PDA

View Full Version : Felons Purcahsing or Possesing Ammo


Choptop
01-20-2011, 2:41 PM
Its illegal for felons (and others, judged mentally incompetent... ect) to posses ammo. This means they shouldnt be able to walk up to the register and buy it.

Its a law already on the books, how should it be enforced?

stix213
01-20-2011, 2:58 PM
By busting individuals violating the law when discovered by law enforcement like any other law. How else would it be enforced? Hard to shoot someone with just a box of ammo anyway. Plus if a felon were actually set on getting ammo they could start making their own.

QQQ
01-20-2011, 3:03 PM
Bad laws shouldn't exist, and when they exist they shouldn't be enforced.

cntrolsguy
01-20-2011, 3:05 PM
What Q said.

robcoe
01-20-2011, 3:06 PM
I wouldnt see why it would be illegal, the gun to shoot it is illegal for them to possess, and ammo without a gun just makes for interesting paperweights, and if they have a gun to shoot it with just charge them for that.

I cant realy see a felon holding up a 7-11 with just a box of ammo, actualy now I can, and it's a very funny mental image.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 3:06 PM
Bad laws shouldn't exist, and when they exist they shouldn't be enforced.


so we have three votes for "its ok to sell ammo to felons and those judged mentally incompetent"

Choptop
01-20-2011, 3:08 PM
By busting individuals violating the law when discovered by law enforcement like any other law. How else would it be enforced?

should you be able to sell ammo to a felon?

QQQ
01-20-2011, 3:09 PM
so we have three votes for "its ok to sell ammo to felons and those judged mentally incompetent"

So we have one vote for "it's okay to ban someone for life for a misdemeanor DV charge, or for having gotten caught with pot in the '60's, or for having checked into a psych ward 50 years ago from exercising their constitutional rights until the day they die".
Not all prohibited persons are baby-smashing crackheads.

cntrolsguy
01-20-2011, 3:09 PM
so we have three votes for "its ok to sell ammo to felons and those judged mentally incompetent"

Not necessarily, but I do think that there are some non violent felons that should have the right to protect themselves as much as you and me.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 3:27 PM
Its a law already on the books, how should it be enforced?

ummmm.... by arresting people who are felons and/or otherwise prohibited when they are found to be in possession of ammunition.

Was this a trick question?

Were you thinking maybe it should be enforced by simply revoking the 4th Amendment rights of all convicted felons for life permitting spot checks for guns and ammo?

Choptop
01-20-2011, 3:34 PM
Not all prohibited persons are baby-smashing crackheads.

didnt say they were.

fact remains, they are prohibited by law from possessing, and therefore from buying ammo by current law.

the question is, how to enforce that law?

Choptop
01-20-2011, 3:34 PM
ummmm.... by arresting people who are felons and/or otherwise prohibited when they are found to be in possession of ammunition.

Was this a trick question?


so how do you prevent sales of ammo to felons? If it is illegal for them to posses, they cant buy it at the register.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 3:36 PM
Not necessarily, but I do think that there are some non violent felons that should have the right to protect themselves as much as you and me.

fair enough.

that would take a change in the current law, and there would still a class of felons (and others) that are prohibited.

but the question still stands.

If it is illegal for them to posses, they cant buy it at the register.
so how do you prevent sales of ammo to felons?

dantodd
01-20-2011, 3:36 PM
so how do you prevent sales of ammo to felons? If it is illegal for them to posses, they cant buy it at the register.

You don't. You don't just like you don't "prevent" someone from buying alcohol and then getting behind the wheel while drunk. You don't just like you don't prevent someone from talking on their cell phone while driving making them a menace on the road. You punish behavior, you don't force behavior.

robcoe
01-20-2011, 3:37 PM
so how do you prevent sales of ammo to felons? If it is illegal for them to posses, they cant buy it at the register.

You dont worry about it, if they are caught with ammo toss them in jail, nothing to tough there.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 3:38 PM
You don't. You don't just like you don't "prevent" someone from buying alcohol and then getting behind the wheel while drunk. You don't just like you don't prevent someone from talking on their cell phone while driving making them a menace on the road. You punish behavior, you don't force behavior.

different issues... you are talking about USE.... I am talking about prohibited from HAVING.



ala... under 21 cant posses alcohol.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 3:38 PM
If it is illegal for them to posses, they cant buy it at the register.
so how do you prevent sales of ammo to felons?

Well, since we have background checks to buy guns does it really matter if they can get ammo? After all what good does the ammo do if they have no gun to shoot it.

robcoe
01-20-2011, 3:40 PM
different issues... you are talking about USE.... I am talking about prohibited from HAVING.



ala... under 21 cant posses alcohol.

It's on the felon to not posses ammunition, not everyone else to to keep them from getting it.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 3:41 PM
different issues... you are talking about USE.... I am talking about prohibited from HAVING.



ala... under 21 cant posses alcohol.

Nope. Same issue.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 3:43 PM
It's on the felon to not posses ammunition, not everyone else to to keep them from getting it.


Do you think that logic should apply to other situations as well? With firearms themselves? With alcohol and those under 21?

or just for ammo?

you do realize that no enforcement = legalization (pretty much)

Choptop
01-20-2011, 3:45 PM
Nope. Same issue.

no it is not.

it is NOT illegal for someone over 21 to buy or posses alcohol. A person can have a legal use for the alcohol.

it IS illegal for a felon to buy or posses ammo. A felon can have no legal use for the ammo.


there is a difference between using something that is legal for you to posses in an illegal manner vs. possessing something that is illegal for you to posses.

mdimeo
01-20-2011, 3:48 PM
so we have three votes for "its ok to sell ammo to felons and those judged mentally incompetent"

The substantial burden of any effective measure to prevent this would fall disproportionately on law-abiding consumers and FFLs, and would merely lead to criminals buying from alternative sources.

I believe Illinois requires a firearms owner ID card to purchase ammunition, and Chicago has one of the highest gun murder rates in the country.

There are lots of things that are illegal, but the cost of effective enforcement is too high to bother with. For example, it's generally illegal to pay a babysitter without paying social security tax, and potentially withholding income tax. But for the IRS to enforce this would require such a deep intrusion into the everyday lives of ordinary people that it's not worth the revenue.

Aggressively enforcing ammo sales bans fall in the same category. It sucks for regular people and hardly affects criminals at all.

robcoe
01-20-2011, 3:50 PM
Do you think that logic should apply to other situations as well? With firearms themselves? With alcohol and those under 21?

or just for ammo?

you do realize that no enforcement = legalization (pretty much)

let me guess, you work for de León.

If they are caught with ammunition they go to jail(enforcement)

Guns(the part that make ammunition dangerous) require a backround check already.

Trying to set up a whole new system to deal with a very minor problem(imagine a felon trying to rob a 7-11 with a box of ammunition "gimme the money in the register or I'll, I'll throw this bullet at you, really hard", the clerk would probably die from laughing to hard.) is a complete waste of resouces. It's the equivalent of saying "to prevent people from driving without a license we will now require that everyone swipe their drivers license and submit proof of insurance before filling their car with gas".

Turo
01-20-2011, 3:58 PM
different issues... you are talking about USE.... I am talking about prohibited from HAVING.



ala... under 21 cant posses alcohol.

Your alcohol argument doesn't work either though. It's not illegal for someone under 21 to posses or consume alcohol, they just can't be sold it or consume/posses in public places.

12voltguy
01-20-2011, 4:10 PM
Its illegal for felons (and others, judged mentally incompetent... ect) to posses ammo. This means they shouldnt be able to walk up to the register and buy it.

Its a law already on the books, how should it be enforced?

FREEDOM
a free society comes with risk.
you can't have both.

dmcag69
01-20-2011, 4:13 PM
Its illegal for felons (and others, judged mentally incompetent... ect) to posses ammo. This means they shouldnt be able to walk up to the register and buy it.

Its a law already on the books, how should it be enforced?

Its enforced when the police raid a home of a drug dealer, parolee, gang banger. There is no such thing as shouldn't be able to. A criminal will always be able to get guns and ammo no matter what.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 4:14 PM
let me guess, you work for de León.

.

No I do not.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 4:14 PM
Here is what ya'll are missing... the completion of the sale IS the crime.

Flopper
01-20-2011, 4:16 PM
let me guess, you work for de León.

If they are caught with ammunition they go to jail(enforcement)

Guns(the part that make ammunition dangerous) require a backround check already.

Trying to set up a whole new system to deal with a very minor problem(imagine a felon trying to rob a 7-11 with a box of ammunition "gimme the money in the register or I'll, I'll throw this bullet at you, really hard", the clerk would probably die from laughing to hard.) is a complete waste of resouces. It's the equivalent of saying "to prevent people from driving without a license we will now require that everyone swipe their drivers license and submit proof of insurance before filling their car with gas".

Ding ding ding, I think we have a winner.

Next task: go through all of OP's posts.

I'm sure we'll find the OP is an "interesting" proponent of the RKBA :rolleyes:

Choptop
01-20-2011, 4:17 PM
Your alcohol argument doesn't work either though. It's not illegal for someone under 21 to posses or consume alcohol, they just can't be sold it or consume/posses in public places.

it is illegal for someone under 21 to posses or consume alcohol.

I'll have to look up the CA code.

destro360
01-20-2011, 4:20 PM
i dont see the problem with a felon purchasing ammo for his/her spouse or family member that is not prohibited, such as a christmas gift etc.

dmcag69
01-20-2011, 4:21 PM
Here is what ya'll are missing... the completion of the sale IS the crime.

The felon already knows that he or she can't own it but buys its anyways.

robcoe
01-20-2011, 4:22 PM
Here is what ya'll are missing... the completion of the sale IS the crime.

So is annoying a lizard in a public park in Fresno. Do you want to install cameras on every lizard in every city park in Fresno to see who might be annoying them?

Sometimes the cost(in both money and aggravation to normal people) of proactive(ie, preventing felons from buying ammo) enforcement is to high to bother with for the tiny gains it could possably make. If they get caught toss them in jail till then quit worrying about it.

Don29palms
01-20-2011, 4:23 PM
It's illegal for felons to posses ammunition and reloading supplies.

•(1) No person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall own, possess, or have under his or her custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition.
•(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "ammunition" shall include, but not be limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include blanks.
•(3) A violation of paragraph (1) of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state prison, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
•(4) A person who is not prohibited by paragraph (1) from owning, possessing, or having under his or her custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition, but who is enjoined from engaging in activity pursuant to an injunction issued pursuant to Section 3479 of the Civil Code against that person as a member of a criminal street gang, as defined in Section 186.22, may not own, possess, or have under his or her custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition.
•(5) A violation of paragraph (4) of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.

Glock22Fan
01-20-2011, 4:33 PM
There should be two restrictions on buying ammo:

1) Are you over 18?
2) Do you have enough money?

Beyond that, the onus is on the purchaser to ensure that the ammo is possessed legally. (i.e. not if you are a felon). The enforcement should come by punishment in excess of smacking his or her wrist if you are a banned person caught in posession

stix213
01-20-2011, 4:35 PM
should you be able to sell ammo to a felon?

Unless the state starts tattooing "FELON" across the foreheads of released felons, I don't see how any private individual or dealer would be able to tell felon from law abiding citizen. Do you want to require background checks and 10 day waits to buy a box of 9mm?

Even AB962 would have done nothing to stop a felon from buying ammo, fingerprinting and all.

wellerjohn
01-20-2011, 4:38 PM
So we have one vote for "it's okay to ban someone for life for a misdemeanor DV charge, or for having gotten caught with pot in the '60's, or for having checked into a psych ward 50 years ago from exercising their constitutional rights until the day they die".
Not all prohibited persons are baby-smashing crackheads.

Yea what he said!!

Don29palms
01-20-2011, 4:39 PM
You can't tell if someone is a felon or not. Criminals are criminals and there is nothing you can do about it. If they get caught then they shoul have to serve ALL of the time they get.

stix213
01-20-2011, 4:45 PM
Here is what ya'll are missing... the completion of the sale IS the crime.

If you read the PC you will notice the wording does not support this. Possession is the crime, there is nothing in the law related to sales or transfers. If you want to lobby the legislature to make it illegal to sell ammo to those prohibited from possessing, then you're talking about a completely new law with obviously new methods of enforcement.

Its actually perfectly legal for a felon to purchase ammo online to be delivered to someone who is not prohibited, such as a gift, as long as it is never in their possession.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 5:12 PM
Ding ding ding, I think we have a winner.

Next task: go through all of OP's posts.

I'm sure we'll find the OP is an "interesting" proponent of the RKBA :rolleyes:
I ask pertinent questions... which you dont seem to want to answer.

as for my RKBA status... I'm a lifetime NRA member. I have CCW's in every state. I participate in range clean ups.

before you TRY to impune the person asking the question, why not answer it.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 5:13 PM
If you read the PC you will notice the wording does not support this. Possession is the crime,


the sale or transfer ends with possession.

without possession there is no completed sale or transfer.

cmaynes
01-20-2011, 5:17 PM
so we have three votes for "its ok to sell ammo to felons and those judged mentally incompetent"

hmmm..... there is a certain shading to that comment....


anyhow- Most sane people here would likely agree that it isnt a good idea- however, when we start thinking of identifying these people certain problems arise-

It would be nice if "mentally incompetent" or "felon" could be tattooed on their foreheads or something, but I would believe that to be infringing on civil rights as well.

If its a manner of any sort of license, we are again looking at 2nd Amendment infringement.

with freedom comes risk and responsiblity- Americans seemingly have lost sight of that.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 5:20 PM
hmmm..... there is a certain shading to that comment....


anyhow- Most sane people here would likely agree that it isnt a good idea- however, when we start thinking of identifying these people certain problems arise-

It would be nice if "mentally incompetent" or "felon" could be tattooed on their foreheads or something, but I would believe that to be infringing on civil rights as well.

If its a manner of any sort of license, we are again looking at 2nd Amendment infringement.

with freedom comes risk and responsiblity- Americans seemingly have lost sight of that.

Not looking at a license. How about looking checking to see if someone is a convicted felon or has been judged otherwise prohibited from possessing ammo at the time of sale or transfer?

SVT-40
01-20-2011, 5:21 PM
Unless the state starts tattooing "FELON" across the foreheads of released felons, I don't see how any private individual or dealer would be able to tell felon from law abiding citizen. Do you want to require background checks and 10 day waits to buy a box of 9mm?

Even AB962 would have done nothing to stop a felon from buying ammo, fingerprinting and all.

A great idea!! "FELON" on the forehead!!!


I like it!!!!:D

robcoe
01-20-2011, 5:22 PM
the sale or transfer ends with possession.

without possession there is no completed sale or transfer.

So, it's still the responsability of the felon to not buy ammunition. For drunk driving convictions the courts will sometimes put a restriction on the persons probation that says they cannot have alcohol, it's up to that person to not buy or consume alcohol, not the clerk to gain psychic powers and scan his mind to make sure he's not prohibited.

What is your problem with the idea of just prosecuting them when they are caught with ammunition? They know they are not allowed to possess it, if they buy it they go away again.

SVT-40
01-20-2011, 5:24 PM
Its illegal for felons (and others, judged mentally incompetent... ect) to posses ammo. This means they shouldnt be able to walk up to the register and buy it.

Its a law already on the books, how should it be enforced?

"Shouldn't" requires that they follow the law. Which many felons do not.

So when they are found with ammo they are prosecuted.



Pretty simple.

cmaynes
01-20-2011, 5:26 PM
Not looking at a license. How about looking checking to see if someone is a convicted felon or has been judged otherwise prohibited from possessing ammo at the time of sale or transfer?

same deal really- it is infringing on the 2nd Amendment-

It wouldnt stop any badguys- they would just use an intermediary to buy the ammo and leave in place a bureaucratic entity that would not provide any real public safety for the money- (which the state doesnt have) to simply make it more of a hassle for law abiding citizens to do so.

the only way to stop crazy people acting crazy is for CCW's to be present. (unless Chuck Norris is on-site....)

Jack L
01-20-2011, 5:27 PM
If the gun shop owner is not required to ask us if we are felons, it certainly must not be a big deal with LE, at least at that point anyway. If a felon gets busted and they find it, oh well, another change added to the list. Must be worth the risk to some.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 5:29 PM
What is your problem with the idea of just prosecutin them when they are caught with ammunition? They know they are not allowed to possess it, if they buy it they go away again.

I have NO problem with that.

The crime can ALSO be prevented at the source, when the purchase or transfer is attempted.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 5:31 PM
So, it's still the responsability of the felon to not buy ammunition. For drunk driving convictions the courts will sometimes put a restriction on the persons probation that says they cannot have alcohol, it's up to that person to not buy or consume alcohol, not the clerk to gain psychic powers and scan his mind to make sure he's not prohibited.

no psychic powers are required for a background check.

Don29palms
01-20-2011, 5:32 PM
It sounds like the OP might be upset AB962 got thrown out. You can't stop criminals from being criminals.

robcoe
01-20-2011, 5:36 PM
I have NO problem with that.

The crime can be prevented at the source, when the purchase or transfer is attempted.

So now clerks are responsable for preventing people from doing stupid things?

Again I will say, THEY KNOW THEY ARE PROHIBITED, THEY KNOW THEY GO TO JAIL FOR DOING IT. It is not socitys responsability to prevent people from doing stupid things, particulary since, as I said before, the crime here is a very tiny problem, and setting up a whole system just to attempt to prevent a criminal from knowingly commiting a crime they are intent on commiting would cost so much in both money(backround checks are not free) and annoyance to normal people that it is not worth it.

robcoe
01-20-2011, 5:37 PM
no psychic powers are required for a background check.

Money is. What if they use a fake ID? if your average teenager can figure it out a felon should have no problem.

Also unless you want to be giving your SSN to every clerk you buy ammunition from(do I need to explain why that is a bad idea?) backround checks are not 100% accurate, felons will continue to get ammunition and regular people will be denied so that you can sleep a little better knowing a felon will be 10% less likely to be able to throw a round at you and maybe cause a bruise.

This idea means that everybody who sells ammunition(a lot more places than sell guns) would have to buy a setup to run the backround checks, every private individual who sold or traded ammunition would have to buy the same system, everyone who sold reloading equipment(privately or as a buisness) would have to buy the same system, everyone who sold reloading supplies(privately or as a buisness) would have to buy the system, everyone who sold lead weights(which can be melted down into bullets) would have to buy the system, and all these people would have to pay to run the backround checks on every potental customer, all to try and prevent a criminal from getting something that is harmless on it's own. Can you see a problem here?

Focus on keeping guns away from felons. Then bullets dont matter.

12voltguy
01-20-2011, 5:53 PM
I have NO problem with that.

The crime can ALSO be prevented at the source, when the purchase or transfer is attempted.

if that were true, felons wouldn't pass the background check to buy a gun, so no felons have guns, problem is solved.....they don't have guns to put the ammo in.;)

Librarian
01-20-2011, 6:12 PM
Its illegal for felons (and others, judged mentally incompetent... ect) to posses ammo. This means they shouldnt be able to walk up to the register and buy it.

Its a law already on the books, how should it be enforced?

By busting individuals violating the law when discovered by law enforcement like any other law. How else would it be enforced? Hard to shoot someone with just a box of ammo anyway. Plus if a felon were actually set on getting ammo they could start making their own.

Pretty much answered in the first reply.

PC is what should be familiar, 12316 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/4/2/2.5/s12316): (a)(1)Any person, corporation, or dealer who does either of the following shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not to exceed six months, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the imprisonment and fine:

(A)Sells any ammunition or reloaded ammunition to a person under 18 years of age.

(B)Sells any ammunition or reloaded ammunition designed and intended for use in a handgun to a person under 21 years of age. As used in this subparagraph, "ammunition" means handgun ammunition as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12323. Where ammunition or reloaded ammunition may be used in both a rifle and a handgun, it may be sold to a person who is at least 18 years of age, but less than 21 years of age, if the vendor reasonably believes that the ammunition is being acquired for use in a rifle and not a handgun.

(2)Proof that a person, corporation, or dealer, or his or her agent or employee, demanded, was shown, and acted in reasonable reliance upon, bona fide evidence of majority and identity shall be a defense to any criminal prosecution under this subdivision. As used in this subdivision, "bona fide evidence of majority and identity" means a document issued by a federal, state, county, or municipal government, or subdivision or agency thereof, including, but not limited to, a motor vehicle operator's license, California state identification card, identification card issued to a member of the armed forces, or other form of identification that bears the name, date of birth, description, and picture of the person.

(b)(1)No person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall own, possess, or have under his or her custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition.

(2)For purposes of this subdivision, "ammunition" shall include, but not be limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence.

(3)A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state prison, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

(c)Unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority, no person shall carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition onto school grounds, except sworn law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their duties or persons exempted under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 12027. This subdivision shall not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code. A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not to exceed six months, a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both the imprisonment and fine.

(d)(1)A violation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) is justifiable where all of the following conditions are met:

(A)The person found the ammunition or reloaded ammunition or took the ammunition or reloaded ammunition from a person who was committing a crime against him or her.

(B)The person possessed the ammunition or reloaded ammunition no longer than was necessary to deliver or transport the ammunition or reloaded ammunition to a law enforcement agency for that agency's disposition according to law.

(C)The person is prohibited from possessing any ammunition or reloaded ammunition solely because that person is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm only by virtue of Section 12021.

(2)Upon the trial for violating paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the trier of fact shall determine whether the defendant is subject to the exemption created by this subdivision.

(3)The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is subject to the exemption provided by this subdivision.
12316(1)(B) refers to the 'vague' definition also used by AB 962; until we see the injunction, I don't know whether that subsection still stands.

12317 was added by good ol' AB 962, and as it does not refer to the 'vague' handgun ammunition definition, probably is still in force: 12317. (a) Any person, corporation, or firm who supplies,
delivers, sells, or gives possession or control of, any ammunition to
any person who he or she knows or using reasonable care should know
is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under his or her
custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition pursuant to
paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 12316, is guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) The provisions of this section are cumulative and shall not be
construed as restricting the application of any other law. However,
an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and
another provision of law shall not be punished under more than one
provision.
(c) For purposes of this section, "ammunition" shall include, but
not be limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed
loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a
firearm with deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include
blanks.
Ammunition sellers should use good judgement and not sell to folks who seem hinky. Other than that, let the prohibited folks be caught with forbidden items and punish as appropriate.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 6:30 PM
Ammunition sellers should use good judgement and not sell to folks who seem hinky. Other than that, let the prohibited folks be caught with forbidden items and punish as appropriate.


why use "good judgement" when there is a way to be sure? Seems silly.

should the same logic apply to firearms purchase? Only check if the purchaser seems "hinky"?

on a different note....
so they shouldnt even check age? Even though:

(A)Sells any ammunition or reloaded ammunition to a person under 18 years of age.


and does checking someone's age violate the 2A?

Don29palms
01-20-2011, 6:52 PM
To the OP You can't really be that stupid.

Sniper3142
01-20-2011, 7:00 PM
why use "good judgement" when there is a way to be sure? ?

What way?

- Require some kind of license for everyone wanting to purchase ammo?
- Require anyone who sells ammo complete an NCIS check on all potential buyers?
- Create ANOTHER state or national system that would be used to check for felons/5150 status?

ALL of those methods would do a couple of things...

- Put an undue financial burden on those buying & selling ammo.
- Further infringe on the 2A.
- Probably not prevent ONE SINGLE CRIMINAL USE of a firearm by a felon or mentally unstable person.


You just don't get it.

Possession of a firearm is ILLEGAL for felons/gang members... yet they STILL GET THEM.
Possession of several drugs (Heron, Crack, Cocaine) is ILLEGAL for ALMOST EVERYONE... yet they STILL GET THEM.

There are certain things that CAN NOT be controlled without either destroying the Constitution or turning this country into a Police State.

That is the price of FREEDOM.

neal0124
01-20-2011, 7:05 PM
I ask pertinent questions... which you dont seem to want to answer.

as for my RKBA status... I'm a lifetime NRA member. I have CCW's in every state. I participate in range clean ups.

before you TRY to impune the person asking the question, why not answer it.

It seems like you don't want to accept anyone's answers.

How do you propose we weed out the felon's at the register? Another $25 dros for ammo purchases? If felons are caught with ammo they should be charged. There is a banned person at my work. He had guns in his house. Police were called because of a loud party. Police searched his house (on parole). They found guns, he got locked back up for 9-12 months. This dude was a felon and he had acquired a few weapons with very little difficulty. How difficult do you think it would be for him to get ammo if he needed to have a background check? Not very.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 7:06 PM
The OP seems to be under the impression a criminal will circumvent the felon in possession laws regarding firearms but will be completely stymied when confronted with ammo background checks.

Librarian
01-20-2011, 7:15 PM
(1) why use "good judgement" when there is a way to be sure? Seems silly.

should the same logic apply to firearms purchase? Only check if the purchaser seems "hinky"?

(2) and does checking someone's age violate the 2A?

(1) because I am personally convinced that most mala prohibitum laws are questionable. In this case, a 'prohibited person' possessing ammunition is no threat to public safety until he/she actually commits a crime. Any cost incurred to enforce a m-p law should be balanced by the expected value; in my opinion, the expected value is very small.

(2) No. I think the difference between 18 and 21 has been blurred quite a bit as to 'adulthood' and the limitations on 18 should be revisited, but so long as an arbitrary age is in use to mark adulthood, it does not violate 2nd Amendment or any other law to limit the freedoms of what society considers 'children'.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 7:27 PM
if that were true, felons wouldn't pass the background check to buy a gun, so no felons have guns, problem is solved.....they don't have guns to put the ammo in.;)


no...you take huge jump in "logic"..... a felon goes to buy a gun and doesnt pass the background check, that means he does buy that gun.

That doesnt mean he cant get one illegally by other means. But it does prevent the crime at the point of sale.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 7:32 PM
(1) because I am personally convinced that most mala prohibitum laws are questionable. In this case, a 'prohibited person' possessing ammunition is no threat to public safety until he/she actually commits a crime. Any cost incurred to enforce a m-p law should be balanced by the expected value; in my opinion, the expected value is very small.
thats great. that means you are for changing the law that is on the books. That is another discussion. We are discussing how to enforce the law currently on the books.


(2) No. I think the difference between 18 and 21 has been blurred quite a bit as to 'adulthood' and the limitations on 18 should be revisited, but so long as an arbitrary age is in use to mark adulthood, it does not violate 2nd Amendment or any other law to limit the freedoms of what society considers 'children'.

So asking someone below a "certain" age (be it 18 or 21) to prove their age in order to purchase doesnt violate the 2A of those above that age... but asking someone prove their not under some other restriction does violate the 2A?

Sniper3142
01-20-2011, 7:35 PM
no...you take huge jump in "logic"..... a felon goes to buy a gun and doesnt pass the background check, that means he does buy that gun.

That doesnt mean he cant get one illegally by other means. But it does prevent the crime at the point of sale.

REALLY?!?

So you think a felon who gets a Firearm ILLEGALLY will somehow be hampered when it comes to the AMMO?!?!

:(

Do you think he might pick up a box or 2 of ammo ALONG with his/her illegal firearm purchase?!?!?

Choptop
01-20-2011, 7:37 PM
The OP seems to be under the impression a criminal will circumvent the felon in possession laws regarding firearms but will be completely stymied when confronted with ammo background checks.

Not at all.

I have not insinuated in any way the ability of a felon to acquire firearms but yet to be stymied by ammo background checks. Please post what has lead you to this conclusion using anything I have posted that supports that conclusion.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 7:38 PM
REALLY?!?

So you think a felon who gets a Firearm ILLEGALLY will somehow be hampered when it comes to the AMMO?!?!


no.

what leads you to THAT conclusion?

Choptop
01-20-2011, 7:40 PM
Do you think he might pick up a box or 2 of ammo ALONG with his/her illegal firearm purchase?!?!?

yep, he might. But if you enforce the law on the books at the point of purchase he cant buy it LEGALLY.


you throw up a weak straw man...ala "people will commit murder anyway, so why make it illegal?"

Librarian
01-20-2011, 7:44 PM
thats great. that means you are for changing the law that is on the books. That is another discussion. We are discussing how to enforce the law currently on the books.
You misinterpret what I wrote. Enforcement of the ammunition possession law belongs after arrest of a prohibited person who may, after arrest for some other crime, be found in violation of that law. There is a very poor cost/benefit expectation to enforce in any other way.

So asking someone below a "certain" age (be it 18 or 21) to prove their age in order to purchase doesnt violate the 2A of those above that age... but asking someone prove their not under some other restriction does violate the 2A?

"Children" are socially restricted from adult behavior, rights and privileges. That government chooses to embody custom in law does not change that condition.

IMO the cost of checking every ammo buyer by background check, to verify non-prohibited status, is too high for the expected benefit.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 8:06 PM
Not at all.

I have not insinuated in any way the ability of a felon to acquire firearms but yet to be stymied by ammo background checks. Please post what has lead you to this conclusion using anything I have posted that supports that conclusion.

Because your posts imply that a law requiring a background check would stop some number of unlawful possessions of a functional firearm by a a felon.

bsim
01-20-2011, 8:14 PM
Murder is illegal.

But people still get murdered.

How do we stop murder?

Make another law?

Jaxpire
01-20-2011, 8:20 PM
Can you imagine the fees with a background check on all ammo transactions. Go in buy a few boxes for $10 walk out after paying $40, what a good deal.

Or even the store clerk saying, sorry you can't defend your family tonight the DOJ computers are down. Try back tomorrow.

hawkeye
01-20-2011, 8:20 PM
How about this?

We finger & thumbprint, we take there picture, we register the ammunition to their address, we take their cellphone number, we force a 25$ background check, we make them swear on the bible, we limit 50rds per transaction, and we make the customer pinky swear to the employee that he has no ill intentions... then force mandatory inspections on registered houses... That would work for you, right?

Big Brother much???

bsim
01-20-2011, 8:27 PM
OR, how about the old "Dear Mr. Felon, we don't think you will abide by the laws we have on the books already, so NO, you can't get out of prison".

Unfortunately you can write Law #1 (which people may or may not break), then make Law #2 to keep idiot #X from breaking Law #1.

12voltguy
01-20-2011, 8:43 PM
Not at all.

I have not insinuated in any way the ability of a felon to acquire firearms but yet to be stymied by ammo background checks. Please post what has lead you to this conclusion using anything I have posted that supports that conclusion.

:no::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Mssr. Eleganté
01-20-2011, 8:49 PM
There is absolutely no reason to make it harder for prohibited people to acquire ammunition.

If they have already illegally acquired a firearm then we can assume they will have no problem illegally acquiring ammunition.

If they are unable to illegally acquire a firearm then ammunition will be useless to them, so who cares if they acquire it.

It would be like requiring people to be 21 to buy a bottle opener to cut down on teenage drinking. If kids are crafty enough to acquire illegal beer they will be just as crafty at acquiring illegal bottle openers. The inconvenience to law abiding people and the cost to administer the system do not have any benefits. Or the benefits are so infinitesimally small that they don't justify the inconvenience and cost. Take the money that it would cost to set up a point of purchase background check system for ammo sales and use it to hire more cops/prosecutors or increase prison capacity to hold felons longer and you will see actual benefits to public safety.

tyrist
01-20-2011, 9:13 PM
I wouldnt see why it would be illegal, the gun to shoot it is illegal for them to possess, and ammo without a gun just makes for interesting paperweights, and if they have a gun to shoot it with just charge them for that.

I cant realy see a felon holding up a 7-11 with just a box of ammo, actualy now I can, and it's a very funny mental image.

Guess you don't realize many of these guys know how to make zip guns.

bsim
01-20-2011, 9:20 PM
And that zip gun is illegal already too.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 9:49 PM
Because your posts imply that a law requiring a background check would stop some number of unlawful possessions of a functional firearm by a a felon.

no it does not. this discussion is about ammo.

but since you mentioned it... requiring a background check stops the LEGAL acquisition of a firearm by a felon at the retail counter.

the logic of "well they are going to get one anyway so we might as well just sell them anyway" is soooooo flawed its not even funny.

Don29palms
01-20-2011, 9:58 PM
All the gun control laws they have already don't do any good so why do you think more would?

dantodd
01-20-2011, 10:01 PM
the logic of "well they are going to get one anyway so we might as well just sell them anyway" is soooooo flawed its not even funny.

now look who is putting words into someone else's mouth. I never said it should be legal for felons to buy ammo.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 10:03 PM
Here is the point of this excersize...

we as 2A advocates love to tout the "no new laws, just ENFORCE the ones on the books" line.

but when faced with the reality of it, many balk.

Selling ammo to felons is a prime example. AB962 was struck down on the basis of vague terms. The intent, despite some claims, was to keep ammo out of the hands of felons, it was VERY flawed on this on many fronts. But it will be back. The question that comes up is... are we really serious about the "no new laws, just ENFORCE the ones on the books" line? or are do you fall into the "no restrictions at allllll maaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!" crowd? And which one will best serve the 2A cause?

Our society has determined that there are some that should not be able to legally buy or posses firearms or ammo. The argument of "they will get them anyway so we should have NO restrictions" doesnt hold an ounce of water. Never has, never will. If our legal system worked on this basis we would have ZERO laws. So taking this into consideration we must ask ourselves how to implement the laws we have.

Some might see the restriction on ammo sales as not needed with the restriction on firearms sales to the same restricted class. No fault there. This can successfully be argued, but not using the "logic" stated in the paragraph above.

But this isnt what we are facing. AB962 will be back. We have already determined that certain classes forfeit their 2A rights (whether or not that is "right" is a different discussion, we are dealing with what is operating on the ground now). Its up to you to ask yourself if restricting ammo sales to certain classes is an infringement of YOUR 2A rights and if you REALLY are for enforcing the laws currently on the books.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 10:04 PM
All the gun control laws they have already don't do any good so why do you think more would?


no talking about more, talking about enforcing one thats on the books.

and the laws do work. Felons cant legally buy firearms. doesnt mean that felons cant illegally buy firearms though.

again... this "logic" is so flawed its not funny. If you follow this "logic" there would be no laws at all, because someone somewhere is going to break one, so why have it?

dantodd
01-20-2011, 10:04 PM
uh.... what part of AB962 being a new law is lost on you?

Choptop
01-20-2011, 10:12 PM
uh.... what part of AB962 being a new law is lost on you?

none.

It sought to enforce a current one that had no enforcement at a certain point in the chain.

it was poorly worded and missed the mark, but that was the intent. It will be back.

Jaxpire
01-20-2011, 10:37 PM
Its up to you to ask yourself if restricting ammo sales to certain classes is an infringement of YOUR 2A rights and if you REALLY are for enforcing the laws currently on the books.

I think I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure if you are playing devil's advocate.

The problem with background checks is there will be a fee. Every time a fee is added the American people lose the ability to exercise that right freely.

I know, the 2nd isn't with out it's own restrictions, but every time a law gets past it always affects the the people that the bill of rights protects. I think thats what people really want is laws that do not affect the rights of the people. I guess that is just to much to ask from our law makers.

Don29palms
01-20-2011, 10:50 PM
How do you stop people from killing someone? How do you keep someone from buying drugs? How do you keep someone from using a hooker? How do you keep someone from robbing someone? How do you keep anyone from commiting any crime? The answer is you can't but when they are caught they need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without some BS plea bargaining or early release for good behavior.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 10:55 PM
I think I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure if you are playing devil's advocate.

The problem with background checks is there will be a fee. Every time a fee is added the American people lose the ability to exercise that right freely.

and here is the problem... why is there a fee?

does the DOJ charge? the seller? is it instantaneous? or does it take time?

if its a simple matter of accessing the DOJ database and coming back with a "go" or "no go".. why is there a fee?

I know, the 2nd isn't with out it's own restrictions, but every time a law gets past it always affects the the people that the bill of rights protects. I think thats what people really want is laws that do not affect the rights of the people. I guess that is just to much to ask from our law makers.

indeed.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 10:56 PM
none.

It sought to enforce a current one that had no enforcement at a certain point in the chain.

it was poorly worded and missed the mark, but that was the intent. It will be back.

How can you claim that ab962 and the thumb printing (which didn't include any sort of background check) is NOT a new law. There is some point in playing the devil's advocate but you can't be disingenuous when doing so.

Librarian
01-20-2011, 10:57 PM
Choptop is correct that PC 12316 pre-dated AB 962, and the Federal 18 USC 922 (g) (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922) has been around probably since 1968 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable
by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
been committed to a mental institution;

etc, etc

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess
in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive
any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce.


That said, why concentrate on CA when US Code also covers much the same ground? Federal law also restricts 'prohibited persons' from acquiring firearms, and the Feds, with the Brady Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act) of 1993, began the background check for firearms transfers.

Why did they leave off the check for ammunition?

Public policy implemented by increased regulation must also include costs, both direct costs to the government to implement the regulations, and costs to the citizens as 'consumers'.

Before one suggests further implementation of law - disregarding for the moment that unenforced law does not make a lot of sense - it is important to decide how big the 'problem' is, before one can evaluate an appropriate expenditure to address the 'problem'.

For this one, we need to know

how many people were arrested for the ammunition provision of 18 USC 922(g) (and/or PC 12316(b))?
how many people were convicted for the ammunition provision of 18 USC 922(g) (and/or PC 12316(b))?
of the people arrested for that crime were arrested for ONLY that crime - that is, how many were not discovered because of other bad behavior?

What would be the cost to run background checks on every ammunition purchase? What number of criminal prosecutions would justify that cost? How much 'safer' would our society be if this law were more enforced? What increased risk would we incur if we just repealed those provisions?

What other law enforcement efforts are competing for those same, limited financial and other resources, and what are their benefits?

I can't even find US stats on 18 USC 922 (g) ammunition arrests/prosecutions. I think that may indicate the 'problem' is not very 'big'. California might be different, but tonight what seems to be the correct web page (http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/statisticsdatatabs/table_22.php) is not loading.

I think cost/benefit says don't change current enforcement behavior.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 11:06 PM
I think cost/benefit says don't change current enforcement behavior.

possibly... and the first valid argument put forth on the topic. But the topic of discussion is that there has been an attempt to change the enforcement behavior. It failed for reasons other than your argument. It will be back. I dont know the answers to the stats questions you posed, but someone working on the new version of this bill will. And even if they are low, the cost benefit to changing the enforcement behavior will be touted.

so why should a background check cost anything? Is it just an entry into a database front end and then wait seconds for the result to pop up on the screen? How long does it take? If one is accessing government (public) data, why is there any cost at all?

Jaxpire
01-20-2011, 11:08 PM
and here is the problem... why is there a fee?

does the DOJ charge? the seller? is it instantaneous? or does it take time?

if its a simple matter of accessing the DOJ database and coming back with a "go" or "no go".. why is there a fee?



indeed.

There is all ways a fee for something like a background check. You have servers, network connections, databases, the people that support each system. The load on the current systems would increase by a large amount for ammo background checks. I don't see how they could not put a fee on something like that.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 11:14 PM
There is all ways a fee for something like a background check. You have servers, network connections, databases, the people that support each system. The load on the current systems would increase by a large amount for ammo background checks. I don't see how they could not put a fee on something like that.

They could not put a fee on it because its the govs. duty to supply the data gathered from public records.

I understand what you are saying, lots of back infrastructure, and indeed every ammo purchase would increase the traffic by an order of magnitude.

Just seems to me that if there is the requirement to search the publicly funded database it shouldnt cost the public anything.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 11:16 PM
Choptop is correct that PC 12316 pre-dated AB 962, and the Federal

Yes, the prohibition predated AB962 but a "check," turning ammunition sellers into law enforcement did not. Further, AB962 didn't even do that either. It required ID and printing but no check to verify the purchaser isn't a prohibited person.



Public policy implemented by increased regulation must also include costs, both direct costs to the government to implement the regulations, and costs to the citizens as 'consumers'.

Before one suggests further implementation of law - disregarding for the moment that unenforced law does not make a lot of sense - it is important to decide how big the 'problem' is, before one can evaluate an appropriate expenditure to address the 'problem'.


In this case, you have to further factor in the chilling effect on the exercise of a fundamental right. How much of a chilling effect on the exercise of our 2A rights will this law have when it requires licenses and special training for all ammunition sellers?


For this one, we need to know

how many people were arrested for the ammunition provision of 18 USC 922(g) (and/or PC 12316(b))?
how many people were convicted for the ammunition provision of 18 USC 922(g) (and/or PC 12316(b))?
of the people arrested for that crime were arrested for ONLY that crime - that is, how many were not discovered because of other bad behavior?



In my limited experience such violations are generally completely ignored as the "bad guy" is typically going up for something much more serious.


What would be the cost to run background checks on every ammunition purchase? What number of criminal prosecutions would justify that cost? How much 'safer' would our society be if this law were more enforced? What increased risk would we incur if we just repealed those provisions?

Automated background checks are, financially, pretty cheap. I think on the order of $.25

dantodd
01-20-2011, 11:17 PM
They could not put a fee on it because its the govs. duty to supply the data gathered from public records.

I understand what you are saying, lots of back infrastructure, and indeed every ammo purchase would increase the traffic by an order of magnitude.

Just seems to me that if there is the requirement to search the publicly funded database it shouldnt cost the public anything.

ummmm.... like the $25 that we pay the state for firearms background checks?

Jaxpire
01-20-2011, 11:23 PM
Just seems to me that if there is the requirement to search the publicly funded database it shouldnt cost the public anything.

I think the current databases are funded partly by the fees from background checks. I am sure someone else would know more about that than me.

Librarian
01-20-2011, 11:31 PM
possibly... and the first valid argument put forth on the topic. But the topic of discussion is that there has been an attempt to change the enforcement behavior. It failed for reasons other than your argument. It will be back. I dont know the answers to the stats questions you posed, but someone working on the new version of this bill will. And even if they are low, the cost benefit to changing the enforcement behavior will be touted.


Naif that I am, it has always been a great disappointment to me that politics trumps efficacy when evaluating legislation.

IMO every bill ought to be accompanied by a detailed, honest exposition on "Why I'm sure this law will be effective, and how it's going to do that".

I'm still looking for that pony, too. :(

Choptop
01-20-2011, 11:39 PM
ummmm.... like the $25 that we pay the state for firearms background checks?

indeed. I dont understand that fee either.

trust me, i get that the databases dont maintain themselves, nor do the servers and such... but its public info, paid for by public funds and the access of which is required to complete a purchase.... that background check should be free to the end user. If you need to up the budget for the organization that maintains it, go for it (and hence we ALL have to pay for it through higher taxes, trust me, I get that part too). But there should be no charge to the end user/purchaser.

at least in my world :D

robcoe
01-21-2011, 7:02 AM
Guess you don't realize many of these guys know how to make zip guns.

Which are already illegal, and many designs dont require normal rounds(they are similar to old muzzle loading guns)

I still say just do what we do now, if you catch a felon with ammo toss them in prison, we dont need a whole new layer of expensive background checks to try and prevent felons from getting ammunition. The tiny risk associated with a felon acquiring ammunition is not worth the major costs and hassles associated with running background checks on every single ammunition transfer.

tyrist
01-21-2011, 7:12 AM
Which are already illegal, and many designs dont require normal rounds(they are similar to old muzzle loading guns)

I still say just do what we do now, if you catch a felon with ammo toss them in prison, we dont need a whole new layer of expensive background checks to try and prevent felons from getting ammunition. The tiny risk associated with a felon acquiring ammunition is not worth the major costs and hassles associated with running background checks on every single ammunition transfer.

I was not advocating the check I was just merely stating why making it illegal for them to possess is still a good thing.

Sometimes the suspect also flees and manages to dispose of the firearm; but you will find a magazine or ammo on him which gives you something good to book them on besides resisting.

robcoe
01-21-2011, 7:24 AM
I was not advocating the check I was just merely stating why making it illegal for them to possess is still a good thing.

Sometimes the suspect also flees and manages to dispose of the firearm; but you will find a magazine or ammo on him which gives you something good to book them on besides resisting.

At the time I made the post you quoted I had misread the OP's post as something more along the lines of "should it be illegal and what should we do to enforce it", basically I made a mistake in the beginning. Since it's illegal they should be thrown in jail for it(as I said in later posts), I just dont agree with the OP that everyone who buys ammunition needs to submit their ID, SSN, thumbprint, blood sample, 3 notarized statements from law enforcement officers attesting to their mental health and get a background check to buy a box of pinking ammo, the benefits of actively trying to prevent a felon from getting ammunition are far outweighed by the costs involved. Guns I can see since there is a greater risk there and they are not sold nearly as often, but ammo is bought and sold so much more often, in so many more places that it is completely impractical to try and register and check every purchase.

cmichini
01-21-2011, 7:31 AM
Here is the point of this excersize...

we as 2A advocates love to tout the "no new laws, just ENFORCE the ones on the books" line.

but when faced with the reality of it, many balk.

Selling ammo to felons is a prime example. AB962 was struck down on the basis of vague terms. The intent, despite some claims, was to keep ammo out of the hands of felons, it was VERY flawed on this on many fronts. But it will be back. The question that comes up is... are we really serious about the "no new laws, just ENFORCE the ones on the books" line? or are do you fall into the "no restrictions at allllll maaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!" crowd? And which one will best serve the 2A cause?

Our society has determined that there are some that should not be able to legally buy or posses firearms or ammo. The argument of "they will get them anyway so we should have NO restrictions" doesnt hold an ounce of water. Never has, never will. If our legal system worked on this basis we would have ZERO laws. So taking this into consideration we must ask ourselves how to implement the laws we have.

Some might see the restriction on ammo sales as not needed with the restriction on firearms sales to the same restricted class. No fault there. This can successfully be argued, but not using the "logic" stated in the paragraph above.

But this isnt what we are facing. AB962 will be back. We have already determined that certain classes forfeit their 2A rights (whether or not that is "right" is a different discussion, we are dealing with what is operating on the ground now). Its up to you to ask yourself if restricting ammo sales to certain classes is an infringement of YOUR 2A rights and if you REALLY are for enforcing the laws currently on the books.

Can you articulate exactly how AB962, even if it had clearly defined handgun ammo, would stop a felon from buying ammo. I mean actually prevent.

Example: Assume that AB962 went into effect and it's after Feb 1, 2011.

Felon, or other prohibited person, goes to Walmart/Big 5/whatever to buy ammo. Selects a box of 9MM ammunition and goes to the counter. Cashier asks for ID and notes that purchaser is of legal age. Documents buyer's info in log book and gets thumbprint into book. Purchaser goes out of door and on his merry way. There is no meat to this law other than to log the sale to both unprohibited (infringement) and prohibited (no discernible ability to prevent purchase). The result is that the law does not serve its stated purpose and is therefore a useless waste of legislative resources, a waste or retailer's resources, and a blatant infringement on 2A to law abiding citizens.

Again, can you articulate exactly how that law was expected to keep ammo from the hands of this felon?

Finally, laws are established PUNISH criminal behavior (tha which is deemed bad by society such as assault, rape, murder, etc). Laws don't prevent/deter crimes. It's the threat of the punishment from breaking the laws that are meant to prevent/deter crimes when taken in conjunction with the moral compass that has been instilled in the individual during socialization (child-rearing).

Explain exactly how laws to PREVENT crimes actually work in this context when you take into account criminals are, by definition, those that willingly and knowingly break the laws that exist. Answer, the laws will NOT prevent crime.

cmichini
01-21-2011, 7:34 AM
They could not put a fee on it because its the govs. duty to supply the data gathered from public records.

I understand what you are saying, lots of back infrastructure, and indeed every ammo purchase would increase the traffic by an order of magnitude.

Just seems to me that if there is the requirement to search the publicly funded database it shouldnt cost the public anything.

Publicly funded database that doesn't cost the public anything.

At the beginning of the sentence the public is funding the database and at the end it doesn't cost the public anything. Some sort of magical funding mechanism?

A little clarity on this would be terrific.

sonnyt650
01-21-2011, 7:54 AM
so why should a background check cost anything? Is it just an entry into a database front end and then wait seconds for the result to pop up on the screen? How long does it take? If one is accessing government (public) data, why is there any cost at all?

As someone in the IT trenches myself, that's the solution often touted by folks that don't know jack about IT and databases. Not directing this at you -- rather here's our "ammunition" against that:

* Nothing exists now, so somebody needs to build up a system. I wouldn't want a system that knows so much about me to be built up in India for the lowest price. Somebody needs to go over the source with a fine-toothed comb because back doors can be added to just about anything.

* Information security needs to be built into it -- don't want just anybody to know that I visited a store at such and such time. Sounds just like the Twitter issue of nobody being home and so an address is ripe for burglary. On top of that some generality-loving nutsack (think of the chiiildren!) with an anti- agenda specifying the requirements... :eek:

* Physical computers must be maintained where drives, fans, etc fail regularly. If software gets corrupted somebody trustworthy needs to bring it back up. Not just anybody can load up a database from backup without causing other problems, and anybody pulled in for week-long contract work is not cheap.

* Any clerks selling ammunition need to be trained in the new system where few applications of value are an iPod app. For example it can't be browser-based because in fact there are "drive-by" virusses out there taking over peoples' browsers. Shop owners need to be reimbursed for providing those computers as well as the network infrastructure.

In summary there are significant roadblocks to pushing any application out to such a large audience of users. Somebody has to pay something at some point, and I'd rather not burden California's government (we residents pay for that) any more for some anti- wet dream.

If there is a cost savings from preventing known felons and gangbangers from purchasing ammunition, the numbers had better be significant because IT is a hefty investment. Like adding hydrogen filling stations out in the Mojave desert, it's doubtful that such a requirement would provide much economic benefit to all California communities.

12voltguy
01-21-2011, 8:04 AM
ummmm.... like the $25 that we pay the state for firearms background checks?

Can you articulate exactly how AB962, even if it had clearly defined handgun ammo, would stop a felon from buying ammo. I mean actually prevent.

Example: Assume that AB962 went into effect and it's after Feb 1, 2011.

Felon, or other prohibited person, goes to Walmart/Big 5/whatever to buy ammo. Selects a box of 9MM ammunition and goes to the counter. Cashier asks for ID and notes that purchaser is of legal age. Documents buyer's info in log book and gets thumbprint into book. Purchaser goes out of door and on his merry way. There is no meat to this law other than to log the sale to both unprohibited (infringement) and prohibited (no discernible ability to prevent purchase). The result is that the law does not serve its stated purpose and is therefore a useless waste of legislative resources, a waste or retailer's resources, and a blatant infringement on 2A to law abiding citizens.

Again, can you articulate exactly how that law was expected to keep ammo from the hands of this felon?

Finally, laws are established PUNISH criminal behavior (tha which is deemed bad by society such as assault, rape, murder, etc). Laws don't prevent/deter crimes. It's the threat of the punishment from breaking the laws that are meant to prevent/deter crimes when taken in conjunction with the moral compass that has been instilled in the individual during socialization (child-rearing).

Explain exactly how laws to PREVENT crimes actually work in this context when you take into account criminals are, by definition, those that willingly and knowingly break the laws that exist. Answer, the laws will NOT prevent crime.

can't argue with that
stops nothing, guy goes out & kills with ammo, but at least we can get him on ammo now!.....:rolleyes:..AB962 works:)

ivsamhell
01-21-2011, 8:20 AM
no...you take huge jump in "logic"..... a felon goes to buy a gun and doesnt pass the background check, that means he does buy that gun.

That doesnt mean he cant get one illegally by other means. But it does prevent the crime at the point of sale.

Tucson shows that this would not stop the crime at the point of sale. Loughner was denied military service for failing a drug test. Had this been communicated to the ATF he would have failed the background check (and not bought his glock at sportsmans warehouse). So if there was a functional system, he would have been denied, but if the government can't handle the laws on book how will they handle new ones?

ivsamhell
01-21-2011, 8:22 AM
indeed. I dont understand that fee either.

trust me, i get that the databases dont maintain themselves, nor do the servers and such... but its public info, paid for by public funds and the access of which is required to complete a purchase.... that background check should be free to the end user. If you need to up the budget for the organization that maintains it, go for it (and hence we ALL have to pay for it through higher taxes, trust me, I get that part too). But there should be no charge to the end user/purchaser.

at least in my world :D

So you want to force the public to pay for those who wish to buy ammunition legally?

12voltguy
01-21-2011, 8:56 AM
Tucson shows that this would not stop the crime at the point of sale. Loughner was denied military service for failing a drug test. Had this been communicated to the ATF he would have failed the background check (and not bought his glock at sportsmans warehouse). So if there was a functional system, he would have been denied, but if the government can't handle the laws on book how will they handle new ones?

I read he admited drug use, there was no test so nothing to report, but some want to report hersay
& deney his 2nd rights based on that.........in another thread:shock:

Jaxpire
01-21-2011, 8:58 AM
* Physical computers must be maintained where drives, fans, etc fail regularly.

There is a good point to this sentence alone. There are natural and man made disasters that can cause failure to infrastructure enough to take a database offline. Can a right of the people be limited on a database’s availability? I am not versed in constitutional law to know this. I would like to think no, but when it comes to law things start to get screwy.

ilikeguns
01-21-2011, 8:59 AM
Ding ding ding, I think we have a winner.

Next task: go through all of OP's posts.

I'm sure we'll find the OP is an "interesting" proponent of the RKBA :rolleyes:

Already looked at his posts. I'm raising ? marks and 1 eyebrow...

ilikeguns
01-21-2011, 9:21 AM
Already looked at his posts. I'm raising ? marks and 1 eyebrow...

Nevermind. I finished reading this thread, and take it back. If your a lifetime nra member and only looking to play the devil's advocate in this matter, then I apologize for my post.

In a perfect world, the background check would cost nothing, and non-violent felons could own firearms (like a mother who stole food twice to feed children= felony. Thats bs but its law).

Choptop
01-21-2011, 9:27 AM
Can you articulate exactly how AB962, even if it had clearly defined handgun ammo, would stop a felon from buying ammo. I mean actually prevent.


like I said... it didnt. It was flawed. But that was the intent. It will be back.

if it had a requirement for a background check in it, and it you fail the bg check, then it would prevent felons from legally buying ammo. Note, I didnt say it would prevent every felon (et al) from being able to get ammo in every way possible, I said it would prevent felons from legally buying ammo.

Choptop
01-21-2011, 9:32 AM
* Nothing exists now, so somebody needs to build up a system.

it does.

background checks are run every day.

Choptop
01-21-2011, 9:34 AM
indeed. I dont understand that fee either.

trust me, i get that the databases dont maintain themselves, nor do the servers and such... but its public info, paid for by public funds and the access of which is required to complete a purchase.... that background check should be free to the end user. If you need to up the budget for the organization that maintains it, go for it (and hence we ALL have to pay for it through higher taxes, trust me, I get that part too). But there should be no charge to the end user/purchaser.

at least in my world :D

Publicly funded database that doesn't cost the public anything.

At the beginning of the sentence the public is funding the database and at the end it doesn't cost the public anything. Some sort of magical funding mechanism?

A little clarity on this would be terrific.

where did I say it wouldnt cost the public anything?

in fact I've said just the opposite.

sorry.... the end of the post that you quoted should have said "that doesnt cost the BUYER anything".

Choptop
01-21-2011, 9:38 AM
Tucson shows that this would not stop the crime at the point of sale. Loughner was denied military service for failing a drug test. Had this been communicated to the ATF he would have failed the background check (and not bought his glock at sportsmans warehouse). So if there was a functional system, he would have been denied, but if the government can't handle the laws on book how will they handle new ones?

no it does not show that it wouldnt stop anything.

if he were felon, or had been dishonorably discharged or had been found by a court to be otherwise restricted from owning a firearms that would have shown up in a BG check. None of those things were true.

sonnyt650
01-21-2011, 10:09 AM
it does.

background checks are run every day.

If you're talking about the DROS, I've had to fill out forms requiring five minutes or so of my time and maybe a half hour of the clerk's. Sometime after it's entered and before I return ten or more days later, the data is returned allowing the transaction to proceed. Unless the criminal records are stored and retrieved via Google's infrastructure, it's not as instantaneous and pain free as your short response makes it sound. Storing and accessing the criminal records for everybody across the country (something like 1 percent of the population is in jail right now) is no small feat to be performed on a whim.

cmichini
01-21-2011, 11:51 AM
like I said... it didnt. It was flawed. But that was the intent. It will be back.

if it had a requirement for a background check in it, and it you fail the bg check, then it would prevent felons from legally buying ammo. Note, I didnt say it would prevent every felon (et al) from being able to get ammo in every way possible, I said it would prevent felons from legally buying ammo.

So change the scenario and the felon uses a fake ID, stolen and modified ID or some other ID that conceals the fact that he's a felon. He's still going to get ammo and the net result is an unconstitutional infringement on law abiding citizens while not preventing any crimes whatsoever, rather it just creates an additional layer of crime so now the felon illegally in possession of ammo acquired it illegally. There is no incremental illegality of the ammo. He's not legally able to have it whether he bought it or if he stole it or if he traded it for dope, or if he wa given it....

Finally, what would you say the purpose of laws are?
PREVENT criminal activity or PUNISH criminal activity?

Jack L
01-21-2011, 11:58 AM
If we had a state license like a CA drivers license card, we get after being fully checked out like for a CCW, sure, we could buy all the ammo and guns a lot faster without the possible future thumbprint laws and other BS.

But that would not do anything at all to stop criminals from getting ammo and guns.

City oriented politicians are just plain ignorant of what works and does not work. Either that or they like to fake out their constituents into thinking they are Johnny On The Spot to keep their jobs. In any case, crime goes on and the gun laws are largely a waste regarding stopping crime. They should put more energy in mental health issues than ammo issues.

Choptop
01-21-2011, 12:27 PM
So change the scenario and the felon uses a fake ID, stolen and modified ID or some other ID that conceals the fact that he's a felon. He's still going to get ammo and the net result is an unconstitutional infringement on law abiding citizens while not preventing any crimes whatsoever, rather it just creates an additional layer of crime so now the felon illegally in possession of ammo acquired it illegally. There is no incremental illegality of the ammo. He's not legally able to have it whether he bought it or if he stole it or if he traded it for dope, or if he wa given it....

Finally, what would you say the purpose of laws are?
PREVENT criminal activity or PUNISH criminal activity?

look, you can cook up any scenario you like...

Like I have said MANY times over (and no one here seems to be able to understand)... if you based the legal system on "well, someone is going to find an illegal way to do it anyway, so why have a law against it?"... WE WOULD HAVE ZERO LAWS. It is NOT a valid argument. How hard is that to understand?

If you enforce the law that felons cannot LEGALLY purchase firearms (which is enforced) or ammo (which is not enforced) then felons cannot LEGALLY buy firearms or ammo.

NOT enforcing either = making essentially legal

By enforcing the law (felons cant buy ammo) you ARE preventing the crime at the point of purchase. In this case it could PREVENT the crime at the point of purchase.

Again, that doesnt mean that the crime wont be committed someplace else through some other means. Thats not the point.

Choptop
01-21-2011, 12:29 PM
If you're talking about the DROS, I've had to fill out forms requiring five minutes or so of my time and maybe a half hour of the clerk's. Sometime after it's entered and before I return ten or more days later, the data is returned allowing the transaction to proceed. Unless the criminal records are stored and retrieved via Google's infrastructure, it's not as instantaneous and pain free as your short response makes it sound. Storing and accessing the criminal records for everybody across the country (something like 1 percent of the population is in jail right now) is no small feat to be performed on a whim.

there are MASSIVE databases that return results in seconds.

how long does it take for the DROS system to return a result once the request is in?

Does anyone know?

robcoe
01-21-2011, 12:49 PM
look, you can cook up any scenario you like...

Like I have said MANY times over (and no one here seems to be able to understand)... if you based the legal system on "well, someone is going to find an illegal way to do it anyway, so why have a law against it?"... WE WOULD HAVE ZERO LAWS. It is NOT a valid argument. How hard is that to understand?

If you enforce the law that felons cannot LEGALLY purchase firearms (which is enforced) or ammo (which is not enforced) then felons cannot LEGALLY buy firearms or ammo.

NOT enforcing either = making essentially legal

By enforcing the law (felons cant buy ammo) you ARE preventing the crime at the point of purchase. In this case it could PREVENT the crime at the point of purchase.

Again, that doesnt mean that the crime wont be committed someplace else through some other means. Thats not the point.

Enforcing the law saying that a felon cannot possess ammunition does not require a background check on everyone buying ammunition. It only requires that when a felon is caught with ammunition, you charge them for possession. Same as enforcing the law against speeding does not require the installation of a GPS controlled governor in every car to prevent them from exceeding the speed limit. If a cop catches you speeding you get a ticket, that is enforcement.

What you are asking for is an expensive extension of the DROS system.

Lets make a few assumptions for a moment.

Paperwork for the background check and the check itself will take 10 minutes total(I think longer, but we will go with 10 for now)

A busy store sell 10000 boxes of ammo per year(with a 300 day work year for the store, 8 hours open that's about 1 box every 15 minutes)

The average purchase is 2 boxes of ammunition.

The person dealing with the paperwork is paid California minimum wage($8 per hour if I remember right)

so 10 minutes x 5000 transactions is 50,000 minutes spent on paperwork and background checks per year or 833.3 hours per year.

at $8 per hour that is $6666.40 of work that must be spent by the store in order to implement background checks for every ammunition purchase. This is before the costs of running the checks themselves and buying the computers, software and networking capabilities in order to have the checks automated and training employees to run them. Are you comfortable with charging businesses around $7000 a year to add a what is merely a second, and arguably ineffective, layer of enforcement to the ban on felons possessing ammunition?

Choptop
01-21-2011, 1:02 PM
Enforcing the law saying that a felon cannot possess ammunition does not require a background check on everyone buying ammunition.

if you wish to stop the crime from being committed at the point of purchase it does.


It only requires that when a felon is caught with ammunition, you charge them for possession.

if you want to allow the crime to be committed in the first place and then catch up with the criminal later this is a great way to do it.

what I am telling you is that AB962 will be back and this is the form it will take. It will seek to stop the crime from being committed at the point of purchase.

Choptop
01-21-2011, 1:04 PM
What you are asking for is an expensive extension of the DROS system.

Lets make a few assumptions for a moment.

Paperwork for the background check and the check itself will take 10 minutes total(I think longer, but we will go with 10 for now)



what paperwork is needed for police to check your record?

they seem to be able to pull up your record without you filling out any paperwork and it seems to be pretty speedy. They can do it from their cars.

anyone have info on how long a records search takes for an LEO in the field?

robcoe
01-21-2011, 1:19 PM
if you want to allow the crime to be committed in the first place and then catch up with the criminal later this is a great way to do it.


That's the job of law enforcement, we dont have a department of pre-crime here in the US. You commit a crime, you get caught, you go to jail. It is not everyone else's job to keep you from doing something stupid.

Making the 99% of the population that is not a felon jump through hoops in order to have an off chance of preventing a crime that on its own is not particularly dangerous, from occurring is flat ridiculous.

what I am telling you is that AB962 will be back and this is the form it will take. It will seek to stop the crime from being committed at the point of purchase

And I feel it will likely fail, as the extension of AB962(AB2358 I think) did last time.

what paperwork is needed for police to check your record?

they seem to be able to pull up your record without you filling out any paperwork and it seems to be pretty speedy. They can do it from their cars.

anyone have info on how long a records search takes for an LEO in the field?

1. That system is not free(the point I was making before), equipment, training, software, and networking all cost money.

2. That is not the system used to check if your are eligible to own a firearm.

3. Police are not checking your record, the store is, unless your saying every store that sells ammunition must have a police officer stationed at it to run checks on people.

And of course all that is assuming you wanted to give a random minimum wage worker access to a database that would be an ID thiefs dream.

Choptop
01-21-2011, 1:40 PM
That's the job of law enforcement, we dont have a department of pre-crime here in the US. You commit a crime, you get caught, you go to jail. It is not everyone else's job to keep you from doing something stupid.

sigh... its not about 'pre-crime'... taking possession of the ammo at the sale IS the crime.

Choptop
01-21-2011, 1:45 PM
Making the 99% of the population that is not a felon jump through hoops in order to have an off chance of preventing a crime that on its own is not particularly dangerous, from occurring is flat ridiculous.



And I feel it will likely fail, as the extension of AB962(AB2358 I think) did last time.


it likely will not fail next time.

AB962 failed for many reasons. It will be back and it will address this point exactly.

the logic will run - proving you are not a felon to purchase ammo is no different than proving you are not a felon to purchase a gun, or proving you are over 21 to purchase alcohol. No one who can legal purchase either will be prevented from doing so and therefore no ones rights are infringed.

Choptop
01-21-2011, 1:49 PM
1. That system is not free(the point I was making before), equipment, training, software, and networking all cost money.

point taken. It will cost money.

2. That is not the system used to check if your are eligible to own a firearm..
but they spit out the same result. It could be used for any purpose and the technology is there.

3. Police are not checking your record, the store is, unless your saying every store that sells ammunition must have a police officer stationed at it to run checks on people.

why oh why do you take such silly jumps in "logic"? Where did I even remotely insinuate that police would be stationed at every store that sells ammo? *Facepalm* Really?
http://www.awesometoast.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tactical_facepalm.jpg

The point is, the police have a system that can check backgrounds quickly. The technology is there. It can be applied elsewhere.


And of course all that is assuming you wanted to give a random minimum wage worker access to a database that would be an ID thiefs dream.
we give minimum wage workers access to a database when you purchase a firearm.

sonnyt650
01-21-2011, 3:06 PM
we give minimum wage workers access to a database when you purchase a firearm.

Are they able to check on any random person, or is the license for the business on the line that it is used only to check for elegibility of firearms? No matter the intentions every little piece when taken out of context doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, but when put together this system is neither existing nor realistic.

thayne
01-21-2011, 4:13 PM
Maybe we should tattoo "FELON" on their forehead, then everyone will know and the clerk wont sell to them.

Librarian
01-21-2011, 5:47 PM
it likely will not fail next time.

AB962 failed for many reasons. It will be back and it will address this point exactly.

the logic will run - proving you are not a felon to purchase ammo is no different than proving you are not a felon to purchase a gun, or proving you are over 21 to purchase alcohol. No one who can legal purchase either will be prevented from doing so and therefore no ones rights are infringed.

I think the underlying assumption here is that such a bill with such a requirement will succeed.

How do we fix it so it doesn't succeed?

Do we have an Assemblyman who will stand up and ask "Why are we wasting time on this when California is effectively broke?"

"It's the economy, stupid!" needs to be the battle cry. If a bill doesn't raise significant revenue or cut significant costs - where 'significant' is measured in hundreds of millions of dollars - it should be tabled until our economic emergency is over.

bsim
01-21-2011, 6:33 PM
First ever "unsubscribe".

halifax
01-21-2011, 6:39 PM
Methinks he doth profess too much.

Welcome Kevin

jpigeon
01-21-2011, 8:04 PM
should go to jail for the rest of their life....

iBkickinit
01-21-2011, 10:23 PM
Wow. Everytime a felon buys a bullet, a kitten dies.....

We could triple our police budget, and put a cop on every corner. The outcome? greater inconvenience to the public as we would live in a police state, but hey, there would be a few less crimes!

It boils down to a balance. You already have to have a valid license to drive a vehicle, does that mean we should check your license status every time you get purchase a tank of gas?

Put a group of people in a room with a violent individual, and give that person a weapon, and make it known that they are the only person armed. What might happen? Now do the same thing, but give everyone a weapon, and make it known. Now how much less inclined would the violent individual be?

The key problem being faced is the saying that criminals will always have guns. Mandatory gun ownership would do more to prevent violent crime than an outright ban (no matter how you enforce it) on guns. This is not opinion, this is fact. Look at crime statistics in DC and Chicago as just a few of many examples.

Areas see an INCREASE in gun violence after gun bans, and a DECREASE after the bans are lifted.