Why I hope Schwarzenegger signs the ammo bill

[KBintheSLC]

OP,

I understand your point... sometimes, adversity is the best thing to rally people behind a cause. Look at all of the wonderful things the existence of the Obama presidency has done for gun rights. Actually, gun rights are more popular now than they have been in decades. I attribute much of this to the current threats we are facing.

 

[inSight-NEO]

Ahh...wheres Ben Franklin and the like when we need them the most? It seems as if the history surrounding gun rights is repeating itself once again (not just speaking of California).

Our "founding fathers" and any associated with them seem to have gone through a bit of hell to ensure the "right" of Americans to own firearms and be able to keep them well fed with ammunition. Too bad that our current political body (overall, so it would seem) does not share such enthusiasm regarding our Second Ammendment rights.

So it goes...

 

[Acera]

because some choose to stand and fight.

El Rojo, Thank you.



At least I now know that there is at least one person in California that does not fit my impression of that population.



Are you from Texas originally??? If no, you sound reasonable enough to be welcomed here.

 

[kmcintosh78]

This is the kind of crap that will ALWAYS keep me out of California. Always!!.
I will pay the extra money to travel from UT to FL for the mouse, then pay less money for the mouse in CA.

You can keep CA. I will keep my rights.

 

[Zoogster]

You don't win anything in another state if California passes the bill. You may think you don't lose anything either, but it sets precedent that other politicians around the country take note of. It normalizes further erosion of freedoms and liberty nationally.

California is the most populated state in the entire nation. Once something is done in California it is much easier for it to start showing up in other places.

California was the primary source of the national level Assault Weapon Ban for example. Something that would have become just as permanent as the NFA or GCA if it did not have a sunset provision. If that sunset provision had come in 2009, or even 2006 instead of 2004, it would have just been signed back into permanent law.
Fortunately it expired, now it has been dead long enough that it would face stiff resistance even by some Democrats. But in 2004 the only reason it was not permanently renewed was because the Republicans controlled everything. Even then most were completely unwilling to oppose it, they just let it lapse without standing for anything.
If it had been renewed, it was going to become permanent, and as likely to be removed in the future as the GCA or NFA are today.


California has also been a major melting pot of people from across the nation for decades. That is changing now, as more begin to leave than come to California, but it means California has been a good indicator of the nation as a whole. The extreme antis of the East, and the extreme pro-gun of the West and South (other than the Jim Crow type stuff.) You had country places that would remind you of somewhere in the South in California for decades. Even some big metro areas like Bakersfield were more "Country" and southern in culture than some areas of Texas.
California is not all left leaning liberals. However much like the Eastern United States from Chicago to Boston down to D.C. (and primarily anti) has the greatest population in the United States, the San Francisco/Oakland and Los Angeles areas (primarily anti) dominate California in population.
So the sum of California has long been similar to the sum of the entire US. The most anti places in the US have the greatest density of people (From Chicago Metro area, to Boston, down to NYC, and into D.C.). The most pro gun often have the lowest concentration of people (Alaska, Montana, etc) There is exceptions, but those are the trends.
California has both, and the ideologies of both. It also has the cultures of most other portions of the nation in concentrations not that different from the nation as a whole.
So anything that can happen in California can certainly happen nationally.

California is around 12% of the nation's population and 13% of the GDP of the entire nation. It has many of the elements of the other 88%. More so than any other state.
You do not want to see California laws get worse.



Here is a population density map, notice the majority of the large concentrations of dark blue areas are in more anti stronghold areas. Florida being a major exception. (North Carolina as well, though they have some Jim Crowe things still in place, like a pistol purchase license requirement.)

 

[(Pb)]

For my part, I couldn't disagree with the OP's statements MORE. This is an absolutely unacceptable erosion of all that is great about our constitution and the freedom it guarantees.

 

[Kimber45acp]

Say what? How can something infringe and pass federal constitutional muster?

I literally loled over your post. Thanks for the laugh.

I've already addressed this. If you're laughing, it is because you either did not read my post, and/or you are ignorant of the difference between the federal and state constitutions. I said this bill (which again is not a ban) passes FEDERAL constitutional muster (because it does). States have the right to regulate commerce this way (which again, is not a ban).

For my part, I couldn't disagree with the OP's statements MORE. This is an absolutely unacceptable erosion of all that is great about our constitution and the freedom it guarantees.

Why does this keep having to be addressed? Which constitution are you referring to? I have been quite clear. You speak as if you don't understand that the federal constitution would prevent things like gun bans (and possibly ammo bans), but that states have rights to regulate commerce (again, this is not a ban). There is a massive difference between the federal constitution and the state constitution. Have people lost basic understanding of statehood?

 

[Zoogster]

Why does this keep having to be addressed? Which constitution are you referring to? I have been quite clear. You speak as if you don't understand that the federal constitution would prevent things like gun bans (and possibly ammo bans), but that states have rights to regulate commerce (again, this is not a ban). There is a massive difference between the federal constitution and the state constitution. Have people lost basic understanding of statehood?

Actually that seems pretty much like the definition of interfering with interstate commerce, something the Constitution does allow the Federal Government to stop. (And the clause also abused to expand Federal power well beyond that intended purpose.)

By preventing internet sales of an item which is a constitutional right, the state would appear to be interfering with the interstate commerce of an item they don't have the authority to ban.


Does a state banning sales from one portion of the nation to another portion of the nation, concerning an item not banned for sale within the state, not sound exactly like something the Commerce Clause was meant to resolve?
An item illegal to ban (2nd Amendment), yet banned from interstate commerce by the state?

No the Federal Government would never use the interstate commerce clause to actually protect the RKBA like that, but it is within the Constitution and the type of thing originally intended by the Commerce Clause, unlike most other things that clause has been expanded to cover.

 

[akodo]

Of course it's incrementalism. Of course it's an infringement on our rights. Of course it is singling out gun owners for persecution when the same focus should be on the purchase of gasoline by people convicted of DUI (in order to be consistent).

HOWEVER. This is one of the only gun control schemes in california that actually passes federal constitutional muster. It's not a ban. This is 100% allowable under states rights. States have every right to regulate commerce within their borders and that is exactly what this is.

If it is an infringment of our rights to RKBA then it is NOT Constitutional

Do I think this will do any good? Yes. The gang bangers and illegal aliens steal our guns and then can go buy ammo without any questions being asked. I've watched this scenario repeated too many times to count.

The gangbangers will get their ammo from the same place as they get their guns. The ones not record will buy it. The ones who who have connections/control over people who aren't on the record will buy it. Most will be stolen at the same time as the gun. Remember, most criminals don't go through large amounts of ammo...whatever the gun holds is usually all they have.

Will they just have their girlfriends buy the ammo FOR them? Of course, and that almost always comes back to bite them.

Actually, just the opposite. The Feds and state have taken the stance that in situations like this, targeting the straw buyer is counterproductive. I disagree, but that is their current stance (I believe it is that fear of prosecution doesn't sway someone who is in love, or someone who fears a sever beating, and/or all the other complicated ties between a man and woman in a relationship...also this tends to target single mothers, so now the state is putting a kid or three into the foster care system)

If you have some information about this 'coming back to bite them' please share it.

I also think that this will drive more good people out of California, which I believe is the only solution to living under lists of gun control in CA that is patently UNconstitutional. Have I written off California in terms of ever restoring the 2nd amendment? Not in the long term, but yes in the short term. As you can see, this isn't a "bash" upon California in any way.

I believe this tactic is called 'Cut and Run'

This tactic has NEVER succeeded in getting rights back.

 

[akodo]

I've already addressed this. If you're laughing, it is because you either did not read my post, and/or you are ignorant of the difference between the federal and state constitutions. I said this bill (which again is not a ban) passes FEDERAL constitutional muster (because it does). States have the right to regulate commerce this way (which again, is not a ban).

Take another look again.

In many parts of the Bill of Rights it states such things as 'Congress shall make no law...'

But for the 2nd Amendment it states 'Shall not be infringed' This seems pretty clear that ANY such law would fail.

Further, the 14th Amendment makes all the provisions of the Constitution apply to the state. The 2nd was mentioned as not being affected by the 14th in the same breath as SCOTUS stated the 1st was not affected by the 14th...and clearly that has been overturned. This to me means that it is all but a formality that the 2nd is incorporated, we are just waiting for the right case to lock it in.

Of all the other amendments, they are all incorporated except for the 8th's protection against unreasonable bail...but the only challenge to this was bascially handed back down to the state level because all states have similar wording in their constitutions. (Hence no need to incorporate what already exists...only way to have a test case is for a state to remove that protection from a state constitution and THEN set exceesive bail and THEN move it before SCOTUS) and the part of the 5th amendment dealing with a Inditement by a Grand Jury...but again, this is mirrored in pretty much all state constitutions for serious crimes.

Finally, as already mentioned before, if CA admits that item X is NOT bannable, and is legal to own, if they target out-of-state sellers (contacted by email, phone, or letter) they run smack into the commerace clause, but that has already been covered well above

 

[El Rojo]

El Rojo, Thank you.

At least I now know that there is at least one person in California that does not fit my impression of that population.

Are you from Texas originally??? If no, you sound reasonable enough to be welcomed here.

I am a Californian from many generations prior. I am by no means the only one in this state that loves liberty and fights the good fight. There are millions of us. Unfortunately in a state of 35 million people, we are simply outnumbered.

People don't understand the liberal or even just plain apathetic mindset out here. They don't care that they throw away their rights as long as they feel good about it. They feel good about it because they don't see how the erosion of one's rights is an erosion of all.

People from out of this state who try and argue how people shouldn't do this from a position of logic have already failed. There is no logic involved, merely emotion. There is no point in arguing that the anti-gunners are stupid. They are not stupid. They know tis won't stop crime. This is about control. Period.

 

[danez71]

Legally speaking....(I know it hasnt held true in reality)

A state can not "regulate commerce" or anything else if it violates the federal Constitution (insert period)

The US Constitution trumps all.... believing anything else is un-American (insert explanation point)

The OP seems to think that mearly regulating, not banning, is what passes "Federal muster". But the OP doesnt realize that if they can reguate it... that means they could regulate (or ration?) it down to 1 bullet per decade (insert we are all screwed look here)

I was born, raised, and lived in CA for 35 yrs.

CA....truely a great state.... but with more flawed thinking than octomom has diapers.

 

[medmo]

'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' Benjamin Franklin, 'Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor,' November 11, 1755."

"Stupid is as stupid does." Forrest Gump

 

[FROGO207]

EL ROJO
I feel your pain. The present state of the State looks as though it will implode on itself at any time. Might be that the powers will outlaw even the movie props used, as they "represent" firearms and dangerous items. Then the movies will go to Alaska or someplace similar where they will be welcome. Then the money to support the warped thinking will also exit and you will get your state back when all the free thinkers have to go somewhere, get an honest job and disperse. Remember the pendulum swings both ways and the next election could be a cleaning of conscience for the present state of affairs.
To the OP be real careful what you wish for, you may get that wish compounded many times over. Once lost, liberties are not often reclaimable.

 

[Davek1977]

Exactly which of California's gun laws has a steller, proven record of deterring crime? How is it you see this one as somehow being any different? How is an infringement, or at the absolute very least, a major inconvience to law-abiding citizens going to dter crime? If the logic is that most "underworld" guns are stolen, doesn't it stand to reason these same people wouldn't be the least bit opposed to stealing ammo as well? It infuriates me to see gun owners signing their rights away IN HOPES the next law passed will somehow accomplish what every law previous to it has failed to do. The definition of insanity is doing the same thig repeatedly, expecting different results. Californians have repeatedly allowed their rights and priveledges as gun owners to be regulated and/or taken away, while the crime rate continues to climb. Yet, we STILL have gun owners lining up to lend support to further restrictions in the hopes that for whatever illogical reason that "this time will be different, and THIS law is going to make a difference". Where is the rational logic and thought behind such ideas? How do people get convinced further infringements will somehow accomplish what no law prevous has accomplished?

 

[Al Norris]

I said this bill (which again is not a ban) passes FEDERAL constitutional muster (because it does). States have the right to regulate commerce this way (which again, is not a ban).

Um, no.

Apparently you were asleep when the Raich decision was handed down. In a nut-shell: Interstate Commerce can regulate anything, including, but by no means limited to, Intrastate Commerce.

Even if this were not true (which it most definitely is), there is this "little" thing called the Dormant Commerce Clause. This restricts a state from passing legislation that harms interstate commerce. The restriction is self-executing and applies even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute.

The Federal Government could, if it wanted, sue California and overturn many of its gun laws on the basis of the above. The fact that it hasn't is neither here nor there.

As for your assertion that CA gun owners aren't doing anything... Four words: Nordyke; Sykes; Peǹa and Palmer. Lots of CA gun owner money going into these cases.

 

[Beelzy]

I'm just going to sit in my California Foxhole.

When you guys go and charge the Gov't and come back running with your tails on fire,
I'll be watching your six. My gear is too heavy to lug around. ;-)

 

[billdeserthills]

When will lawmakers discover that making more laws will never control crime?
Funny thing is criminals don't pay attention to the law, that's why they are called "criminals"
Making it hard on honest people is the only outcome this will have

 

[airman]

Well the stupid bill was signed last night. Thanks a lot you trader Arnie
I hope it does not spread to a state near you!!!!

 

[Kimber45acp]

Well the stupid bill was signed last night. Thanks a lot you trader Arnie
I hope it does not spread to a state near you!!!!

Don't be so depressed about it. I started this thread because there's a lot to be optimistic about. The justifiable anger from gun owners in CA resulting from this could and SHOULD be harnessed to repeal say, the idiotic handgun roster requirement (which IS unconstitutional unlike this state level ammo/state level commerce regulation which is not a ban).

Here's an example of something that will generate anger that pro gunners in CA could and should use:

Ammunition that can be used in both pistols and rifles — like the popular .22 caliber round used by target shooters and small game hunters — fall under the new restrictions.

 

[RDak]

You bring up some good points Kimber. Maybe this will be the "last straw" that causes some of the draconian statutes to fall. Time will tell, who knows.

But the bill you speak of will probably be struck down by the SCOTUS.

Read: Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (128 S. Ct. 989, 2008)

It had to do with transporting tobacco products by common carrier across state lines. Federal law preempts the sort of "picking and choosing" sought by the bill Arnold just signed IMHO.

Anyway, the Rowe case is a good read and is very much on point. (It was a 9-0 decision IIRC.)

http://www.litigationfairness.org/component/ilr_docs/29/issue/PRE/CD.html

 

[R.W.Dale]

Don't be so depressed about it. I started this thread because there's a lot to be optimistic about. The justifiable anger from gun owners in CA resulting from this could and SHOULD be harnessed to repeal say, the idiotic handgun roster requirement (which IS unconstitutional unlike this state level ammo/state level commerce regulation which is not a ban).

Here's an example of something that will generate anger that pro gunners in CA could and should use:

Quote:
Ammunition that can be used in both pistols and rifles — like the popular .22 caliber round used by target shooters and small game hunters — fall under the new restrictions.

In which case this legislation covers vuritually all ammunition as you can buy handguns chambered for what are concidered rifle cartridges 223, 308, 30/30 45/70 and any number of other cartridges

 

[cavman]

You got your wish. He signed it.

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/123574


CALIFORNIA´S GOVERNOR SIGNS LEGISLATION TO HELP TRACK AMMUNITION SALES
California Political Desk
October 12, 2009
Sacramento, CA – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law legislation that will help law enforcement officials track down and apprehend armed criminals and other prohibited persons. AB 962 by Assembly Member Kevin DeLeon (D-Los Angeles) had the support of law enforcement officials from across the state and was modeled after successful city ordinances, including the cities of Sacramento and Los Angeles. AB 962 was the Brady Campaign´s top priority bill in this year´s legislature.

The law requires maintenance of purchaser records by handgun ammunition vendors. Local law enforcement can use these records to find illegal guns.

"The purchase records will provide our police officers with yet another tool to track down and apprehend armed and dangerous criminals," said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The new law also requires the safe storage of handgun ammunition in stores and that all handgun ammunition sales be completed in face-to-face transactions. Sacramento and Los Angeles have had great success over the last few years with similar city ordinances. "Law enforcement officials in both cities have had great success in tracking down violent criminals who purchased ammunition in Sacramento and Los Angeles," said Ellen Boneparth, President of the California Brady Campaign Chapters. "Our California Brady Chapters were instrumental in urging cities to pass the local ordinances and getting strong support statewide for AB 962."

A 2006 study by the Rand Corporation on Los Angeles´ city ordinance showed 10,050 rounds of ammunition were purchased by prohibited persons in a period of just two months. The study concluded "…monitoring ammunition transactions may help reduce the supply of ammunition to criminals and the frequency of injuries from felonious gun assaults. Such a record can also provide information for generating leads on illegal firearm possession."


The results of the Sacramento ammunition ordinance were also striking. From January 16, 2008 to August 31, 2009, 229 prohibited people purchased ammunition of which 173 had previous felony convictions, including gang members. From the matching of ammunition purchase records to the California prohibited persons file, the Sacramento DA was able to charge 181 of the purchasers with felonies. In addition, 160 illegal firearms were seized from the prohibited persons, as well as cash, drugs, and explosive devices.

As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

For continuing insight and comment on the gun issue, read Paul Helmke's blog at www.bradycampaign.org/blog/. Visit the Brady Campaign websites at www.bradycampaign.org or www.bradycampaign.org/CA.
Print Email
Bookmark and Share
Your Name
Recipient's Name
Recipient's Email
California Political Desk

The California Political Desk provides information, news, and announcements obtained from governmental and communications offices throughout the Golden State.

 

[rbernie]

And now that the deed is done - I'm closing this down....