I guess it's time to stockpile ammo

[Jason_W]

In California, anyway.

I'm still unclear as to what the point of prop 63 was, given that it seems to be redundant after laws were passed earlier this year by the California legislature.

Anyway, barring the supreme Court overturning things, by 2018 California shooters will have to pass a background check to buy ammo, will not be able to buy ammo out of state, and will not be able to have ammo orders delivered to their residences.

Not wanting any part of that noise, my idea is to spend the next year and change stocking up on enough ammo and reloading supplies to last years. As of now, no additional restraints are being put on hand loaders but it wouldn't surprise me if that's on the legislatures to-do list.

I'm hoping that all California gun owners will similarly stock up in order to get as much ammo in circulation prior to the new law kicking in so as to make the restrictions more of a pointless money waster than they already are.

Ammo purchase as civil disobedience.

 

[Zoogster]

Actually I doubt the state concerns itself with how much ammo is used in a given year and wouldn't notice people buying more or less prior to the law taking effect. So it wouldn't really make it pointless as far as they are concerned.

The real casualties are likely to be big box stores that won't sell ammo anymore.
Walmart stopped selling guns in California because of the background check requirements resulting in legal issues when minimum wage employees screwed up here and there and they got sued. If they don't stock guns for that reason It is likely they will stop ammo sales if they have similar issues.
Leaving the higher priced small gun stores, who also won't be competing with online sales anymore.
Combine that with people as yourself buying up lots of ammo and I see ammo prices going up and up in the state.



Additionally if you have an antique, or one of the less common caliber modern firearms you cannot simply order ammunition anymore. So if a local gun store doesn't carry it good luck feeding your gun. Limits people to using more common calibers.


The primary result of this will be more expensive ammunition. And sadly the small retail gun stores likely support it as it gives them a monopoly.
More expensive ammunition will reduce how many new shooters get into the sport, and how often existing shooters can shoot. Which over time will lead to less interest in shooting sports, which is definitely something the state antis would like to see.
It also means you have to go to gun specific stores for more gun related things, separating the public from firearm and firearm related things even more.
When I was a child I rarely went into gun stores, but I used to be able to find my way over to the gun counter at Walmart, Kmart and the like. Back when they sold handguns displayed in glass counters.
Likewise as an adult I can be out with family or friends and stop to check ammo while we pick up something else, but if I suggest actually stopping at the gun store the eyes will roll and it is clear that would be a stop just for me and not a mutual stop. And then that goes on the list as something done for me, which of course means now I owe them a stop at some feminine store I had no desire to go to next time they want to check on something. So this will likely have me standing around in clothing stores or picking out decorations more often.

 

[Jason_W]

You'd still be able to order the uncommon ammo, but it would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer who would understandably have to charge a fee for the time it took to receive and deal with the shipment.

 

[Packman]

What's to stop you from buying ammo out of state? I can buy all the ammo I want out of state and bring it home to FL. There aren't any border checkpoints.

Sounds to me like it falls under the "it's only illegal if you get caught" idea.

 

[Jason_W]

What's to stop you from buying ammo out of state? I can buy all the ammo I want out of state and bring it home to FL. There aren't any border checkpoints.

Sounds to me like it falls under the "it's only illegal if you get caught" idea.

Most people here seem to think they'll make the agricultural checkpoints do double duty for ammo.

The state has the ag checkpoints set up at all high traffic entrances to the state.

 

[Packman]

Most people here seem to think they'll make the agricultural checkpoints do double duty for ammo.

Are they gonna make every single vehicle entering the state go through the checkpoint? I just don't see how this is actually an enforceable law. Sounds like it'd require people to voluntarily comply. which, of course, I'm sure everyone will do.

 

[Jason_W]

Are they gonna make every single vehicle entering the state go through the checkpoint? I just don't see how this is actually an enforceable law. Sounds like it'd require people to voluntarily comply. which, of course, I'm sure everyone will do.

No, they can't catch everyone. But, what they can do is bust a few people and really throw the book at them in order to make an example.

It's also possible that stores just outside of California won't sell to California residents for fear of potential civil litigation.

 

[Rush_Fan]

Put ammo out of sight in the trunk and do not consent to any search of your vehicle without a warrant.

 

[Xyr]

Passed this law in NY. Couldn't figure out how to implement it without:

a) super expensive
b) violating the Constitution

It never got enabled and Cuomo agreed to pull the provision.

 

[Bill4282]

Buy out of state and mail to yourself?

 

[bikerdoc]

I encourage our California brothers to join all the progun organizations fighting for your rights and support them with money and time to reverse this attack on your rights

 

[HOWARD J]

In California, anyway.

I'm still unclear as to what the point of prop 63 was, given that it seems to be redundant after laws were passed earlier this year by the California legislature.

Anyway, barring the supreme Court overturning things, by 2018 California shooters will have to pass a background check to buy ammo, will not be able to buy ammo out of state, and will not be able to have ammo orders delivered to their residences.

Not wanting any part of that noise, my idea is to spend the next year and change stocking up on enough ammo and reloading supplies to last years. As of now, no additional restraints are being put on hand loaders but it wouldn't surprise me if that's on the legislatures to-do list.

I'm hoping that all California gun owners will similarly stock up in order to get as much ammo in circulation prior to the new law kicking in so as to make the restrictions more of a pointless money waster than they already are.

Ammo purchase as civil disobedience.

Do you have to buy a license in CA now to purchase ammo?

 

[Jason_W]

Do you have to buy a license in CA now to purchase ammo?

Not yet. That's one of the provisions of prop 63 which as of now fully kicks in in 2018.

What I'm unclear on is if ammo purchases will only require the purchase permit, or if it will require a permit plus a bgc at the time of every purchase.

 

[Twiki357]

From what I understand, the BGC component will tie in to the AFS gun registration system and ammo will only be able to be purchased for the caliber of guns registered.

 

[whipper]

I encourage our California brothers to join all the progun organizations fighting for your rights and support them with money and time to reverse this attack on your rights

I’m sorry but one organization I will not support any more is the NRA. They dropped the ball on California. Period!

I read on Calguns.net that the NRA poured $4 million into fighting a Nevada initiative that would require background checks for firearms buyers but just $145,000 into battling a gun control measure in California.

I kept getting phone calls From the NRA about once a month asking for donations; and for donating they would send me a free gift. I told them instead of spending all the money donated on gifts so that they could beg for more money, to use the money they already have to fight gun control measure here in California. Needless to say that did not go over well with them, and I am glad because they have not called me again in the past 4 months begging for more donations. I feel betrayed and confused as to what the NRA thinks of California. Hasn’t history showed that the stupid laws the get past in California soon start to pop up all over the country. Why not kill it from the start?

OK, I’m through rambling.

Thanks for reading Steve.

 

[danez71]

Not yet. That's one of the provisions of prop 63 which as of now fully kicks in in 2018.

What I'm unclear on is if ammo purchases will only require the purchase permit, or if it will require a permit plus a bgc at the time of every purchase.

My understanding is that it will work like the FSC (Firearm Safety Certificate) pay a fee and it will be valid for 4 yrs (?). The seller/retailer will have access to a system to make sure your Ammo Permit hasn't been revoked for felonies etc and be able to charge some nominal-ish fee for this 'service'.

I haven't heard anything about only being able to buy ammo in the calibers you have registered. Rifles just became part of the registration a cpl yrs ago and UBC registration for hand guns in 1994-ish so there are literally 10s of thousands of guns in CA that haven't fallen into the scheme yet.

 

[horseman1]

Can anyone explain how this law would apply to reloading in California?
I can't see how that would work (or not!). Thanks

 

[Jason_W]

The way I've heard in interpreted, it doesn't apply to reloading. But who really knows.

These laws aren't exactly written in a way that makes them transparent.

 

[Ignition Override]

If you have a friend over the state line, you don't really know what they shop for.
You don't know what's in a Christmas package until you get home and open it. You give them a Cashiers Check as a Christmas gift.

 

[horseman1]

The way I've heard in interpreted, it doesn't apply to reloading. But who really knows.

These laws aren't exactly written in a way that makes them transparent.

Thank you sir. These laws are often very confusing to me when they don't make a lot of sense to begin with.

 

[orionengnr]

"I read on Calguns.net that the NRA poured $4 million into fighting a Nevada initiative that would require background checks for firearms buyers but just $145,000 into battling a gun control measure in California."

The NRA knows (from experience) that spending money in CA is a lost cause.
Having lived in CA from 1981-2001, I'm not sure that pouring in 10x (or 100x) that amount would have made the slightest difference.
While I lived there, I shoveled crap against the tide. All to no avail. Did the same when I lived in IL.
I know that the good citizens of CA (all 25 or so of them) are doing the best they can. But they are wasting their time, and ours, and the NRA's. CA is run by anti-gun Dems, and that will not change. Lost cause.
BTW, I also grew up in CT, and the changes that state went through between my childhood and my age of majority (and especially, since) were profound. Another lost cause.

The NRA has limited resources (4 million members, IIRC) and has to expend those resources wisely.
If every gun owner (80-100 million, at least) was an NRA member, that might be a different circumstance.
Four percent of gun owners are carrying the water for the other 96%.

You are part of the problem.
Get 1000 or 1,000,000 of your friends/neighbors to join NRA in CA, give them the funds they need to fight, and they will.
But we both know that this will not happen...your friends and neighbors are anti-gun, just like NY, MA, IL and CT. And increasingly, places like CO, OR, WA....

 

[Jason_W]

Maybe a supreme court challenge will bear fruit.

 

[danez71]

Maybe a supreme court challenge will bear fruit.

The Peruta case out of California CA just filed for an extension to appeal to SCOTUS.... just a few days/weeks before the deadline came.

I've said it before that what ever the final decision is for that case will ultimately be the model nationwide. if it stands as it is now, IMO, there will be too many CA courts with similar interpretation.

Give up on CA and the nation will feel the pain eventually. Not because it's CA, but because it tips the scale in regards to other CA rulings.

 

[toivo]

Passed this law in NY. Couldn't figure out how to implement it without:

a) super expensive
b) violating the Constitution

It never got enabled and Cuomo agreed to pull the provision.

It's still on the books in NY. All Cuomo did was cut funding for the implementation. They can bring it back whenever they decide that they're ready to pay for it -- actually to make the taxpayers pay for it.

 

[simonp]

Being in California for now I'm hoping this gets overturned in court asap along with us having to turn in any standard capacity magazines without compensation. In the meantime I'm buying in bulk online trying to stock up as much as I can.