Need truth--not spin, not paranoia, rumor mill on 2019 ammo

[TucoNorCal]

Iv'e Been in gun stores a lot lately buying some new guns, selling some old guns etc. In 2012, for the first time since 1984, I got out of shooting. I just quit in frustration due to shortages, price gouging, and black-gun mania sufferers hording everything from primers to range brass. Media panic and rumors at the range fueling all of it. My own shooting community ruining the sport!

Poor quality guns being pumped out by manufactures on models not part of the frenzy---unable to meet mania demands on "the sky is falling models". I started resenting hunting down reloading supplies and waiting in long lines on Thursday mornings at Sportsman's Warehouse for rationed purchases. I'm not the only one who said "I'm done with this crap!"

Well, when the sky stopped falling, I started getting interested again. Now, there is a new buzz about new legislation that by 2019, ammo will have new background requirements that, if taken at face value, will once again end all gun sports in California.

At various gun stores, I heard these and other things on background check legislation:

A) "they are getting out of the ammo business because it won't be worth it if the approved background check method is not instant".

Implied consequence 1: availability of ammo goes down, price goes up.
Motive for non-truth: a rush on inflated price ammo all they way to 2019!


B) The state is making shooting only affordable to the financially elite: stores will ask for fees for the new background check and make people wait 10 days for ammo. This makes practicing difficult and expensive. However, no background check required at ranges (if used on the range) would mean ammo access to "members only", with prices set by ranges having no competition.

So, is this the beginning of "let the hoarding and gouging begin"? What is the truth. Cant say I'll ever listen to those in the gun business for anything but the latest hype. I'm hoping Cal Guns 2nd amendment topic area has some better collective wisdom for me here.
I just picked up a new gun to start shooting again--(actually 2). I should feel excited, but feel pretty crappy about it all.....again!

[greensoup]

One store in every area will have ammo.

The demand will require supply.

Now obviously it might be more expensive. But it also might be cheaper if the store specializes in large volume sales.

[Librarian]

No reason to believe the new requirements will "end all gun sports in California."

That result would make the left happy, of course.

Prop 63 has an interface with SB 1235. It isn't yet clear that some of the language of 1235 actually is permitted.

[onelonehorseman]

Originally Posted by TucoNorCal

Iv'e Been in gun stores a lot lately buying some new guns, selling some old guns etc. In 2012, for the first time since 1984, I got out of shooting. I just quit in frustration due to shortages, price gouging, and black-gun mania sufferers hording everything from primers to range brass. Media panic and rumors at the range fueling all of it. My own shooting community ruining the sport!

Poor quality guns being pumped out by manufactures on models not part of the frenzy---unable to meet mania demands on "the sky is falling models". I started resenting hunting down reloading supplies and waiting in long lines on Thursday mornings at Sportsman's Warehouse for rationed purchases. I'm not the only one who said "I'm done with this crap!"

Well, when the sky stopped falling, I started getting interested again. Now, there is a new buzz about new legislation that by 2019, ammo will have new background requirements that, if taken at face value, will once again end all gun sports in California.

At various gun stores, I heard these and other things on background check legislation:

A) "they are getting out of the ammo business because it won't be worth it if the approved background check method is not instant".

Implied consequence 1: availability of ammo goes down, price goes up.
Motive for non-truth: a rush on inflated price ammo all they way to 2019!


B) The state is making shooting only affordable to the financially elite: stores will ask for fees for the new background check and make people wait 10 days for ammo. This makes practicing difficult and expensive. However, no background check required at ranges (if used on the range) would mean ammo access to "members only", with prices set by ranges having no competition.

So, is this the beginning of "let the hoarding and gouging begin"? What is the truth. Cant say I'll ever listen to those in the gun business for anything but the latest hype. I'm hoping Cal Guns 2nd amendment topic area has some better collective wisdom for me here.
I just picked up a new gun to start shooting again--(actually 2). I should feel excited, but feel pretty crappy about it all.....again!

The new ammo laws are old news now.

You can exempt yourself from not being able to purchase online after 2017 by getting a 03FFL and CA COE.

[God Bless America]

Originally Posted by TucoNorCal

B) The state is making shooting only affordable to the financially elite: stores will ask for fees for the new background check and make people wait 10 days for ammo. This makes practicing difficult and expensive. However, no background check required at ranges (if used on the range) would mean ammo access to "members only", with prices set by ranges having no competition.

That is the end game. A John Kerry version of the 2d Amendment. Expensive shotguns for use at expensive clubs.

[snowdog650]

These new laws are precisely why I got a reloading setup capable of loading every caliber I shoot (except 22LR) in 2007.

Yes, they will come for reloaders next ... but I've had a decade to stock up on components for my developed loads.

[Full Clip]

Originally Posted by onelonehorseman

The new ammo laws are old news now.

You can exempt yourself from not being able to purchase online after 2017 by getting a 03FFL and CA COE.

I choose instead to stock up now on .22LR and continue reloading everything else in the future.

[onelonehorseman]

Originally Posted by Full Clip

I choose instead to stock up now on .22LR and continue reloading everything else in the future.

^That works too!

[TucoNorCal]

I appreciate the input. On the links that Librarian posted, I noticed that there is language about reloading. ---unfortunately.
From what I can read, this could go a number of ways: a setback nothing more than an inconvenience for those able to legally purchase and shoot guns, to a significant setback in time and hassle--Way more effort to do the same activities making it unattractive and an "all in" or nothing hobby/interest .

Until then, impact will be generated by the gun community itself and its reaction to the possible ramifications of the change. I guess it's watch and see.
Having said that, it doesn't make me want to buy too many new guns between then and now if there is a potential frenzy coming (again), or a real possibility that "shooting sports" are no longer a realistic activity for a working parent.

[Kowan]

Stock up now. Avoid the back ground check later.

[Hinnerk]

You can read the way that the changes were written into the Penal Code:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...r=1.&article=4.

As Librarian points out, there are legal experts who question whether the Legislature overstepped its authority in repealing the version of section 30370 approved by voters and replacing it with their own version.

No one can see into the future and know whether this version will still prevail when it is due to take effect, nor can we know what laws may be passed in the intervening time. However, as it stands, it appears that the 'background check' will be instant and cost no more than $1, adjustable for inflation. Basically, if you have at least one registered firearm and are not a prohibited person, you should be good to go. No 10 day waiting period.

If you insist on having none of your firearms registered, you will still be able to buy ammo but it will cost you a fee not to exceed the DROS fee per transaction. That could get expensive fast but the regular $1 fee will not be terribly onerous compared to the future termination of mail order purchasing for the majority of persons.

[glock_this]

Shooting is a skill, not a sport.

[Kowan]

The program/system for the instant background check needs to be setup. New York state was looking to do the same.
Once they saw it was going to cost 100 million, they abandoned it.
CA will pass that cost on to ammo buyers. Seattle has a ammo tax of 2-5 cents per round.
CA won't pay for it. We will.

[kygen]

Originally Posted by onelonehorseman

The new ammo laws are old news now.

You can exempt yourself from not being able to purchase online after 2017 by getting a 03FFL and CA COE.

I thought I read that you only needed your COE.

[danfinger]

I haven't read anything about penalties with regard to the ammo law. Scenario: Buyer orders a case online and gets it delivered to the house. Is the buyer or the seller breaking the law? Both? What is the penalty?

[9mmContagion]

I wonder how all of the illegal fireworks get in to California? And all of the drugs that come across the border?
This will just be another stupid law that gets broken by the general public, much like speeding, texting and driving, etc

[LBDamned]

Originally Posted by Ldarshay

I wonder how all of the illegal fireworks get in to California? And all of the drugs that come across the border?
This will just be another stupid law that gets broken by the general public, much like speeding, texting and driving, etc

How easy is it to get standard mags?...

[LBDamned]

I stocked up ( a lot) while I lived there... Figuring a time like this would come - but not knowing I'd be in a free state...

Now I'm sitting on more ammo than I can shoot... Granted, I figured it would be good barter source at some point, but not in AZ... maybe I'll dump some at some point (whilst still legal on that side of the border)...

Or maybe just drive a few miles and massive mag dump every now & then just for the helluvit... I guess I'll buy a couple drum mags - just to make it more efficient

[Librarian]

The reloading language in the bill and proposition texts is an artifact of California bill writing practice; when a section is amended, the whole section is repeated.

In this case, the mention of 'ammunition' including magazines etc is old law, that applies only to the sections named, which are about prohibited persons.

The ammo transfer law added to Penal Code this round is only for 'complete ammunition'.

[Hinnerk]

Originally Posted by Kowan

The program/system for the instant background check needs to be setup. New York state was looking to do the same.
Once they saw it was going to cost 100 million, they abandoned it.
CA will pass that cost on to ammo buyers. Seattle has a ammo tax of 2-5 cents per round.
CA won't pay for it. We will.

That's what I'm afraid of but if the cost gets too high the FFL3 and COE option will be looking pretty good. My feeling on fees like this is that the voters who thought it was such a great idea to impose repeated background checks on people who already own guns and are not prohibited persons, should be willing to fund the program with their tax dollars as a presumed (but actually misguided) public good.

[LBDamned]

Originally Posted by Hinnerk

That's what I'm afraid of but if the cost gets too high the FFL3 and COE option will be looking pretty good. My feeling on fees like this is that the voters who thought it was such a great idea to impose repeated background checks on people who already own guns and are not prohibited persons, should be willing to fund the program with their tax dollars as a presumed (but actually misguided) public good.

Is this where the laugh track comes in?...

While your concept makes perfect sense (as in logic) - you seem to forget the land you are in... There are uncountable instances (in many industries) where CA legislation makes no sense - especially fiscally.

[9mmContagion]

Originally Posted by LBDamned

How easy is it to get standard mags?...

Just as easy as it is to limit one to 10, along with a 3 hour drive to the east... one less tax collection to give to the lib-tards

[Dragginpanda]

Originally Posted by Ldarshay

I wonder how all of the illegal fireworks get in to California? And all of the drugs that come across the border?
This will just be another stupid law that gets broken by the general public, much like speeding, texting and driving, etc

I totally agree.

Every 4th of July is an example of how easy and blatant it is to smuggle.

Some people are saving empty boxes of ammo. They can always hop across a border, pick up ammo, switch boxes, and say It's grandfathered ammo.

[XCC_RIDER]

Funny, I'm saving ammo cans for the same reason.

[TucoNorCal]

Well, one glimpse of hope here is this: I live around and work with many socially progressive--most likely Democrat voters, who, when I go on my anti- gun legislation rants, AGREE that "currently, the gun laws do not seem to be aimed at public safety, but just making 2nd amendment and gun ownership rights unnecessarily difficult". Possibly the 20-somethings, though very liberal in principle, have a better sense of balance when it comes to guns. We can only hope.

[9mmContagion]

Originally Posted by TucoNorCal

Well, one glimpse of hope here is this: I live around and work with many socially progressive--most likely Democrat voters, who, when I go on my anti- gun legislation rants, AGREE that "currently, the gun laws do not seem to be aimed at public safety, but just making 2nd amendment and gun ownership rights unnecessarily difficult". Possibly the 20-somethings, though very liberal in principle, have a better sense of balance when it comes to guns. We can only hope.

Too bad they didn't vote accordingly

[LBDamned]

Originally Posted by TucoNorCal

Well, one glimpse of hope here is this: I live around and work with many socially progressive--most likely Democrat voters, who, when I go on my anti- gun legislation rants, AGREE that "currently, the gun laws do not seem to be aimed at public safety, but just making 2nd amendment and gun ownership rights unnecessarily difficult". Possibly the 20-somethings, though very liberal in principle, have a better sense of balance when it comes to guns. We can only hope.

Originally Posted by Ldarshay

Too bad they didn't vote accordingly

precisely Ldasrshay... no logical thinking person feels the goofy laws do anything beneficial - I lived there all my life (many decades, minus 5 five months) and have known none that thinks the restrictions (not just firearms) are just or beneficial.

But - there are shenanigans happening in that state for sure. 'Cause the govnt is absolutely not doing whats in the best interest of society. If 99% of people voted a certain way - it would have no baring on CA's direction - I realized that years ago and planned by exit.

I obviously don't have direct proof... and people can claim TFH... but I believe it wholeheartedly. There is unscrupulous stuff happening in that state.

[Jimi Jah]

I plan to buy enough ammo to not worry about this.

[-hanko]

Originally Posted by kygen

I thought I read that you only needed your COE.

Or a good friend or 2 in a neighboring state.

Originally Posted by LBDamned

How easy is it to get standard mags?...

Not particularly difficult.

Originally Posted by Ldarshay

Just as easy as it is to limit one to 10, along with a 3 hour drive to the east... one less tax collection to give to the lib-tards

Exactly.

[Jimi Jah]

You have a year to stock up. Don't be "that guy" that forgets.

[John Browning]

I reload so this doesn't affect me. I also have a C&R and COE so this doesn't affect me. So, without bias because it doesn't impact me, here is how I think this will shake out:

1) Lots of local CA places will get out of the ammo business so they don't have to deal with the hassle. I think Wal-Mart will be one of them and probably the one that hurts the most.
2) Local ammo prices will be higher than they are now. Businesses have to cover new costs.
3) Very few online vendors will continue to deal with CA for those who are exempt. I'm thinking ones who keep C&R FFLs on file will be it. That rules out most places except AIM, J&G, etc.
4) Most people are uninformed idiots and will be shocked the first time they can't get a box of shotgun shells to go Fudd around the delta or pick up a box of .22 to go shoot without a big hassle.
5) This is my point of greatest confidence. Idiots who fall into #4 will now always pick up ammo when they are driving to Reno or Vegas. They will bring it back because they don't know that isn't legal.
6) Some folks will ignore the law because they feel it is absurd/rediculous/immoral/Unconstitutional. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, but is required to do so.

That's what I think will happen.

Oh, and crime will go up because prohibitions don't work. See: The 18th/21st Amendment, US History, World History, The War on Drugs, etc. for more info.

[BuddyBoy]

Originally Posted by John Browning

3) Very few online vendors will continue to deal with CA for those who are exempt. I'm thinking ones who keep C&R FFLs on file will be it. That rules out most places except AIM, J&G, etc.

I think the folks who think online vendors will ship to them because they are exempt are very optimistic. Like you, I believe most will just stop dealing with CA. I'm not expecting SGAmmo or Selway Armory to ship to CA in 2018.

I have a second home in Nevada, and have already had CA-prohibited items shipped there (for permanent keeping in the Nevada house) as wells as ammo from multiple online vendors, so I expect to just have ammo shipped to the NV house and bring back whatever I need on one of the many trips we make each year. I'll have an FFL03 and COE by the time I need them.

[bronco75a]

The cost of the background check for ammo is supposed to be $1. However, Prop 63 passed and that stipulates you need to purchase a $50 ammo permit that's good for 4 years. Whether one supersedes the other or the background check is used in conjunction with having a permit I really don't know since the knuckleheads in the Legislature passed two laws/propositions that cover the same thing.

But yes, stores like Wal-Mart and Big-5 may stop selling ammo because those people selling it have to be certified to sell it and I doubt they're going to get all their employees trained. That means those that are left and certified to sell ammo and conduct the background checks will be fewer and they'll realize they're the only game in town and raise ammo prices. Thanks representatives that supposedly work for me sticking it to me with higher ammo prices.

[chris]

Originally Posted by God Bless America

That is the end game. A John Kerry version of the 2d Amendment. Expensive shotguns for use at expensive clubs.

that's been the plan all along to make gun ownership cumbersome, expensive so only the rich and connected can use a firearm.

And in 2016 they partially achieved it. When Newsom is governor they will finish the job.

[chris]

Originally Posted by John Browning

I reload so this doesn't affect me. I also have a C&R and COE so this doesn't affect me. So, without bias because it doesn't impact me, here is how I think this will shake out:

1) Lots of local CA places will get out of the ammo business so they don't have to deal with the hassle. I think Wal-Mart will be one of them and probably the one that hurts the most.
2) Local ammo prices will be higher than they are now. Businesses have to cover new costs.
3) Very few online vendors will continue to deal with CA for those who are exempt. I'm thinking ones who keep C&R FFLs on file will be it. That rules out most places except AIM, J&G, etc.
4) Most people are uninformed idiots and will be shocked the first time they can't get a box of shotgun shells to go Fudd around the delta or pick up a box of .22 to go shoot without a big hassle.
5) This is my point of greatest confidence. Idiots who fall into #4 will now always pick up ammo when they are driving to Reno or Vegas. They will bring it back because they don't know that isn't legal.
6) Some folks will ignore the law because they feel it is absurd/rediculous/immoral/Unconstitutional. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, but is required to do so.

That's what I think will happen.

Oh, and crime will go up because prohibitions don't work. See: The 18th/21st Amendment, US History, World History, The War on Drugs, etc. for more info.

come on now John you and I know California Democrats think they are smarter than history. they think they can abolish anything and it's gone like a fart in the wind. (insert extreme sarcasm)

[B&D]

There will be a run on ammo just as bad as firearm purchases. Ammo is cheaper than guns and when people have 2k to throw down magically out of thin air, A LOT of ammo will be gone.

[Flintlock Tom]

Originally Posted by chris

that's been the plan all along to make gun ownership cumbersome, expensive so only the rich and connected [and criminals] can use a firearm.

And in 2016 they partially achieved it. When Newsom is governor they will finish the job.

Hope you don't mind the addition...

[John Browning]

Originally Posted by chris

come on now John you and I know California Democrats think they are smarter than history. they think they can abolish anything and it's gone like a fart in the wind. (insert extreme sarcasm)

It's like socialism and communism. It didn't work those other times because they didn't try hard enough or have the right people in charge. But this time, we've got it down. 87th time is a charm....

[uparmor]

So glad i moved to a freedom state