AB 362 stops internet ammo purchasing by July 2008

[Rivers]

Think this won't hurt?

From the bill, as amended and passed out of committee:

"The bill would further provide that handgun ammunition may only be purchased in a face-to-face transaction and only if certain conditions exist."

[hoffmang]

Now that gives us leverage to get the bill struck down.

Don't bank on the courts for this though. You've got to tell your legislature that its a violation of the commerce clause so they shouldn't vote for it.

-Gene

[Rivers]

Link for AB362

Leverage? I don't know, but certainly motivation to not let this happen!

Here's the link to the amended bill.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

[hoffmang]

All,

This is fodder for your calls, emails, and faxes:

The Supreme Court recently ruled in Granholm v. Heald that:

This Court has long held that, in all but the narrowest circumstances, state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate “differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.”

-Gene

[Rivers]

Argument against AB 362

It struck me that there's a direct parallel between ammunition and gasoline.

Consider:
More cars than guns in CA.
More cars than guns per capita in CA.
More drunk driving / DUI arrests / hit-and-runs per capita than firearm-related crimes.

Therefore, in parity with the "apparent" gun issue, there should also be a similar assessment regarding gasoline purchases.

I suggest (please, only for this example!):

1) All gasoline purchases require a background check to verify a valid driver's license, current insurance, no past due child support, no outstanding arrest warrants, proof of smog certification, and certification that the vehicle is in proper working order. Additionally, each purchaser shall provide to the vendor the vehicle identification number, mileage, color of vehicle, specifications of engine and transmission, and number of cupholders in said vehicle. The last item is critical as cupholders facilitate placement and stability of alcoholic beverages which inevitably force the driver to lose control of the vehicle.

2) The cost of said background check shall be added to each fuel transaction, in addition to any sales or excise taxes. This fee may be set by the DOJ to reimburse the DOJ for the cost of maintaining the associated database.

--- It goes on and gets more ridiculous by the moment. Maybe if the legislators saw the parallel and realized the idiocy (sorry, forgot we're dealing with politicians) of this approach, they might actually do something about the real problem.

[Wulf]

All,

This is fodder for your calls, emails, and faxes:

The Supreme Court recently ruled in Granholm v. Heald that:


-Gene

Would it not be better to lay down on this one?

I mean it seems like every year they throw up a dozen or so gun bills, the governor vetos most but signs one or two; part of the centrist program I suppose.

Since this one seems a cinch to get struck down on commerce clause grounds by the courts, why not let this one be one of the one or two that gets signed. Perhaps that's too clever by half, but maybe not.

[hoffmang]

It is much better to limit the number of anti-gun bills that reach the Governator's desk. We shouldn't be asking the Governor to fall on the grenade because we can't do the work of making it clear to the legislature that there may be hell to pay for passing things like this.

We need to chose one of these sponsors and focus on getting him out of office without regard to the party of his challenger next time around. That will be the last and final way to make the point that you take on these civil rights issues at your peril.

-Gene

[dwtt]

Would it not be better to lay down on this one?

I mean it seems like every year they throw up a dozen or so gun bills, the governor vetos most but signs one or two; part of the centrist program I suppose.

Since this one seems a cinch to get struck down on commerce clause grounds by the courts, why not let this one be one of the one or two that gets signed. Perhaps that's too clever by half, but maybe not.

No. Don't do that.

This attitude is why we are where we are today. In 1989 the Cow Palace gun show actually sold guns, lots of them, unlike today. The laws we have today that restrict our right to buy and own guns that are perfectly legal in other states came about because there were many gun owners who thought like you do.

[loneeagle308]

I do not own any handguns. I own a .22 Long "Rifle", .38 SPL Lever action "Rifle", 9mm "Rifle", .40 "Rifle", .308 "Rifle", 45 LC "Rifle" Is Walmarts expert staff going to question me any more than right now when I buy a brick of .22 and they ask if it is for a rifle or handgun? My lone eagle uses various calibers. Any caliber can be used for a rifle. How is a sales staff to determine that?

[6172crew]

All in all people will just go to Reno to buy ammo so what they are trying to do is railroad the poor sap wanting to take his grandkid out shooting before he kicks the bucket.

Dirtbags will get ammo like they always have, by stealing it.

[Satex]

Oneclick AND faxes sent!

[mikehaas]

Would it not be better to lay down on this one?

I mean it seems like every year they throw up a dozen or so gun bills, the governor vetos most but signs one or two; part of the centrist program I suppose.

Since this one seems a cinch to get struck down on commerce clause grounds by the courts, why not let this one be one of the one or two that gets signed. Perhaps that's too clever by half, but maybe not.

You mean so NRA will pay millions in court costs just for an opportunity to LOSE?

Mike

[Wulf]

You mean so NRA will pay millions in court costs just for an opportunity to LOSE?

Mike

No. So the Governor has something he can sign which will stiffen his back for vetoing the ones that aren't gimmie's to get thrown out on constitutional grounds.

[hoffmang]

Wulf,

Are you volunteering to pay the legal bill?

-Gene

[Rivers]

Since this one seems a cinch to get struck down on commerce clause grounds by the courts, why not let this one be one of the one or two that gets signed.

Speaking with a friend about this, he said that this falls into a federal exemption area of the commerce laws. Some states already have outlawed internet ammo purchases. I know that some vendors won't ship to even some CA cities like LA and SF.

Plus, how long until a court MIGHT declare such a law invalid, and would the court throw out the complete law or only a portion of it?

I don't think it's worth taking the chance. We need to stop this before it becomes a law. I know I've already written a specific email to my (democratic) senator about microstamping moving to the senate. I'll do similar for this and future legislation to my assemblyman (republican) and anyone else who can make a difference.