PDA

View Full Version : 2013 CA SB 53 - Deleon/Yee Ammunition purchase permits (FAILED)


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Librarian
12-21-2012, 11:20 AM
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53

See also the Beginner's guide (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161873) to reading bills and
a short post on How a Bill Becomes Law (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=591209)

(1) Existing law requires the Attorney General to maintain records, including among other things, fingerprints, licenses to carry concealed firearms, and information from firearms dealers pertaining to firearms, for purposes of assisting in the investigation of crimes, and specified civil actions.

This bill would require the Attorney General to also maintain copies of ammunition purchase permits for those purposes.

(2) Existing law, subject to exceptions, requires that the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition occur only in a face-to-face transaction. Existing law provides that the term “vendor” for purposes of ammunition sales is a “handgun ammunition vendor” as defined for those and other purposes.

This bill would extend those provisions to any ammunition. The bill would provide that the term “vendor” for purposes of ammunition sales means “ammunition vendor” as defined for those and other purposes. The bill would make additional conforming changes.

(3) Existing law prohibits an ammunition vendor from allowing a person the vendor knows or should know is a person who is prohibited from possessing firearms for specified reasons, from handling, selling, or delivering handgun ammunition in the course and scope of their employment. Existing law prohibits an ammunition vendor from selling or otherwise transferring ownership of, offering for sale or otherwise offering to transfer ownership of, or displaying for sale or displaying for transfer of ownership of, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser or transferee without the assistance of the vendor or an employee of the vendor.

This bill would extend those prohibitions to any ammunition. The bill would provide that a violation of those provisions is a misdemeanor.
By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4) Existing law subject to exceptions, requires a handgun ammunition vendor to record specified information at the time of delivery of handgun ammunition to a purchaser, as specified.
[[[ Seems like they think 962, the unconstitutionally vague law, is still in effect; to be fair, it still 'exists' in the PC.]]]

This bill would extend those provisions to transactions of any ammunition. The bill would, commencing September 1, 2014, and subject to exceptions, require the purchaser of ammunition to hold an ammunition purchase permit, or other specified permit, license, or certificate pertaining to acquisition, possession, or carrying firearms, as provided, or other specified documentation for a person who is not a state resident. The bill would, commencing September 1, 2014, require the vendor to submit to the Department of Justice information demonstrating compliance with that verification requirement, as specified. The bill would, commencing June 1, 2014, authorize issuance of ammunition purchase permits by the Department of Justice to applicants who are residents of this state, at least 18 years of age, not prohibited from acquiring or possessing ammunition, and who pay the required fees, as specified. The bill would establish an application process and specify the information to be displayed on the permit. The bill would provide that the permit authorizes the holder to purchase ammunition from an ammunition vendor.

(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Moonshine
12-21-2012, 11:25 AM
This language is vague enough that they can make these permits as hard to obtain as assault weapons permits!

nothinghere2c
12-21-2012, 11:26 AM
very vague. Thanks for the update!

Moonshine
12-21-2012, 11:28 AM
They're not saying what the reasons are for permit issuance/denial and therefore leaving it up to the DOJ. It sounds to me like many permits will be denied and ammunition access will be VERY limited.

TacoJockey
12-21-2012, 11:32 AM
(c) Commencing on September 1, 2014, only those persons listed below or those persons or entities listed in subdivision (d) shall be permitted to purchase ammunition. Prior to the delivery of the ammunition, the vendor shall verify that the person who is receiving delivery of the ammunition is a properly identified person or entity listed in subdivision (d) or one of the following:
(1) A holder of a valid ammunition purchase permit issued pursuant to Section 30370.
(2) A person who is authorized to carry loaded firearms pursuant to Section 25900, 25905, 25910, 25925, 26010, 26015, 26025, or 26030.


Appears to exempt CCW holders from needing the ammo permit.

Hoooper
12-21-2012, 11:37 AM
if there were a proposed gun bill counter it would be going up as fast as the debt clock

Diablohtr
12-21-2012, 11:48 AM
Retracted.

stphnman20
12-21-2012, 11:52 AM
tagged

Moonshine
12-21-2012, 11:54 AM
I was going to say something but it would just provide assistance in writing this bill... Hmm... MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL STAY QUIET.......

shooting4life
12-21-2012, 11:55 AM
Here we go again.

SilverTauron
12-21-2012, 11:56 AM
Now out of state visitors to CA have to furnish a CCW or ownership ID to purchase ammo.Yay.

mag360
12-21-2012, 12:04 PM
Loose lips sink ships boys.

Moonshine
12-21-2012, 12:07 PM
Last time SB-249 came up language from this forum made it into the bill. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

13withinfinity
12-21-2012, 12:07 PM
So whos gunna pay for all this :D courts are certainly broke as hell

Sinestr
12-21-2012, 12:18 PM
Cross post

Sousuke
12-21-2012, 12:19 PM
Last time SB-249 came up language from this forum made it into the bill. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

It would be nice if we could get one comment regarding odds of passing from the legal experts. That way maybe I can stop doing this:

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/lenm/lenm1207/lenm120700047/14343647-illustration-featuring-a-panicked-smiley.jpg

nothinghere2c
12-21-2012, 12:21 PM
just relax, and don't show your cards :-)

13withinfinity
12-21-2012, 12:22 PM
It would be nice if we could get one comment regarding odds of passing from the legal experts. That way maybe I can stop doing this:

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/lenm/lenm1207/lenm120700047/14343647-illustration-featuring-a-panicked-smiley.jpg

Thats only helping them out too. If they think they can pass it and the legal experts think otherwise, wouldnt it be smart to let them play thier hand first?

Hoooper
12-21-2012, 12:24 PM
It would be nice if we could get one comment regarding odds of passing from the legal experts. That way maybe I can stop doing this:

theres no way to answer that though. I dont have enough knowledge to say anything about its passing, but if an "expert" says its not going to pass then there can likely be work done to get it to pass. If someone says it will pass, then the panic continues. It only makes sense, especially with CA gov as it is, to expect that it will pass and plan accordingly and then if it doesnt its no biggie to you

Sousuke
12-21-2012, 12:25 PM
Thats only helping them out too. If they think they can pass it and the legal experts think otherwise, wouldnt it be smart to let them play thier hand first?

Maybe, I'm mainly afraid it will sit in the courts for years before action is taken.

Moonshine
12-21-2012, 12:36 PM
I will say one thing though, they are going up against a opponent flush with cash and determination and they are doing so with a bankrupt state and bankrupt court. Lets not give them anything until we take them to court where we have the advantage.

tackdriver
12-21-2012, 12:39 PM
I am quite sure Brown would veto a bill this wacko. More than I can say for the guy he replaced however....

dustoff31
12-21-2012, 12:42 PM
So whos gunna pay for all this :D courts are certainly broke as hell

People who buy ammo will pay for it. You don't think those permits are going to be free do you?

13withinfinity
12-21-2012, 12:53 PM
People who buy ammo will pay for it. You don't think those permits are going to be free do you?

That is if the DOJ issues them to begin with. :P

john67elco
12-21-2012, 1:17 PM
So im good with the 240,000 rounds I currently own? Cool deal.

CBruce
12-21-2012, 1:18 PM
Isn't ammunition protected by the same 2nd ammendment rights as firearms? Thought there was precedent for that.

nrgcruizer
12-21-2012, 1:33 PM
How much do you guys want to bet that Deleon & Yee, or their staff, have an account trolling this site right now?

Moonshine
12-21-2012, 1:35 PM
Their staff is on this site reading these posts. Lose lips sink ships... Err legal challenges heh!

rodeoflyer
12-21-2012, 1:42 PM
Isn't ammunition protected by the same 2nd ammendment rights as firearms? Thought there was precedent for that.

DROS

Handgun Registration (and long gun soon)

BFSC

Thumbprint for ammo (LA City)


The 2nd Ammendment didn't stop any of that did it? :mad:

211275
12-21-2012, 1:43 PM
If this passes and goes into effect Sept 1st 2014, I will be moving out of this bull**** state on or before Aug 31st 2014. I will take my successful business and tax dollars out of state and hope this crooked state goes further into debt.

Moonshine
12-21-2012, 1:45 PM
When they started finger printing up here in Sacramento, shops in Placer county started getting more of my business. Ammo licenses will hurt California businesses and create more unemployment.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-21-2012, 2:11 PM
Last time SB-249 came up language from this forum made it into the bill.

Which language? Just curious, thanks.

wildhawker
12-21-2012, 2:12 PM
Moonshine forgets that the broadening of 249 was a good thing.

mosinnagantm9130
12-21-2012, 2:54 PM
AB962 anyone?

AAShooter
12-21-2012, 3:09 PM
So I go through an annual background check to buy ammo but my CCW is good for multiple years? Makes no sense.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-21-2012, 3:13 PM
Which language? Just curious, thanks.

Nevermind, brain fart, I was thinking about the handgun ammo bill (AB 962).

chris
12-21-2012, 3:14 PM
This language is vague enough that they can make these permits as hard to obtain as assault weapons permits!

That's the goal. A permit means that you need permission to buy ammo. This their goal one way or another the Democrats will take away our rights guns first.

chris
12-21-2012, 3:20 PM
People who buy ammo will pay for it. You don't think those permits are going to be free do you?

Permits won't be issued that's the point. And they know it.

nicki
12-21-2012, 3:30 PM
Our opponents are practicing the death by a 1000 cuts.

Of course since this bill will affect all gun owners, we can use their proposals to get more people on our side to get of their ***es and get involved.

Collectively we got the government we deserve because our fellow gun owners wouldn't pull their weight to protect gun rights.

The reality is only a small percentage of gun owners do anything, if the percentage of gun owners who got involved jumped from 1 percent to 10 percent, we wouldn't be having these problems.

In all honesty, in an ideal world, we would have 100 percent participation.

JSolie
12-21-2012, 3:57 PM
Loose lips sink ships boys.

Quoted for truth.

Don't help them write a better bill.

MattyB
12-21-2012, 4:07 PM
Can't these morons leave it till after Christmas??

nothinghere2c
12-21-2012, 4:11 PM
Can't these morons leave it till after Christmas??

asking them to have any shred of decency is asking too much

AlpineWeiss
12-21-2012, 5:37 PM
Our opponents are practicing the death by a 1000 cuts.

Of course since this bill will affect all gun owners, we can use their proposals to get more people on our side to get of their ***es and get involved.

Collectively we got the government we deserve because our fellow gun owners wouldn't pull their weight to protect gun rights.

The reality is only a small percentage of gun owners do anything, if the percentage of gun owners who got involved jumped from 1 percent to 10 percent, we wouldn't be having these problems.

In all honesty, in an ideal world, we would have 100 percent participation.


What do you have in mind?

dustoff31
12-21-2012, 6:09 PM
Permits won't be issued that's the point. And they know it.

Says here it's a shall issue permit. (That's not an endorsement, BTW.)

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?
bill_id=201320140SB53 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53)

Article 4. Ammunition Purchase Permits
30370.

(b) The department shall issue an ammunition purchase permit to the applicant if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The applicant is 18 years of age or older.

(2) The applicant is not prohibited from acquiring or possessing ammunition by the laws of this state.

(3) The applicant pays the fees set forth in subdivision (i).

(c) (1) Upon receipt of an initial or renewal application, the department shall examine its records and is authorized to request records from the State Department of Mental Health, pursuant to Section 8104 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and if authorized, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as described in of Section 922(t) of Title 18 of the United States Code, in order to determine if the applicant is prohibited from possessing or acquiring ammunition.

(2) The applicant shall be approved or denied within 30 days of the date of the application. If the application is denied, the department shall state the reasons for doing so and provide the applicant an appeal process to challenge that denial.

epilepticninja
12-21-2012, 7:04 PM
God there is something I want to say about the stupidity of this bill, but I don't want to give away the farm.

wjc
12-21-2012, 7:14 PM
Thanks for the update, Librarian!

Moonshine
12-21-2012, 7:21 PM
These folks keep saying they support hunters... The Central Valley has world class duck hunting and my friends and relatives from out of state come to California to hunt. Now we can't share ammo in a blind and they have to have a Nevada CCW or apply for a California ammo permit just to hunt with me??!!? I REALLY don't want to end up having to go to Nevada to hunt with them because they can't buy ammo here, duck hunting in Nevada kinda sucks...

Fellblade
12-21-2012, 7:32 PM
Oh no. They got us now. This bill is airtight. No point trying to fight it, they may as well just pass it now.

iloveyourmom562
12-21-2012, 7:45 PM
This is some BS..

Rocksteady1
12-21-2012, 7:48 PM
I fail to see how this bill would protect the children at sandy hook. I must be missing it. No way two respectable gentleman like Yee and Steninberg are just pushing their own agenda.

RT13
12-21-2012, 8:35 PM
Please people, STFU!

RT13
12-21-2012, 8:35 PM
Please people, STFU!

cdtx2001
12-21-2012, 9:09 PM
Lock this thread before people give away the farm.



Remember, you do not talk about fight club!!!

Socalmp5
12-21-2012, 9:14 PM
Lock this thread before people give away the farm.



Remember, you do not talk about fight club!!!

What? There is no fight club.

12voltguy
12-21-2012, 9:17 PM
no no no, we don't need to sign for ammo
ion 1986 they said let us tale away your MGs and you don't have to id and sign for ammo

see they give and take away thing we all forgot

fizux
12-21-2012, 11:21 PM
OPSEC Violation!


OPSEC? I slept through those 413 PowerPoint slides every quarter.

By the way, Abstergo Industries has figured out how to make military grade hollow point cop killer ammo by melting down the green compost bins in SF. I hope the trolls don't figure out that it only works with the green bins.

DFF
12-22-2012, 12:07 AM
OPSEC? I slept through those 413 PowerPoint slides every quarter.

By the way, Abstergo Industries has figured out how to make military grade hollow point cop killer ammo by melting down the green compost bins in SF. I hope the trolls don't figure out that it only works with the green bins.

This post needs to get deleted. Another thing that will probably be in their stupid list of things to screw us with.. :banghead:

Dutch3
12-22-2012, 7:01 AM
Can we keep it quiet?

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k37/wilbilt/loose_lips-287x400.jpg

frankm
12-22-2012, 8:02 AM
Can't these morons commies leave it till after Christmas??

Fixed it for you and the answer is no. Whatever the party wants.

donw
12-22-2012, 8:58 AM
When they started finger printing up here in Sacramento, shops in Placer county started getting more of my business. Ammo licenses will hurt California businesses and create more unemployment.

i, sincerely, doubt the legislature cares...

ShooterMcFly
12-22-2012, 9:12 AM
I want to add something, but I feel holding back and keeping off record may be best now:hide:

chris
01-21-2013, 1:09 PM
Says here it's a shall issue permit. (That's not an endorsement, BTW.)

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?
bill_id=201320140SB53 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53)

Article 4. Ammunition Purchase Permits
30370.

(b) The department shall issue an ammunition purchase permit to the applicant if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The applicant is 18 years of age or older.

(2) The applicant is not prohibited from acquiring or possessing ammunition by the laws of this state.

(3) The applicant pays the fees set forth in subdivision (i).

(c) (1) Upon receipt of an initial or renewal application, the department shall examine its records and is authorized to request records from the State Department of Mental Health, pursuant to Section 8104 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and if authorized, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as described in of Section 922(t) of Title 18 of the United States Code, in order to determine if the applicant is prohibited from possessing or acquiring ammunition.

(2) The applicant shall be approved or denied within 30 days of the date of the application. If the application is denied, the department shall state the reasons for doing so and provide the applicant an appeal process to challenge that denial.



i wonder what the fees will be.

a1c
01-21-2013, 1:19 PM
This is a great way to generate a prosperous black market.

mt4design
01-21-2013, 1:37 PM
Isn't ammunition protected by the same 2nd ammendment rights as firearms? Thought there was precedent for that.

If past is precedent then Lexington and Concord come to mind and the old saying, 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'.

Joewy
01-21-2013, 3:07 PM
So. How are hunters or shooters from out of state suposed to buy ammo??

REH
01-21-2013, 3:19 PM
Our opponents are practicing the death by a 1000 cuts.

Of course since this bill will affect all gun owners, we can use their proposals to get more people on our side to get of their ***es and get involved.

Collectively we got the government we deserve because our fellow gun owners wouldn't pull their weight to protect gun rights.

The reality is only a small percentage of gun owners do anything, if the percentage of gun owners who got involved jumped from 1 percent to 10 percent, we wouldn't be having these problems.

In all honesty, in an ideal world, we would have 100 percent participation.

Amen Brother

Uxi
01-21-2013, 3:56 PM
How much do you guys want to bet that Deleon & Yee, or their staff, have an account trolling this site right now?

CDfingers? :D

chris
01-21-2013, 4:02 PM
How much do you guys want to bet that Deleon & Yee, or their staff, have an account trolling this site right now?

there are probably a few that we could name.

randomBytes
01-21-2013, 4:03 PM
So I keep reading, the CA constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies etc, for the costs imposed by stupid laws, but they get around that by just saying "this bill doesn't have to". That makes the law cost nothing....
brilliant.

01trubluecobra
01-21-2013, 5:14 PM
I wonder if Active Duty Military who are stationed in this state will be exempt like they are exempt from taking the handgun safety test?

Kurgan
01-21-2013, 5:16 PM
Does anyone else think it might be valuable to hire some hookers err….. lobbyists to try and change Leland Yee’s mind?

Wherryj
01-21-2013, 5:29 PM
Last time SB-249 came up language from this forum made it into the bill. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

I fully support Senator Yee's use of the wording copied into my signature line. Other than that, you'll have to come up with your own ideas you freedom hating tyrant.

Capybara
01-21-2013, 5:44 PM
I thought I read somewhere that the ammo purchase permit (extortion fee for taking away our rights) was $50.00? Or did I imagine that?

huntercf
01-21-2013, 6:20 PM
I see so much fail in this bill, but I'm going to let the courts tell those commie idiots what they are.

Damn True
01-21-2013, 7:13 PM
Just a note to Adam Keigwin if you are reading this thread....you and your boss are as useful to the human race as mammary glands to a boar.

speleogist
01-21-2013, 7:14 PM
Ok guys, seriously, does Yee do anything else other than cry about guns and no more shark fin soup? It seems like every week this guy writes a new terrible gun law proposal.

navycorpsman
01-21-2013, 7:51 PM
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=6086

Doesnt this count against this ruling. I thought we have been through this before

navycorpsman
01-21-2013, 7:52 PM
Thank god i have a house in Arizona **** CA

Paul S
01-21-2013, 9:07 PM
I am quite sure Brown would veto a bill this wacko. More than I can say for the guy he replaced however....

I believe your optimism is unfounded. However, I do hope you are ultimately found to be correct. I would be happy to be proven wrong on this one.

IPSICK
01-21-2013, 11:39 PM
Ok guys, seriously, does Yee do anything else other than cry about guns and no more shark fin soup? It seems like every week this guy writes a new terrible gun law proposal.

Noodles, don't forget the poor innocent little noodles.

BetterDaze
01-23-2013, 11:14 PM
If you read the bill (not the BS interpretations posted above), you will see that this is AB 962 rewritten to strike out the word "handgun" and apply to all ammunition.

On August 19, 2010, the NRA-CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project filed a lawsuit challenging AB 962. The lawsuit alleged that the mandates in AB 962 were incomprehensible, and that the definition of "handgun ammunition" was unconstitutionally vague.

So, it's impossible to define "handgun ammunition," but it's much easier to define "ammunition" and impose those same broad restrictions. Schwarzenegger, a Republican Governor signed that BS bill into law.

So, go ahead and sit there not saying a word, worrying about your loose lips. It passed the first time. That is not going to defeat this bill.

Icypu
01-23-2013, 11:19 PM
Everyone should lock thread and hold their keyfingers from typing on this.

EXTREMEOPS1
01-25-2013, 9:29 PM
Well my 200,000+ rounds should make me an ammo Barron so how do they expect to stop the reloaders out there.....ban the purchase of lead, gunpowder etc unless you have a permit OMG well guys and girls you got the government you all voted for....soon the bad guys will still be armed and we the "good guys" will be unarmed and vulnerable like the brits and the aussies...now you are really gonna have to wake up America !!! Stand by for the executive order to hand in your weapons by a certain date or face the felony charge...that's how the brits were disarmed.......almost overnight.

Obviously a Plant
01-25-2013, 9:46 PM
Will there be a limit on plasma watts?
Will we have to sign for power from the power company, you know, face to face?

Damn True
01-29-2013, 1:29 PM
I thought I recalled him saying something about qty limits in that video on Fox-LA. Does de Leon's birdcage liner include language with respect to purchase quantity limits or restrictions on online purchases or am I conflating it with the lunacy coming out of SF?

Random_Monkey
01-29-2013, 2:03 PM
When is this Bill set to go up for a vote?

Librarian
01-29-2013, 3:23 PM
When is this Bill set to go up for a vote?

The bill status link is in the first post: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53

"01/10/13 Referred to Com. on PUB. S."

Senate Public Safety has no hearings scheduled - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billResultsClient.xhtml?location=CS72&agendadate=01%2F29%2F2013&description=Sen+Public+Safety

uechikid
01-29-2013, 4:51 PM
OK, so our elected officials are again sticking it to us. I hope everyone is writing them and telling them how you feel. AB 48 is another one that needs to be stopped.

mosinnagantm9130
01-29-2013, 6:49 PM
If you read the bill (not the BS interpretations posted above), you will see that this is AB 962 rewritten to strike out the word "handgun" and apply to all ammunition.


Which is fortunate for us, as I've heard the same commerce clause issues that would have doomed AB962 had it not been struck as vague are still present in this bill.

huntercf
01-29-2013, 10:13 PM
So when the permits are "delayed" for a year or more because they don't have the man power to process the million or more applications can we sue the state (as a class action lawsuit) for infringing on our right to "bear" arms?

glocksmith
02-04-2013, 3:25 PM
Douche-bags, everyone of them.

diginit
02-07-2013, 9:42 AM
This State is full of billsh*t!
IMO... CG needs a new rule. "All posts that can harm our cause will be deleted!" Don't let the the anti's have any ammo either!

john67elco
02-07-2013, 10:31 AM
This State is full of billsh*t!
IMO... CG needs a new rule. "All posts that can harm our cause will be deleted!" Don't let the the anti's have any ammo either!

Does it really matter anymore? Just read these bills. From here I'd rather them to start banning everything.

ICONIC
02-07-2013, 12:24 PM
Looks like more Arizona and Nevada runs for ammo.

tommyfly
02-07-2013, 1:21 PM
i already have a permit. Its called my birth certificate

scarville
02-07-2013, 4:21 PM
Noodles, don't forget the poor innocent little noodles.

http://www.followmefoodie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Kung-Fu-Panda-2.png

Wherryj
02-07-2013, 5:30 PM
Last time SB-249 came up language from this forum made it into the bill. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

If I offer up the many expletives I have floating around my mind in relation to these tyrants and their attempts to shred what is left of the Constitution, do you think that THOSE will end up in the bill?

If so, can Librarian promise not to redact my next post?

chris
02-07-2013, 6:06 PM
hahahaah Yee disabled comments on his Facebook page or at least mine. i have made several comments today none offensive as i have seen from others but if he disabled comments it means that he doesn't want to hear from people who disagree with him.

hahahahahaha Sen. Yee is a joke and cannot take what we tell him.

Librarian
02-07-2013, 6:08 PM
If I offer up the many expletives I have floating around my mind in relation to these tyrants and their attempts to shred what is left of the Constitution, do you think that THOSE will end up in the bill?

If so, can Librarian promise not to redact my next post?

Forum software will get most of it before I can :D.

At this point, with all the things vomiting forth, I seriously doubt anything we could write would make things worse.

But I will reiterate that questions about bill contents really have no value until something is signed and sent to the Governor. There is no possible amendment to this bill that would make it reasonable to support, other than a gut and amend that changes the contents into something entirely different.

The Geologist
02-07-2013, 6:11 PM
I was going to say something but it would just provide assistance in writing this bill... Hmm... MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL STAY QUIET.......

YES WE SHOULD

Maltese Falcon
02-07-2013, 6:17 PM
Looks like more Arizona and Nevada runs for ammo.

I was at Bass Pro Shops in Vegas this last weekend.

Limits of 10 boxes ammo, 2000 primers and 2 lbs. powder.

All fine and dandy, assuming they had any.

Only stuff they had was 12/20 gauge birdshot. :(

.

edfardos
04-20-2013, 3:31 PM
I was at Bass Pro Shops in Vegas this last weekend.
Limits of 10 boxes ammo, 2000 primers and 2 lbs. powder.
All fine and dandy, assuming they had any.
Only stuff they had was 12/20 gauge birdshot. :(
.

Please delete this post. And do not mention the "R" word until after CA does whatever it thinks it's doing. (and delete my post too).

thanks,
-edfardos

diginit
04-20-2013, 4:02 PM
I wonder how fast a blank can push a .22 cal pellet out of my semiauto rifle... :44::biggrinjester:

scarville
04-20-2013, 7:22 PM
How much do you guys want to bet that Deleon & Yee, or their staff, have an account trolling this site right now?

In that case, I am going to start calling DeLeon "Kevin The Tool" and Yee will be simply "Whoremonger".

If you are listening, suck it, staffer!

Grayling14
04-21-2013, 7:05 PM
i wonder what the fees will be.


Most assuredly not very much . . . just another small slice of liberty.

Hiking CA
04-21-2013, 7:16 PM
What can they think up next?

What can't they focus on the economy, budget, jobs, immigration, etc................................

hpd
04-23-2013, 11:09 PM
What can't they focus on the economy, budget, jobs, immigration, etc................................

These things will be their undoing. Socialism doesn't work. It ultimately destroys itself. Once they can no longer afford to feed the mouths of the willfully unproductive in this state. Once the checks stop coming or become worthless due to some combination of inflation, default and cuts, their grip on power will cease. These evil men in Sacramento and Washington DC will pay. God will see to it. The clock it ticking. We are on the right side of history. Ultimately.

Dantedamean
06-14-2013, 12:02 PM
Ok, I've skimmed through some of the posts here. Is this "authorization" a annual thing or a per perchance thing? I read the bill and it is still unclear to me.

Can'thavenuthingood
06-14-2013, 12:25 PM
SB 53 Ammunition: Purchase Requirements
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53
Amended IN Senate May 28, 2013

This is a gun registry.
To buy ammo;
You must give the firearms owners name and particulars (para A).
You must give from whom you acquired the firearm (para B)
You must give the firearms Mfg, model, serial number, caliber, type, new or used, barrel length and color (para C).

So if you have old gun and want to buy ammo for THAT gun you have to give all the information surrounding that old gun.

That old gun is now registered.

Or am I reading this wrong?

Vick

(2) The registry shall consist of all of the following:
(A) The name, address, identification of, place of birth (state or country), complete telephone number, occupation, sex, description, and all legal names and aliases ever used by the owner or person being loaned the particular firearm as listed on the information provided to the department on the Dealers’ Record of Sale, the Law Enforcement Firearms Transfer (LEFT), as defined in former Section 12084, or reports made to the department pursuant to any provision listed in subdivision (a) of Section 16585 or any other law.
(B) The name and address of, and other information about, any person (whether a dealer or a private party) from whom the owner acquired or the person being loaned the particular firearm and when the firearm was acquired or loaned as listed on the information provided to the department on the Dealers’ Record of Sale, the LEFT, or reports made to the department pursuant to any provision listed in subdivision (a) of Section 16585 or any other law.
(C) Any waiting period exemption applicable to the transaction which resulted in the owner of or the person being loaned the particular firearm acquiring or being loaned that firearm.
(D) The manufacturer’s name if stamped on the firearm, model name or number if stamped on the firearm, and, if applicable, the serial number, other number (if more than one serial number is stamped on the firearm), caliber, type of firearm, if the firearm is new or used, barrel length, and color of the firearm, or, if the firearm is not a handgun and does not have a serial number or any identification number or mark assigned to it, that shall be noted.

Can'thavenuthingood
06-14-2013, 12:42 PM
Internet ammo sales must be shipped to and go through go an ammunition vendor just like firearms currently must.
So Cabela's, Midway, Bass Pro shops etc will ship your online purchase to your ammunition vendor and you will pick up your ammo from the ammunition vendor AFTER you pay the fee and clear the background check.

Vick

SEC. 4.

Section 30312 of the Penal Code is amended to read:30312.

(a) (1) The delivery or transfer of ownership of ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee; provided, however, that ammunition may be purchased over the Internet or through other means of remote ordering if an ammunition vendor in this state initially receives the ammunition and processes the transfer in compliance with this section and Article 3 (commencing with Section 30345).
(2) Commencing July 1, 2014, 2015, the sale of ammunition may only be conducted by an ammunition vendor licensed pursuant to Section 30385.

Norsemen308
06-14-2013, 12:48 PM
TOTAL CRAP. God save us

meaty-btz
06-14-2013, 12:49 PM
SB 53 Ammunition: Purchase Requirements
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53
Amended IN Senate May 28, 2013

This is a gun registry.
To buy ammo;
You must give the firearms owners name and particulars (para A).
You must give from whom you acquired the firearm (para B)
You must give the firearms Mfg, model, serial number, caliber, type, new or used, barrel length and color (para C).

So if you have old gun and want to buy ammo for THAT gun you have to give all the information surrounding that old gun.

That old gun is now registered.

Or am I reading this wrong?

Vick

So we won't be able to buy ammo for guns we have not bought yet? Like if I see a good deal on .357mag and I am in the market for a 357 mag wheel gun I cannot buy that ammo? What?

hcbr
06-14-2013, 12:51 PM
For keeping discretion, thank the lord i have a safe haven to get ammo... ugh... just sucks it's going to be like this if this does go into affect and into law... it's time to donate to calguns foundation and other pro gun advocates to fight...

Norsemen308
06-14-2013, 12:55 PM
For keeping discretion, thank the lord i have a safe haven to get ammo... ugh... just sucks it's going to be like this if this does go into affect and into law... it's time to donate to calguns foundation and other pro gun advocates to fight...

you are lying to yourself, there will be no safe haven....

i guarantee it, dont think your mothers brothers, uncles, long lost cousins, ex lover is going to get you ish and you will be fine.

the wolves are simply getting the sheep into an attack pattern.

Can'thavenuthingood
06-14-2013, 12:56 PM
SB53 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53)also establishes a Centralized List of Ammunition purchasers, a Permit.

Starting in 2017 in order for you to buy ammunition you must give your

(b) Commencing on July 1, 2017, only those persons listed below or those persons or entities listed in subdivision (f) (d) shall be permitted authorized to purchase ammunition. Prior to the delivery of the ammunition, the vendor shall verify that the person who is receiving delivery of the ammunition is a properly identified person or entity listed in subdivision(c) Commencing July 1, 2017, the vendor shall verify that the person is authorized to purchase ammunition by comparing the person’s California driver’s license number or California identification card number to the authorization number in the centralized list of authorized ammunition purchasers. If the person is not listed as an authorized ammunition purchaser, the vendor shall deny the sale.Without an 'Ammunition Purchase Permit' you will be ammo less.
Article 4. Ammunition Purchase Permits Authorizations



30370.

(a) (1) Commencing on January 1, 2017, any person who is a resident of this state and who is 18 years of age or older may apply to the department for an ammunition purchaseauthorization.
(2) The ammunition purchase permit authorization shall entitle the authorized person to purchase ammunition from an ammunition vendor as that term is defined in Section 16663 and shall have no other force or effect.
Vick

Can'thavenuthingood
06-14-2013, 1:14 PM
I haven't seen where the Ammuntion Purchase Authorization is to cost the applicant a set dollar amount, only an initial application fee. It states subdivision (i) but it doesn't have $.
I must be missing something.

SB53 also issues Ammunition Vendors License's to FFL's.

$50 per year renewed annually.
Commencing 1 July 2015

30390.

(a) The department may charge ammunition vendor license applicants a fee sufficient to reimburse the department for the reasonable costs of administering the license program, maintaining the registry of ammunition vendors, and necessary enforcement, provided however, that the fee shall not exceed fifty dollars ($50).

Vick

YubaRiver
06-14-2013, 1:15 PM
Cartridge collectors.

advocatusdiaboli
06-14-2013, 1:24 PM
SB 53 Ammunition: Purchase Requirements
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53
Amended IN Senate May 28, 2013

This is a gun registry.
To buy ammo;
You must give the firearms owners name and particulars (para A).
You must give from whom you acquired the firearm (para B)
You must give the firearms Mfg, model, serial number, caliber, type, new or used, barrel length and color (para C).

So if you have old gun and want to buy ammo for THAT gun you have to give all the information surrounding that old gun.

That old gun is now registered.

Or am I reading this wrong?

Vick

You are not reading it wrong. It seems to require that you register every gun for which you intend to purchase ammunition (or at least one gun representing every caliber you intend to purchase) or you will be denied purchase.

I'd really like to see the public safety justification for that—it is clearly a "back-door" firearms registry and it is not by accident but by design. This is a dishonest attempt to sneak it in without registration scrutiny or debate.

If the National NRA cares at all about firearms rights in this nation, they'd better step into this fight with all they have or we'll see these kinds of dishonest laws popping up in state legislatures like mushrooms after a rain.

Can'thavenuthingood
06-14-2013, 1:25 PM
Anyone know what this says?

SB53 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53)
(c) (1) Any officer referred to in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (b) of Section 11105 may disseminate the name of the subject of the record, the number of the firearms listed in the record, and the description of any firearm, including the make, model, and caliber, from the record relating to any firearm’s sale, transfer, registration, or license record, or any information reported to the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 26225, Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2 of Division 6 of Title 4 of Part 6, Article 1 (commencing with Section 27500) of Chapter 4 of Division 6 of Title 4 of Part 6, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050) of Division 6 of Title 4 of Part 6, Article 2 (commencing with Section 28150) of Chapter 6 of Division 6 of Title 4 of Part 6, Article 5 (commencing with Section 30900) of Chapter 2 of Division 10 of Title 4 of Part 6, Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 33850) of Division 11 of Title 4 of Part 6, or any provision listed in subdivision (a) of Section 16585, if the following conditions are met:

meaty-btz
06-14-2013, 1:57 PM
Anyone know what this says?

SB53 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53)

Don't quote me on it but I believe it is some kind of back door to enable release of information to the media. That is, any officer, may legally disseminate all your DOJ records if requested by some news outlet (think NY and what the news media did there).

They are really pulling out all the stops, aren't they?

Or it could just be the legal language to release the information to the FFL needed to verify the purchase.

YubaRiver
06-14-2013, 2:02 PM
Looks like they are starting the bid high so they have room to negotiate, or they just want the publicity showing they have been active on their interest groups issues to get some funds. Maybe they are trying to get some of those millions Bloomberg is throwing around.

IVC
06-14-2013, 2:02 PM
This bill has multitude of problems, from what it is seeking to achieve to the technical details. At this time it's best to avoid discussion and go into the "wait and see" mode until we hear that it's either been passed (when we know exactly what's in it), vetoed, or died in the process.

Ammunition tax bills looked like a sure bet, yet they are gone now...

Can'thavenuthingood
06-14-2013, 2:05 PM
Bill Analysis here.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_53_cfa_20130528_183529_sen_floor.html

Vick

Can'thavenuthingood
06-14-2013, 2:16 PM
Shouldn't Calguns.net
Calguns Foundation and CGSSA be listed in the Opposition?

Are we not big enough or do we have the wrong credentials being a group of Citizens?

OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/25/13) California Association of Firearms Retailers California Rifle and Pistol Association California Right to Carry California Sportsman's Lobby Crossroads of the West National Rifle Association of America National Shooting Sports Foundation Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California Safari Club International Tea Party United



Vick

Can'thavenuthingood
06-14-2013, 2:21 PM
This bill has multitude of problems, from what it is seeking to achieve to the technical details. At this time it's best to avoid discussion and go into the "wait and see" mode until we hear that it's either been passed (when we know exactly what's in it), vetoed, or died in the process.

Ammunition tax bills looked like a sure bet, yet they are gone now...

We ought to be stopping these things as they rear their ugly heads.

Stop them in Committee, stop it on the Senate floor.
Now this is in the Assembly Committee.

Look at the list of Supporters, how come the Opposition list isn't as long or longer?

Ours appears the weaker voice, the minority.

Vick

IVC
06-14-2013, 2:46 PM
Ours appears the weaker voice, the minority.

Because in CA we are the minority.

The Constitution is designed to protect the minority against the mob rule of the majority, so our best bet is to do all we can to stop these bills, but ultimately many will have to be resolved in courts.

Moonshine
06-14-2013, 4:01 PM
I thought the Fresno superior court (or was it appeals) threw out something similar to this just last year... Is this correct?

IVC
06-14-2013, 4:05 PM
I thought the Fresno superior court (or was it appeals) threw out something similar to this just last year... Is this correct?

AB 962 in 2009. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_962_(2009))

chairmnofthboard
06-14-2013, 6:14 PM
Just to be clear. This isn't a law "YET", correct?

gr8dragon88
06-14-2013, 6:51 PM
Just to be clear. This isn't a law "YET", correct?

correct, not yet...

CaliforniaLiberal
06-14-2013, 9:09 PM
Shouldn't Calguns.net
Calguns Foundation and CGSSA be listed in the Opposition?

Are we not big enough or do we have the wrong credentials being a group of Citizens?

Vick

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't CalGuns Foundation limited in their political activities by their non-profit status?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization

"Political activity

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated."

formerTexan
06-15-2013, 12:27 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't CalGuns Foundation limited in their political activities by their non-profit status?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization

"Political activity

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated."

So Calguns need to form a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" group, kinda like Organizing for Action? Fed law says groups have 2 years to apply. So CG can get started right now and not worry too much about applying for 501c4 right away.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/15/organizing-for-action-obamas-group-has-yet-to-apply-to-irs

Seems like the way to go if CG wants to get involved on the legislative side.

Can'thavenuthingood
06-15-2013, 8:19 AM
So Calguns need to form a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" group, kinda like Organizing for Action? Fed law says groups have 2 years to apply. So CG can get started right now and not worry too much about applying for 501c4 right away.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/15/organizing-for-action-obamas-group-has-yet-to-apply-to-irs

Seems like the way to go if CG wants to get involved on the legislative side.

We did the CGSSA as a 501(c)4, every Calgunner is also a CGSSA member.

Nothing changes insofar as the individual is concerned, we can now as an entity support political actions and candidates.

CaliforniaLiberal you are right, the Foundation is limited but the CGSSA can jump in there and support. There must be some sort of Legislative regulation that we as CGSSA or Calguns.net cannot be listed as supporting or opposing bills.

Vick

the86d
06-17-2013, 1:03 PM
It IS a good thing that I can rent my home for WAY more than my mortgage is...

As a wise man once said: I am sick of worrying, and having the possibility of things such as this BS hang over my head. Taxes paid to a more worthy set of people to do more decent things "FOR it's citizens" is in order....

snapshot7
06-18-2013, 3:23 AM
Just to be clear. This isn't a law "YET", correct?

If passed, which is likely in Ca, "permits would be required for any ammunition purchase after July 1, 2017" :banghead:

"quote" source: here (http://www.calegistats.com/bills/sb-53-ammunition-purchase-permits/)
bill source: here (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53)

Q: Does anyone know if this is still accurate? I have heard rumors that the Senate my push it to 2016.

CaliforniaLiberal
06-18-2013, 5:58 AM
If passed, which is likely in Ca, "permits would be required for any ammunition purchase after July 1, 2017" :banghead:

"quote" source: here (http://www.calegistats.com/bills/sb-53-ammunition-purchase-permits/)
bill source: here (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53)

Q: Does anyone know if this is still accurate? I have heard rumors that the Senate my push it to 2016.


The only source of information we have is the one you refer to in your post. If the bill is amended it will be reflected on the website within two or three days. Usually the day after the committee makes the change.

Read yourself:

bill source: here (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53)

(From the LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST not the text of the bill)

"10. Commencing July 1, 2017, and subject to exceptions, require the purchaser of ammunition to be authorized to purchase ammunition by the DOJ, as specified. This bill, commencing January 1, 2017, authorizes issuance of ammunition purchase authorizations by the DOJ to applicants who are residents of this state, at least 18 years of age, not prohibited from acquiring or possessing ammunition, and who pay the required fees, as specified.
11. Establishes a centralized list of persons authorized to purchase ammunition.
12. Commencing July 1, 2017, the vendor shall verify that the personis authorized to purchase ammunition by comparing the person’s California driver’s license number or California identification card number to the authorization number in the centralized list of authorized ammunition purchasers. If the person is not listed as an authorized ammunition purchaser, the vendor shall deny the sale."



Notice how if your name is not on the list because of some bureaucratic or computer SNAFU then you are SOL. No ammo for YOU.


And sure they could change the date it takes effect - 2016, 2018, whatever notion they get into their clever little heads.

2nd Mass
06-18-2013, 7:48 PM
You have to be on the list? That's a whole other ball game there. So they can track your purchases and ammo calibers? The bill is worse then I thought.

SonofWWIIDI
06-18-2013, 7:58 PM
The only source of information we have is the one you refer to in your post. If the bill is amended it will be reflected on the website within two or three days. Usually the day after the committee makes the change.

Read yourself:

bill source: here (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53)

(From the LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST not the text of the bill)

"10. Commencing July 1, 2017, and subject to exceptions, require the purchaser of ammunition to be authorized to purchase ammunition by the DOJ, as specified. This bill, commencing January 1, 2017, authorizes issuance of ammunition purchase authorizations by the DOJ to applicants who are residents of this state, at least 18 years of age, not prohibited from acquiring or possessing ammunition, and who pay the required fees, as specified.
11. Establishes a centralized list of persons authorized to purchase ammunition.
12. Commencing July 1, 2017, the vendor shall verify that the personis authorized to purchase ammunition by comparing the person’s California driver’s license number or California identification card number to the authorization number in the centralized list of authorized ammunition purchasers. If the person is not listed as an authorized ammunition purchaser, the vendor shall deny the sale."



Notice how if your name is not on the list because of some bureaucratic or computer SNAFU then you are SOL. No ammo for YOU.

And sure they could change the date it takes effect - 2016, 2018, whatever notion they get into their clever little heads.

I can see it now, enthusiasts (not on the ammo purchasing list) standing outside guns shops, asking "um, excuse me sir, could you buy me some 9mm while you're in there?" Just like the teeny boppers shoulder tapping for alcohol and cigarettes.

CaliforniaLiberal
06-18-2013, 8:07 PM
I can see it now, enthusiasts (not on the ammo purchasing list) standing outside guns shops, asking "um, excuse me sir, could you buy me some 9mm while you're in there?" Just like the teeny boppers shoulder tapping for alcohol and cigarettes.

:rofl::smilielol5::rofl2:

G21Shooter
06-18-2013, 8:19 PM
Damn I am 26, make $14/hr, and I will need to buy a lifetime worth of ammo between now and July 2017 if this bill passes cause I ain't submitting to that BS.

majtom94
06-18-2013, 8:24 PM
Permits won't be issued that's the point. And they know it.

Naw, this will be tossed the minute there is not a one to one correlation; total infringement of the second.

I will not supply the correlation on the board but they have fu**ed themselves.

SilverTauron
06-18-2013, 8:46 PM
Naw, this will be tossed the minute there is not a one to one correlation; total infringement of the second.

I will not supply the correlation on the board but they have fu**ed themselves.

Look at Maryland.

The anti's have instituted a de-facto 100 day waiting period due to the State's background check backlog.

The way it'll go down in CA is this: they won't deny anyone outright. Rather, the DOJ will assign the entire state's ammo purchase paperwork queue to 1 clerk and let time do their work for them. Everyone who qualifies will get an ammo card-12 months later.

Someone files suit-"O, we're so sorry, our ammo department is just UNDERSTAFFED! We're not infringing on the RKBA , we just don't have enough people to process the requests inside of 12 months."

chris
06-18-2013, 8:48 PM
Ours appears the weaker voice, the minority.

Vick

our voice is weak because it is chosen to be ignored by them.

majtom94
06-18-2013, 9:04 PM
Look at Maryland.

The anti's have instituted a de-facto 100 day waiting period due to the State's background check backlog.

The way it'll go down in CA is this: they won't deny anyone outright. Rather, the DOJ will assign the entire state's ammo purchase paperwork queue to 1 clerk and let time do their work for them. Everyone who qualifies will get an ammo card-12 months later.

Someone files suit-"O, we're so sorry, our ammo department is just UNDERSTAFFED! We're not infringing on the RKBA , we just don't have enough people to process the requests inside of 12 months."

Wow, thought that would take more than a minute to figure out; my rebuttal is they stole the 25 million in Dros fees; it should require the protection of a right over the enforcement of a law?

chris
06-18-2013, 9:22 PM
you can bet the farm that there will be massive delays in processing these "permits" right. you will be required to ask permission to buy ammunition for your rights. the 2a here will be relegated to a privilege like driving.

and I bet the spectrum of reasons of denial will be wide and far.

obiwan
06-19-2013, 7:01 AM
And if your name is not on the list, or you do not have purchases logged in the system and you are in possession of ammo, this is the fate that waits (http://veritasnewsservice.blogspot.com/)

javalos
06-19-2013, 7:22 AM
our voice is weak because it is chosen to be ignored by them.

Yes, due to the fact they fear no ballot box revolution, they know they are secure and can legislate against us with impunity.

Warrior King
06-19-2013, 9:22 AM
Yes, due to the fact they fear no ballot box revolution, they know they are secure and can legislate against us with impunity.

The answer is to not make this a DEM V.S. REPUB issue. Pro 2nd amendment gun owners hunters etc of both parties need to make guys like Yee pay for their gun suppression laws.

We need to have pro gun candidates running in every state leg. district. If the district is mostly Dem/Latino then we need to find a pro gun ex Marine dem/Latino to run in that district and so on...

Also, we need to set an example for the next would be Yee. If we have a strong grass roots organization and action committee the next crack pot like Yee will be met with a well funded challenge from a pro gun candidate from their own party.

The key is finding candidates that have broad appeal but are also pro gun, maybe ex military etc. and build a firewall so this type of legislation will not just get an automatic rubber stamp, but will never get out of committee thanks to our pro gun dems and pubs.

SilverTauron
06-19-2013, 12:53 PM
The answer is to not make this a DEM V.S. REPUB issue. Pro 2nd amendment gun owners hunters etc of both parties need to make guys like Yee pay for their gun suppression laws.

We need to have pro gun candidates running in every state leg. district. If the district is mostly Dem/Latino then we need to find a pro gun ex Marine dem/Latino to run in that district and so on...

Also, we need to set an example for the next would be Yee. If we have a strong grass roots organization and action committee the next crack pot like Yee will be met with a well funded challenge from a pro gun candidate from their own party.

The key is finding candidates that have broad appeal but are also pro gun, maybe ex military etc. and build a firewall so this type of legislation will not just get an automatic rubber stamp, but will never get out of committee thanks to our pro gun dems and pubs.

This is backwards.

People like Yee didn't just walk into the State Assembly building.He was elected by thousands of California voters:and THEY think guns are a sign of barbaric intent.

Until that culture is changed-or en-mass enforcement of Federal immigration law in California takes place,no pro gun candidate will gain traction.It would be like an East Coast Democrat running for office on the Dakotas.We just ain't interested in anything the "D's" have to say.

SickofSoCal
06-26-2013, 8:01 PM
So, this passed the Senate a few days ago. Nobody???


http://www.thedailysheeple.com/gun-control-california-senate-passes-bill-requiring-permit-to-buy-ammo_062013

advocatusdiaboli
06-26-2013, 8:07 PM
This is backwards.

People like Yee didn't just walk into the State Assembly building.He was elected by thousands of California voters:and THEY think guns are a sign of barbaric intent.

Until that culture is changed-or en-mass enforcement of Federal immigration law in California takes place,no pro gun candidate will gain traction.It would be like an East Coast Democrat running for office on the Dakotas.We just ain't interested in anything the "D's" have to say.

Right on. While not all Democrats are anti-gun, that's the way to bet and most of them are. Show me the anti-gun republican platform? Right. There isn't one. How many Republicans have sponsored these anti-gun bills? None? Well color me surprised! Not.

advocatusdiaboli
06-26-2013, 8:15 PM
So, this passed the Senate a few days ago. Nobody???


http://www.thedailysheeple.com/gun-control-california-senate-passes-bill-requiring-permit-to-buy-ammo_062013

It is inevitable—gun rights will be nothing but a memory in California soon legislatively speaking though court battles will rage for years and, if we are lucky, injunctions will stave many laws off for sometime.

1681
06-26-2013, 8:20 PM
So, this passed the Senate a few days ago. Nobody???


http://www.thedailysheeple.com/gun-control-california-senate-passes-bill-requiring-permit-to-buy-ammo_062013

it's in a** pub saft now...

Scratch705
06-26-2013, 8:25 PM
out of state ammo buys here i come, f that law. easy enough to bypass any checkpoints they put up if they can even afford to man any.

SickofSoCal
06-26-2013, 8:38 PM
out of state ammo buys here i come, f that law. easy enough to bypass any checkpoints they put up if they can even afford to man any.

Better start going through Truckee... because they'll close that loophole faster than they did for open carry.

HBrebel
06-26-2013, 8:40 PM
How much do you guys want to bet that Deleon & Yee, or their staff, have an account trolling this site right now?

No remember the government told us that they do not spy on us unless they 'suspect us' of being a security risk. So say what you want they aren't listening.

Hoooper
06-27-2013, 8:21 AM
Better start going through Truckee... because they'll close that loophole faster than they did for open carry.

there are a boatload of state border crossings that dont even have checkpoints, wouldnt be difficult to use those

advocatusdiaboli
06-27-2013, 8:28 AM
It is not illegal to buy ammunition out of state and they'll have a heck'uva time making it so. Only the Feds can make it so as they did for firearms and that will never happen.

CaliforniaLiberal
06-27-2013, 8:38 AM
there are a boatload of state border crossings that dont even have checkpoints, wouldnt be difficult to use those


Why does anyone care about the Agricultural Inspection? They just ask where you're coming from and if it's far away they ask if you have fruits or vegetables. They only care about keeping agricultural pests out of CA. This does not make me fear worry about transporting ammunition.

G21Shooter
06-27-2013, 8:44 AM
Look at Maryland.

The anti's have instituted a de-facto 100 day waiting period due to the State's background check backlog.

The way it'll go down in CA is this: they won't deny anyone outright. Rather, the DOJ will assign the entire state's ammo purchase paperwork queue to 1 clerk and let time do their work for them. Everyone who qualifies will get an ammo card-12 months later.

Someone files suit-"O, we're so sorry, our ammo department is just UNDERSTAFFED! We're not infringing on the RKBA , we just don't have enough people to process the requests inside of 12 months."

Yeah its BS through and through and we need to do everything in our powers to STOP it from becoming law!

Donate money to the NRA, and as many of the CA gun rights organizations as you can!

obiwan
06-27-2013, 8:49 AM
It is not illegal to buy ammunition out of state and they'll have a heck'uva time making it so. Only the Feds can make it so as they did for firearms and that will never happen.
True but it will be illegal to purchase and not pay the use tax

Wherryj
06-27-2013, 8:51 AM
Damn I am 26, make $14/hr, and I will need to buy a lifetime worth of ammo between now and July 2017 if this bill passes cause I ain't submitting to that BS.

Think of it as a goal. You need goals in life to succeed.

Even if you get only 75% of your life's shooting needs, you'll be ahead of the game and need fewer trips to your other home in Arizona to restock.

Hoooper
06-27-2013, 8:56 AM
Why does anyone care about the Agricultural Inspection? They just ask where you're coming from and if it's far away they ask if you have fruits or vegetables. They only care about keeping agricultural pests out of CA. This does not make me fear worry about transporting ammunition.

I dont worry about it either, just making the point for those saying the ag checks are going to start questioning/confiscating out of state ammo that there are plenty of roads across the border that dont have checkpoints

True but it will be illegal to purchase and not pay the use tax

what use tax :confused:

AceGirlsHusband
06-27-2013, 9:04 AM
True but it will be illegal to purchase and not pay the use tax

If you purchase the ammunition in person in another state you pay that jurisdiction's sales tax. You don't have to pay a second, California tax if you bring it home. Use tax is the demon of internet sales, where NO tax is collected by the state of sale, nor by the end-user when he/she receives the product at his/her home of residence.

formerTexan
06-27-2013, 9:07 AM
Look at Maryland.

The anti's have instituted a de-facto 100 day waiting period due to the State's background check backlog.

The way it'll go down in CA is this: they won't deny anyone outright. Rather, the DOJ will assign the entire state's ammo purchase paperwork queue to 1 clerk and let time do their work for them. Everyone who qualifies will get an ammo card-12 months later.

Someone files suit-"O, we're so sorry, our ammo department is just UNDERSTAFFED! We're not infringing on the RKBA , we just don't have enough people to process the requests inside of 12 months."

There is something immensely back *** wards about how CA, due to budget problems, is forced by the courts to practically release prisoners. How this kind of back-handed "budget related" anti-2A stuff stands, I really don't know. What a country.

advocatusdiaboli
06-27-2013, 9:11 AM
Yeah its BS through and through and we need to do everything in our powers to STOP it from becoming law!

Donate money to the NRA, and as many of the CA gun rights organizations as you can!

The fight will be in the courts and we are already well-funded there though the outcomes are unpredictable (as SCOTUS has shown of late). No amount of money will change the behavior of the Democratic legislature in catering to the anti-gun majority and defying the tiny pro-gun minority. That ship has sailed years ago.

Gavelek
06-27-2013, 9:13 AM
Voice your opinions writing letters to your representatives

advocatusdiaboli
06-27-2013, 9:15 AM
There is something immensely back *** wards about how CA, due to budget problems, is forced by the courts to practically release prisoners. How this kind of back-handed "budget related" anti-2A stuff stands, I really don't know. What a country.

Passing the legislature is only one (though nearly sure) thing—though all of them might not. Then they have to pass the governor's desk and a few might not. Then those that are left have to pass judicial muster and most will not hope. That last hurdle is the one thing the Deomcratic anti-gun zealots cannot buy yet. the last ammo bill was killed there and this might as be as well. i am decidedly not sanguine about gun rights in California longer term, but I believe there will be a lot of fighting in the near term and much of this will be staved off for years.

fizux
06-27-2013, 9:19 AM
If you purchase the ammunition in person in another state you pay that jurisdiction's sales tax. You don't have to pay a second, California tax if you bring it home. Use tax is the demon of internet sales, where NO tax is collected by the state of sale, nor by the end-user when he/she receives the product at his/her home of residence.
Not necessarily true -- if you buy a new car in another state, you can't bring it back to California immediately and avoid the use tax.

advocatusdiaboli
06-27-2013, 9:20 AM
Voice your opinions writing letters to your representatives
I write Tom Berryhill (14th Senate District—my district) all the time and he writes me back. But he is lonely up there and over-whelmed. He's ex-Special Forces and West Point and feeling like Custer most days I think.

I gave up writing the Democrats—I got form letters back stating "Thanks but no thanks—I am doing i what is right for California" and realized my time was better spent earning more money to fund the court fights.

Take a look at the City Council meeting in Sunnyvale—the other side overwhelms us in people and money now. Only the courts protect true minorities in the US—always has been that way and always will be—so that's where my money and time is.

AceGirlsHusband
06-27-2013, 9:25 AM
Not necessarily true -- if you buy a new car in another state, you can't bring it back to California immediately and avoid the use tax.

Yes, to split hairs, there are exceptions. Vehicles come under their own registration and tax requirements outlined in the vehicle and tax codes. Ammunition, however, does not. And unless the legislature redefines ammunition as a special, consummable commodity subject to retax or registration if imported, its just like the combs, toothpaste or nail file you buy in Vegas and come home with... for tax purposes.

stony
06-27-2013, 9:33 AM
If this bill passes, I will have another reason to visit my family in Oregon. Plus, Oregon doesn't have a sales tax so if I buy enough ammo, it almost compensates for the gas money.

advocatusdiaboli
06-27-2013, 9:38 AM
Yes, to split hairs, there are exceptions. Vehicles come under their own registration and tax requirements outlined in the vehicle and tax codes. Ammunition, however, does not. And unless the legislature redefines ammunition as a special, consummable commodity subject to retax or registration if imported, its just like the combs, toothpaste or nail file you buy in Vegas and come home with... for tax purposes.


Further, the difference is because cars have to registered in CA and therefore you have to pay the fees. We are not there in ammunition—yet.

Hoooper
06-27-2013, 9:40 AM
Not necessarily true -- if you buy a new car in another state, you can't bring it back to California immediately and avoid the use tax.

the price of tea in China may be between 300 and 1000 yuan/500g, whats that got to do with ammo tax?

Wherryj
06-27-2013, 9:45 AM
True but it will be illegal to purchase and not pay the use tax

This is very true because everyone diligently declares their use tax on all purchases out of state. It won't be an issue because we are all diligently declaring our use tax on everything already.

Wherryj
06-27-2013, 9:47 AM
Yes, to split hairs, there are exceptions. Vehicles come under their own registration and tax requirements outlined in the vehicle and tax codes. Ammunition, however, does not. And unless the legislature redefines ammunition as a special, consummable commodity subject to retax or registration if imported, its just like the combs, toothpaste or nail file you buy in Vegas and come home with... for tax purposes.

This is true because vehicles need to be registered and the tax is based upon the location where it's registered not the location of purchase. The question will become-will ammo eventually be forced into nation wide registration such that it will become the same as vehicles? Not likely so long as Texas, Alaska and the Dakotas remain in the Union.

advocatusdiaboli
06-27-2013, 9:50 AM
True but it will be illegal to purchase and not pay the use tax

The tax on ammo is not a use tax but rather a sales tax. The only restrictions on buying object out of state are: 1) if they require registration to use/possess in CA (like cars—so you pay the reg fees but not sales tax) or 2) firearms because federal law prohibits buying in another state—you have to transfer to an in-state FFL and therefore the sale is in CA and CA can collect sales tax.

ammunition doesn't fall under either of these yet though I am sure the anti-gun lobbies are considering the issue as we speak.

advocatusdiaboli
06-27-2013, 9:52 AM
This is true because vehicles need to be registered and the tax is based upon the location where it's registered not the location of purchase. The question will become-will ammo eventually be forced into nation wide registration such that it will become the same as vehicles? Not likely so long as Texas, Alaska and the Dakotas remain in the Union.

Exactly. We posted similar comments about the same time.

advocatusdiaboli
06-27-2013, 9:53 AM
This is true because vehicles need to be registered and the tax is based upon the location where it's registered not the location of purchase. The question will become-will ammo eventually be forced into nation wide registration such that it will become the same as vehicles? Not likely so long as Texas, Alaska and the Dakotas remain in the Union.

Exactly. We posted similar comments about the same time. though you missed a detail—when you register here, you don't pay the sales tax if you already paid out of state, just the reg fees.

Springfield45
06-27-2013, 11:58 AM
Exactly. We posted similar comments about the same time. though you missed a detail—when you register here, you don't pay the sales tax if you already paid out of state, just the reg fees.

I have Four examples that say Kalifornia all ways gets it money if you have to register. Ammo will be just like example 4 because I do not need to register ammo to use it.

One; I bought a car in nevada and had to pay taxes here to register. No taxes paid to Nevada.

Two; I bought a quad in Nevada and had to pay taxes here to register. No taxes paid to Nevada.

Three; I bought a gun in Nevada and had it sent to a FFL here and I paid taxes in nevada. FFL all so taxed me to register it here. I call the original seller and explain the problem and they refund me the tax money I paid with no problem.

Four; I bought an antique gun in Nevada but there is no registration because it was pre 1898. I paid taxes to Nevada.

advocatusdiaboli
06-27-2013, 12:06 PM
I have Four examples that say Kalifornia all ways gets it money if you have to register. Ammo will be just like example 4 because I do not need to register ammo to use it.

One; I bought a car in nevada and had to pay taxes here to register. No taxes paid to Nevada.

Two; I bought a quad in Nevada and had to pay taxes here to register. No taxes paid to Nevada.

Three; I bought a gun in Nevada and had it sent to a FFL here and I paid taxes in nevada. FFL all so taxed me to register it here. I call the original seller and explain the problem and they refund me the tax money I paid with no problem.

Four; I bought an antique gun in Nevada but there is no registration because it was pre 1898. I paid taxes to Nevada.

The firearms I understand—since by federal law you didn't actually purchase it until you received it from the FFL in California—it sucks but that's the way that is.

As for the vehicle, I didn't realize you had to pay sales tax—you certainly don't on vehicles purchased out of state if a non-resident—I know many people who did not—they just registered them but then they were not residents when they purchased. If true then both the fed and CA policy violate the interstate commerce clause me thinks though no one has ever brought suit over it.

advocatusdiaboli
06-27-2013, 12:11 PM
I
Four; I bought an antique gun in Nevada but there is no registration because it was pre 1898. I paid taxes to Nevada.

Interesting you could even buy a gun out of state legally without going through an FFL even if a collectors firearm—but I don't know the details on those regs I admit. I'd check deeper if I were you—that might have been illegal to have to pay tax twice or you could petition to get the Nevada tax back (yeah right I know, as if right?).

Hoooper
06-27-2013, 12:11 PM
As for the vehicle, I didn't realize you had to pay sales tax—you certainly don't on vehicles purchased out of state if a non-resident—I know many people who did not—they just registered them but then they were not residents when they purchased. If true then both the fed and CA policy violate the interstate commerce clause me thinks though no one has ever brought suit over it.

if you go to NV and buy a vehicle but you register it in CA, you would pay taxes in CA and not in NV. If you registered it in NV and then moved to CA you would have paid the taxes in NV and only have to pay registration when you come to CA

Uxi
06-27-2013, 1:00 PM
This is very true because everyone diligently declares their use tax on all purchases out of state. It won't be an issue because we are all diligently declaring our use tax on everything already.

AS noted in this case, it's apples and meatloaf anyway, but I've been contemplating out of state ammo buys for other reasons anyway (availability being the prime reason). If one chooses to be a good subject, California has the safe harbor thing which is 0.07% of income IIRC and covers you for the year. Or there's always disobedience...

IVC
06-27-2013, 1:45 PM
This is very true because everyone diligently declares their use tax on all purchases out of state. It won't be an issue because we are all diligently declaring our use tax on everything already.

The use tax is phrased to include only the *difference* between (out of) state tax actually paid and the CA sales tax at the location of residence. Otherwise it would be easily stricken down as being a type of "import tax."

In addition, the burden of proof is on the state to show that an item was not only purchased out of state, but that it has been used in CA. For consumer level products it's a very tall order since the state cannot even prove that the item is in CA, let alone that it's the exact item that has been purchased out of state.

Looking forward for the BOE agents at the shooting ranges collecting spent brass...

ENTHUSIAST
06-28-2013, 1:54 PM
Did this just pass?

I got an email saying there will be a $50 fee to purchase ammo and a Background check for buying ammo and no more internet sales is this true?!?

Can ammo still be sold Face To Face private party?

sdblu
06-28-2013, 2:13 PM
Did this just pass?

I got an email saying there will be a $50 fee to purchase ammo and a Background check for buying ammo and no more internet sales is this true?!?

Can ammo still be sold Face To Face private party?

Nothing has passed yet.

It is hard to say at this point what fees and restrictions it would fully implement. We have to wait until it goes through a couple more committees and the assembly floor for any further changes.

Johnny Lightning
06-28-2013, 3:54 PM
Jerry Brown won't sign it. But lets say he does and it becomes "law". Then tax free ammunition will flood the state from Oregon, Arizona, and Nevada. Just imagine the money to be made. I'll be richer than Al Capone!.

advocatusdiaboli
06-28-2013, 6:47 PM
Calm down. It still has to pass the House and then Commie Jerry's signature. And then the legal challenges begin. The intent of California is clear—to take away firearms rights in the state and they'll eventually succeed, but the doing will take a long time yet. there is plenty of time for a rear guard action to delay while you make plans to vacate this pathetic state. Years even

dawgcasa
06-28-2013, 6:56 PM
I travel out of state on business once or twice per month ... If this passes I anticipate my checked baggage coming home 15 lbs heavier than when I left each time.

NRai2001
06-30-2013, 1:57 AM
Sorry I ve been out of the loop lately and haven't had time to read most of this thread... But did sb 53 pass and when would it take effect?

CaliforniaLiberal
06-30-2013, 3:34 AM
Calm down. It still has to pass the House and then Commie Jerry's signature. And then the legal challenges begin. The intent of California is clear—to take away firearms rights in the state and they'll eventually succeed, but the doing will take a long time yet. there is plenty of time for a rear guard action to delay while you make plans to vacate this pathetic state. Years even

Sorry I ve been out of the loop lately and haven't had time to read most of this thread... But did sb 53 pass and when would it take effect?


Two posts up the page....

Kablemodem
07-04-2013, 11:44 AM
As you should all know by now, SB 53 was passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee and next heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

As I was reading the analysis on the bill, I saw the following:

"According to the recent USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, 79% of Californians support requiring ammunition buyers to undergo a background check, and a clear majority of gun owners (2 out of every 3) want the same. The poll makes clear that Californians want to prevent criminals, domestic batterers, and the criminally insane from freely being able to acquire ammunition. Senate Bill 53 works toward that end by ensuring that only law-abiding citizens can purchase ammunition in California."

I don't know which "recent" poll he is referring to, but the recent LA Times poll that was discussed on this forum had a vote of about 95% opposing the bill, and I can't imagine that a single gun owner wants this bill to pass.

"Argument in Support: According to the California Police Chiefs Association, "California has enacted legislation designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it has done little to prevent criminals and gang members from procuring ammunition. Currently, any criminal can walk into a Big 5 or Wal-Mart and purchase pallets of ammunition, no questions asked. It is easier to purchase ammunition than it is a packet of cigarettes or allergy medicine."

First of all, Big 5 and Wal-Mart do not sell guns or ammo around here. And for the ones that do, please tell me which ones have pallets of ammunition for sale. I would love to be able to buy even a small fraction of a pallet.

You can read the bill analysis here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml

The entire bill is based on false assumptions and false information and will do nothing but prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing ammo.

advocatusdiaboli
07-04-2013, 12:03 PM
The entire bill is based on false assumptions and false information and will do nothing but prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing ammo.

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels

"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

-- "War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler

CaliforniaLiberal
07-04-2013, 12:51 PM
.......You can read the bill analysis here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml

The entire bill is based on false assumptions and false information and will do nothing but prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing ammo.

This is true of all proposed CA Gun Laws. You may assume before beginning your investigation of Gun Bills in the Legislature that they have only political motivations; to impress voters who have been taught to fear guns.

There is not one Bill that is based on an appreciation of facts or that will have any effect except to harm or inconvenience responsible law abiding gun owners. Legislators are proud of their ignorance of the operation and use of firearms and and assume that there is something nefarious about normal, lawful gun ownership.

We are in a great battle for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and we must fight on even as it seems that a great tide of ignorance and darkness overwhelms us.

fizux
07-04-2013, 1:43 PM
Yes, to split hairs, there are exceptions. Vehicles come under their own registration and tax requirements outlined in the vehicle and tax codes. Ammunition, however, does not. And unless the legislature redefines ammunition as a special, consummable commodity subject to retax or registration if imported, its just like the combs, toothpaste or nail file you buy in Vegas and come home with... for tax purposes.
They aren't trying to control your use of a comb -- they don't care. Tax is just an enforcement mechanism (just ask Al Capone).
the price of tea in China may be between 300 and 1000 yuan/500g, whats that got to do with ammo tax?
Tea is exempt from use tax (grocery item).
The tax on ammo is not a use tax but rather a sales tax. The only restrictions on buying object out of state are: 1) if they require registration to use/possess in CA (like cars—so you pay the reg fees but not sales tax) or 2) firearms because federal law prohibits buying in another state—you have to transfer to an in-state FFL and therefore the sale is in CA and CA can collect sales tax.
ammunition doesn't fall under either of these yet though I am sure the anti-gun lobbies are considering the issue as we speak.
The use tax is defined as the sales tax that you would have owed if you bought the personal property item in California, car, ammo, stereo, or any other personal property.
Exactly. We posted similar comments about the same time. though you missed a detail—when you register here, you don't pay the sales tax if you already paid out of state, just the reg fees.
You get to deduct the foreign state sales tax from the assessed use tax (see R&T §6406); if you buy in a state with sales tax, you just owe the difference to California (since no state has a higher sales tax). If it is a vehicle that is used out of state for 90 days prior to being imported, or (several other exceptions), then it is not subject to use tax.
Ammo isn't typically "used" unless you are importing once-fired brass or something.

advocatusdiaboli
07-04-2013, 2:23 PM
We are in a great battle for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and we must fight on even as it seems that a great tide of ignorance and darkness overwhelms us.

Well, as I keep saying, it is the courts and (absent a better governor than I think Brown is) only that will side with us on those bills that pass. The courts have always been the last resort of minorities to avoid the tyranny of the majority in the USA.

And don't for one minute assume our opponents do this of ignorance or a mistaken impression that their measures will touch criminals with firearms. Their real agenda is to rid California and, eventually, the USA of private ownership of guns. That is why they point to mass shootings so often because most of the perpetrators of those did not have criminal records—they fear us all not just criminals and want us all disarmed. That includes eliminating all hunting as well for many. And that hidden (at least unspoken agenda) is why the courts will help us—they will pierce the veil and perceive the agenda behind this and, sicne it is contrary to the Second Amendment's spirit and letter, they'll stop it. Unitl the court itself is corrupted by such devious people as to support that agenda—which will happen if Democrats keep getting elected in the state and nationally in sufficient numbers as they are now. We have almost lost SCOTUS as it is and the 9th circuit is already against us.

RRangel
07-04-2013, 2:43 PM
Don't stop calling, faxing, and writing. Deleon and all the gun ban proponents need to hear from everyone.

advocatusdiaboli
07-04-2013, 2:54 PM
Don't stop calling, faxing, and writing. Deleon and all the gun ban proponents need to hear from everyone.

I will continue to contact them but it won't matter—since their goal is to eliminate all firearms in private ownership in the California and the United States. They have a two-pronged attack: the first prong is that they are slowly expanding the definition of illegal firearms as making the purchase and possession of firearms increasingly a expensive to reduce ownership and the second it so make ammunition difficult and expensive to obtain and eliminate storage of an material amount of i and I have no doubt they will go after reloading once they've killed the retail channel with excessive regulation and taxation.

They've been frustrated in their attempts to ban as many categories of firearms as they can so they've decide to eliminate the vital ammunition ammunition that powers them making them effectively inert. the great thing about that (to them) is they then get hunters also.

Enough of this, I am, like I hope all the rest of you, going to enjoy the 4th with all the liberty and freedom and sacrifice it represents on this great day. I'll lay down my arms today (though they are at the ready to fight these infringing laws) but Ill pick them back up tomorrow and renew the fight.

DannyInSoCal
07-04-2013, 3:09 PM
I volunteer Yee to address the next tragic group of grieving parents mourning the loss of their children after the inevitable school shooting in the future. He can simply say:

"Although we didn't actually do anything to make schools safer -

Such as allowing qualified staff to carry concealed weapons -

Or randomly assigned undercover plain clothes school marshalls -

Please take comfort in the fact your children's murders will be exploited to disarm law abiding tax paying citizens and veterans..."

tetris
07-04-2013, 3:56 PM
Not necessarily true -- if you buy a new car in another state, you can't bring it back to California immediately and avoid the use tax.

Well, you could try to avoid the "use tax" if you didn't use it. For instance, if you never registered your new car in CA, it will be a lot harder (not impossible) for them to enforce the tax. The only difference between cars and ammo is that you have to register your car. Oh wait...I don't want to give them any ideas.

jackdhammer
07-05-2013, 8:43 AM
Voice your opinions writing letters to your representatives

Yeah...cause they care....


Sorry, no disrespect, just feeling a little hopeless in the current American political climate. And its especially hard here in this cesspool of a state.

chris
07-05-2013, 9:03 AM
Voice your opinions writing letters to your representatives

your new here and may have no idea that these STATISTS do not care for your voice of opposition. their minds are made up and they will do what they want no matter what we say or facts we present to them.

Yeah...cause they care....


Sorry, no disrespect, just feeling a little hopeless in the current American political climate. And its especially hard here in this cesspool of a state.

we know they don't care.

Thordo
07-05-2013, 9:36 AM
Just read the whole thing twice. What stands out the most, to me, is the use of our CDL or CID numbers as the identifier. That has a great potential to create a black market for stolen CDL or CID numbers. Criminals can use fake IDs with our numbers to buy ammo, commit a crime, and it will US that get our doors bashed in by the police. The same could potentially happen with micro stamped shell casings.

UNBELIEVABLE!!

Thordo

BlueRidge62
07-05-2013, 1:05 PM
True but it will be illegal to purchase and not pay the use tax

That is already the case and people buy stuff online or out of state all the time and skip the use tax either on purpose or just by ignorance of the law..no matter the result is the same.

Since its not a prohibited item, like say fruit, there is nothing to stop anyone from going to another state and buying ammo...just another reason this bill is so silly....

obiwan
07-05-2013, 1:32 PM
When this POS is in full affect by 2017, the database will log all sales/purchases. Not hard to imagine you getting jacked up, in possession of some ammo not in your purchase history which = unlawful purchase/possession since you failed to pay the state its due...

mshill
07-05-2013, 2:55 PM
When this POS is in full affect by 2017, the database will log all sales/purchases. Not hard to imagine you getting jacked up, in possession of some ammo not in your purchase history which = unlawful purchase/possession since you failed to pay the state its due...

That's total BS and FUD. They will not be able to account for all of the ammo previously purchased and stored. I know people that have 20/30/40 year old (and older) ammo. Until they pass another law that makes importing ammo from out of state illegal they won't even be able to begin making possession of a ammo without a record of sale as crime. Even then they cannot account for long term storage.

tpc13
07-05-2013, 4:03 PM
Black market they will create. Just like alcohol prohibition. Illegal for a while then legal. They can kiss my butt.

Goosebrown
07-05-2013, 4:23 PM
Last time SB-249 came up language from this forum made it into the bill. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.


So lets make up a bunch of BS, get that included and then sue that the bill is nonsense...

BTW, I do NOT own the gun above. I sold it and don't have it any more. Nor my ARs... All gone.

RRangel
07-05-2013, 8:20 PM
Yeah...cause they care....


Sorry, no disrespect, just feeling a little hopeless in the current American political climate. And its especially hard here in this cesspool of a state.

Keep in mind that's exactly what such people want. Always contact them.

smallshot13
08-31-2013, 11:50 AM
I will continue to contact them but it won't matter—since their goal is to eliminate all firearms in private ownership in the California and the United States. They have a two-pronged attack: the first prong is that they are slowly expanding the definition of illegal firearms as making the purchase and possession of firearms increasingly a expensive to reduce ownership and the second it so make ammunition difficult and expensive to obtain and eliminate storage of an material amount of i and I have no doubt they will go after reloading ...

Are we sure they don't have that covered in this bill? Read PC30306 in conjunction with PC 16150, then please tell me I am wrong.

advocatusdiaboli
08-31-2013, 12:40 PM
Are we sure they don't have that covered in this bill? Read PC30306 in conjunction with PC 16150, then please tell me I am wrong.

Maybe...it doesn't matter once they've outlawed semi-auto rifles (in a less than a month now) and placed enough restrictions on firearms and ammo purchases and possession (in less than a month now), they will certainly go after reloading specifically.

Their goal is to make all ammo prohibitively expensive and difficult to obtain so it is natural they'll pass new laws to keep you from workarounds like buying it out of state and stockpiling it or reloading it yourself to get around their restrictions.

It's to be expected and it looks very likely next term as the are emboldened by their success with their current crop of restrictions.

RRangel
08-31-2013, 1:55 PM
De León forgets that AB 962 was ruled unconstitutional. These same legislators waste their time on blaming inanimate objects, because dealing with and solving real issues, would take effort if they cared to begin with. Magical thinking, and a terrible leftist ideology, turns out to be what's convenient. Which is totally indicative of poor character, that leads to overt violation of our rights, we see from the left.

advocatusdiaboli
08-31-2013, 2:25 PM
De León forgets that AB 962 was ruled unconstitutional. These same legislators waste their time on blaming inanimate objects, because dealing with and solving real issues, would take effort if they cared to begin with. Magical thinking, and a terrible leftist ideology, turns out to be what's convenient. Which is totally indicative of poor character, that leads to overt violation of our rights, we see from the left.

He probably doesn't see the connection honestly or if he does, he just figures he'll keep trying until he slips one past the gauntlet and previous successes have emboldened them.

We have a disconnect int our community which is plain to see when I hear things like you said: "waste their time on blaming inanimate objects, because dealing with and solving real issues, would take effort if they cared to begin with."

That's not why they do this—they know full well their laws won't affect crime, they just imply that to win over the populace because the truth would not get them support. The truth, the real reason they want firearms out of the hands of citizens is they don't trust us with them—they are elitist leftists who think they know better what is good for us than the poor stupid masses do. Just like Bloomberg tried to take away large sodas.

They honestly fear us being armed because they hate, fear, and despise us as beneath them and think we are all potential threats to them. If you look at their behavior through that lens it all makes sense. And this is why you cannot reason with them talking about crime and statistics or a right to self-defense. They don't believe us—they think we want semi-auto rifles to hurt them one day because they plan to create a Nanny State run by their small group of elitists to control every aspect of our lives—for our own good because they know better than we do what is good for us. They live in mortal fear of the potential we might be able to fight back. Mao feared that, Stalin feared that. It is no coincidence Leyland Lee comes from that culture and that mentality. No coincidence at all. Some flee China to escape it, others bring it with them to impose here "for our own good".

Dutch3
08-31-2013, 3:12 PM
The truth, the real reason they want firearms out of the hands of citizens is they don't trust us with them—they are elitist leftists who think they know better what is good for us than the poor stupid masses do. Just like Bloomberg tried to take away large sodas.

They honestly fear us being armed because they hate, fear, and despise us as beneath them and think we are all potential threats to them. If you look at their behavior through that lens it all makes sense. And this is why you cannot reason with them talking about crime and statistics or a right to self-defense. They don't believe us—they think we want semi-auto rifles to hurt them one day because they plan to create a Nanny State run by their small group of elitists to control every aspect of our lives—for our own good because they know better than we do what is good for us.

And this is the reason they pander to law enforcement, exempting LE from the restrictions. They plan to call in a favor from LE while being tied to the stake by the constituents they have ignored.

Maybe 911 won't be working that day.

Granite
08-31-2013, 8:52 PM
De León forgets that AB 962 was ruled unconstitutional. These same legislators waste their time on blaming inanimate objects, because dealing with and solving real issues, would take effort if they cared to begin with. Magical thinking, and a terrible leftist ideology, turns out to be what's convenient. Which is totally indicative of poor character, that leads to overt violation of our rights, we see from the left.

It was ruled unconstitutional because it was for handgun ammunition, which left itself vague in the sense as to what actually is handgun ammunition. For example, there's 9 mm handguns and rifles.

Walter Mitty
09-01-2013, 1:24 AM
I've read several summaries of this bill and the text itself, but I have a lot of questions about how these ammo permits will work.

How much will ammo purchase permits cost? There's no amount listed in the bill, can the DoJ just make up whatever amount they feel like? Have they stated how much they will cost?

Will ammo permits be good forever or will they have to be renewed (and fees paid) every year?

If I take my friends to the range will I be allowed to give them ammo to shoot? Is this really a ban on introducing new people to shooting?

All of this year's anti-gun bills are bad, but in my opinion this one is the worst.

advocatusdiaboli
09-01-2013, 4:25 AM
I've read several summaries of this bill and the text itself, but I have a lot of questions about how these ammo permits will work.

That is by design: the more arcane the laws, the more people will refrain from an activity out of fear they'll be breaking the law engaging in it. Between obscure laws that make otherwise law-abiding firearms owners criminals on technicalities without even using a firearm to threaten, injure, or kill someone criminally combined with the doubt as to whether one is within the law, they hope to nearly eliminate firearms use in California one day. The devious and pernicious bureaucracy they are setting up is almost Kafkaesque. Mao would truly be proud.
All of this year's anti-gun bills are bad, but in my opinion this one is the worst.
And together, they are an unmitigated disaster for anyone who owns firearms in California.They don't want any of us here if we want to possess adn use firearms or hunt so they are bent either proscribing such behavior and re-educating Mao-style or forcing us to flee.

advocatusdiaboli
09-01-2013, 4:33 AM
And this is the reason they pander to law enforcement, exempting LE from the restrictions. They plan to call in a favor from LE while being tied to the stake by the constituents they have ignored.

Maybe 911 won't be working that day.

That day is a figment of their fear craven imaginations. Many of us at Calguns and in the NRA are veterans or on active duty, many current- or ex-law enforcement and certainly all of us are patriots and have high respect for the rule of law and the democratic process in this republic. We'll continue to fight with the ballot box and the pen. And some, if necessary. with our feet in a better state.

Radicalizing talk of liberty and rights to make us domestic enemies is part of the Obama Administration's strategy but we can significantly worsen the effect by playing along with our speech and actions. We are the patriots, let's no cede the moral and legal high ground. Or we will lose.

RRangel
09-01-2013, 8:06 AM
It was ruled unconstitutional because it was for handgun ammunition, which left itself vague in the sense as to what actually is handgun ammunition. For example, there's 9 mm handguns and rifles.

Yes; vagueness was only one of its legal flaws.

smallshot13
09-01-2013, 9:14 AM
This bill will reinstate AB 962, since it obtusely redefines 'hand gun ammunition' to apply to all ammunition, which is what they wanted to do in the first place. It eliminates the ability to purchase ammunition, and potentially components, from out of state sources (except through face-to-face purchase and import). THIS BILL MUST BE STOPPED.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems that this bill would be a restraint of trade between the various States. It does allow shipment of ammunition to/through a CA ammo dealer. I follow the money, and this tells me that the CA ammo dealers are behind the bill, as well as the anti's. So not only fight it at the legislative level, fight it at your local CA ammo dealer, asking them to strongly oppose it.

advocatusdiaboli
09-01-2013, 9:39 AM
this tells me that the CA ammo dealers are behind the bill, as well as the anti's. So not only fight it at the legislative level, fight it at your local CA ammo dealer, asking them to strongly oppose it.

I think one has to think shallowly to decide ammunition retailers benefit from this regulation overall. While prices will certainly rise, that is going to be more than offset by a significant drop in demand: their costs will increase significantly and as a result California retail demand will suffer substantially: the higher the price, the cost of licensing, and inconvenience, the greater the number of purchasers willing to travel out of state to Nevada, Idaho, or Oregon and beyond.

The net effect will be a mini-recession for ammunition sellers—which is the goal of these legislators. They are hoping increases costs and weakened demand will force the closing of retail ammunition outlets making ammunition even more scarce and expensive.

smallshot13
09-02-2013, 9:37 AM
advocatusdiaboli:

Not sure your analysis of shallow thought holds true. CA ammo retailers capture nearly 100% of ammo sales with the passage of this bill. That is no small number. There may be some price driven reduction in demand, but that is far out weighed by the capture of all ammunition sales, and the resulting higher prices. CA ammo dealers won't see much of an increase in their costs, (some admin record keeping), but they will see a huge increase in their volume and profit margin. Yes, the bill magnanimously allows us to order from outside the State (phone or internet) as long as the order is shipped to a CA ammo seller. Now why would they accept an out of state shipment through them vs. selling direct at a higher price? Follow the Money trail and it leads to CA ammo dealers trying to artificially manipulate the free markets through government intervention.

RRangel
09-02-2013, 9:44 AM
advocatusdiaboli:

Not sure your analysis of shallow thought holds true. CA ammo retailers capture nearly 100% of ammo sales with the passage of this bill. That is no small number. There may be some price driven reduction in demand, but that is far out weighed by the capture of all ammunition sales, and the resulting higher prices. CA ammo dealers won't see much of an increase in their costs, (some admin record keeping), but they will see a huge increase in their volume and profit margin. Yes, the bill magnanimously allows us to order from outside the State (phone or internet) as long as the order is shipped to a CA ammo seller. Now why would they accept an out of state shipment through them vs. selling direct at a higher price? Follow the Money trail and it leads to CA ammo dealers trying to artificially manipulate the free markets through government intervention.

Where's your evidence showing that ammo dealers support over regulation? From a general point of view I do find it highly unlikely. When government meddles with business nothing good can come of it. You can bet that this bill, will likely lead to even more restrictions, and regulations that will hurt business. That's the point of it. You're assuming that there will not be new restrictions written the following year. The very reason it needs to be fought tooth and nail.

AceGirlsHusband
09-02-2013, 9:50 AM
AB53 is going to have a grievous impact on match .22 shooters. As it is, right now, NO vendors in the Sacramento area (or even Northern California as far as I know) carries Eley, RWS, Lapua or even Federal UM22 for sale. I've tried to get one of our largest LGS's to order - but they won't. He doesn't perceive it being "worth his time."

As of right now, ALL my match .22LR comes via internet order and from out of state.

I have no idea how I'm (or anyone else) is going to handle this problem when the bill gets signed into law.:(

smallshot13
09-02-2013, 9:58 AM
So, approach your CA ammo dealer and ask them to join in the fight against AB 53 (name and money), and then measure their response. If they do actively join in, so much the better. If they just side step, well, draw your own conclusions.

SilverTauron
09-02-2013, 10:08 AM
AB53 is going to have a grievous impact on match .22 shooters. As it is, right now, NO vendors in the Sacramento area (or even Northern California as far as I know) carries Eley, RWS, Lapua or even Federal UM22 for sale. I've tried to get one of our largest LGS's to order - but they won't. He doesn't perceive it being "worth his time."

As of right now, ALL my match .22LR comes via internet order and from out of state.

I have no idea how I'm (or anyone else) is going to handle this problem when the bill gets signed into law.:(

The consequence is simple:you won't be able to shoot anymore.

Which is the point of the exercise.The Sacramento Regime is not stupid:by eliminating competition for ammo sales,brick and mortar dealers will raise prices.Higher prices for ammo means more people who own guns will abandon the sport for lack of funds.

Capybara
09-02-2013, 10:43 AM
The two dealers that I frequent both hate the idea of this bill and want nothing to do with it and are fighting it. Just think, no more WalMart ammo, no more hardware store ammo, no more Internet ammo sales without a hefty "service fee" for the transfer through your ammo dealer or your other choice will be to buy from a local ammo dealer. IMHO, this bill is the worst of a batch of terrible bills we are faced with this year and I am amazed that not a single person I have talked to at ranges, gun shops and amongst my friends who own guns had even heard of it until I educated them. We are our own worse enemy because as a community we are so fractured and low information.

curvejunkie
09-02-2013, 10:59 AM
We are our own worse enemy because as a community we are so fractured and low information.


I would say this is the win of the day....^

You all have no idea how many people come into the shop, and have no clue what is happening. Some, outright don't believe us when we tell them.

Or better yet, the best response I hear to the legislation is

" so? I have mine already"....

advocatusdiaboli
09-02-2013, 12:20 PM
Where's your evidence showing that ammo dealers support over regulation? From a general point of view I do find it highly unlikely. When government meddles with business nothing good can come of it. You can bet that this bill, will likely lead to even more restrictions, and regulations that will hurt business. That's the point of it. You're assuming that there will not be new restrictions written the following year. The very reason it needs to be fought tooth and nail.

I don't have evidence and, in fact, I was stating I believe it would hurt them and implying the AMMO DEALERS WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING IT NOR IN FAVOR OF IT.

If you read my response more carefully, you'll see I was responding to someone who stated "this tells me that the CA ammo dealers are behind the bill" which I disagreed with. I don't think CA ammunition dealers want more regulation due to the negative long term effects it will have on their businesses. You need to re-read my post and the person I quoted.

advocatusdiaboli
09-02-2013, 12:25 PM
We are our own worse enemy because as a community we are so fractured and low information.

Yep. I have hunter friends who don't care that semi-autos are being restricted because they think it's not going to effect them—they don't realize there will be more and more restriction after this and the end game is to ban civilian possession and use of firearms including hunting. they also laughed about the ammo license and fingerprinting and said:"So what? No big deal."

Divided and conquered.

advocatusdiaboli
09-02-2013, 12:29 PM
Which is the point of the exercise.The Sacramento Regime is not stupid:by eliminating competition for ammo sales,brick and mortar dealers will raise prices.Higher prices for ammo means more people who own guns will abandon the sport for lack of funds.

You bet. They decided a few years ago on a two-pronged attack since legislating against firearms alone was taking too long. Several anti-gun spokespeople even publicly stated that limiting ammunition access and making it prohibitively expensive through taxation and promoting scarcity was another tactic they'd employ. Because firearms are nearly useless without ammunition. I think fair courts that support the second amendment will see through this and will rule it's an unconstitutional attack on the right. The question is when will the issue be brought before fair and unbiased courts. I view thei regulation a a fait accompli. and I think the courts are our only hope of preserving our right at present and in the future.

G21Shooter
09-02-2013, 2:13 PM
The consequence is simple:you won't be able to shoot anymore.

Which is the point of the exercise.The Sacramento Regime is not stupid:by eliminating competition for ammo sales,brick and mortar dealers will raise prices.Higher prices for ammo means more people who own guns will abandon the sport for lack of funds.

Exactly. None of this anti-gun legislation will stop crime, and they know this. It is designed to make it such a hassle to buy, own, and shoot guns that people just are not going to do it as much.

They don't want anyone to own or shoot guns, period. Here they are letting prisoners out of the jails by the hundreds and they are busy wasting tax payers money thinking of ways to disarm the honest law abiding citizen.

Cnynrat
09-02-2013, 2:23 PM
Where's your evidence showing that ammo dealers support over regulation? From a general point of view I do find it highly unlikely.

I don't have conclusive evidence one way or the other.

It's only anecdotal, but back when AB962 was in the works I tried to convince the Bass Pro Shop in Rancho Cucamonga to put a stack of Calguns AB962 flyers in their gun shop. They wanted nothing to do with it. I've been suspicious of their motivations since then.

I won't shop there anymore.

advocatusdiaboli
09-02-2013, 2:36 PM
I don't have conclusive evidence one way or the other.

It's only anecdotal, but back when AB962 was in the works I tried to convince the Bass Pro Shop in Rancho Cucamonga to put a stack of Calguns AB962 flyers in their gun shop. They wanted nothing to do with it. I've been suspicious of their motivations since then.

I won't shop there anymore.

I don't construe that as implying they favored further ammunition regulation, but rather a reluctance to draw the attention of the authorities.

Many businesses, who stay in business at the largesse for local law enforcement and the CA DOJ, are reluctant to embroil themselves in politics for fear they'll be made an example of and such fears are well-founded. The FFL who sold the firearms to the mother of the kid who committed the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary is facing prison for gaps in paperwork that normally are minor (and certainly not criminal—ever) because the Obama Administration wants to make an example out of him. Anti-gun forces know very well the power of the "chilling effect" of over-reactive persecution through selective prosecution. If they cna scare jsut 1/4 of the FFLs in the US into leaving the business imagine what that would do to the availability of arms and the costs of obtaining them.

Cnynrat
09-02-2013, 2:39 PM
I don't construe that as implying they favored further ammunition regulation, but rather a reluctance to draw the attention of the authorities.

Many businesses, who stay in business at the largesse for local law enforcement and the CA DOJ, are reluctant to embroil themselves in politics for fear they'll be made an example of and such fears are well-founded. The FFL who sold the firearms to the mother of the kid who committed the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary is facing prison for gaps in paperwork that normally are minor (and certainly not criminal—ever) because the Obama Administration wants to make an example out of him. Anti-gun forces know very well the power of the "chilling effect" of over-reactive persecution through selective prosecution.

I agree it's not conclusive.

However, it was enough for me to decide to not support them anymore.

Corbin Dallas
09-02-2013, 2:39 PM
Don't give up hope yet.

If this girl:
L_-N9_tnWBo


And this guy:
Lh1zornUVv8


Are willing to fight, so should you.

Zane1844
09-02-2013, 2:40 PM
It is just insane here.

chris
09-02-2013, 3:46 PM
Don't give up hope yet.

If this girl:
L_-N9_tnWBo


And this guy:
Lh1zornUVv8


Are willing to fight, so should you.

while very well spoken all of that fell on deaf ears period. as all of our letters, calls, faxes and emails. yes they hear us and they ignore us in the same breath.

prometa
09-03-2013, 10:56 PM
The bill was amended in the assembly today. They added 6 months to the activation date, but more importantly, removed the ability for a non FFL to order ammo and have it shipped to an FFL for pickup. Now only licensed vendors can buy ammo online, period.

One step closer to an injunction I suppose.

G21Shooter
09-04-2013, 12:01 AM
The bill was amended in the assembly today. They added 6 months to the activation date, but more importantly, removed the ability for a non FFL to order ammo and have it shipped to an FFL for pickup. Now only licensed vendors can buy ammo online, period.

One step closer to an injunction I suppose.

By added 6 months to the activation date you mean we have a extra six months to buy ammo before the law takes effect(assuming it does)?

This bill needs to be stopped badly, just messed up on a lot of levels.

javalos
09-04-2013, 6:40 AM
Yep. I have hunter friends who don't care that semi-autos are being restricted because they think it's not going to effect them—they don't realize there will be more and more restriction after this and the end game is to ban civilian possession and use of firearms including hunting. they also laughed about the ammo license and fingerprinting and said:"So what? No big deal."

Divided and conquered.

Hunters for the most part tend to be the most complacent thinking that their shotgun or bolt gun will be untouched....fools! The legislative terrorists that we have in Sacramento want to end gun ownership in this state by banning it or making it too expensive for us. They will pursue the issue of lead full hilt and then where will the hunters be? 6 more years till I retire and I am so out of this nanny state, meanwhile I'll fight as long as possible.

G21Shooter
09-04-2013, 7:52 AM
No kidding, a lot of hunters are FUDs!

"I don't care what laws they pass, my shotgun and rifle will be okay". Wrong, try again. Next year if they get away with this current ****, they are going to classify scoped bolt action rifles as "assault sniper rifles". After that shotguns that hold over two rounds will be labeled "assault shotguns".

taperxz
09-04-2013, 8:00 AM
Hunters for the most part tend to be the most complacent thinking that their shotgun or bolt gun will be untouched....fools! .

BS! Generalize much?

taperxz
09-04-2013, 8:01 AM
No kidding, a lot of hunters are FUDs!

"I don't care what laws they pass, my shotgun and rifle will be okay". Wrong, try again. Next year if they get away with this current ****, they are going to classify scoped bolt action rifles as "assault sniper rifles". After that shotguns that hold over two rounds will be labeled "assault shotguns".

Whats FUD's????? You don't know what you are talking about either.

AceGirlsHusband
09-04-2013, 8:06 AM
BS! Generalize much?

I understand his sentiment. Our legislature practices incrementalism... a little bit at a time invested towards a very large, future goal.:(

AceGirlsHusband
09-04-2013, 8:14 AM
And this is the reason they pander to law enforcement, exempting LE from the restrictions. They plan to call in a favor from LE while being tied to the stake by the constituents they have ignored.

Maybe 911 won't be working that day.

LE is not completely exempted from all points of the ammo bill. We don't have to sign for it, BUT we don't get to order it via internet anymore, either. We're all in the same boat on that issue.

-hanko
09-04-2013, 8:47 AM
Hunters for the most part tend to be the most complacent thinking that their shotgun or bolt gun will be untouched....fools!
Not those with whom I hunt...nobody's complacent as to laws, and we're all in a state with a constitutional amendment as to rkba. Not to mention complete preemption.

No kidding, a lot of hunters are FUDs!

"I don't care what laws they pass, my shotgun and rifle will be okay". Wrong, try again. Next year if they get away with this current ****, they are going to classify scoped bolt action rifles as "assault sniper rifles". After that shotguns that hold over two rounds will be labeled "assault shotguns".
See above.

Obviously, any scoped sniper rifle can shoot right through a school, and shotguns can put hundreds of pellets in the air faster than a rifle. Keep your seat belt on, that's next on your legislature's agenda.

-hanko

sirgrumps
09-04-2013, 9:19 AM
Obviously, any scoped sniper rifle can shoot right through a school, and shotguns can put hundreds of pellets in the air faster than a rifle. Keep your seat belt on, that's next on your legislature's agenda.

-hanko

The next target will be hunting rifles. They are military style sniper rifles.

javalos
09-04-2013, 9:58 AM
BS! Generalize much?

If I offended a particular group, my apology's, my opinion is solely based on interaction with types of gun owners and their interests. It just seems to me that many hunters that I have chatted with have come to believe that their firearms are innocuous compared others that have handguns or shoot various types of semi-auto rifles. I warned them their their scatter guns and bolt guns are the next round of targeted firearms by the legislative terrorists in Sacramento.