SB 1235, De Leon, 2016, redefines ammunition, UPDATED: ammo permits / PASSED

[vistula]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Reread what I wrote.

I did. The Lt Gov seems to be at odds with the anti-gun Legislature.

[FourT6and2]

Originally Posted by vistula

They will, unless it's going to one of the restricted locations (Oakland, San Francisco etc) based on zip code.

What makes you think SF is a restricted location?

Just like all the gun shops outside of CA who refuse to ship to me because they think shipping ammo to SF is illegal. Show me the law (besides this soon-to-be-enforced one) that says SF is restricted.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by vistula

I did. The Lt Gov seems to be at odds with the anti-gun Legislature.

The Lt Gov is anti-gun. He set his proposition to steal the thunder from the Legislature and position himself to run for governor. The basis for the proposition was that he could succeed with the people of the state, when the Legislature couldn't pass laws.

The Legislature (Dems) are anti-gun, and found it insulting for him to do that, so they put each part of his proposition into legislation.

They are all anti-gun, they are just jockeying for position in the next few years.

[Hoop]

Originally Posted by vistula

I did. The Lt Gov seems to be at odds with the anti-gun Legislature.

No they are both anti-gun and trying to **** us with the same exact set of laws. In fact they are competing with one another to see who can screw us over the most.

[ShakyHands]

Originally Posted by KTM RICK

Getting ready to pack up the family and get out of this state.

You won't be the only one.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1076028

... greetings from Idaho

[vistula]

Originally Posted by FourT6and2

What makes you think SF is a restricted location?

Just like all the gun shops outside of CA who refuse to ship to me because they think shipping ammo to SF is illegal. Show me the law (besides this soon-to-be-enforced one) that says SF is restricted.

Many online sellers, mistakenly or otherwise, abide by the same list of restricted locations shown here:
http://www.theamericanmarksman.com/S...ons_ep_42.html
Whether there is a SF municipal ordnance to that effect, I couldn't tell you.

I am not in a 'restricted location' and the only problem I've had, having used
a multitude of online sellers, was getting some .500 S&W Magnum ammo shipped because it was 'armour piercing'.

[vistula]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

The Lt Gov is anti-gun. He set his proposition to steal the thunder from the Legislature and position himself to run for governor. The basis for the proposition was that he could succeed with the people of the state, when the Legislature couldn't pass laws.

The Legislature (Dems) are anti-gun, and found it insulting for him to do that, so they put each part of his proposition into legislation.

They are all anti-gun, they are just jockeying for position in the next few years.

Got it, much obliged!

[Roering]

I plan to pass ammo out to trick or treaters like it's candy come Hollowen. Maybe I can get a Leland Yes mask.

[iMigraine]

According to FPC, this Ammo Ban will be on November's ballot as:
Proposition 63

Here's what the anti-gun Prop. 63 will do:

BAN all standard ("high-capacity") magazines...even those "grandfathered" in

BAN online and mail order / catalog ammunition direct purchases

BAN the importation of ammunition purchased out-of-state

DESTROY virtually all small business ammo retailers with insane new regulations

CRIMINALIZE the sharing of ammunition between friends who may be hunting or shooting together

MANDATE a new $50 DOJ "ammunition purchase permit"

REQUIRE that ammunition sales are recorded in a new gun owner database

[sharxbyte]

Originally Posted by Roering

I plan to pass ammo out to trick or treaters like it's candy come Hollowen. Maybe I can get a Leland Yes mask.

I have a few costumes. What's your address?

[gvv]

Part of the reason these laws were passed is because a voter proposition can only be amended by another voter proposition whereas legislation can be amended by the legislature. So if Newsome's resolution was later discovered to have provided a loophole it would have to go back to the voters to close it.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by gvv

Part of the reason these laws were passed is because a voter proposition can only be amended by another voter proposition whereas legislation can be amended by the legislature. So if Newsome's resolution was later discovered to have provided a loophole it would have to go back to the voters to close it.

Usually true, unless the Proposition contains other guidance. The Safety For All Act contains this:

SEC 12. Amending the Measure. ​

This Act shall be broadly construed to accomplish its purposes. The provisions of this measure may be amended by a vote of 55 percent of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor so long as such amendments are consistent with and further the intent of this Act.

So, the legislation was put in place by the Legislature's Dem leadership for political reasons.

[CalAlumnus]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Usually true, unless the Proposition contains other guidance. The Safety For All Act contains this:

So, the legislation was put in place by the Legislature's Dem leadership for political reasons.

If you saw the floor arguments on SB 1235, you saw that Reps raised some major procedural issues with the bill. It wasn't just typical rules waivers, which are BS but permissible. SB 1235 proposes to amend an initiative which hasn't yet been approved by the voters.

Assm. Wagner cited an elections code section stating that the Legislature was not allowed to amend an initiative, which is effectively what SB 1235 does. If Prop 63 passes, it will be immediately changed by a bill passed by the Legislature prior to Prop 63 being before the voters.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by CalAlumnus

If you saw the floor arguments on SB 1235, you saw that Reps raised some major procedural issues with the bill. It wasn't just typical rules waivers, which are BS but permissible. SB 1235 proposes to amend an initiative which hasn't yet been approved by the voters.

Assm. Wagner cited an elections code section stating that the Legislature was not allowed to amend an initiative, which is effectively what SB 1235 does. If Prop 63 passes, it will be immediately changed by a bill passed by the Legislature prior to Prop 63 being before the voters.

I'm skeptical that an Election Code section overrides the State Constitution. With all due respect for Assm. Wagner, it may serve well to brush up on the California Constitution, particularly Article II, Section 10 (http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/constitu...ct-10-nr2.html)

Sec. 10.  (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise.  {It doesn't.}/snip/
(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes.  It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.{It does.}/snip

So, the counter argument will be that the initiative is enacted immediately upon passage in Nov 2016, but SB 1235 does not become operational until 1/1/2017. Therefor, the Legislature's modification does not happen until after the Proposition's enactment.

(The Proposition contains Legislative modification language in Section 12 requiring a 55% vote to modify. SB 1235 got 60% in each House.)

The Anti's are very good at this game.

[Omega-man]

I read the bill, close 10000 words, holy smokes!!! Comprehensive, complicated and broad reaching. Men! we have a problem on our hands.
This is what we get when we let those bozo's start pushing us around.
It's out of control, this NANNY state mentality. They have laws for everything you can possibly imagine. What the hell did the previous generation ever do without these freak'n control freaks. They really manage just about every aspect of our lives now. Light bulbs, extension cords, motor efficiency, laws about warning labels on just about everything, this is just gone way to far...

I have copied below for your viewing displeasure, section 2 of the new law.
Which provides a definition for ammunition.

I am moving to Idaho ! No doubt .... it is in their constitution your lawful right to own a suppressor. Ya ! that's my kind of state.
They really don't know what they are talking about so they throw everything in the pot. I mean these moron's call cartridges> bullets. I would expect this stuff to be in court for years. We all basically can buy/build featureless rifles. Stockpile 10's thousand of projectiles. BTW I didn't know until now that I could fire a magazine,clip, speedloader, autoloader from a firearm? wtf

SEC. 2.
Section 16150 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
16150.
(a) As used in this part, except as specified in subdivision (b), “ammunition” means one or more loaded cartridges consisting of a primer case, propellant, and with one or more projectiles. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.
(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.

[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ]

Why are people saying that SB1235 will become effective January 1, 2018? In general, most laws passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor take effect January 1st of the following year as per the California Constitution Article I, section 8, subdivision (c). Bills may contain provisions that become operative at a later date. So SB1235 is effective January 1, 2017. Under Penal Code section 30364, effective 1/1/17:

(a) The sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the seller, 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 article, Article 3 (commencing with Section 30345), and Article 4 (commencing with Section 30355). An ammunition vendor is required to promptly and properly process those transactions. An ammunition vendor may charge a fee to process the transfer not to exceed ten dollars ($10) per transaction. An ammunition vendor is not required to house ammunition orders longer than 30 days.

Nothing in all of SB1235 says that the above will become operative January 1, 2018, so it will become operative January 1, 2017. However, the above section requires compliance with Article 3 (PC30345 et seq) and Article 4 (PC30355 et seq). PC30345 says that starting 1/1/18, only a licensed ammunition vendor may sell ammo. PC30355 is about ammunition purchase authorization, which is the background check portion, which starts 7/1/19. I am unsure as to how those two articles would affect face-to-face transactions for ammo on 1/1/17 if they have later start dates.

As an important side-note, if Prop 63 is passed and overrides parts of SB1235, face-to-face transactions is required as of 1/1/18.

[MaHoTex]

Originally Posted by jtake

It does require face-to-face transaction.

30364. (a) The sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the seller, 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 article, Article 3 (commencing with Section 30345), and Article 4 (commencing with Section 30355). An ammunition vendor is required to promptly and properly process those transactions. An ammunition vendor may charge a fee to process the transfer not to exceed ten dollars ($10) per transaction. An ammunition vendor is not required to house ammunition orders longer than 30 days.
(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to or affect the sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition to any of the following:

(8) A person who is licensed as a collector of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, whose licensed premises are within this state, and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 26710.

After further reading, With an FFL03 and a COE, you can buy Ammo over the internet, not requiring a face to face transaction. Of course, that is if places will continue to ship into KalPhukistan.

[MaHoTex]

Originally Posted by Omega-man

I read the bill, close 10000 words, holy smokes!!! Comprehensive, complicated and broad reaching. Men! we have a problem on our hands.
This is what we get when we let those bozo's start pushing us around.
It's out of control, this NANNY state mentality. They have laws for everything you can possibly imagine. What the hell did the previous generation ever do without these freak'n control freaks. They really manage just about every aspect of our lives now. Light bulbs, extension cords, motor efficiency, laws about warning labels on just about everything, this is just gone way to far...

I have copied below for your viewing displeasure, section 2 of the new law.
Which provides a definition for ammunition.

I am moving to Idaho ! No doubt .... it is in their constitution your lawful right to own a suppressor. Ya ! that's my kind of state.
They really don't know what they are talking about so they throw everything in the pot. I mean these moron's call cartridges> bullets. I would expect this stuff to be in court for years. We all basically can buy/build featureless rifles. Stockpile 10's thousand of projectiles. BTW I didn't know until now that I could fire a magazine,clip, speedloader, autoloader from a firearm? wtf

SEC. 2.
Section 16150 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
16150.
(a) As used in this part, except as specified in subdivision (b), “ammunition” means one or more loaded cartridges consisting of a primer case, propellant, and with one or more projectiles. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.
(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.

As someone pointed out yesterday, this section only applies to folks not legally allowed to have those items. It does not effect normal non criminal types. Go re-read and you will see.

[dwtt]

I want to become an ammunition vendor. What's the process?

[ColdDeadHands1]

Originally Posted by dwtt

I want to become an ammunition vendor. What's the process?

Drive to AZ or NV with a truck and big trailer. Buy sh*$ tons of ammo. Drive back to CA and sell to all your friends tax free, of course. Say F you to CA!

[SteveSatch]

This is just for handgun ammo correct? Rifle ammo can still be bought via internet after January?

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by SteveSatch

This is just for handgun ammo correct? Rifle ammo can still be bought via internet after January?

No, they revised the definition to include all ammo not just handgun. This also means if you go to any ammo store locally all ammo will have the same restrictions handgun did previously in terms of handling in the store.

[mrvaudo]

Ok. I have a question on the new ammo law. So many new laws but this seems the biggest one. Internet ammo sales to CA will be banned (when does that start?). My question is, I got an email from a gun club that says bullets are also included in this. I was thinking about starting to reload but if I can't order my bullets does that mean I'll have to start casing my own? I can still buy in CA but it seems like online and bulk gets the most savings. Thanks for any insight. There's a lot of pages and info with all the new laws

[mrvaudo]

Just found faq page. So no online ammo done jan 1 2017 and reloading components seems to be okay. So we can still order bullets for reloading. Now just looking for a verification of that. Thanks

[advocatusdiaboli]

Originally Posted by mrvaudo

Just found faq page. So no online ammo done jan 1 2017 and reloading components seems to be okay. So we can still order bullets for reloading. Now just looking for a verification of that. Thanks

why don't you buy what you are going to buy now and wait and see instead of helping lawmakers modify terms? What is your hurry? It is July 4th 2016.
Are you going to hurry up and celebrate you birthday tomorrow instead of waiting as well? Chill.

[mrvaudo]

Thought it would be good to be prepared. I'll chill. Thanks

[gvv]

[QUOTE=mrvaudo;18440908]Just found faq page. So no online ammo done jan 1 2017/QUOTE]

I don't think this date is correct. I think the very earliest will be 1/1/2018.

30345.(a) Commencing January 1, 2018, only an ammunition vendor who is licensed by the Department of Justice shall be authorized to sell ammunition in this state, except as provided by Article 5 (commencing with Section 30360).

30364.(a) The sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the seller, 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 article, Article 3 (commencing with Section 30345), and Article 4 (commencing with Section 30355). An ammunition vendor is required to promptly and properly process those transactions. An ammunition vendor may charge a fee to process the transfer not to exceed ten dollars ($10) per transaction. An ammunition vendor is not required to house ammunition orders longer than 30 days.


from Newsome's bill:

(b) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale, delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition by any party may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the seller, deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee, provided, however, that ammunition may be purchased or acquired over the Internet or through other means of remote ordering if a licensed ammunition vendor initially receives the ammunition and processes the transaction in compliance with this section and Article 3 (commencing with Section 30342) of Chapter 1 of Division 10 of Title 4 of this part.

[ErstO]

so let me get this straight.

Regardless how much time I still had on my HSC, I had to pay another fee and get another back ground check to get my FSC if I wanted a long gun.

But starting in January, regardless how much time I still have on my HSC and FSC I have to pay another fee, and another back ground check just to buy ammo?

Whats next? Range Safety Certificate that allows me to go a range to fire my weapon?

My biggest beef is banning internet sales of ammo. You have any idea how hard it is to find 45 longs in SoCa !!!

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by ErstO

so let me get this straight.

Regardless how much time I still had on my HSC, I had to pay another fee and get another back ground check to get my FSC if I wanted a long gun.

But starting in January, regardless how much time I still have on my HSC and FSC I have to pay another fee, and another back ground check just to buy ammo?

Whats next? Range Safety Certificate that allows me to go a range to fire my weapon?

My biggest beef is banning internet sales of ammo. You have any idea how hard it is to find 45 longs in SoCa !!!

It's not banned with the current law that passed. It's only banned being shipped direct to your house. You can still order from the internet but then need to do an Ammo Transfer at a licensed Ammo Dealer (mostly FFLs).

[advocatusdiaboli]

Originally Posted by ugimports

It's not banned with the current law that passed. It's only banned being shipped direct to your house. You can still order from the internet but then need to do an Ammo Transfer at a licensed Ammo Dealer (mostly FFLs).

Correct, but if you think most licensed vendors aren't going to charge you for the extra labor and costs they incur...well, I have a ocean-front property in Arizona and Jerry Brown is the California gun-owners friend.

And you have to pay sales tax for your location. Of course all of you are voluntarily adding the sales tax you didn't pay on internet sales to your California tax returns each year right per California Tax Law right?

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli

Correct, but if you think most licensed vendors aren't going to charge you for the extra labor and costs they incur...well, I have a ocean-front property in Arizona and Jerry Brown is the California gun-owners friend.

It's limited by law to $10 (like a PPT) - poster didn't say anything about cost or avoiding taxes. He was looking for availability being an issue if it was banned.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Originally Posted by ugimports

It's limited by law to $10 (like a PPT) - poster didn't say anything about cost or avoiding taxes. He was looking for availability being an issue if it was banned.

I know what he asked, just adding a bit of color and, besides, he might not have considered the other two costs implications. We'll see, but perhaps not all licensed vendors will bother to take internet sales as well.

[Jpizzay]

Originally Posted by ugimports

It's not banned with the current law that passed. It's only banned being shipped direct to your house. You can still order from the internet but then need to do an Ammo Transfer at a licensed Ammo Dealer (mostly FFLs).

And how much extra would that cost?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jcannon91]

Is it true that LE and those with CCWs will have some leway?

[advocatusdiaboli]

Originally Posted by Jcannon91

Is it true that LE and those with CCWs will have some leway?

Last I read the bill:
LEOs: pretty certain (don't they always have privileges?)
Not CCW though.
Class 03 FFL and COE is exempt (you have to have both at much more expense than the permit, but you can avoid the regulation).

[ErstO]

No it’s not really about the cost, although that does add up, it’s the creation of a whole new bureaucracy within the state’s DOJ.

If they want to limit ammo purchases to 21 and older, thats easy, check the buyers drivers license, if they want to make sure the buyer can buy ammo, ask to see his or her HSC or FSC, we all have one or the other, it lets us buy a gun. For internet purchases we can fax or email a copy of the FSC.

Most dealers in my area will not help you purchase a weapon off the net if they can buy it wholesale and sell it to you, I doubt ammo would be different, why settle for a $10.00 fee when they can make twice as much putting it on their shelf, even if they don't carry what you want.

But no, the state wants to build a whole new department within the DOJ to track ammo buys, it will have their own offices, employees, managers, budgets, paid for by that $50.00 buy in we will all pay.

And whats the number one job of a bureaucracy? to make the bureaucracy grow, the TSA is a fine example of that rule.

Will this law stop gang bangers and bad guys from getting ammo? Of course not, they buy their guns on the black market, they don't have an HSC or FSC and they are not likely to walk into a gun store to buy ammo, they will get their ammo from the same creep that sold them the illegal firearm.

Verifying who can or cannot buy ammo could have easily been handled using the existing DOJ bureaucracy and the documents each of us already carry.

Sorry for my ranting, in my day job I have to deal with government bureaucrat’s almost daily and I can spot when a light goes off in one of their heads and they get an idea to make their job look more important then it really is.

The sad part is I’m going to miss talking to my UPS driver (a gunner) when he will no longer bring me my cowboy rounds.

[ColdDeadHands1]

Did anyone stop to think of the storage real estate FFL's will now be mandated to provide for ammo? Most gun shops have a room(s) filled with 10 day wait firearms. I can imagine bulk ammo orders taking up double to triple the amount of space. FFL's may have to reduce their sales inventory to free up space to store people's ammo, all for a measly $10 fee.

[RRangel]

Originally Posted by ugimports

It's not banned with the current law that passed. It's only banned being shipped direct to your house. You can still order from the internet but then need to do an Ammo Transfer at a licensed Ammo Dealer (mostly FFLs).

That's going to be a logistical nightmare. Ammunition is a consumable type good.

[Citadelonline]

Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1

Did anyone stop to think of the storage real estate FFL's will now be mandated to provide for ammo?

FFLs aren't required to sell ammo, much less take special/bulk or prepaid orders from individual customers. With SB 1235 in effect it will be business as usual; Dealer orders various ammo types and calibers as per their budget, storage space and availability allow. Dealer receives and sells ammo, then waits for re-order to arrive.

Unless/until enough local in state ammunition vendors open, ammo will be perpetually in short supply and overpriced.

[ColdDeadHands1]

Originally Posted by Citadelonline

FFLs aren't required to sell ammo, much less take special/bulk or prepaid orders from individual customers. With SB 1235 in effect it will be business as usual; Dealer orders various ammo types and calibers as per their budget, storage space and availability allow. Dealer receives and sells ammo, then waits for re-order to arrive.

Unless/until enough local in state ammunition vendors open, ammo will be perpetually in short supply and overpriced.

Wrong. You and I may continue to order ammo online but we must have it shipped for background check and pick up at a licensed ammo dealer (your local FFL). They will be obligated to transfer you this ammo (for a fee) just like they are obligated to do PPT. So, where the heck are they going to store all the ammo people ship them? Have you ever seen the back of your typical gun store?