Reloading components 2018

[Whiskey_Tango]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1235

Seems to me that one could possibly read the law to mean bullets, not just loaded rounds.

INAL. Why tf is there two contradictory definitions?

[rm1911]

INAL. Why tf is there two contradictory definitions?

[LynnJr]

Cabelas may decide that since they don't have stores in California, they're not willing to take the risk of legal action for a relatively small customer base.


California is the biggest customer base in the country with more than 1/10 of the total population last time I looked.

[simba]

Best thread on calgun. Full of research and interpretation..

[simba]

anyone prohibited

[wbunning]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1235

Seems to me that one could possibly read the law to mean bullets, not just loaded rounds.

[Librarian]

The references in the law to sections 30305 and 30306 are about prohibited persons having ammunition

This.

Despite what vendors may choose to sell, ammunition components - bullets, primers, cases, powder - are not 'ammunition' for the new ammo law. PC 16150(b) has been law for years.

[JackEllis]

The references in the law to sections 30305 and 30306 are about prohibited persons having ammunition, which ONLY in the case of prohibited persons, now includes bullets and magazines, etc.

Well stupid me! It's not just mail order vendors that will have a problem with this. Anyone who sells components has absolutely no way of determining whether a person is prohibited.

The real question here is what liability does any vendor doing business in California, whether by mail order or through a retail store that is physically located inside the state, assume if they sell components without a background check?

OTOH, if you're not prohibited, you can't be charged with a crime if you buy components while out of state and bring the stuff back with you.

[Mayor McRifle]

The real question here is what liability does any vendor doing business in California, whether by mail order or through a retail store that is physically located inside the state, assume if they sell components without a background check?

Anyone who sells components has absolutely no way of determining whether a person is prohibited.

[Librarian]

Well stupid me! It's not just mail order vendors that will have a problem with this. Anyone who sells components has absolutely no way of determining whether a person is prohibited.

The same is true for already-manufactured ammunition; sellers seem to have that figured out.

[MarikinaMan]

Lord, no.

[smallshot13]

Bass Pro shops, which now owns Cabellas was the first to remove components from the shelves when AB 962 was passed. I complained then, and their simple answer was 'shop somewhere else'. Never been back. Now I have to add Cabellas to that list.

[novelty]

Ammo is not the most profitable products for retailers, neither is the firearms.

Apparel is very profitable

[wbunning]

Well stupid me! It's not just mail order vendors that will have a problem with this. Anyone who sells components has absolutely no way of determining whether a person is prohibited.

[Whiterabbit]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1235

Seems to me that one could possibly read the law to mean bullets, not just loaded rounds.

I am going to hand you a cast lead bullet. I want you to demonstrate to me, how you plan on loading that into any gun and get some sort of possible deadly consequence.

When shall we schedule this test?