Wonder what the chance of this passing is.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018...equiring-background-checks-ammunition-buyers/
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018...equiring-background-checks-ammunition-buyers/
Dem Rep Wasserman Schultz Introduces Legislation Requiring Background Checks on Ammunition
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Hooda Thunkit
Member
Better than 50/50, I'd wager.
somethingbenign
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2017
- Messages
- 944
I predict an up tick in activity in the reloading section.
glove
Member
Makes me wonder why people keep on voting them liberals in over and over again.
alsaqr
Member
The bill is going nowhere.
I'm already looking to uptick my straight ammo purchases. I was hoping to NOT spend any money this year on guns.
0.00001%
fastbolt
Member
That part of the law (background check) takes effect July 1st, 2019.
What hasn't been determined, yet (last I looked), was how this is going to be implemented.
I read somewhere that instead of a $50 fee for a background check and 5-year ID card, it was being considered to create a $1 fee charged with each purchase of ammunition at the point of sale (unless the ammo was being purchased with a firearm, in which case the background check for the firearm purchase would suffice). That makes more sense, when you think about it, because someone's status could change with any 1 (or 5) year period, due to various incidents that might occur (being served with a DV/TRO, GVRO, an involuntary commitment for mental health problems, adjudicated by a court to be mentally incompetent, etc).
A $1 fee would generally be less egregious, too, unless someone normally buys ammunition more than 50 times a year (meaning more than once a week throughout the whole year).
In answer to the OP's question? Who knows?
Now that CA has crafted such a law, though, and got it passed as an initiative (even in a state with 8 million known, lawful gun owners), it wouldn't surprise me if other states tried to follow suit. If that happens, then it might pick up some momentum at the federal legislative level, and might pick up enough votes to make it out of committee, or even get to the president's desk. Dunno. Probably not right now, but who knows how public sentiment will evolve?
I remember when I was a youngster and my dad could order old military surplus firearms out of a magazine ad, and have them delivered to his house through the mail, without any registration or anything else required other than that his check or Money Order cleared. Look how much the laws have changed since then.
Don't mistake my comments to mean that I voted for the initiative here in CA, because I sure as hell didn't.
Last edited:
We must be extremely vocal to keep it that way. I am always bothered by comments like this. The political winds are starting to shift again, I fear. Please stay vigilant and speak with your state representatives often to keep it that way.
I am not surprised with older conservatives/patriots / the great generation leaving us for heaven daily and the schools/colleges unleashing droves of fresh mind washed young liberal voters our side is loosing the battle day by day , that is why all of our side needs to be involved and vote,
The frustrating thing to me is I talk to folks near me they to complain I ask them did you vote? are you an nra member? Have you sent letters to our local reps most answered NO , it won’t make a difference if I did they say , I shake my head and say it makes all the difference if we intend to stop this attack on our rights, IMHO
Maybe we need UBCs for buying gas for cars. I mean who really needs to fill up the tank when a couple of gallons a day should meet your needs? After all just how many crimes, murders, assaults are committed every day with asaultomobiles? If we take away the gas just think of how many children's lives will be saved each year!
Lyle Wyatt
Member
For the people who keep referencing reloading, I believe the California law also covers reloading components.
toivo
Member
New York tried that in the SAFE Act. First they wanted to piggyback off NICS by calling in for ammo buys. The Feds told them to go pound sand. Then they set about trying to build their own system and database. After spending about $7 million and being told by the developers that they weren't even close to having anything workable, they decided to shelve the whole thing. The law is still on the books, but there's no money allocated to it in the state budget each year.
Doing it at the federal level would require a HUGE expansion of the NICS system. And for what?
Doing it at the federal level would require a HUGE expansion of the NICS system. And for what?
So that people who should not legally own firearms do not obtain ammunition for them. Ideally ammo should be sold per examination of gun permit indicating ammo type needed (eg Glock 17 #........ caliber 9x19,...), but since this is not available to them they have to institute a background check for purchase of gun ammo.
danez71
Member
It's the antis we have a quarrel with, instead of branding all liberals anti gun and bad, how about finding and supporting some "liberal" politicians who are pro gun? They are out there you know.
Anyway, stay off the liberal/conservative/politics if you want any chance of this thread surviving.
somethingbenign
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2017
- Messages
- 944
This would be extremely frustrating. How does one go about renting at a range then?
danez71
Member
I don't think it does.
Do you have any reference to share?
(... as soon as Newsome becomes Gov, it may)
danez71
Member
Brilliant!!!!!
Prohibited people with guns will be stopped in thier tracks because they won't be able to get ammo.
Oh, but wait....
If they don't have a gun permit... then they shouldn't have the gun either in the 1st place.
Mikhail Weiss
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 507
Hmm. So, a poll tax. Among other things.
From gun control perspective this is brilliant. In worse possible scenario criminals will get ammo by stealing it from legal gun owners. This will reflect badly on the gun owner for possibly not securing ammo enough to prevent theft. The gun control inc. has no downside.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked