CA Ammo Law experience

[BJung]

I drove to my oldest brother's house to help him move. On the way, I too advantage of the visit by stopping at Sportsman's Warehouse for powder which they had none. I noticed a sale on .22lr ammo and decided to buy a box despite the identification check I heard something about and avoided buying ammo because of it.

The person at the counter asked form my id but that wasn't good enough. He said, I had to have bought a gun and gone through a background check in 4 years or take one of my existing guns and register it. Only then could I but the box of ammo. To me, the whole thing is a way of the State to determine what kind of firearm you own. I said no, and left.

[mehavey]

It appears there is no such thing as "instant" background check for ammunition.

...and having (re)read the California gun "eligibility" laws again, I once again resolve never to step foot in the state that I once called home during the 50's, 70's, and 90s -- and regarded as truly magnificent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The person is not prohibited from purchasing or possessing ammunition. The Department determines eligibility based on a comprehensive review of its records (similar to a firearm eligibility check).

Please note: this eligibility check requires a manual review of records by a Department analyst. As such, the Department may take longer to respond with a determination as to eligibility. Response times may take several days
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/apap
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~






Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.

January 5, 1967: Inaugural Address .... as Governor of California

[shurshot]

All for a box of .22LR???

[44 AMP]

Could be worse, I suppose, I recently read in a thread where, in Japan, you have to return the fired empty cases to the store in order to purchase more ammunition....

That will probably be the next law on the CA gun control agenda...that, and comparing the microstamped empties with your purchase records and what gun you are permitted to have.....

[Aguila Blanca]

Connecticut requires a permit to buy ammunition. If you don't have a pistol permit, you can apply for a "certificate of eligibility to purchase ammunition." According to a friend of mine who lives there, to get the ammo certificate requires about the same things as a carry permit, so he's going for the full permit even though he doesn't anticipate buying a handgun.

The funny thing (funny as in ironic, not funny as in amusing) is that his father, who died earlier this year, as an avid reloader -- for precision rifle. And my friend has owned long guns since he was a teenager. He inherited his father's reloading gear and supplies, so he has the capability right now of loading thousands of rounds in various calibers that would make a sniper drool with envy ... but he can't walk into a Walmart and buy a box of .22.

His wife's sister and her family live in New Hampshire and they visit there frequently, so (at least until the shortage) he just buys his ammo there. He has applied for his carry permit in Connecticut but, from what he has told me, the background checks are all backed up so what's supposed to be a 30 t0 45 day process is currently running six months or longer.

[dajowi]

And this is what the anti-gun people are aiming for. Make purchasing a gun or ammunition so expensive, so onerous and so time consuming that people just plain give up owning firearms.

[BJung]

The argument here by many was that if you bought ammo with this system, the government had an idea what kind of gun you own. This has been an issue with anti-gun people who want to know where and who owns all the undocumented guns. Once upon a time, you could go to a flea market or look up a gun in the classifieds and just buy your gun outright. No background check. No waiting period.

[44 AMP]

A question, just to satisfy my curiosity, since I'll never be buying ammo in CA...

Under the current CA system, if you have a gun registered in their system, can you buy any ammo? or just ammo in the caliber of the gun in their system??

[BJung]

You can buy any ammo.

[natman]

Originally Posted by dajowi

And this is what the anti-gun people are aiming for. Make purchasing a gun or ammunition so expensive, so onerous and so time consuming that people just plain give up owning firearms.

Exactly.

In California the ammo background check made a nice one-two punch with requiring non-lead ammo for hunting. This made billions of rounds of ammo unusable, while making it as difficult as possible to get replacements, if you can find any at all.

[ghbucky]

So, what about reloaders? Do they have to go through similar hoops to get components?

Is shipping ammo into CA illegal?

[BJung]

From what I've heard, shipping ammo into CA is illegal. I'd guess it's illegal to drive out of State to buy it too.

[BJung]

The cancer is spreading too! I was on a cast bullet forum and our friends in Montana are hearing suggestions to ban lead bullets from their new CA neighbors that moved into the cities. Idaho will be next. Who would have thought that Red-Gun Friendly States like these would be threatened.

[44 AMP]

Who would have thought that Red-Gun Friendly States like these would be threatened.

Anyone who realizes that locusts ...swarm, and can light almost anywhere.

Personally I refuse to use the current "red/blue" terms, they are BS. Made up by the news people, who, at one time switched them back and forth every election cycle. Then they decided not to, and stuck with RED for R and Blue for D, which I thought a deliberate falsehood, as red is the chosen color for and by socialist and communists.

Republicans or any conservative group is no more "red" than the other side is "true blue".

I won't play that game, and urge others not to as well.

[ghbucky]

Anyone who realizes that locusts ...swarm, and can light almost anywhere.

I seriously believe that this is, in fact, the entire purpose of these incredibly draconian, extended lockdowns happening in CA and NY.

They are intentionally exporting their constituency.

[DaleA]

I never thought Virginia would enact the gun laws they did this year.

I've no first hand knowledge of the state at all, never lived there or even close to it but I always thought Virginia folk were straight up supporters of the constitution, bill of rights etc.

[ghbucky]

but I always thought Virginia folk were straight up supporters of the constitution, bill of rights etc

Densely populated Northern Virginia is an extension of DC

[50 shooter]

Burbank, do you know if there's any lawsuits fighting the ammo law?

Maybe we can get it before Judge Benitez and he can get it over turned! I'm sick and tired of these B.S. laws that the Demonrats keep coming up with!

Why people are ok with them having the super majority? W.T.F happened to the Republican party?! It's so bad that there's no Republicans running and the vote is D vs D!

Personally I hate the party system and wish we could get rid of politicians all together! For now we're stuck with these idiots ruining our state!

[natman]

Originally Posted by 50 shooter

Burbank, do you know if there's any lawsuits fighting the ammo law?

Maybe we can get it before Judge Benitez and he can get it over turned! I'm sick and tired of these B.S. laws that the Demonrats keep coming up with!

There is such a case, Rhode v Becerra. (The Plantiff is Kim Rhode, the Olympic Gold medalist shotgunner). It's been to Judge Benitez and he overturned the law in no uncertain terms. However, the state appealed it to the Ninth District. It's currently on trial there, so background checks are still required.

Here's a link to Judge Benitez's ruling. It's worthwhile reading.
https://sandiegocountygunowners.com/...anting-MPI.pdf

Originally Posted by 50 shooter

Why people are ok with them having the super majority? W.T.F happened to the Republican party?! It's so bad that there's no Republicans running and the vote is D vs D!

Elections in California have been set up in such a way that it's no longer the Democratic primary winner vs. the Republican primary winner. The primaries are run with all the contestants running against each other and the top two run off in the election. This often results in D vs D elections.

[Metal god]

He said, I had to have bought a gun and gone through a background check in 4 years or take one of my existing guns and register it. Only then could I but the box of ammo.

The bold section is flat out wrong and he either is misinformed or straight lied to you . The first part is misleading when taken with the second part . I forget but thought is was 5 years but may be 4years from your last purchase . There are two different background checks they can do . One is a $1 instant check if you are already in the system because of a recent firearms purchase and because you have recently been in the CA background check system . If you have not purchased a firearm in 4/5 years there is another check they do that cost $19 and it can take literally anywhere from days to weeks to complete because they run an actual background check on you not just check existing records . Once that is completed you can buy ammo upon approval and you will now be in the system and the next purchase should only need the $1 instant check that usually takes about 20 to 40min start to finish . ( instant )

There is no need to register a firearm or even buy one which I've also heard with my own ears in a local gun store . The clerk behind the counter although did not say the customer had to buy a firearm to buy ammo . He manipulated the conversation to sound like buying a gun right then was the best and easiest way to do it . I wish I would have said something right then and there but I just turned and walked out never to return to Fine Firearms in La Mesa CA . The clerk never even mentioned the $19 check while I was there , Just said if you haven't bought a gun recently you will not be able to buy ammo today which is true . Maybe he got around to mentioning the longer $19 check after I left or maybe he got the guy to buy a gun but he did say your best bet is to buy one now . Anyway the reason the clerk could even say such a thing is "if" you buy a gun . The background check for that purchase is also good to buy ammo but the gun purchase is not required or the easiest .

Thank god I reload . I've not bought ammo since the law went into effect . I tried once because of a new firearm I wanted to test . Not newly bought but new complete AR-10 upper which did not need a background check . Regardless , I was in walmart and thought while I'm here I'll pick up some factory ammo to test the in the new upper . The clerk said sorry nobody here authorized to sell ammo right now . He gave me a time I could come back the next day which I did and again was turned away . Not because nobody could sell me any but because I did not have two forms of ID with me That was the first and last time I have tried to buy ammo here in CA .

There is such a case, Rhode v Becerra.

Yep , a good buddy of mine is a party to the case and I've sat in on the proceedings before COVID hit .

It's so bad that there's no Republicans running and the vote is D vs D!

Yes and no and it's a reason I'm conflicted on . The top two vote getters if nobody gets 50% face off in a run off . Well in CA the top two vote getters are often two Dems . The conflict I have in my head is that I actually understand and almost agree that the top two vote getters should have a run off , if 70% of the voters want one of these two people . It seems reasonable they should be in the run off . However with are two party system ( not really but really ) we should have both sides represented in the final voting process . At least the last 3 senate voting cycles in CA we could only choose from two Dems . I'm an independent but would like the option of the lesser of two evils

[BJung]

Metal God. That's what he told me. If he mentioned that I had the other option, I wouldn't have bought it because I don't think it's worth the cost to buy the .22 ammo. I already have a small bag of .22lr my nephew gave me. And, if I want more, I can ask him to buy it for me next time and I'll reimburse him. When I told that clerk that I wasn't choosing his option he replied, "well, you don't get the ammo". Like I cared because, as I said, I have some .22lr rifle ammo ( just not the brand I wanted to buy ) and I both cast and reload.

On it's face, the two run-offs sound fair but don't you think that just makes California a 1 Party State? It's bad enough we have two. Ross Perot is the closest one I can remember that almost pulled it off and made a viable 3rd Party. I suppose we gun owners can best hope for is find enough 2A supporters for a Democratic Candidate that's not anti-gun.

[44 AMP]

Always thought the Founders were pretty smart guys, do remember Franklin's words as he exited the convention...

"Mr Franklin, what have you given us?"

"A REPUBLIC, IF you can keep it!"

CA and many other places show us the down side of democracy, which is, numbers, not ideas rule.

Never forget that any and all of us can lose the legal exercise of our rights if enough people vote for that, directly or indirectly.

ANY of our rights...and possibly all of them, over time. As long as there are people seeking to lead, and not just to serve, we are always at risk.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

ANY of our rights...and possibly all of them, over time. As long as there are people seeking to lead, and not just to serve, we are always at risk.

A minor quibble -- possibly just semantics:

IMHO, there's a difference between "leading" and "herding." Leading, to my mind, implies guiding a group in the direction and towards a destination where the group wants to go. The people you are talking about (I think) aren't interested in leading us where we want to go. They want to herd us to where they want us (but not them!) to go.

[BJung]

Aquila, are you old enough to remember watching a movie in school called "march of the lemings"?

[TDL]

I never thought Virginia would enact the gun laws they did this year.

I am on the board of of a major range and outdoor club in No. Virginia.

I will tell you what happened from my perspective talking with both lifelong Virginia residents and new transplants. They were complacent at the time when they could have had an impact. You had people saying "both parties are the same on this" when all the evidence points and data on the issue become more and more politically aligned in a clear 30 year trend, the point where it is the most politically aligned issue.

I'd ask, "by the way who is your House of Delegates or Virginia Senate member?" I don't think I more than one person who knew until the massive VCDL response, which was helpful but also kinda after the horse left the barn. People also don't realize why what should otherwise and elsewhere be GOP voters would vote blue in most of Virginia. Take an example of a small medium or large business owner. Typically their interest is red. But in Norther Virginia, and in fact in Norfolk as well, they either are directly dependent on larger government, or in a business affected by the size of government. Secondly the demographic shift is profound in increasing the demographic that is singularly and in all surveys most opposed to firearms: Hispanic women. Also of note i dont think Bloomberg spent any more in a state than he spent in Virginia, courting all ways he spent in direct candidate contribution, arms length 527 etc , and gun control group c4 and c3 activity, that while technically not FEC defined electioneering, effectively election impacting.

As far as California, ammo and prop 63. When you put a ballot initiative up, are poling at 57% support and in the end get approval from more than 2/3 of the electorate as Prop 63 on ammo got, you are half slapping yourselves selves on the back -- but are also thinking you could have gotten more.

And this is what the anti-gun people are aiming for. Make purchasing a gun or ammunition so expensive, so onerous and so time consuming that people just plain give up owning firearms.

Not just for you but for your transmittal of the firearms virus. They think you have an illness, and are highly contagious. You will die off eventually so long term the most important thing is you not take a female friend from a neighborhood that has a spike in sexual assaults', or several of your 25 year old son's friends to the range, and transmit the virus to the next generation.

From what I've heard, shipping ammo into CA is illegal. I'd guess it's illegal to drive out of State to buy it too.

I'm in DC (where ironically I can and do get ammo shipped to me). But LOTS of pro gun websites that list various state laws incorrectly state otherwise. Moreover there is "chilling effect" where if the jurisdiction looks unfriendly, despite the laws allowing something, companies will just decide not to.

Under the current CA system, if you have a gun registered in their system, can you buy any ammo? or just ammo in the caliber of the gun in their system??

Without prejudice to other states, or jurisdiction within states that don't have a state preeminence, we did have that for about four years in DC immediately following Heller. That condition ended in 2012, not as direct part of Heller II or III but under threat of lawsuit. AT the same time the DC code also newly allowed possessing ammo for training purposes if you were in process of obtaining a registration.