Ammo background fee

[Sousuke]

I promise I had a search through this forum but didn't turn up any posts.

Will the background check fee increase from 1 to 5 bucks in the new year? I see alot of news about it happening after an October comment period but nothing about it being implemented. I'm alittle out of touch on ammo purchases having not bought any new ammo for a few years now....

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I can't see where it has been passed... yet. Everything I come across indicates it is 'proposed.' As with the DROS fund, the fees are only supposed to cover the actual cost. Yet, when needed, a 'surplus' was found in the DROS fund and it was transferred to a different purpose. Now that the State is 'short,' it is being claimed they are running a deficit on the administrative costs and... "The Department estimates that raising the fees will increase the Department’s annual fee revenue by $ 4,704,080.00 per year." Note that's an increase, not the total amount taken in.

Since the increase itself has not been 'announced' (to my knowledge), I'm going to assume they'll push for a 1 July implementation date. But, that's just a wild guess. As to whether it will be implemented... That's a bit of an unknown so far as I can tell. Why? Rhode v Bonta is out there and the more onerous they keep/make things, the more likely SCOTUS will, eventually, take a dim view. Then again, when was the last time California politicians actually cared what was Constitutional? You'll note in the above, linked proposal, it is expressed that if you buy ALL of your annual ammo at once, it would only be a $5 fee...

...The cost to an individual depends on the number of ammunition purchases the person makes in a year. If an individual elects to purchase all their ammunition for the entire year at once, their annual cost will increase from $1.00 to $5.00...

After all, it's a 'rich man's sport' anyway... right?

[Preston-CLB]

The .gov is nickel-diming us into submission with DROS fee, BG Check fee, and the 11% excise tax.

If you want a concealed carry permit, pile on the fees for that.

Their goal for us to simply give up and go away, whimpering, with our tails between our legs.
-P

[Sousuke]

I can't see where it has been passed... yet. Everything I come across indicates it is 'proposed.' As with the DROS fund, the fees are only supposed to cover the actual cost. Yet, when needed, a 'surplus' was found in the DROS fund and it was transferred to a different purpose. Now that the State is 'short,' it is being claimed they are running a deficit on the administrative costs and... "The Department estimates that raising the fees will increase the Department’s annual fee revenue by $ 4,704,080.00 per year." Note that's an increase, not the total amount taken in.

Since the increase itself has not been 'announced' (to my knowledge), I'm going to assume they'll push for a 1 July implementation date. But, that's just a wild guess. As to whether it will be implemented... That's a bit of an unknown so far as I can tell. Why? Rhode v Bonta is out there and the more onerous they keep/make things, the more likely SCOTUS will, eventually, take a dim view. Then again, when was the last time California politicians actually cared what was Constitutional? You'll note in the above, linked proposal, it is expressed that if you buy ALL of your annual ammo at once, it would only be a $5 fee...



After all, it's a 'rich man's sport' anyway... right?

That makes sense. So Rhodes v Bonta had oral arguments presented about 4 weeks ago...that means the window for a decision opens in March sometime and then your July date works.

[BAJ475]

In Bauer v. Becerra (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1216, Chief Judge Thomas held that "even if collection and use of the fee falls within the scope of the Second Amendment, the provision survives intermediate scrutiny and is therefore constitutional." Of course, Bruen totally refuted his analysis. Given that the United States Supreme Court stated in Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105 at pg. 113, that “a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution, where are the renewed challenges to the fees California is extracting on those exercising their Second Amendment rights?

[7.62mm_fmj]

...Chief Judge Thomas held that "even if collection and use of the fee falls within the scope of the Second Amendment, the provision survives intermediate scrutiny and is therefore constitutional."

Well in the 9th Circus, Thomas was the Head Clown.

[PoorRichRichard]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record… RELOAD RELOAD RELOAD.

And if you are gonna cry about not being able to reload rimfire rounds, that’s on you. The writing has been on the wall for years.