Ammo law as applied (from the Rhode thread in 2A Litigation)

[Robotron2k84]

Hard to argue that it actually is voluntary when it involves an enumerated right, and the state forecloses any other method of obtaining ammo, sans COE, which is also a BGC.

So:

BG checks for:

* Assembling or speaking
* Exercising your right to unreasonable search
* Exercising your right to due process
* Fair trial by jury
* Excessive fines and bail
* Equal protection under the law
* Voting

So, was Thomas right that the Second is a second-class right? In a free state, you currently don't have to submit to a BGC to buy a gun F2F, so it's reasonable to conclude that CA's UBC for guns and ammo is a 2A/4A violation. Doubt SCOTUS will ever see it that way, though.

[Mustard]

Gotcha.

Bad guys will do bad guy stuff regardless of laws anyways, so why trample our rights in the process

[Dvrjon]

Exactly. This could now become a 4A issue. If you are denied, you get looked at for warrants. No. A simple error in your name or address so it does not match the database causes the denial and you are then run for warrants???No.

If you a clear through the AFS ownership process, then you get bumped against the APPS data base. The process is three step:
1. Are you on record for legally purchasing a gun? If “No”, (including, mis-match data, you’re done; apply under the $19 single purchase rule); If “Yes,” go to two.

2. Are you on the APPS list? If no, you are cleared to purchase; if “Yes”, go to three.

3. This person has purchased a gun in the past and is now prohibited from purchasing ammo or possessing firearms; Consider writing a warrant.

I don’t like the program, but that seems to be the way it works.

[Offwidth]

So every time I buy a box of ammunition I run a risk of SWAT bursting to strip search my house if their database has a glitch. And as I work in software nowadays - they get plenty of those.

Great, ain’t it? Land of of the free.

[Dvrjon]

Why are you in APPS?

[aBrowningfan]

One does not relate to the other. There could be 0.0001% or 99%. That has no bearing to whether the check violates the 4th A.

I'm not sure it really does violate the 4th A. in that its voluntary.

How is it voluntary if you have to go through the BGC to be able to purchase ammunition?

[aBrowningfan]

So every time I buy a box of ammunition I run a risk of SWAT bursting to strip search my house if their database has a glitch. And as I work in software nowadays - they get plenty of those.

Great, ain’t it? Land of of the free.

How does a database glitch result in erroneous data being present in the Armed Prohibited Person System? Glitches usually result in things like tables or rows being dropped as opposed to being added (which is the rationale for backup technology).

[mrdd]

Not to get too far into the weeds, but I find "background check" to be the wrong term- they sure aren't contacting spouses, acquaintances, social organizations you belong to, current and past employers for ammo purchases.

Is it not but a "criminal history check?

On the other hand, let the media and uninformed continue to think its a full-monty background and take comfort in that...

A criminal history check is what happens when you purchase a firearm in this state or send in a form to the the doj or on cfars.

What is happening here is much simpler, they are checking to verify that you are not in the APPS file and have an entry that matches in AFS. If both are true, you are supposed to be approved (the $1 case). They are piggybacking on the earlier checks involving each of those. If either fail, they have a closer look (the $19 case).

[Sousuke]

How is it voluntary if you have to go through the BGC to be able to purchase ammunition?

You are volunteering to purchase ammunition, knowing that under CA law possession of ammunition by a felon is illegal.

[3B830]

state filed its opposition


https://www.scribd.com/document/4209...odes-Opp-to-PI

[Dvrjon]

How is it voluntary if you have to go through the BGC to be able to purchase ammunition?

From the Final Statement of Reasons for the regs (Page 3, para 5):

Because a purchase or transfer is initiated by a purchaser or transferee, the Department has clarified that it is the purchaser or transferee who initiates the Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check.

[aBrowningfan]

From the Final Statement of Reasons for the regs (Page 3, para 5):

Because a purchase or transfer is initiated by a purchaser or transferee, the Department has clarified that it is the purchaser or transferee who initiates the Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check.

Nothing like a textbook definition of circular logic...

My head is aching. Off to take some aspirin.

[Offwidth]

How does a database glitch result in erroneous data being present in the Armed Prohibited Person System? Glitches usually result in things like tables or rows being dropped as opposed to being added (which is the rationale for backup technology).

Glitches result in wrong matches being made due to poorly scrubbed or imported data. Familiar with Garbage in garbage out concept? Ask those who had been denied plane boarding after getting on no fly list.

I have helped to design several popular data integration and master data management products and standards. It ain’t easy.

Would not it be ironic if they use some technologies I designed to make an error and send SWAT up my ***...

[Offwidth]

Why are you in APPS?

I am not. That is the point.

[aBrowningfan]

Glitches result in wrong matches being made due to poorly scrubbed or imported data. Familiar with Garbage in garbage out concept? Ask those who had been denied plane boarding after getting on no fly list.

Sounds like you are referring to a process failure as opposed to any failure of the database technology. GIGO remains the penultimate expression of a process failure due to human effort or lack thereof.