Ca AB 362 ammo bill amended to req a LICENSE to buy ammo !

Status
Not open for further replies.

bg

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
903
Location
When you find out, let me know..
I just don't know about this state of disarray. We keep fighting these moronic
bills and they just keep getting weirder..>

AB362 has been amended to not only require Ammo Sales Registration but ALSO now requires a New Handgun Ammunition Purchase Permit that must be renewed every 5 years.

The application process costs $35 and will take a month to complete, meaning your first box of ammo under this law could involve a 30-day waiting period. Your name is then added to a DOJ database which is checked whenever you purchase ammo. Of course, DOJ may revoke the permit at anytime.
Please contact the committee and urge a NO vote on AB 362.

From Mike Haas over at Calguns. >
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=62385

It's a mess, but we who survive here in Ca will keep fighting, not
running because we have to. If we don't, who will ?
 
been something like that up here in canada for a while. cant buy ammo (hell at one time it was even pellets and BB's) without your firearms licence.

not to much of a problem to me. show the licence they say hokay and hand over the ammo.
 
And the various gangs and organized crime groups smile as they see another black market profit opportunity.

Do they seriously think this is going to stop criminals from getting ammo? I'm reasonably certain that the Crips, Bloods, Mexican Mafia, not to mention the real Mafia, all have members in Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona. Or the ability to make fake driver's licenses proclaiming California members to be residents of any of those states.

If this passes, I foresee ammo suppliers in Reno and Vegas making big money.

Of course, what I'd really love is to see ammo makers do like Ronnie Barrett, and stop selling to PRK government agencies.

They'd start squirming right quick when their cops can't get bullets.
 
I am thinking this state is in dire need of a real good natural disaster, right around LA, SF, and Sac

"... I'll see you down in Arizona bay. Some say a comet will fall from the sky. Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves. Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still....Learn to swim. Cuz I'm praying for rain and I'm praying for tidal waves I wanna see the ground give way. I wanna watch it all go down. Mom please flush it all away. I wanna watch it go right in and down. I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away. Time to bring it down again. Don't just call me pessimist. Try and read between the lines. I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my friend. I wanna see it all come down...

Ænema
---Tool
 
This is a sweeping change to this legislation, I've got to do some serious thinking about the nature of my home state.
 
Looks like we have a year to stock up. Everytime I go to Wal-Mart these days I get a box or two of .45 ACP and 9mm. We still have Arnold though.. he veto'd a couple anti-gun bills last year. If this one is really close and he veto's it, it might go away.
 
I sent arnie an email, got an auto response saying that the gov doesnt decide about legislation until it is on his desk. Hope he veto's it quick like and kills it once and for all.
 
"... I'll see you down in Arizona bay. Some say a comet will fall from the sky. Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves. Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still....Learn to swim. Cuz I'm praying for rain and I'm praying for tidal waves I wanna see the ground give way. I wanna watch it all go down. Mom please flush it all away. I wanna watch it go right in and down. I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away. Time to bring it down again. Don't just call me pessimist. Try and read between the lines. I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my friend. I wanna see it all come down...

Ænema
---Tool

One of my favorite Tool songs. I went to college in California & I used to crank this song real loud when I lived in La La Land.
Seriously don't you think the governor will veto this if it passes?
 
Seriously don't you think the governor will veto this if it passes?
You mean the same one that passed the anti .50 BMG law making CA one of the only locations in the nation where they are illegal? Don't count on this Hollywood liberal "republican" to decide in favor of gun rights.

I liked the guy for awhile, but don't count on him for gun rights.
 
I am thinking this state is in dire need of a real good natural disaster, right around LA, SF, and Sac
I know its not very THR but I cannot help but agree.

Do any Californians have their own personal line in the sand?
yes

Do they seriously think this is going to stop criminals from getting ammo?
Its not about criminals its about law abiding citizens.
 
Welcome to Illinois . . . .

We don't have the DOJ DB part of the law but it sounds like the stupid FOID law we ave here. I think that the problem with these draconian laws isn't that people in CA aren't opposed to them it's that they're outnumbered by idiots and eventually get fed up and move. (same here in IL) When they move out it further weakens the genetics in the state . . . .literally and figuratively.

The thing that scares me is that we're rapidly approaching the point where the big cities in this country are setting all political policy. If that continues I don't know if it will matter if you live in IL or if you live in South Dakota . . . .hopefully I'm just paranoid.

Have a good one,
Dave
 
You mean the same one that passed the anti .50 BMG law making CA one of the only locations in the nation where they are illegal? Don't count on this Hollywood liberal "republican" to decide in favor of gun rights.

I liked the guy for awhile, but don't count on him for gun rights.

He helped us out last year by veto'ing two anti-gun bills. Yea, it sucks that we lost .50 cals, but those are an easy target for antis. Also, gun enthusiasts did a poor job of putting up a good argument for not banning them.
 
He veto'd last year's Theft Reporting and Mail Order Ammo Ban .
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=40167&highlight=veto

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 59 without my signature. While I share the Legislature's concern about the criminal use of lost or stolen weapons, the ambiguous manner in which this bill was written would make compliance with the law confusing for legitimate gun-owners and could result in cases where law-abiding citizens face criminal penalties simply because they were the victim of a crime, which is particularly troubling given the unproven results of other jurisdictions in California that have passed similar measures. In addition, this bill may have undesirable legal consequences as it allows local governments to pass ordinances that differ from State law, thereby leaving law-abiding citizens with the task of navigating through a maze of different or conflicting local laws depending upon the jurisdiction they are in. A patchwork of inconsistent local ordinances creates compliance and enforcement problems that erode the State's ability to effectively regulate handguns statewide. For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger



To the Members of the California State Assembly:



I am returning Assembly Bill 2714 without my signature. It is important to ensure that minors do not use mail-order or internet sales to obtain access to items prohibited under current law that could be dangerous if used improperly. However, current law already requires sellers to verify the age of a purchaser who wishes to buy ammunition at the time of sale. By adding a new requirement that retailers ensure third party verification of the identity of the purchaser at time of delivery, this bill could inadvertently subject legitimate retailers to criminal penalties for actions that they have no control over. As a result, this bill could be counter productive by providing a negligible benefit to public safety while concurrently discouraging legitimate business. In addition, this bill would allow local governments to enact their own measures governing the sale of ammunition if they are stricter than state law. Statewide uniformity of the laws regulating firearms is critical to public safety. By allowing local governments to proliferate local measures regarding the sale of ammunition that significantly differ from state law, this bill could result in inconsistent regulation, interpretation, and enforcement of firearms laws by businesses, law enforcement, and the public. For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger
 
Fast forward into the future:

"Yes, I'll take one box of ATK .22lr 550 count."

you are given a ticket that you take to the front of the store and there they tell you,

"OK, I need your firearms license, a copy of your driver's license, please look into this device so we can scan your retina and retain a digital copy, please press your thumb in this ink and then on that piece of paper, I need a vile of your blood, 3 letters of recommendation, a full resume, your home address, all of your telephone numbers, please sign this certifying that you release us from any and all liability...... oh yes, please remember to bring back all shell casings for proper logging, and thank you for shopping at Wal-Mart."
 
"OK, I need your firearms license, a copy of your driver's license, please look into this device so we can scan your retina and retain a digital copy, please press your thumb in this ink and then on that piece of paper, I need a vile of your blood, 3 letters of recommendation, a full resume, your home address, all of your telephone numbers, please sign this certifying that you release us from any and all liability...... oh yes, please remember to bring back all shell casings for proper logging, and thank you for shopping at Wal-Mart."

Nah, Walmart will just stop carrying ammo before it gets to that. That is the plan of the Antis. They know outright bans are too extreme, so they use stuff like licensing and permits to creat de facto bans by making firearms ownership too cumbersome.
 
They know outright bans are too extreme, so they use stuff like licensing and permits to creat de facto bans by making firearms ownership too cumbersome.

Which after awhile the only people that still go through the hoops are a determined minority. This means less people have exposure to responsible firearm ownership. They as communities however will still have negative firearm exposure through criminal activities. This helps to reinforce the notion that the firearms are evil items used by evil people. After a generation grows up where this has always been the case and most firearm exposure is on video games killing things, and with criminals in the news (or if unfortunate in person) victimizing others with them, the general consensus of the population is that guns are bad and thier votes will reflect this.

Of course occasionaly one will depart from the flock and venture into the shadowy world of gun purchase where the very act makes you feel like an untrusted criminal they are taking all the same steps they would to book someone into jail, and already taking the steps that they are a suspect in a crime they have yet to commit. That very atmosphere will reinforce they are bad, and that individual will feel they are doing something dirty. Americans themselves will eventualy after a couple generations of this programming support the government removing those dangerous items from society, especialy when at that point they are galvanized by some high profile shooting or mass killing.
Such has been the case in most of the nations we share a common legal past with. The UK and Australia, and to a good extent Canada.
Then we can join the enlightened ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top