2013 CA SB 53 - Deleon/Yee Ammunition purchase permits (FAILED)

[YubaRiver]

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]

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]

Bill Analysis here.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...sen_floor.html

Vick

[Can'thavenuthingood]

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]

Originally Posted by IVC

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]

Originally Posted by Can'thavenuthingood

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]

I thought the Fresno superior court (or was it appeals) threw out something similar to this just last year... Is this correct?

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Moonshine

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.

[chairmnofthboard]

Just to be clear. This isn't a law "YET", correct?

[gr8dragon88]

Originally Posted by chairmnofthboard

Just to be clear. This isn't a law "YET", correct?

correct, not yet...

[CaliforniaLiberal]

Originally Posted by Can'thavenuthingood

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]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal

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/...o-apply-to-irs

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

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Originally Posted by formerTexan

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/...o-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]

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]

Originally Posted by chairmnofthboard

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"

"quote" source: here
bill source: here

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

[CaliforniaLiberal]

Originally Posted by snapshot7

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

"quote" source: here
bill source: here

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

(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]

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]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal

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

(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]

Originally Posted by SonofWWIIDI

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.

[G21Shooter]

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]

Originally Posted by chris

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]

Originally Posted by majtom94

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]

Originally Posted by Can'thavenuthingood

Ours appears the weaker voice, the minority.

Vick

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

[majtom94]

Originally Posted by SilverTauron

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]

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]

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

[javalos]

Originally Posted by chris

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]

Originally Posted by javalos

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]

Originally Posted by Warrior King

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]

So, this passed the Senate a few days ago. Nobody???


http://www.thedailysheeple.com/gun-c...uy-ammo_062013

[advocatusdiaboli]

Originally Posted by SilverTauron

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]

Originally Posted by SickofSoCal

So, this passed the Senate a few days ago. Nobody???


http://www.thedailysheeple.com/gun-c...uy-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]

Originally Posted by SickofSoCal

So, this passed the Senate a few days ago. Nobody???


http://www.thedailysheeple.com/gun-c...uy-ammo_062013

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

[Scratch705]

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]

Originally Posted by Scratch705

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]

Originally Posted by nrgcruizer

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]

Originally Posted by SickofSoCal

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Hoooper

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]

Originally Posted by SilverTauron

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!