 38 SuperComp and I prefer not to "roll my own". That means driving to Atlanta since that's the only place to get commercial 38SC that will make major power factor for competition.

Calguns can count on my continued financial support to fight this kind of legislation

huck
05-13-2010, 8:33 PM
Hmm I was thumbprinted when i bought some ammo at the gunshow for my rifle 762X39 and my DL was asked for my DL#. Im just wondering why they did that if the law hasnt passed.:confused:

Some counties have had the law for a while. I think LA is one of them?

oddjob
05-13-2010, 10:19 PM
I don't mean in any way justifying this law. I recall YEARS ago that when I bought ammo I had to sign in a book and show my license. Anyone else here remember that?

Lost in MA
05-14-2010, 2:34 AM
1
4.) CGF in conjunction with other parties is in final stages of preparing
a lawsuit based on 962' conflict with existing Federal law and prior
near-duplicative Supreme Ct. precedent regarding control of shippers sending tobacco items into New Hampshire.

Are you referring to Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. ***'n?

ETA: Never mind, I found it, Rowe is the case. But it regards shipping tobacco items into Maine.

warbird
05-14-2010, 12:07 PM
When it comes to guns and ammo in this state just learn to repeat after me. FUBAR is the California way of dealing with the second amendment and gun rights.

msand951
05-15-2010, 11:25 AM
Some counties have had the law for a while. I think LA is one of them?

I was at the Del Mar gun show.

Lost in MA
05-24-2010, 8:38 AM
I appreciate the sentiment, but not quite - for this particular matter.

For fighting AB962, we do not have to use a 2nd Amendment claim. In fact, our case will be stronger than a 2A-based one: CGF's et al case will be based on conflict with existng Federal law - one that is supported by directly-relevant Supreme Ct. precedence [control of shipping cigarrettes into New Hampshire - 'evil' product, interstate shipment, state regulation of common carrier behavior, etc.]

Given the way AB962 is written relying on Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. makes a lot of sense and should be a no-brainer. However, since the law imposes a face-to-face requirement, don't you also have a strong claim of state interference with interstate commerce?

Shintao
05-24-2010, 9:35 AM
Since the CA legislature is full of idiots (in both parties) and there is a very real chance this will pass, I will volunteer myself and some buddies to drive to Reno on a semi-regular basis for large quantity purchases.

I also propose that the people here on CG start an, "Ammo CoOp." There is nothing wrong with buying ammo and giving it to people who are of age and all the other compliance rubbish. My buddy has already volunteered his Geo Metro because it will get 45 mpg. to do the ammo runs.

Saym14
05-24-2010, 11:48 AM
so inthe future my brother can buy ammo in AZ and when he comes here to visit me sell some to me? and I could sell it to you on CG?

Glock22Fan
05-24-2010, 12:17 PM
I think it's worse than that: I think anti-gun forces, realizing totally banning guns is off the table even in California, are trying to make the costs of ownership prohibitively high for most people in several ways: 1) create uncertainty in a morass of laws so people are discouraged from ownership through fear of prosecution, fines, and incarceration; 2) making the acquisition and operating costs increasingly higher;and 3) increasingly restricting when and where firearms can be legally used including self-defense.

I see it as a well-coordinated and thoughtful attack on a constitutional right brought to you by the same kinds of people who thought up sanctuary cities and want to ban meat. But that's just me going off n the weeds again I guess.

You and me both.

Untamed1972
05-25-2010, 7:33 AM
4.) CGF in conjunction with other parties is in final stages of preparing
a lawsuit based on 962' conflict with existing Federal law and prior
near-duplicative Supreme Ct. precedent regarding control of shippers sending tobacco items into New Hampshire.


I'm just curious why this route hasn't been tried till now against any of the cities in the CA that have had longtime bans against mail order ammo? Wouldn't that have been a preemptive strike on CA trying to take it statewide?

stitchnicklas
05-25-2010, 11:28 AM
how does this affect FFL holders ??
i have a 03 ffl and can get mail order from some vendors who will not sell to regular joes,is there a exception???

Saym14
05-25-2010, 12:23 PM
so inthe future my brother can buy ammo in AZ and when he comes here to visit me sell some to me? and I could sell it to you on CG?

anyone know?

advocatusdiaboli
05-25-2010, 1:54 PM
anyone know?

Based on the phrasing of the law i.e. "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."

I'd say your brother has bona fide evidence of your identity. Sounds like a legal private party sale of a legal item to me. And you won't even have to pay sales tax :D.