Pretty sure it will be ammo next

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
3,424
Location
Kansas
California does not have limit on the amount of ammunition buyers can purchase for most firearms. The state also does not track long gun ammunition sales.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/2-Guns-From-San-Bernardino-Shooting-Came-From-Turners-Outdoorsman-Store--360520721.html

Given the big deal being made out of the amount of ammo the San Bernadino couple had stored, in quotes like that above from the linked article and TV news, I think limiting ammo sales and tracking buyers will be the next big push. Anyone else think so? We should be prepared to counter.
 
Kind of hard to be any "readier to counter" than we are, isn't it? As always, here's a possibility for a legislative idea someone somewhere may try to push. Without anything actually on the table, or specifically being readied to come to the table, it is somewhat an exercise in futility, at best, to get too agitated and "prepared" for that fight.

What more is there to say? It is legal to own ammo. It is legal to own as much ammo as you choose to buy. Passing laws that limit purchases of legal goods can be very problematic. Lots of schemes have been tried (and largely failed) before, to require registration of ammo or ammo purchases or storage or whatever.

What's to say? Can't even call your congressfolks yet. There's nothing to vote against.
 
I came up with a great idea. How about we ban mass shootings?

Also, the shooters had 30 round magazines. How is that possible? Those are BANNED in the state of California.
 
The last sentence is interesting to me "The state also does not track long gun ammunition sales." Raises the question do they track handgun and/or shotgun ammo sales?

I'd think it would be very difficult to limit the amount of rounds you would be able to own. even limiting how many you could buy at one time is difficult, order some on Lin, then go to Walmart, then Academy, then......

I'd think be nearly impossible to enforce, maybe some sort of license to own over X number of rounds. I think that's been proposed before, but even that's unpractical, especially with a box of 22lr holding 550 rounds. At one time in 04-05 I had around 8k in 22, I remember because my son shot it all in about 2 months...... He was about 10 at the time.
 
It would be very difficult for a law that limited ammo. Whatever arbitrary number they come up, there would surely be tens of thousands of people who have well over that amount and wouldn't be giving it up. (They would need you to give it up because it would be impossible to grandfather something like ammo where there's no record of when you acquired it).

And even if they set it at an incredibly low number like 500 rounds, I don't think any of these mass shootings has gone over that during a spree (with maybe the exception of the North Hollywood shootout) so that wouldn't affect any shootings (not that they actually care about helping people when they try to pass these laws).

I remember reading that back in 1968 for a brief time they required people to fill out a 4473 when purchasing ammo. They didn't call it in back then like now but since ammo isn't serialized, imagine how much good THAT did lol.
 
My idiot liberal friends and family are now blaming the AMMO. Not the shooter. Not the gun. The ammo.
 
It is legal to own ammo. It is legal to own as much ammo as you choose to buy.

Right now, Sam, right now....... The entire 1986 machine gun act was an afterthought on a bill "that had to be passed to know what was in it." I wouldnt put it past them again. Just last night several Dems tried to attach the Manchin-Toomey bill to the anti-Obamacare bill passed by the Senate.

Just because it would be difficult doesnt mean it couldnt be done poorly.
 
Too many ways it would be unenforceable and unconstitutional.
This time of year you can ask Santa for anything you might like, but what you get has to fit in the sleigh.
It simply wont work.
 
Also, the shooters had 30 round magazines. How is that possible? Those are BANNED in the state of California.

Possession isn't banned except for a few cities. Sales, manufacturing, importation, and transfer is banned statewide.

ARs are also not banned if they have a "bullet button". Those that have them are sold everyday in CA thru FFLs.

It's looking like they may have imported the ARs. IF they did, presuming the ARs did not have a bullet button is a safe bet and likely how they got the mags

Raises the question do they track handgun and/or shotgun ammo sales?

No, CA does not.
 
Kind of hard to be any "readier to counter" than we are, isn't it? As always, here's a possibility for a legislative idea someone somewhere may try to push. Without anything actually on the table, or specifically being readied to come to the table, it is somewhat an exercise in futility, at best, to get too agitated and "prepared" for that fight.

What more is there to say? It is legal to own ammo. It is legal to own as much ammo as you choose to buy. Passing laws that limit purchases of legal goods can be very problematic. Lots of schemes have been tried (and largely failed) before, to require registration of ammo or ammo purchases or storage or whatever.

What's to say? Can't even call your congressfolks yet. There's nothing to vote against.

One option is to proactively push constitutional amendments that affirm the rights or that preempt cities from legislating those rights away.

For example in texas we just passed a constitutional amendment which affirms the right to hunt and fish as the preferred method to do wildlife management.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My idiot liberal friends and family are now blaming the AMMO. Not the shooter. Not the gun. The ammo.
This is what I believe their goal is, stigmatize anyone who has excess beyond what seems reasonable at the time and possibly get family, friends to turn them in.
Also there is precedent for different types of ammo to be banned.
Read a quote the other day (paraphrasing) "You might not be able to imagine it but that doesn't mean it can't happen" parts of Europe are living under "enhanced security" conditions where the citizens rights have at least been partly suspended. The US is soon coming to that same fork in the road.
 
This is what I believe their goal is, stigmatize anyone who has excess beyond what seems reasonable at the time and possibly get family, friends to turn them in.
Also there is precedent for different types of ammo to be banned.
Read a quote the other day (paraphrasing) "You might not be able to imagine it but that doesn't mean it can't happen" parts of Europe are living under "enhanced security" conditions where the citizens rights have at least been partly suspended. The US is soon coming to that same fork in the road.
I foresee a ban on ordering ammo online over a certain quantity. Like, 100 rounds maximum or something. Having a crate of ammo show up to your house seems terrifying to those who oppose us.
 
One option is to proactively push constitutional amendments that affirm the rights or that preempt cities from legislating those rights away.

State or federal? If you have the votes to pass a state constitutional amendment in favor of such a thing, you don't much have to worry about them passing a law against it. At least not for a long while. Constitutional amendments are a lot harder to pass than laws, of course.

If you're talking about an Amendment to the US Constitution? Whooooo boy.
 
Guess people don't read the fine print on much of anything nowdays. It's been out from multiple sources since early yesterday that the terrorists legally purchased or had someone straw purchase the ARs from "Annie's Get Your Gun", in Corona, California. http://www.anniesgetyourgun.com/

Most non-Californians are clueless (and a large portion of Californians) about this state's magazine laws. Any round capacity magazines, machine gun belts or other detachable ammo feeding devices are 100% legal to own, use or possess in California. You may not buy, sell, import, gift or otherwise acquire larger than 10 round capacity magazines in this state unless you are law enforcement or an FFL001/007 with a high capacity magazine permit. This (unenforceable) law went went into effect 01-01-2000. Many tens of thousands of California gun owners legally own greater than ten round capacity magazines that acquired before 2000. The cities of Sunnyvale and Los Angeles have illegally and unconstitutionally passed local ordinances forbidding the possession of greater than 10 round magazines, but as we all know, these ordinances are against Federal and California state laws. There have been ZERO larger than 10 round capacity magazines turned in to the LASD/LAPD in Los Angeles since this harrassmen... er, ordinance went into effect.

Removing or replacing the bullet button on those ARs takes about :60. If the rifles had evil features like an adjustable shoulder stock, flash hider or pistol grip, the terrorists then manufactured an illegal assault rifle as soon as they replaced the bullet button with a mag release or inserted a greater than 10 round magazine. Somehow, I don't think Jihadists bent on butchering innocents care about California's moronic firearms laws. One more example of how gun laws don't stop anything or anyone, the penalize law abiding gun owners, that's it.

Lt. Governor Newsom has a 2016 Ballot initiative that will eliminate Internet ammo sales, require a background check to buy ammo and multiple fees to the CADOJ. The braying Statist voters who infest this state will pass this next November and ammo availability will plummet here (WalMart, Big 5, hardware stores, etc. will all get out of the ammo business because of the hassle, paperwork and time wasted that will be needed to simply sell ammo) and ammo costs will double or triple with little to no competitive pressure to drive down pricing. Of course, Californians will flock to Lake Havasu, Phoenix, Las Vegas and the Oregon border to buy ammo once this passes.

As far as gun rights, California is a lost cause. There is no savior, no chance of out-populating or outvoting the brainwashed sheeple of this state. Our goal now is to put up as much fight and resistance as we can, occasionally smack down our enemies in court and hold off the Statists who will eventually disarm this state. Anything I can legally do to be a thorn in the side of the lawmakers in this state by helping to support inventive legal ways around the idiotic laws and ideas that they spew forth from Sacramento gives me great joy.
 
FYI, UK already has possession limits on ammunition quantity depending on license type.. Of course, that is probably working about as well as their gun bans and knife bans.
 
Wishoot said:
My idiot liberal friends and family are now blaming the AMMO. Not the shooter. Not the gun. The ammo.

Yes, it's always the gun,the ammo, lax gun laws,etc., never the person behind the firearm. It is extremely difficult to change an individuals deeply embedded antipathy/ideology on guns.

I used to try over the years, but I gave up long ago. One convert out of dozens of attempts is a poor batting average. :(
 
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/2-Guns-From-San-Bernardino-Shooting-Came-From-Turners-Outdoorsman-Store--360520721.html

Given the big deal being made out of the amount of ammo the San Bernadino couple had stored, in quotes like that above from the linked article and TV news, I think limiting ammo sales and tracking buyers will be the next big push. Anyone else think so? We should be prepared to counter.
New York tried it with the safe act. There was a provision that certain amounts of ammo purchased would trigger a flag. But no amount of questioning by the public could get a firm answer on what that meant or what the amount was.

Add to that the "Background check" requirement for all ammunition purchases and the ban on internet sale. Background check quietly went by the wayside for now when the legislature realized how much it would cost to set up the database required to enforce it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top