Selling ammo

[Milsurp1]

Look at 30312, it covers all ammo transfers.

[Dvrjon]

All transfers have to go through a dealer regardless of round count, that's clear from PC 30312,

Look at 30312, it covers all ammo transfers.

and see how that term is used in the statute:

30312 (a) (1) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale of ammunition by any party shall be conducted by or processed through a licensed ammunition vendor.

(2) When neither party to an ammunition sale is a licensed ammunition vendor, the seller shall deliver the ammunition to a vendor to process the transaction [...] The ammunition vendor may charge the purchaser an administrative fee to process the transaction, in an amount to be set by the Department of Justice, in addition to any applicable fees that may be charged pursuant to the provisions of this title.

(b) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale, delivery, or transfer of ownership of ammunition by any party may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the seller, deliverer, or transferor, 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.

(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition to any of the following:
(10) A person who purchases or receives ammunition from a spouse, registered domestic partner, or immediate family member as defined in Section 16720.

The Giffords anti-gun group did the work.regulations implementing this statute?

Sale.

In addition to any applicable Department of Justice fee, an ammunition vendor may charge the purchaser a fee(s) for processing the sale of ammunition between two private parties as follows:

[Milsurp1]

The California legislature makes drafting errors all the time. There are some statutes which directly conflict with each other. The courts get the thankless job of deciding which prevails and to make sense of it all.

[ErikC12]

I'd have to agree that it's an error. Given the agenda of the draft source and the state itself, I think that the intent was to limit all transfers between non-vendors to 500 rounds per 30 days and to make such transfers more difficult by requiering that they go through a vendor. What I'm observing here though is that the term "sell" in 30342 seems to exclude trades and gifts from the 500 round limit. This couldn't have been intentional, they would never knowingly leave a loophole in that they could have easily closed, so it must be an oversight. What's interesting about it is that it appears to be a workaround for the 500 round limit, as long as the transfer still goes through a licensed vendor.

[Dvrjon]

The California legislature makes drafting errors all the time. There are some statutes which directly conflict with each other. The courts get the thankless job of deciding which prevails and to make sense of it all.

I'd have to agree that it's an error. Given the agenda of the draft source and the state itself, I think that the intent was to limit all transfers between non-vendors to 500 rounds per 30 days and to make such transfers more difficult by requiering that they go through a vendor. What I'm observing here though is that the term "sell" in 30342 seems to exclude trades and gifts from the 500 round limit. This couldn't have been intentional, they would never knowingly leave a loophole in that they could have easily closed, so it must be an oversight. What's interesting about it is that it appears to be a workaround for the 500 round limit, as long as the transfer still goes through a licensed vendor.

perceived intentintent and construction of the language has to include what the People thought they were voting on.

The introductory passages of Proposition 63 provide explicit clarity of the intent of the Proposition:

Sec 2. Findings and Declarations:
The people of the State of California find and declare:

7. Right now, any violent felon or dangerously mentally ill person can walk into a sporting goods store or gun shop in California and buy ammunition, no questions asked. That should change. We should require background checks for ammunition sales just like gun sales, and stop both from getting into the hands of dangerous individuals.

SEC. 3. Purpose and Intent.
The people of the State of California declare their purpose and intentTo ensure that those who buy ammunition in California - just like those who buy firearms - are subject to background checks.

SEC. 8.
SEC. 8.1. to read:
Sales of Ammunition.

[ErikC12]

I think this is just a more complicated way of saying what I have been saying; Based on the language in the PC, the 500 in 30 limit for non-vendors does not apply to trades or gifts, but traded or gifted ammo must still be transfered through a vendor unless the transfer falls into one of the exempted categories.

[edgerly779]

Lots f people with ammo for sale could care less about 500 round limit. Look at the posts. Some selling thousands of rounds.

[SISKIN]

keep stocking up

[deerdeerdeer]

LGS says no go must be done via FFL.