The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 17, 2013, 07:02 PM   #1
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,157
California passes ammo permit fee, background check

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cali...tion-purchases

They've done it. California Senate has passed a slew of legislation. Among these is a bill that requires a permit fee for ammunition, the ammunition must be sold face to face in the presence of a clerk, and is overall not good.

They also passed other laws including banning the sale of semi automatic weapons with detachable magazines, registration of pistols with detachable magazine, banning the "bullet button", expands the prohibited persons list by adding alcohol and drug related offenses to the list, and requires a training certificate to buy a handgun or a long gun.

Poor california. I don't see all of this passing constitutional muster if push comes to shove but that could take a long time to be decided.
dakota.potts is online now  
Old June 17, 2013, 07:31 PM   #2
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,191
I hope we all realize every one of these bills, if signed into law by the governor, will be tested for legality in federal court.
For a state that has so many money problems, you'd think they'd not do things which will force the expenditure of tax dollars so frivolously.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old June 17, 2013, 10:55 PM   #3
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
Not that it is much comfort, but those bills merely passed out of their house of origin.

Senate bills must also be considered by the Assembly, Assembly bills by the Senate; typically two different committees - Public Safety and Appropriations - in each house, then a floor vote, then, if the second house amends a bill, a reconciliation committee. THEN the survivors go to the Governor. That will be mid-September.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 04:02 AM   #4
teeroux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,492
Didn't Kali already have a law pass that dealing with the sale of ammo over the internet and state line? In effect a face to face ammo sale. Didn't that law already get challenged?
teeroux is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 08:55 AM   #5
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Didn't Kali already have a law pass that dealing with the sale of ammo over the internet and state line? In effect a face to face ammo sale. Didn't that law already get challenged?
There was a recent law that banned internet sales of handgun ammunition. It was reversed because "handgun" ammunition wasn't defined well enough.

They want to bypass that problem by limiting sales on ALL ammunition.
natman is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 09:03 AM   #6
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
There was a recent law that banned internet sales of handgun ammunition. It was reversed because "handgun" ammunition wasn't defined well enough.

They want to bypass that problem by limiting sales on ALL ammunition.
I don't see what problem they would have or not have because of handgun vs long gun ammo. Heller specifically addressed the right to own handguns so that ship has sailed for California if they are worried about a legal challenge.

I guess it keeps the "sportsmen" happy but that’s about it.

I honestly think a lot of this anti gun stuff is going forward now because the antis want to gamble we will see a change @ the SCOTUS in the very near future.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 09:16 AM   #7
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
I don't see what problem they would have or not have because of handgun vs long gun ammo. Heller specifically addressed the right to own handguns so that ship has sailed for California if they are worried about a legal challenge.
The law was written for "handgun" ammo and the hazy definition of the term was the grounds by which it was overturned.

Politicians in CA don't worry about whether or not a given law is likely to be overturned. They just throw whatever they can get passed against the wall and see what sticks. A prime example is San Francisco's Proposition H, which banned handgun possession in 2005 (pre-Heller). Everyone knew that it would run afoul of the CA state preemption law because a similar law had been overturned on those grounds in 1982. They passed it anyway, the NRA took them to court and won and the City of SF had to pay $380,000 to the NRA in legal costs plus their own costs. That's over half a million dollars that could have been spent on police, fire and road maintenance, but was wasted on a lawsuit they KNEW they would lose.

They just don't care.
natman is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 05:16 PM   #8
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Does anyone know what will happen to people such as myself who use bullet buttons?
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 08:40 PM   #9
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
Quote:
Does anyone know what will happen to people such as myself who use bullet buttons?
Drawn and quartered, I expect - shooting you would be too 'icky'.

See the Calguns discussion thread on SB47; the link to the actual bill page is in the first post. The bill was referred to Assembly Public Safety yesterday.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 12:39 AM   #10
armsmaster270
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,944
I buy over the internet with a credit card linked to a sparks NV address and have it dropped at that address and at my leasure go visit my Bro in Law in sparks to pick it up.
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com
http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/
Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.
armsmaster270 is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 03:54 AM   #11
Old Stony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 635
Unfortunatly there is no hope left for California. During my working years, I lived there and even owned a gun shop there. For some time back then, they required me to keep a log of ammo sales including personal info on the buyer. This was in case they had to prove someone actually bought ammo and used it in a crime. After a few years of this, they figured out they hadn't solved even one crime with it and told us we didn't have to do it anymore. I called the state Dept.of Justice (that name still makes me laugh), and asked them what they would like me to do with all the logs. They said I could just dispose of them. They still won't learn from past mistakes and will keep doing it over and over until there are no more guns and ammo. You are not dealing with any knowledgable people here. As an example, I once sent in papework to the DOJ listing the S&W pistol I was selling as having a 2 1/2 inch barrel. I got a call back from some female wanting to know what a Z 1/2 barrel was.
They have their priorities there....but what should one expect from a state that will protect a person's rights to wander down the streets naked, but won't protect their rights to defend themselves.
I watched one college town make their police officers take the shotguns from the racks in their cars and carry them in the trunks. They decided that being able to see them from outside the car was offensive to the people of that town. I watched the same town take down all the "dead end" street signs as they were offensive to the same people. Now they all say "no outlet"
I restate it....there is no hope for California...write it off..
Old Stony is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 10:02 AM   #12
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 981
As much as I would love to just write off California, I have to live here for at least a few more years. I'm not liking what I've been reading here or on CalGuns about this legislation. Does anyone know how these new laws will effect places that sell guns and ammo on military installations in the area?

I think California and New York just want to have a race to the bottom and neither wants to be bested by the other. It's actually kind of sickening to think about.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 12:30 PM   #13
Old Stony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 635
I would think the military installations would be exempt from the gun crazies there, but don't quote me on that one. The military bases sort of have their own laws to enforce. Just remember what Johnny Cash said " Don't take your guns to town son".
Old Stony is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 12:35 PM   #14
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,298
She3pdog:
Quote:
I think California and New York just want to have a race to the bottom and neither wants to be bested by the other.
It's a like a 2nd amendment tennis match; i just keep watching them bat that little scrap of paper back and forth....
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 12:39 PM   #15
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,147
Sales in neighboring states like Nevada are going to increase as a result of this inane action. It will hurt the states sales tax revenue and do nothing to prevent crime.
JWT is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 03:42 PM   #16
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
Quote:
Does anyone know how these new laws will effect places that sell guns and ammo on military installations in the area?
FFLs on military installations are required to follow state and local laws as well as Federal laws. For example, http://www.militarypartners.com/Link...AAFES_Lock.asp
Quote:
The decision to provide free trigger or cable locks on 100 percent of weapons sold builds on a wide array of safety programs exclusive to the Exchange’s firearms and ammunition selection. In fact, each Exchange facility offering these products must undergo a rigid checklist of safety measures prior to opening.

The Exchange must get local Command, Fire Marshal and Security Officer approval prior to beginning the process of opening a gun shop. It then has to obtain a Federal Firearms License, secure an electronically monitored gun safe, construct a control counter and train personnel.

Once the firearm counter is open, ongoing measures include informing shoppers of federal, state and installation regulations that must be complied with, recording sales transactions and conducting instant background checks.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 03:51 PM   #17
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
I would think the military installations would be exempt from the gun crazies there, but don't quote me on that one. The military bases sort of have their own laws to enforce
Military installations are FEDERAL property. State laws only apply to the degree that the Federal govt says they do. Federal law, and the UCMJ (which is also Federal law) are what applies.

For many years the Fed did not recognize state laws, (particularly environmental laws) as applying to Federal property. This changed a while back, and now, generally the Fed's position is to comply with state laws where possible.

As to any state gun law being enforced on a military base, its doubtful. The military has their own rules and requirements for lawful posession and storage of privately owned firearms. IF you have your personal AR in storage in the arms room(or at the provost marshall) the military is not going to care that the state of California has now decided it is a prohibited article. And I very seruiously doubt any state agents would be allowed to arrest you for having it, because having it on the base (complying with all Fed rules), its not a crime. When its on the base, legally, the gun isn't in California, and no crime has bee, or could be committed.

Stepping outside the base gate with your AR would be an entirely different matter. You have now brought the "prohibited" gun into the state of California, and they now have legal jurisdiction.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 05:47 PM   #18
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
44, your thoughtful post just prompted a thought.

Does the anyone know if FOPA protects a motorist who is traveling into a state in which his firearm is prohibited, and onto a military or other government-owned facility? (ie a soldier traveling with his personally owned non-compliant AR-15 onto a military base in California)?
csmsss is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 10:19 PM   #19
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
Quote:
As to any state gun law being enforced on a military base, its doubtful
AAFES appears to believe it is bound by state gun laws. Since compliance costs them money, I tend to accept that evaluation.

Guns that stay on military installations are a different question.

It is certainly the case that both California and senior levels of installation command believe that the CA 'assault weapon' laws apply to service members and the personally owned weapons of those members.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old June 20, 2013, 12:38 PM   #20
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,790
Quote:
AAFES appears to believe it is bound by state gun laws. Since compliance costs them money, I tend to accept that evaluation.
I think it's a matter of choosing to comply in places where a legal challenge by the state, county, or city would be more expensive than just complying with the state's wishes.


The way they handle alcohol in dry counties is probably a similar model - they maintain their stance that they can sell whatever they want to anyone entitled to AAFES benefits. ...right up to the point that a legal challenge poses a serious financial threat; forcing them to adopt policies that restrict sales in some way. (Such as with Santa Rosa County challenging Eglin AFB, in the late '90s - and the 'offending' exchange wasn't even in the county.)
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."

Last edited by FrankenMauser; June 20, 2013 at 12:44 PM.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old June 22, 2013, 03:34 PM   #21
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,864
Stateline Liquor and Ammo should be open soon.
kilimanjaro is online now  
Old June 23, 2013, 01:46 AM   #22
rc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 609
This all boils down to beefing up tax revenue by creative legislation to put more money into confiscation efforts. If ammo licence laws pass I will refuse to buy the permit and purchase my ammo in Nevada when I'm on vacation. Crime will not be reduced and the red tape for dealers will be a nuisance. Gang bangers will traffic ammo with their guns and drugs across state lines. Some of these politicians are frankly stupid. if you all haven't heard the news california courts are ordering criminals to be released due to overcrowding. Politician's don't care about public safety or they would decriminalize petty crimes so there is room in the jails for serious predators. We are creating an institutionalized subculture that hates the system but accepts prison as part of life. People will be railroaded into prison over an illegal ammo transaction and the revolving door will kick out a rapist or robber onto the street due to overcrowding rules. When the person who are sent in for ammo violations come out they will be bitter and more dangerous than when they went in.
rc is offline  
Old June 23, 2013, 07:08 AM   #23
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 218
Unfortunately they do this kind of stuff because the lower courts have been quite willing to let any and every kind of law pass as constitutional as long as its not a total ban. SCOTUS has passed on numerous opportunities to help define the right, leaving the lower courts as guardians(sort of like having the fox guard the henhouse).
press1280 is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 06:23 AM   #24
freedash22
Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2012
Posts: 47
And it gets better

Looks like California has sealed the deal. Semi-Auto rifles with magazines are now officially banned.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-law...005606155.html

Looks like they worked out against the little things like bullet buttons and such. Next, they might just ban all firearms colored black.
freedash22 is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 08:40 AM   #25
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,072
Hmmmm . . . .
Quote:
It would classify as an assault weapon as any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and would ban its sale or purchase. People who already own such weapons would be required to register them.
So The Mighty Squirrel Assassin (better known as the Ruger 10/22) is now an "assault weapon."

Quote:
Other bills in the package passed by the Senate would have tightened additional laws, including banning a type of trigger known as a button.
What is this "type of trigger known as a button?" Is the author confused? Does she mean the bullet button?

Source for both quotes: http://news.yahoo.com/california-law...005606155.html
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12801 seconds with 7 queries