The Future of Shooting

[RDW]

I live in California, and we’re on the verge of a new law’s coming into effect (AB962) that essentially prevents people in California from purchasing “handgun” ammunition online. You can read about the details of the law yourselves, but the law got me to wondering about the future of shooting, both inside of California and in general. I know that many of you are from states other than California, and I’d like to hear what you think about the subject. In particular, I’d like to know if your states are also becoming more restrictive with regard to shooting/guns, and if you think what’s happening in California will spread, once the precedent has been set.

I’m not one who sees black helicopters on every horizon, and I don’t see a conspiracy in every law or court ruling, but I do see certain freedoms being whittled away without many people paying attention. Here in California, for instance, we have a 10-day waiting period for both long guns and short guns (maybe that’s common throughout the US?); we don’t have many gun shops left any more, at least in Los Angeles County; and it’s getting harder and harder to find essentials like ammunition, particularly “odd” ammunition (like 44 special, for example). Buying online, of course, made the scarcity of gun shops and the lack of hard-to-find ammunition not an issue, but that’s where the new law is targeted.

Personally, I see preventing people from buying ammunition online as a means toward an end, with the next step toward that end being restricting in-state sales of ammunition –you eliminate the option to buy out-of-state (online), and then you start to regulate buying it in-state. Ultimately, I see it as a step toward taking away the guns without actually having to take away the guns.

Currently, reloading is still an option, but I see that as one of the things that may become more regulated in the future: Like with the ammunition, first you prevent people from buying out-of-state and then you restrict what you can buy in-state. The use of lead can also be restricted, which in turn restricts casting, making it more difficult to get around the other restrictions.

The usual organizations –CRPA and NRA, among others—are filing lawsuits and trying to prevent the law from taking effect, so we’ll see how that goes. I belong to both, and I consider myself to an active member in terms of writing to the appropriate people and agencies –and in sharing my views on forums like this one.

What’s happening in your states? And what do you see in the future for shooting and shooting-related activities (gun shows, shooting groups like SASS, etc.)?

 

[kingpin008]

Not much happening here in MD. They've tried to enact an AWB of sorts here for the past half-decade or so, but we keep shutting it down.

In fact, we're making strides to get our ridiculous may-issue CCW laws changed. I've been super busy lately, so I'm not as up on it as I should be, but we're definitely not losing ground when it comes to firearms-related issues.

 

[ArtP]

I'm also in California and spend more time than I should cruising forums and have a fair idea of the attitudes outside our state. Because we're from the same state I'm not sure I can share much of a different perspective.

Without quoting and fully understanding all of the legal decisions that have been handed down recently, there does appear to be a very bright spot for oppressive states like CA and those other liberal Eastern seaboard states. The federal decision (please don't quote the technicality of what I'm writing) to allow Chicago residents to have handguns, against the wishes and legislation of the local government sets some precedence in, that states can only go "so far" before the federal government steps in and restores rights. I think it is the McDonald case that says states have to generally allow 2A rights and cannot circumvent the intent of 2A with laws that may not directly prohibit, but the net result being types of prohibition.

I'm not a lawyer and may not have articulated that very well. I suppose it can be summarized that there's a limit to how far states can go with restrictions. That's how I see it anyway. It's my opinion that if CA tried to go too far with its oppression, the state would be legally challenged.

There is a fantastic forum - calguns.net - that deals with firearm related politics in CA.

I also think oppression comes and goes depending on the political climate. Overall throughout the country restrictions have loosened up with most states issuing carry permits without cause to anyone legally eligible to own guns (shall issue). I doubt that will ever happen here, but in some rural counties it is possible.

And I do reload, so the latest STUPID law has no effect on me. Components for reloading (bullets) can still be bought over the internet.

ADD: If the intent of the ammo law is really to keep ammo out of the hands of gang members and criminals, I doubt the state would ever go after reloaders. How many gang bangers do you know with a reloading press in their garage?

 

[Brass Rain]

Do gang members that want to stay under the radar really order ammunition online? I would think not. I know it's just the standard California BS that can be expected from that state. I live in Louisiana and there have been no new gun legislations that I know about. It's a pretty gun-friendly state, one of the few things it has going for it.

 

[rtroha]

Actually, the trend in Ohio is toward LESS restrictive laws since the passage of shall-issue CCW in 2004.

 

[redbeardsong]

Georgia has progressively become less restrictive, with much credit due to the legal efforts of GeorgiaCarry.org. This year we repealed the 150yr old "public Gathering" clause, among other things. Georgia is a "Shall Issue" state. I got my carry license in a week, and can walk in to a store and walk out with a handgun or long gun. With a carry license I can carry openly or concealed. Aside from some shortages, it's not a problem buying ammo. There are at least four gun shops in town, not counting the big box stores. Finding your favorite defense ammo can be difficult, if it's popular.
I'm thankful for the freedoms we have here, and hope to see some more positive changes this year.

 

[S.W.G.]

In Tennessee, if you are over 18 you can walk out of Walmart with 3,000 rounds of ammo, then go back the next day and buy 5,000 more. (Not that they stock that much, just an example) I can't remember the last time I've heard of a murder locally. I'm sure they happen but it isn't an 'O.K. Corral' situation that the politicians in California want you to think it is.

And this is coming from a state that at one point had the most meth labs in the country.

Off of the top of my head I can't think of a single individual I know on a first-name basis who doesn't own at least one gun. In my county we have a VERY nice public range run by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. It's always full on Saturday's.

You have your occasional anti-gun dimbulb, but for the most part guns are accepted as a positive thing.

Where I am, the future of shooting looks pretty bright.

 

[armoredman]

Step across the border into Free Arizona and see what freedom tastes like. We now have Constitutional Carry, no CCW permit needed to carry concealed, open carry has always been legal, no AWB, no mag capacity restrictions, no ammunition restrictions, no FOID, no permit to own, no permit to purchase, no waiting period beyond the 15 minutes for the background check call, (none if you have a CCW permit, which we still offer!), no "safety inspection", no need to get "letters" from neighbors, friends or doctors to buy/own/carry any legal firearm, NFA friendly, and NFA firearms may be carried in this state...should I go on? Castle Doctrine in place, no civil liability for justified actions, (Johnny Burglars' family can't sue you to your socks if your defensive shooting is ruled justified), defensive display of firearms legal within legal guidelines, no state mandated storage requirements, no registration of firearms or shooters...I like this state. We have room for gun people, and cookies somewhere...

 

[TexasRifleman]

I know people often say "As California goes so goes the rest of the country" but that doesn't seem to be the case with gun laws.

California and a few other states are getting more restrictive but on the whole gun laws seem to be going in our direction more now than in a very long time.

As the reality finally begins to set with the average Joe that gun control laws don't really impact crime rates I think the trend will continue.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Here in MI, long guns only have as much wait as it takes you to fill out the form 4473

Handguns with a concealed carry permit are the same, no wait. Without CCW, you have to get a pistol purchase permit from local law enforcement.

Only pistols are registered.

Handgun ammo must be kept behind the counter at stores, all other ammo is on the shelf.


I agree with your sentiments. I see the goal of the antis most likely as this: make engaging in shooting sports so onerous that people stop participating. No more new shooters means less people to oppose future legislation and so forth.

If you read posts made here by our members from other countries, once you have taken guns away from the vast majority of people, the next generation brought up without guns views them as horrible, horrendous things that no one should be allowed to own. Then, you don't even have any support to restore gun rights.


My thoughts for the future is we need to make a priority of removing suppressors from the NFA. We don't drive cars without mufflers, why can't firearms owners do the same without onerous regulations? When we approach deregulating suppressors, we should state the position as that of wanting to be a good neighbor and make shooting ranges less noisy. Like it or not, our population is continually expanding and more people are living near shooting ranges and readily available suppressors will help protect our shooting ranges. Without shooting ranges, it is very hard to introduce new members to our sport. More shooters means less support for all the things the antis want.

 

[henschman]

Well, thank goodness for bordering states with no restrictions. I'm sure that ammunition sellers on the other side of the border in all bordering states will see a marked increase in sales from CA residents who refuse to submit to licensing and fingerprinting to buy ammo. This will include the violent criminals as well as the people who care about their liberty. The only people who will submit to the requirements of the law are compulsive law abiders.

I could never live in CA... I believe in disobeying laws like that, and having to worry about the police more than I already have to do here in OK is one more worry that I do not need.

If I was more into smoking weed and less into guns, that might change my calculus though!

 

[KyCountry]

Unfortunately, this is the direction our nation is headed. I have extreme sympathy for the few well-minded citizens of California, like the author of the post. I'm very glad to live in Kentucky, where our 'backwardness' has thankfully constructed extremely loose gun laws. Hopefully, if other states following suite to California's ignorance, we will yet again, be one of those states that are '20 years behind.'

 

[wishin]

Georgia has progressively become less restrictive, with much credit due to the legal efforts of GeorgiaCarry.org. This year we repealed the 150yr old "public Gathering" clause, among other things. Georgia is a "Shall Issue" state. I got my carry license in a week, and can walk in to a store and walk out with a handgun or long gun. With a carry license I can carry openly or concealed. Aside from some shortages, it's not a problem buying ammo. There are at least four gun shops in town, not counting the big box stores. Finding your favorite defense ammo can be difficult, if it's popular.
I'm thankful for the freedoms we have here, and hope to see some more positive changes this year.

Agreed. My only major peeve with GA's gun law is that church carry is not allowed. Having to get the bar owner's permission to carry there I can live with since I don't frequent bars (as a rule), but don't agree with it.

 

[Hondo 60]

In WI we removed the former governor.
One of the new governor's campaign promises was to ask congress for a bill to allow concealed carry.

The former governor twice vetoed such a bill & the democratic controlled congress ran 2 votes shy of an over-ride.

So I'd say were moving in the opposite direction from Kalifornistan.

 

[ArmedLiberal]

....There is a fantastic forum - calguns.net - that deals with firearm related politics in CA....

CalGuns.net is outstanding. Along with the CalGuns Foundation they are in the front lines fighting against the outrageous system of California Gun Law. Slow progress is being made. There is hope for the future.

Check them out. If you like what they are doing make a donation.

 

[rajb123]

I'm visiting on business here in Mass. Here you cannot buy any ammo or ammo components (powder, bullets, brass, caps, etc.) without a resident Mass. firearms license or FLL.

For California, the Internet ammo purchase restriction also has the impact of increasing state sales tax receipts which are often not collected by ammo sellers who do not have a physical presence in the state.

Unfortunately, the only logical reaction to these acts would be to begin hording massive amounts of ammo and ammo components because the laws enacted in California and Mass. could be headed your way.

 

[RDW]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. It's good to hear that the problems seem to be mostly on the coasts, and that the rest of the country seems a bit more sane.

There's a separate thread about the successful lawsuit against AB962 (the internet ammo ban), so I won't dwell on that here, other than to say maybe even California is becoming a little more realistic about such things. For now, at least, I can still buy ammo on the internet. Makes it all the more important to join organizations that fight such things, like the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), since they were the ones who have the knowledge and resources to keep up on gun legislation, and it was those two groups who, in fact, filed the lawsuit that stopped the law from being implemented, at least for now.

The whole thing made me take a closer look at other gun laws that I used to be a little more open to, like the ban on high capacity magazines and assault rifles here in California. Although I personally don't have either one, and I'm not sure that I see the "need" for such things, I realize that it's not much of a leap of faith to move from something I personally don't care much about, like assault weapons, to something I do care about, like the right to keep and bear arms. Sort of a reality check, I guess.

Someone in one of the earlier posts also made an excellent point: When the current generation is taught that guns are evil, that generation won't be as concerned if guns are banned, and won't fight legislation aimed at taking away what I think most of us see as a fundamental right. Once one fundamental right is modified or taken away, it would seem that it would only be a matter of time before other rights suffer the same fate.

Overall, I'm glad that California seems to be more the exception than the rule, and I hope that this is one instance where California follows, rather than leads.

 

[coloradokevin]

Actually, the trend in Ohio is toward LESS restrictive laws since the passage of shall-issue CCW in 2004.

Indeed, that was a big step in the Buckeye state. I made my final move to Colorado from Ohio on January 7th, 2004, which was the day before that law took place. I remember the fight for CCW in Ohio went on for many years before it finally happened, and remember laughing at the fact that it finally happened just one day after I moved away from my home state. The irony.

Colorado isn't too bad on gun laws. We don't have an AWB, or hi-cap mag ban. We can get a CCW permit pretty easily, and a permit isn't even required if you are carrying in your own vehicle. For now things are working out okay here in the mountains, but I suspect that the influx of Californians (and California-like ideals) will begin to change the culture in this state in a few more years. Time will tell.

 

[WeedWacker]

we’re on the verge of a new law’s coming into effect (AB962) that essentially prevents people in California from purchasing “handgun” ammunition online.

I thought it was found unconstitutional?

CA Update: AB962 = NO MORE !!! 1/18/11

 

[RDW]

You're right: It was declared unconstitutional (see other threads for the details).

The declaration occurred after I wrote the original post, though, after I started getting all the e-mails from the online ammo suppliers telling me that they would no longer be shipping handgun ammo to California.