PDA

View Full Version : AB2714: Help stop this bill!


johnny_22
05-14-2006, 8:36 AM
From a recent discussion, it appears that many on CG buy at Wal-Mart and others via mail order. The legislative analysis for this bill indicates we will all buy from Wal-Mart:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2714_cfa_20060509_162300_asm_comm.html

A photo-copied ID will not suffice. Face-to-Face ID is required for a purchase. Torrico's bill will stop all mail-order purchases of ammunition, "...for the children".

The bill has passed all of the committees it needs to, and is now headed for the entire Assembly. Please, contact your Assembly member via fax, mail, email, and phone call and point out that existing law, when enforced, prevents children from buying ammunition on the web.

Thank you for your help.

The Soup Nazi
05-14-2006, 9:19 AM
Wait...so now if this crap bill passes, I won't be able to get my dad to order 440 round sardine cans of surplus 54R and cases of 39 online? Basically, if we find a good deal, WE'RE STILL SCREWED!?!?

They're really trying to keep shooting a hobby that only the previlaged or politicians can enjoy.

Charliegone
05-14-2006, 1:38 PM
Geezuz man, WTF is wrong with these people...ammo purchases already require proof of age and residency! I sure hope if this gets to Ahnold he will veto this crap legislation by another idiot.:mad:

Centurion_D
05-14-2006, 4:31 PM
Mr. Haas,

Where is the NRA on this?

Letters sent.

Very good question..Where in the hell is the NRA on this????

Anthonysmanifesto
05-14-2006, 5:54 PM
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :

Support

City of Fremont
Joseph Matteucci Foundation
Legal Community Against Violence
Union City Police Department

Opposition

California Association of Firearms Retailers
California Chapters of Safari International
California Rifle and Pistol Association
California Sportsmen's Lobby
Crossroads of the West Gun Shows
National Association of Firearms Retailers
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California

RRangel
05-14-2006, 7:03 PM
Check here:

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2714

Call and write your reps accordingly. Please let the author of this bill know how you feel.

I would recommend that you call and write your reps, and the author. Emails may not suffice.

Assemblyman Alberto Torrico
Capitol Office District Office
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0020
(916) 319-2020
(916) 319-2120 fax

Local office:
39510 Paseo Padre Parkway
Suite 280
Fremont, CA 94538
(510) 440 - 9030
(510) 440 - 9035 fax
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2714_cfa_20060509_162300_asm_comm.html
Date of Hearing: May 10, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 2714 (Torrico) - As Amended: April 25, 2006
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits ammunition from being delivered pursuant to
a retail transaction unless the purchaser presents - in person -
bona fide evidence of age and identity to the seller of the
ammunition. Violation of this requirement is a misdemeanor,
punishable by up to six months in county jail and/or a fine of
up to $1,000. A subsequent violation is punishable by up to 1
year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000.
Because this bill would require face-to-face identification, it
would prohibit on-line and
mail-order ammunition sales.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Negligible state cost.
2)Unknown, likely minor nonreimbursable local incarceration
costs, offset to a degree by increased fine revenue.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to end mail-order and
on-line ammunition sales by requiring a person-to-person
transaction with identification.
According to the author, "Ammunition purchases over the
Internet are easily made and neither the purchasers nor the
sellers are currently tracked by the State. Furthermore,
Internet companies have been found not verifying the identity
and age of ammunition purchasers before shipping ammunition,




AB 2714
Page 2
and online sellers have a harder time guaranteeing that buyers
meet all the qualifications to comply with local and state
law."
2)Jurisdictional and Practical Considerations . As California
authorities generally lack jurisdiction to arrest or prosecute
people who commit crimes in other states, the misdemeanor
penalties created by this measure would apply only to parties
making on-line or mail-order sales from within California.
Moreover, enforcement would appear to be problematic, as it is
not clear how authorities would know if a person bought
ammunition on-line or via e-mail.
3)Current state and federal law makes it illegal for any person,
corporation, or gun dealer to sell ammunition to a person age
under 18 years of age or to sell handgun ammunition to a
person under the age of 21.
4)Opposition . The Outdoor Sportsmen's Lobby of California and
the National Association of Firearms Retailers contend this
bill serves no practical purpose, and creates another
regulatory hurdle. According to the Firearms Retailers,
"Existing state and federal law prohibits the sale of
ammunition to persons who are under age, including
criminalizing the sale of handgun ammunition to anyone under
the age of 21. There is, therefore, already adequate
motivation for retailers to check the identification of a
person who appears to be too young to lawfully purchase
ammunition. This has long been a standard business practice
for retailers."

Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

hoffmang
05-14-2006, 7:49 PM
This one would have real and serious Commerce Clause issues. This would be discriminatory to out of state retailers while protecting in state retailers.

I'll be calling to point this out on Monday.

phobos512
05-14-2006, 10:02 PM
City of Fremont?!? Son of a b*tch. My home town disgusts me sometimes.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :

Support

City of Fremont
Joseph Matteucci Foundation
Legal Community Against Violence
Union City Police Department

Opposition

California Association of Firearms Retailers
California Chapters of Safari International
California Rifle and Pistol Association
California Sportsmen's Lobby
Crossroads of the West Gun Shows
National Association of Firearms Retailers
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California

chris
05-14-2006, 10:02 PM
like i have said guys flood them with letters and i mean alot of them. this is the time to show them we mean business. i hope that we are able to show them who we are. everyone here needs to send them a letter.

Centurion_D
05-14-2006, 10:56 PM
I'm gonna be working on sending out my letters on monday..

phish
05-15-2006, 9:00 AM
Union City??? :mad:

dang blasted section 8ers...

VeryCoolCat
05-15-2006, 12:54 PM
This will not pass. There are a few things that these guys will agree on when it comes to guns. The protection of privacy, the protection of rights when it comes to the workplace and rights of tenents.

Limiting purchases on the internet albeit ammunition is something that they will not do.

It has no real beneficial effects, since most criminals will buy ammunition local. Its also easier to trace online purchases of ammunition vs local buys from cash.

Although I do see a law where they will make ammunition to be shipped to an FFL and I don't see any reason why an FFL would charge to receive ammo when it gets you to come in either shoot at their range or shop.

Damnit something happened to the server and the time is messed and now my posts are jumping in front of others....

shopkeep
05-15-2006, 1:12 PM
This law is ****ing ridiculous! It completely discriminates against those of us who aren't wealthy enough to pay $8 and $10 per box of ammo in the stores and prefer to buy surplus online.

RRangel
05-15-2006, 1:21 PM
This will not pass. There are a few things that these guys will agree on when it comes to guns. The protection of privacy, the protection of rights when it comes to the workplace and rights of tenents.

Limiting purchases on the internet albeit ammunition is something that they will not do.

It has no real beneficial effects, since most criminals will buy ammunition local. Its also easier to trace online purchases of ammunition vs local buys from cash.

Although I do see a law where they will make ammunition to be shipped to an FFL and I don't see any reason why an FFL would charge to receive ammo when it gets you to come in either shoot at their range or shop.

Damnit something happened to the server and the time is messed and now my posts are jumping in front of others....

A ban on the .50 BMG wouldn't pass either. Before that what about a silly testing requirements for all handguns sold in the state? Let's not forget about the ban on so called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines.

Bills like this are not something we should get comfortable about shrugging off. The gun grabbers have managed to accomplish allot in this state because people think it will never happen.

m1aowner
05-15-2006, 2:29 PM
This will also apply inviduals in LE also. I'm sure they buy ammo online as well. And what about the gun show dealers? Will they have to travel out of state to stock up for gun shows?

shopkeep
05-15-2006, 4:56 PM
Alright guys, I called Assemblyman Torrico's office and was amazed that a human picked up the phone. She was very polite and I voiced my concern that this law discriminates against low income gun owners. I informed her that because Californian gun stores were already squeezed so hard by strict laws, ammo costs more in this state as it is. Hence, it will put the hurt on those of us who have lower incomes who normally purchase online to save.

m1aowner
05-15-2006, 5:34 PM
This would be stricter than buying a firearm itself.

m1aowner
05-15-2006, 6:04 PM
No sense in talking to SB2714s Author. In one ear out the other. He's a gun grabber plain and simple. We have to contact his oppenets for support. You guys that live in his district, make sure you vote against him. Another do nothing bill, by a do nothing man that spends his energies focusing on non issues.

Found this, look at SB1152:http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/vetoes/SB_1152_veto.pdf

The governor should veto AB2714 if it makes it to his desk based on his actions on SB1152. But remember, he's in pandering mode right now.

Alright guys, I called Assemblyman Torrico's office and was amazed that a human picked up the phone. She was very polite and I voiced my concern that this law discriminates against low income gun owners. I informed her that because Californian gun stores were already squeezed so hard by strict laws, ammo costs more in this state as it is. Hence, it will put the hurt on those of us who have lower incomes who normally purchase online to save.

dwtt
05-15-2006, 7:48 PM
This will not pass. There are a few things that these guys will agree on when it comes to guns. The protection of privacy, the protection of rights when it comes to the workplace and rights of tenents.
There were gun owners who said Prop H in San Francisco wouldn't pass, but it did. There were gun owners who said the .50 cal ban wouldn't pass, but it did. There were gun owners who said SB23 wouldn't pass, but it did. Maybe it's time for these doubting gun owners to take these things seriously.
Torrico is the rep for Fremont, and he is, unfortunately, my rep. I'm writing a letter to him, but I know my name is already his list of gun loving nuts, since he only sends back form letters thanking me for writing him and little else.

dmckean44
05-15-2006, 7:53 PM
http://www.legislature.ca.gov/

Type in your zip code in the lower right hand corner to look up your representatives. Email everyone and follow it up with a written letter. This one is important to win.

MIB916
05-15-2006, 10:13 PM
Let me get this straight... This law will help protect people from "bad people" buying ammo on line? Let's say dirtbag #1 goes to Big 5 and buys a box of shells. Dirtbag #2 goes online to (insert any online ammo company) and purchases their ammo. Dirtbag #1 commits a crime (driveby) and dirtbag #2 shoots his (girlfriend/boyfriend... or whatever?)

My question is this? How has this dumba@#$ law stopped either crime?

Then after the idiot author of this bill, another like minded idiot will write another bill holding ammo companies responsible for the crimes committed by dirtbag #1 & #2.:rolleyes:

Stop the madness....

chris
05-15-2006, 11:48 PM
i have said this before and i will say it again. ALL GUN OWNERS MUST GET INVOLVED!!!!! that is the solution. we have sat on our *****es and had it handed to us. now fight back. I'm sure this assemblyman is a Democrat right. time to send the avalanche of letters and phone calls and faxes. floodem people and i mean bury them in it.

ONE TEAM ONE FIGHT this premis we can win.

mikehaas
05-16-2006, 7:52 AM
Mr. Haas,

Where is the NRA on this?

Letters sent.

THANKS for sending those letters, emails, faxes and making those phone calls! Sorry, I couldn't reply sooner. I believe the admin has already posted the link to our page:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2714

Just spoke with Ed (our lobbyist in Sac). Big thumbs up to you guys and he adds...

- There is no Law Enforcement support for AB2714. That doesn't square with the bill's analysis, where Torrico says the bill is crucial for public safety.

- It is already illegal in CA to sell ammunition to minors and prohibited persons.

Ed offered hiw own analysis. I think his exact words were "beyond stupid." :-)

Mike

Satex
05-16-2006, 8:43 AM
I already send the one click email last night. I didn't realize it goes out to so many representative - but that's great!
The way I figure he wants this to work is that first they ban all non face to face sales, at which point we can only buy at gun stores and walmart. Since Walmart no longer sells guns, he would make sure they aren't allowed to sell ammo either (after all, if a walmart employee can't DROS, how would he be able to verify age?) and then the last battle would be the gun stores. I am sure they will find some creative reason to ban sale of ammo at gun stores too!

cnyankee
05-16-2006, 1:08 PM
just did the one cick thing and will be writing hard copies later tonight. i planned on retiring here in jus a few years but if this passes then i will be looking for somewhere else to retire to that is a pro gun state

vonsmith
05-16-2006, 2:14 PM
Email has been sent to Assemblyman Dario Frommer and Senator Jack Scott. Hardcopies to follow. This nonsense legislation needs to stop.


=vonsmith=

rainman8819
05-16-2006, 6:34 PM
I just sent messages to my reps. I don't know what good it'll do considering my reps are from Sacramento. One thing's for sure. If this stupid bill gets passed, look for local gun shops to hike up prices. I may be wrong, but what alternative will we have? I wouldn't be surprised if transporting ammunition across Kali borders becomes a crime too. What a mess.

Hillbillly
05-16-2006, 10:08 PM
Just sent out my concerns to them all.
Also found out my Senator, Bob Margett is on the public safety committee.
Yeah

Here is what I sent them.

To Bob Margett

As a registered voter I would like to express my great dissatisfaction with AB2714.

California needs to start enforcing existing laws that address the issues at hand and not just make more laws.

It becomes very annoying that these types of laws are only followed by law abiding citizens.

While the legislature tries to protect us against criminal types with new laws, the reality is most of these laws are short sighted and really donít address criminals or their activities.

We need our elected representatives to apply some thorough and conscious thought about what they are proposing.

This law provides a 6 month penalty and $1,000 fine to a criminal caught breaking it.

Why would a criminal have a Gun? California Law already makes this impossible and the penalty is harsher then what is proposed by AB2714.

Also a minor can not buy a weapon.

So, what would either of these people be shooting the Ammo in, if all the existing laws work and are enforced?

If we as a community and country can not keep guns out of hands that should not have them, then why are we even thinking we can keep something as simple as ammo out of their hands?


I would like to point out these facts:

1). There is no Law Enforcement support for AB2714. That doesn't square with the bill's analysis, where Torrico says the bill is crucial for public safety.

2). It is already illegal in CA to sell ammunition to minors and prohibited persons.


Also, the result of banning mail order ammo is that prices will rise because of less competition.

This would most likely trigger an underground market for trafficking ammo as it could become very profitable for the criminals.

If this happens that the State will also lose money on taxes.

I am all for any law that actually protects citizens from criminals.

I encourage our elected officials to create legislation that actually holds criminals accountable for their actions without negatively affecting their law abiding constituents.

Regards,

leelaw
05-17-2006, 4:31 PM
Letters sent

CalNRA
05-17-2006, 4:36 PM
letter send to Assm. Laird of our district...

Satex
05-18-2006, 10:46 AM
After using the one click to write assembly members, I received the following response from Assemblywoman Sharon Runner:

Thank you for writing me regarding gun laws in California, I appreciate hearing from you. I agree with you that we currently have sufficient, if not too many, laws on the books already. Again thank you for writing me.

Sincerely,
Sharon Runner
Assemblywoman
36th District

This is the first response I have ever received from a CA official. I have written a number of letters to San Diego Mayor, Governor, and assembly people, but Sharon Runner is the first to reply!

She gets a gold star in my book!

ivorykid
05-18-2006, 11:27 AM
She gets a gold star in my book!

I received the same reply! And I agree, Gold Star for Sharon Runner!

I sent my one-click yesterday... and got a bunch of auto-replies. However, I received one personal response today that was nice to read from Assembly Woman Sharon Runner from the 36th District.
Dear [xxx],

Thank you for writing me regarding gun laws in California, I appreciate hearing from you. I agree with you that we currently have sufficient, if not too many, laws on the books already. Again thank you for writing me.
Sure, it sounds a little generic (probablyl used for all gun law related correspondence), but it was still nice to hear.

Nic
05-18-2006, 12:18 PM
Letters sent.

whlgun
05-18-2006, 2:44 PM
Will send send out mine this weekend.

I would also like to say hello to everyone. I have been watching this site for awhile and im glad that i am now a member

kenc9
05-18-2006, 5:15 PM
I got an email back from Sharon Runner 36th District here is what she said.


Dear Ken,

Thank you for writing me regarding gun laws in California, I appreciate hearing from you. I agree with you that we currently have sufficient, if not too many, laws on the books already. Again thank you for writing me.



Sincerely,

Sharon Runner

Assemblywoman

36th District

The email I got back from Feinstein was """We will have to agree to disagree on this one"""!!!!!!
:--

dwtt
05-18-2006, 6:56 PM
Let me get this straight... This law will help protect people from "bad people" buying ammo on line? Let's say dirtbag #1 goes to Big 5 and buys a box of shells. Dirtbag #2 goes online to (insert any online ammo company) and purchases their ammo. Dirtbag #1 commits a crime (driveby) and dirtbag #2 shoots his (girlfriend/boyfriend... or whatever?)

My question is this? How has this dumba@#$ law stopped either crime?

Then after the idiot author of this bill, another like minded idiot will write another bill holding ammo companies responsible for the crimes committed by dirtbag #1 & #2.:rolleyes:
This is a very good question, one that should be addressed to Alberto Torrico. Please put it in a letter and send to Alberto Torrico, State Capitol, Room 2179
Post Office Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249.
Since this fat idiot reps my city, I'll remind him that I would vote for his opponent in November and ask all my friends to do the same.

crazyXgerman
05-19-2006, 7:44 AM
jackasses :mad: what a stupid waste of time

email sent

the_quark
05-22-2006, 11:49 AM
Just noting: Called Ira Ruskin, representing the 21st Distrcit, today. Staffer I got seemed unfamiliar with AB2714. I expressed my opposition, and she took down my name and address.

leverage
05-22-2006, 12:24 PM
I got this back from assemblyman Ray Haynes. Wow. I didn't expect anything back but form mail.

"I did vote against AB 2714 when it came up before Appropriations, but it passed on a straight party line vote, with all the Democrats voting in favor of the bill, and all the Republicans voting against it. It is now on the floor of the Assembly, and could be heard anytime. I will openly oppose this bill, as I do all bills infringing on our Second Amendment rights.

Assemblyman Ray Haynes"

chickenfried
05-22-2006, 12:42 PM
That is a form email. But at least he's on our side.

I got this back from assemblyman Ray Haynes. Wow. I didn't expect anything back but form mail.

"I did vote against AB 2714 when it came up before Appropriations, but it passed on a straight party line vote, with all the Democrats voting in favor of the bill, and all the Republicans voting against it. It is now on the floor of the Assembly, and could be heard anytime. I will openly oppose this bill, as I do all bills infringing on our Second Amendment rights.

Assemblyman Ray Haynes"

oaklander
05-22-2006, 1:19 PM
So what happens next?

This is crazy!

I *have* to order mailorder, since most of my guns use non-standard calibers.

Richie Rich
05-22-2006, 6:07 PM
If this is passed, will it become law right away?

I have a large shipment on backorder and it is supposed to ship early June. If this is signed into law will it be a Jan 1 thing or right away?

Already looking for loopholes... Will it ban shipment of ammunition to non FFLs or just internet and mail order sales?

Yet another stupid Ca law.....

EDIT>>>> Where is the NRA to defend us on this one????

hoffmang
05-22-2006, 8:46 PM
NRA is on this one. An action alert came out to their email list last Friday.

There will certainly be an implementation time. Its a commerce clause violation though. The Interstate Wine SCOTUS case is directly analogous and the Supremes said that all a State had to do to get the same outcome is to ask for carriers for adult signature like wine. I'll be making sure NRA is aware of that angle should it pass.

I've already sent a legal analysis to the bill's sponsor and my rep. I've also posted it on another thread on this bill.

kflem
06-01-2006, 5:33 PM
Where on the NRA web site is this bill discussed/mentioned?

hoffmang
06-01-2006, 7:14 PM
http://www.nraila.com/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2227-L

This was the alert I was referring to earlier. I'm sure they will update with a new one later either this week or next.

Gryff
06-07-2006, 8:45 AM
I, also, used the CalNRA one-click feature to email legislators. Assemblyman Haynes was kind enough to reply with the following response on June 5th:

> I did vote against the measure as I do all bills which infringe on the
> 2nd Amendment, but it passed off the Floor of the Assembly on May 31,
> 2006, on a 43-34 vote. I will work with Republican Senators to try and
> stop this bill. I don't think it is too early to start contacting the
> Governor and ask him to veto this bill should it reach his desk.

According to the http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/, the bill has already had its first reading in the State Senate on June 1st.

WE NEED TO ACT ON THIS. Don't assume that other people are sending in letters of opposition. Do it yourself.

To find and contact your state senator, use this link:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

To contact the Governor, use this link:

http://www.govmail.ca.gov/

Make sure that you include your full name, address and phone number. Believe it or not, legislators track these responses and note the quantities. They may have philosophical support for, or opposition to, a bill, but they are more concerned about staying in office. If the opinion of their voters conflicts with their personal opinion, they will suck up to the voters. So convince them that the voters are not anti-gun. Do it today.

I posted a similar message on the Rec.Guns Usenet group. I had to laugh when another contributer submitted the following:

2000man@wongfaye.com wrote:
> it will not eliminate online ammo purchases you hysterical reactionary
> it only requires sellers to obtain valid id
> which many sellers do already
> of course i'm not for anything that may infringe on our freedoms but to
> blatantly exagerate is using the tactics of the antis

Obviously, 2000man@wongfaye.com has solved the problem of how to provide the seller with "bona fide evidence of majority and identity to the seller of the ammunition" (which is a direct quote from the www.leginfo.ca.gov analysis of the bill, which also includes a definition of what constitutes "bona fide" evidence). Since this makes sending a photocopy of your drivers license legally inadequate, I wish he would share his solution with the rest of us.

Best,

Jim Griffiths
Castro Valley, CA

Trader Jack
06-07-2006, 12:29 PM
I, also, used the CalNRA one-click feature to email legislators. Assemblyman Haynes was kind enough to reply with the following response on June 5th:

> I did vote against the measure as I do all bills which infringe on the
> 2nd Amendment, but it passed off the Floor of the Assembly on May 31,
> 2006, on a 43-34 vote. I will work with Republican Senators to try and
> stop this bill. I don't think it is too early to start contacting the
> Governor and ask him to veto this bill should it reach his desk.

According to the http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/, the bill has already had its first reading in the State Senate on June 1st.

WE NEED TO ACT ON THIS. Don't assume that other people are sending in letters of opposition. Do it yourself.

To find and contact your state senator, use this link:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

To contact the Governor, use this link:

http://www.govmail.ca.gov/

Make sure that you include your full name, address and phone number. Believe it or not, legislators track these responses and note the quantities. They may have philosophical support for, or opposition to, a bill, but they are more concerned about staying in office. If the opinion of their voters conflicts with their personal opinion, they will suck up to the voters. So convince them that the voters are not anti-gun. Do it today.

I posted a similar message on the Rec.Guns Usenet group. I had to laugh when another contributer submitted the following:

2000man@wongfaye.com wrote:
> it will not eliminate online ammo purchases you hysterical reactionary
> it only requires sellers to obtain valid id
> which many sellers do already
> of course i'm not for anything that may infringe on our freedoms but to
> blatantly exagerate is using the tactics of the antis

Obviously, 2000man@wongfaye.com has solved the problem of how to provide the seller with "bona fide evidence of majority and identity to the seller of the ammunition" (which is a direct quote from the www.leginfo.ca.gov analysis of the bill, which also includes a definition of what constitutes "bona fide" evidence). Since this makes sending a photocopy of your drivers license legally inadequate, I wish he would share his solution with the rest of us.


Best,

Jim Griffiths
Castro Valley, CA
2000man is correct. If this bill passes it WILL NOT AND CAN NOT STOP INTERNET SALES.

Tell me Jim how it can??

Gryff
06-07-2006, 12:43 PM
2000man is correct. If this bill passes it WILL NOT AND CAN NOT STOP INTERNET SALES.

Tell me Jim how it can??

By making it no longer legal to submit a photocopy of your driver's license as proof of age and identity. You would now need to show the ACTUAL drivers license/state-issued ID card to the seller before you could purchase the ammunition.

How do you think you could do that with an Internet purchase?

Seems to me that if you have to drive to the another state to pick up the ammo, it pretty much negates the convenience of ordering through the Internet. Wouldn't you agree?

If there is a loophole that you are aware of, please let me know so that I can breathe easier.

-Jim

knight_dive
06-07-2006, 8:38 PM
isn't the presentation of ID required upon delivery, not on placing the order? Jim I think this might be your loophole.

Trader Jack
06-07-2006, 10:48 PM
By making it no longer legal to submit a photocopy of your driver's license as proof of age and identity. You would now need to show the ACTUAL drivers license/state-issued ID card to the seller before you could purchase the ammunition.

How do you think you could do that with an Internet purchase?

Seems to me that if you have to drive to the another state to pick up the ammo, it pretty much negates the convenience of ordering through the Internet. Wouldn't you agree?

If there is a loophole that you are aware of, please let me know so that I can breathe easier.

-Jim
There is no loophole needed. Torico's bill can only be enforced in California.
Outside of California, vendors need not be restricted by this nonsense.
You should be aware of this. For the most part there are no significant INTERNET ammo vendors in California.

Outdoor Marksman was sending out "fear monger" emails about this. They were being pushed by Miwall I am sure.

blacklisted
06-07-2006, 10:53 PM
Out of state suppliers are NOT affected by this bill (not enforced outside of California), but you would be if you order from one and don't follow the law.

I bet that ammunition suppliers are going to go the way of sportsman's guide and cheaper than dirt and go along with the law that has no effect on them.

dmckean44
06-07-2006, 11:00 PM
The way I read the bill, there's no penalty for the buyer.

blacklisted
06-07-2006, 11:07 PM
The way I read the bill, there's no penalty for the buyer.


Where can I see the text of the bill? I'm only reading this:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2714_cfa_20060509_162300_asm_comm.html

which is probably BS.


2)Jurisdictional and Practical Considerations . As California
authorities generally lack jurisdiction to arrest or prosecute
people who commit crimes in other states, the misdemeanor
penalties created by this measure would apply only to parties
making on-line or mail-order sales from within California.
Moreover, enforcement would appear to be problematic, as it is
not clear how authorities would know if a person bought
ammunition on-line or via e-mail.

Gryff
06-08-2006, 5:30 AM
There is no loophole needed. Torico's bill can only be enforced in California.
Outside of California, vendors need not be restricted by this nonsense.
You should be aware of this. For the most part there are no significant INTERNET ammo vendors in California.

Then why can't we buy hi-cap mags for shipment to California?

mikehaas
06-08-2006, 6:32 AM
Mr. Haas,

Where is the NRA on this?

Letters sent.

THANKS! I've had AB 2714 listed at http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2714 for at least 4 months. Whatever I know and can be revealed publicly will appear there. (Highly recommended site :-)

Torrico has been having trouble getting his bill passed (I wonder who could be the reason? :-) and has had to water it down.

As you can see, the bill has already been amended to exempt rimfire, rifle and shotgun ammo. Torrico has promised more amendements to some pro-gun Assembly lawmakers - that's why it got passed in the Assembly at all.

If it is amended in the Senate (a lawmaker would never tell an untruth would they?), remember that means it has to come back to the Assembly again, where we have the best chance of stopping it.

Watch for those amendments and KEEP UP THE PRESSURE. When guys & gals like us back up our lobbyist at the capitol, we have the greatest chance of winning. Now both the Members' Council network AND calguns.net (thank you again!) are doing a great job at this.

Mike

Gryff
06-08-2006, 6:55 AM
Watch for those amendments and KEEP UP THE PRESSURE. When guys & gals like us back up our lobbyist at the capitol, we have the greatest chance of winning. Now both the Members' Council network AND calguns.net (thank you again!) are doing a great job at this.

Mike,

Another contributer here has asserted authoritatively that the bill is not a threat to California shooters and will not stop online sales. Is he right? And if so, why should we keep up the pressure?

I don't agree with his opinion, but I would like to know your position on the matter.

Thanks,

Jim

mikehaas
06-08-2006, 7:03 AM
Where on the NRA web site is this bill discussed/mentioned?
Thanks for asking!

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2714 - been posted at least 3 months, if memory serves. (Uses my selectable detail, distributed, variable format legislation reporting software, "leginfo" - "legs" for short, ergo the "legs.shtml". Wrote and donated it to California NRA in 2001.)

What's variable format? The same info is available in 2 other formats. It's also listed at the complete http://calnra.com/legs.shtml and included in the auto-updated exportable mini-box (that calguns.net has been gracious enough to display on it's homepage for many moons). To put the mini-box on your site, visit:
http://calnra.com/importlegs.shtml
(Couldn't be easier. Post and forget.)

To volunteer for our NRA "Army on the Ground":
http://calnra.com/volunteer/
(Every CA NRA member should join, IMO. We don't fundraise, it's where the rubber meets the road.)

Thanks for all you do and I hope you do it with http://calnra.com/ !

Mike

mikehaas
06-08-2006, 7:16 AM
Mike,

Another contributer here has asserted authoritatively that the bill is not a threat to California shooters and will not stop online sales. Is he right? And if so, why should we keep up the pressure?

I don't agree with his opinion, but I would like to know your position on the matter.

Thanks,

Jim

Jim, I don't spend a lot of my time analyzing the bills - NRA has many experts that do that - our lobbyist, attorneys, other folks at ILA. They've seen this stuff so often. I'm not going to see anything there they haven't seen, and I'm not about wasting effort or time. The whole ONE-CLICK system at
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo
is designed to focus gun-owners like lasers on the hot issues AT THAT MOMENT and not waste effort where it isn't needed.

If NRA says the bill is worth my time, I believe it is. Anything that tells you to go against NRA's advice is suspect IMO.

So I'm not much for mental masturbastion. I think ACTION gets us to the goal line. Combined with UNITY, it's a hard formula to beat. We gun-owners should try it sometime :-)

Mike

Gryff
06-08-2006, 7:31 AM
Jim, I don't spend a lot of my time analyzing the bills - NRA has many experts that do that - our lobbyist, attorneys, other folks at ILA. They've seen this stuff so often. I'm not going to see anything there they haven't seen, and I'm not about wasting effort or time. The whole ONE-CLICK system at
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo
is designed to focus gun-owners like lasers on the hot issues AT THAT MOMENT and not waste effort where it isn't needed.

If NRA says the bill is worth my time, I believe it is. Anything that tells you to go against NRA's advice is suspect IMO.

So I'm not much for mental masturbastion. I think ACTION gets us to the goal line. Combined with UNITY, it's a hard formula to beat. We gun-owners should try it sometime.


I agree. Despite the fact that this contributor throws out an opinion like it is the word of God, yet offers no substantiating information, I wanted to check to see if there is any validity to his claim.

Unity needs to be one of the foundations of our existence as gun owners in California. For the sake of that principal, I wanted to remove any question about the worthiness of our opposition to this bill.

-Jim

AR-shogun
06-08-2006, 8:32 AM
Hey Jim,

How is the Show in NY.
:D

Gryff
06-08-2006, 9:13 AM
Hey Jim,

How is the Show in NY.
:D

Too much time on my hands (obviously).

CTT2
06-19-2006, 11:01 AM
If it is persue as anything else we will fail. WE have to persue this an anti-competition and that it is not good for the California residents to get the most for their money. The next step is to make the bleeding heart liberals look like idiots, and why they can't make a system to verify age. Man the NRA needs to hire me as a lobbist. Any NRA higher ups in here that wanna let me in? I'll do it for probono, as long as I get to go to the conventions and stuff. Then their gonna wonder why I'm the only asian person in a convention of rednecks :D .

Ryoushi
06-19-2006, 2:21 PM
If it is persue as anything else we will fail. WE have to persue this an anti-competition and that it is not good for the California residents to get the most for their money. The next step is to make the bleeding heart liberals look like idiots, and why they can't make a system to verify age. Man the NRA needs to hire me as a lobbist. Any NRA higher ups in here that wanna let me in? I'll do it for probono, as long as I get to go to the conventions and stuff. Then their gonna wonder why I'm the only asian person in a convention of rednecks :D .

Gadzooks man with that kind of grammer and spelling I wouldn't hire you to work in the mailroom.

xrMike
06-19-2006, 2:35 PM
By making it no longer legal to submit a photocopy of your driver's license as proof of age and identity. You would now need to show the ACTUAL drivers license/state-issued ID card to the seller before you could purchase the ammunition.

How do you think you could do that with an Internet purchase?Couldn't webcams still provide the necessary I.D. confirmation? Seller has a webcam, buyer has a webcam, buyer puts face up to webcam, and then puts driver's license up to webcam so seller can see it and confirm the birthdate and picture. ???

Charliegone
06-19-2006, 2:39 PM
Couldn't webcams still provide the necessary I.D. confirmation? Seller has a webcam, buyer has a webcam, buyer puts face up to webcam, and then puts driver's license up to webcam so seller can see it and confirm the birthdate and picture. ???

HAHA, that will most definetly work. Yet another stupid law to circumvent.

hoffmang
06-19-2006, 3:02 PM
Gents,

If California passes a law banning the sale of ammunition without face to face ID, out of state sellers are not going to go out of their way to sell to us. They'll just ban all sales to CA. I'll bet they'll also stop selling non handgun rounds as well as they don't have systems to keep up with which is which and where its going.

This law only exists to limit our access to ammo via internet/mail order. Help try to stop it.

VeryCoolCat
06-19-2006, 3:03 PM
That won't work.

SECTION 1. Section 12317 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12317. (a) No ammunition or reloaded ammunition designed
and intended to be used in a handgun may be delivered pursuant
to a retail transaction unless the purchaser presents in person his
or her bona fide evidence of majority and identity to the seller of
the ammunition.

Thats not much of a difference though, the cost of handgun ammo is sometimes cheaper than any of the cheapest online stores.

knight_dive
06-19-2006, 5:37 PM
That won't work.



Thats not much of a difference though, the cost of handgun ammo is sometimes cheaper than any of the cheapest online stores.
It doesn't matter where it may or may not be cheaper. What matters is that we have a choice. I'm making a conscious effort not to buy anything from Wal-Mart, not because I like paying more money, but because I don't like the way they treat their employees and small businesses. Therefore it is important that I have choices from which to obtain the things I need or want, whether they be online or a real storefront.

chiefcrash
07-21-2006, 1:45 PM
SECTION 1. Section 12317 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12317. (a) No ammunition or reloaded ammunition designed
and intended to be used in a handgun may be delivered pursuant
to a retail transaction unless the purchaser presents in person his
or her bona fide evidence of majority and identity to the seller of
the ammunition.

Now, let's say i have a 9mm pistol and a 9mm carbine. i "intend" to use the ammo i order on the internet with my carbine, so according to the law i should be fine...

dmckean44
07-21-2006, 1:55 PM
Now, let's say i have a 9mm pistol and a 9mm carbine. i "intend" to use the ammo i order on the internet with my carbine, so according to the law i should be fine...

That's what I noticed too when I read over the bill. I don't shoot handguns but I buy a lot of pistol ammo because I like my .357 and .44 mag lever guns.

CTT2
07-25-2006, 2:57 AM
You know what's funny, I remember that when I made 2nd Class I was not yet of legal age to drink or own a handgun in California. But Uncle Sam trusted me with multimillion dollar equipment and orders to fire by negligence, God's black rifle of freedom, the M16, his little brother of freedom, the M9, his sister, the M14, and their Uncle, the alley sweeper, and all the booze I could drink in any foriegn port. But I could not have owned and of those in California even though I was stationed in San Diego. :D

chris
07-25-2006, 2:59 AM
IMO this state has lost it's right to part of United States. but we must fight these people and give them the big F you on election day by giving them their pinkslips. if we do not vote we will lose it all.

Renron
07-27-2006, 10:21 PM
It doesn't matter where it may or may not be cheaper. What matters is that we have a choice. I'm making a conscious effort not to buy anything from Wal-Mart, not because I like paying more money, but because I don't like the way they treat their employees and small businesses. Therefore it is important that I have choices from which to obtain the things I need or want, whether they be online or a real storefront.


Very CoolCat, What do you think will happen to those "cheap" prices without compitition from other vendors. Prices WILL go up.
Write you legislators.

avidone
07-27-2006, 10:45 PM
Many emails sent!!!

TrailerparkTrash
09-10-2006, 3:22 PM
This bill sits on the Gov's desk,,,,,,,,,,,,,I pray he veto'd it this past weekend!

God, this is aweful!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know if it's too late, but here is a link to email the Gov, let him know we want AB 2714 VETO'D

http://www.govmail.ca.gov

Veritas_223
09-27-2006, 11:39 AM
TTT! I sent email to Aberto and the Gov regarding my opposition. Email, Call or FedEx a letter!!

Pont
10-01-2006, 4:35 PM
+1 for the good guys

Looks like Arnold vetoed it.

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2714&year=2006