Prop 63 - January 2018 or January 2019??

[Cokebottle]

The problem will be finding ammo suppliers willing to accept the exemptions, OR willing to ship to anyone period, allowing the buyer to assume all legal risks (which would be the preferred).

Obviously, Cheaper Than Dirt and Sportsman's Guide will stop selling in 2018 and possibly sooner because that's how they roll.
CTD went so far so as to publicly state that they were aware of and would NOT honor the 03/COE exemption provided by AB962 in 2010.

[manini]

Off on a tangent...do the new laws make any centerfire semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine an assault weapon that will eventually be required to be registered? Even if it has no evil features? Even a Ruger Mini-14? Sorry if this is a hijacking.

[Scratch705]

Off on a tangent...do the new laws make any centerfire semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine an assault weapon that will eventually be required to be registered? Even if it has no evil features? Even a Ruger Mini-14? Sorry if this is a hijacking.

no. there are no current laws that make "featureless" centerfire rifles illegal.

there was a bill that proposed it, but it was removed last minute.

[AKSOG]

Tag for information posted by librarian

[martinb3152]

The hell with ordering online.

Since I will not be able to get any online reloading components after 2018. Because I am doubting any of the gun stores around here would go through the hassle. My only option is the gun shows in my area. If I buy from the same vendor, would I have to go thru the same process with every purchase? If he has my name on file, isn't that sufficient? Or do they want to keep track of every frickin component that I buy? And furthermore, if they out law gun shows, that's the day I give up and just keep some rounds in the house for protection. No more shooting range for me. Too much of a hassle. Thanks CA.......
martinbr

[MaHoTex]

Since I will not be able to get any online reloading components after 2018. Because I am doubting any of the gun stores around here would go through the hassle. My only option is the gun shows in my area. If I buy from the same vendor, would I have to go thru the same process with every purchase? If he has my name on file, isn't that sufficient? Or do they want to keep track of every frickin component that I buy? And furthermore, if they out law gun shows, that's the day I give up and just keep some rounds in the house for protection. No more shooting range for me. Too much of a hassle. Thanks CA.......
martinbr

The amount of time it took you to write this post could have been used to read the f'ing law you're b!7ching about.

Hint: If you actually read the law you would discover it does not impact reloading components.

[glockman19]

July 1, 2017 - lost/stolen firearms reporting

July 1, 2017 - magazine restrictions

Jan 1, 2018 - gun store employees need COE

Jan 1, 2018 - licensed CA FFLs become 'ammunition vendors'

Jan 1, 2018 - ammunition sales must go through 'ammunition vendors'

Jan 1, 2018 - no internet sales, unless delivered to 'ammunition vendor'

Jan 1, 2018 - no buying out of state and bringing back

Jan 1, 2019 - people 18 and over apply for 'an ammunition purchase authorization'

July 1, 2019 - 'ammunition vendors' must record buyer info and submit it electronically to DOJ

July 1, 2019 - ammunition buyer restrictions: list of authorized buyers, plus possessors of 'an ammunition purchase authorization'

ETA - that's from the text of Prop 63; there's time for those to be modified (more initiative,unfortunately), and it isn't clear how the July-signed laws will ultimately interact.

When you see it laid out like above...How can it NOT be an Infringement...and how far can you infringe when the law says SHALL NOT INFRINGE?

I hope we can get these laws suspended while under appeal. Maybe stretch out the appeal until Trump can pack the courts.

[martinb3152]

Some of these members....

The amount of time it took you to write this post could have been used to read the f'ing law you're b!7ching about.

Hint: If you actually read the law you would discover it does not impact reloading components.

Listen Pal, why don't you try to nice. Why be a A hole about it? You could have just answered the question.....Will not respond....

[MaHoTex]

This has been asked at least a dozen times in the past two weeks. Do not be lazy and expect someone else to read the law for you. At the very least scroll through the first couple dozen posts on this very subject and read them. After less than five minutes you would have discovered the exact same question asked half a dozen different ways in twelve different languages and would not have had to ask it yet again.

Another option would be to go look up "Ca Prop 63" on google and read the law.

Instead, you post your rant which confirms your ignorance about the law and show that you did not even bother to read the law before going on a pointless rant.

You see, instead of a valid questions, I see a rant and a bunch of hypothetical questions based upon a law that does not exist. If the questions were based upon reality they would have been answered instead of focusing on the obvious fact that you did not even bother to read the law in an attempt to try and understand the very information your were seeking.

But, hey, what do I know, I am just some A-Hole on the internet.

[KendeBeasto]

Tag-librarian info

[martinb3152]

This has been asked at least a dozen times in the past two weeks. Do not be lazy and expect someone else to read the law for you. At the very least scroll through the first couple dozen posts on this very subject and read them. After less than five minutes you would have discovered the exact same question asked half a dozen different ways in twelve different languages and would not have had to ask it yet again.

Another option would be to go look up "Ca Prop 63" on google and read the law.

Instead, you post your rant which confirms your ignorance about the law and show that you did not even bother to read the law before going on a pointless rant.

You see, instead of a valid questions, I see a rant and a bunch of hypothetical questions based upon a law that does not exist. If the questions were based upon reality they would have been answered instead of focusing on the obvious fact that you did not even bother to read the law in an attempt to try and understand the very information your were seeking.

But, hey, what do I know, I am just some A-Hole on the internet.

Excuse me Mr. Calguns.net cop. I did read the SB-1235 bill when it came out. It wasn't clear. "Not limited to" means that this could be included in the whole mess. And what gives you the right to judge someone for expressing how they feel about it. Geez, some of the forums are to much. There is always one A-hole, yes, A_hole that has to come back with some sarcastic remark. I wasn't going to say anything, but you got under my skin with your foul remarks. Flame Away!!!!

(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, "ammunition" includes,but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile
capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does notinclude blanks.

[Librarian]

(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, "ammunition" includes,but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile
capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does notinclude blanks.

Sorry; that is existing law, and does not apply to the ammunition restrictions that are upcoming.

California has a convention in bills/initiatives that the whole section is repeated with changes embedded. This causes the un-initiated to conclude all the code listed might be new.

The bit you quote applies only to the sections 30305 and 30306 - exactly as the language of the Penal Code says - and those sections apply to prohibited persons.

Reloading components are not 'ammunition' in the general case, for 2017.

You are now among the initiated.

[MaHoTex]

Excuse me Mr. Calguns.net cop. I did read the SB-1235 bill when it came out. It wasn't clear. "Not limited to" means that this could be included in the whole mess. And what gives you the right to judge someone for expressing how they feel about it. Geez, some of the forums are to much. There is always one A-hole, yes, A_hole that has to come back with some sarcastic remark. I wasn't going to say anything, but you got under my skin with your foul remarks. Flame Away!!!!

(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, "ammunition" includes,but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile
capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does notinclude blanks.

Sorry if I got under your skin. You should read Prop 63.

The section you posted only applies to people not able to own guns or ammo.