The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 20, 2017, 06:40 PM   #1
MotorCycleDave
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2016
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 13
Thoughts on new CA gun laws?

I've only been getting into firearms for the later half of this year but I wanted to ask and hear about people's thoughts on the new changes in California for 2018. Should I invest in buying a lot of ammo now or look into reloading?

http://www.laxrange.com/california-gun-laws/
MotorCycleDave is offline  
Old November 20, 2017, 09:08 PM   #2
railroader
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2000
Location: Tucson Arizona
Posts: 1,682
Everything you need to know about California gun laws.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php
railroader is offline  
Old November 20, 2017, 10:24 PM   #3
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,459
Quote:
Should I invest in buying a lot of ammo now or look into reloading?
BOTH! Cover all your bases.....
__________________
FITASC: Fédération Internationale de Tir aux Armes Sportives de Chasse. http://www.fitasc.com/uk/home/view
FITASC is offline  
Old November 20, 2017, 10:27 PM   #4
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,604
If you like to shoot pistols consider getting into molding you own bullets.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is online now  
Old November 21, 2017, 12:21 AM   #5
Cirdan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Location: Tahoe
Posts: 258
Under definition of an assault weapon it says "Pistol. . with a pistol grip."

Anyone ever seen a pistol without a pistol grip?
Cirdan is offline  
Old November 21, 2017, 01:46 AM   #6
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,529
Quote:
Anyone ever seen a pistol without a pistol grip?
yes.

Matchlocks and wheellocks, primarily.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 21, 2017, 08:11 AM   #7
SA1911
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2017
Posts: 147
Reload.
SA1911 is offline  
Old November 21, 2017, 09:47 AM   #8
SonOfScubaDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 394
On another thread I have been discussing "reasonable vs infringement" with another poster. I've been arguing "reasonable" and he's arguing "infringement". These new ammo regs strike me as total infringement. I sure hope these regs get challenged in court. I mean, a background check just to sell ammo or buy it online? Seriously?! Any ammunition designed to penetrate metal is now banned? DUH? What about FMJ, which can pass through automotive metal? If Joe Blow wants to sell his friend some leftover ammo from a gun he no longer owns, they have to go through a licensed ammo vendor? OMG! I usually don't have a whole lot of problems with regs, but this is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!! Um, yeah. Buy as much as you can or reload as much as you can.
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old November 21, 2017, 10:49 AM   #9
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotorCycleDave View Post
I've only been getting into firearms for the later half of this year but I wanted to ask and hear about people's thoughts on the new changes in California for 2018. Should I invest in buying a lot of ammo now or look into reloading?

http://www.laxrange.com/california-gun-laws/
First, if you can get a good deal on ammo online, I'd do it now before 2018. Even though you can get it sent to an approved vendor, you may have to pay to have it transferred to you and you want the state to have as little record of you as possible. Second, I don't think California has gone after reloading stuff yet but that is likely in the near future. After you get as much ammo online as you can, you'll probably be broke, so incrementally start to build up your reloading supplies. Third, start scoping out places to move to as your state starts to resemble a jail
ATN082268 is offline  
Old November 21, 2017, 06:26 PM   #10
MotorCycleDave
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2016
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 13
Thanks for all your feedback! I'm leaning toward reloading since it could be a good skill(?) to learn.
MotorCycleDave is offline  
Old November 23, 2017, 01:23 AM   #11
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,680
Reloading and casting are excellent skills and not that difficult to acquire. Finding lead might be a little more difficult in Cali, not sure what their environmental laws are like for lead, but you should be able to get some and casting is not expensive, really. Reloading can be as simple as following a recipe.
armoredman is offline  
Old November 24, 2017, 09:18 PM   #12
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,207
The new laws INCLUDE bullets:

Penal Code - PEN
PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000 - 34370] ( Part 6 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

TITLE 1. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS [16000 - 17360] ( Title 1 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

DIVISION 2. DEFINITIONS [16100 - 17360] ( Division 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

16150.

(a) As used in this part, except in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” means one or more loaded cartridges consisting of a primed case, propellant, and with one or more projectiles. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.

(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.

(Amended November 8, 2016, by initiative Proposition 63, Sec. 8.1.)


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...0.&lawCode=PEN
__________________
Carpe diem mañana
natman is offline  
Old November 25, 2017, 01:58 AM   #13
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,680
Lead in ingot form isn't bullets.
armoredman is offline  
Old November 25, 2017, 05:39 AM   #14
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 263
Wow, are they really defining a pistol with a pistol grip as an assault weapon? How is that supposed to work?
LogicMan is offline  
Old November 25, 2017, 01:29 PM   #15
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,529
Quote:
are they really defining a pistol with a pistol grip as an assault weapon? How is that supposed to work?
It works very simply, they put the words on paper, enough other lawmakers vote yes, it passes, the Gov. signs it, it becomes law. No matter what reality is, no matter how the rest of the world defines it, whatever they put in the law becomes the legal definition.

It's a rather simple editorial change, really, from the original assault weapon law, using the same terms, but in a slightly different application.

Someone who doesn't understand firearms (or who does and just wants to ban/regulate as many as possible) might not even notice the actual effect of the change, ..immediately.

The original law defined "assault weapon" as any semi automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun with 2 or more of the "listed features". The lists were slightly different for rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

Two of the features in the rifle and shotgun list were a pistol grip, and detachable magazine. (there were others, as well)

In the pistol list, a detachable magazine was a prohibited feature, if it went into the gun anywhere OTHER THAN the pistol grip.

My guess is that some brilliant fellow looked at the lists, and decided that since a pistol grip and a detachable magazine made a rifle an assault weapon, and a pistol grip and a detachable magazine made a shotgun an assault weapon, and since an assault weapon could be a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, then a pistol with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine must also be an assault weapon, and it's a relatively simple matter of an editorial change to cover that previous "oversight".

Actually, I'm surprised it took them this long....

Also, brace yourselves for the next "leap of logic" they will make, banning revolvers as "assault weapons". The language is in the law, already, and has been since 1994. The made the Streetsweeper and Striker 12 assault weapons, (by name) and included language that said (essentially) "the named guns, or any other firearm with a mechanism substantially similar to the named firearms".

The mechanisms of those two revolving shotguns is directly copied from DA revolvers. SO, when they get around to it, that gives them the legal basis for regulating revolvers, as they are "substantially similar to" guns that have been on the assault weapon list for decades!!

They aren't coming after revolvers, NOW, but I am certain when they feel the time is right, they will. AND, they will have the argument that it has been the law for decades, why are you objecting now???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 25, 2017, 01:36 PM   #16
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,553
When they come for revolvers, they will quote the '5 is enough' folks from the gun world Internet. Couldn't resist. It is sad that court cases and Federal legislation to block state bans have gone nowhere. It is because that the issue was never truly important to the party now in power and Scalia's Heller decision had the double sword lurking in his prose. Scalia fans disagree but that's not how it's played out in reality.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 25, 2017, 07:45 PM   #17
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 269
Quote:
They aren't coming after revolvers, NOW, but I am certain when they feel the time is right, they will.
We should never forget that they did come after them in the 70's, and in several places successfully had bans until 2008 b y a single scotus vote. nor should we forget that every national gun control lobby, as well as a number of jurisdictions were fighting tooth and nail, in amicus, spending, research studies and PR work to maintain those bans.

The thing about the California laws, is not just what you think of them -- but what you think will follow. The (frightening) irony is that jerry brown is fairly left and he is actually the main factor in holding back much more restrictive laws in cali.
TDL is offline  
Old November 28, 2017, 01:22 AM   #18
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
I mean, a background check just to sell ammo or buy it online?
no no it's any ammo and you must be a lic ammo dealer to sell it . You can still by online , you just have to have it shipped to a ammo dealer in the state .

I don't believe the background check has been fully hashed out yet though . The interesting thing is , I understand there so-called logic on this . If you're a prohibited person and should not own a firearm . Why would you need ammo ? The more interesting thing is using that same logic CA says they need a full 10 days to run there background checks to buy a gun . It first was for a cooling off period but when that was recently shot down in court for anyone that already owns firearms ( No need for a cooling off period if you already own guns you can just use those instead ) . CA now say they need more time then the NICS system takes because they check more areas .

OK so here's the interesting part If they believe you're a prohibited person and a background check is needed to stop you from buying ammo . Then clearly the NICS system ( in there eyes ) in not good enough and the system they have in place takes many days to complete . What are they going to do ? Have a waiting period on ammo ? That's not going to fly . Hmm maybe you wait ten days the first time you buy then you're issued a permit to buy ammo for 1yr or maybe 6 months . Hmm well if that works for ammo why can't it work for gun purchases as well ?

CA is going to have to show how the system used in the rest of the United states ( NICS ) is not good enough to use to buy ammo . If they say it is good enough to buy ammo then why is it not good enough for firearm purchases ?

I think CA may have over stepped here and may very well regret ever enacting this law by the time it's done winding it's way through the court system .

Oh sorry OP , I'd buy some ammo online to hold you over through the reloading learning curve . The bummer thing for you is getting into firearm at the worst possible time in CA . I've been here my whole life ( 3rd gen San Diegan ) I got into firearms in the early 90's then took a 15yr break as life and child took up most of my time and effort . Then dove back in about ten years ago . Oh my how I missed a lot that was going on here in CA in regards to gun laws and sorry I was not paying better attention to that at the time .
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Old November 30, 2017, 12:43 PM   #19
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,253
Cirdan
Quote:
Under definition of an assault weapon it says "Pistol. . with a pistol grip."

Anyone ever seen a pistol without a pistol grip?
It's like the 'one hand clapping' koan....
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old November 30, 2017, 02:44 PM   #20
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Under definition of an assault weapon it says "Pistol. . with a pistol grip."

Anyone ever seen a pistol without a pistol grip?
It's a feature and the firearm must have at least two of them . So a pistrol grip "&" forward grip , flash hider , barrel shroud etc . Not sure about other states but it's illegal to put those on a pistol in CA regardless of it's type of grip . It also states the "pistol grip" in question hangs down below the mag well . Any pistols you know of fit that description ? It also states center fire rifle , any pistols fit that description ?

Unfortunately I can go on & on about this , CA sucks to live in if you're a gun enthusiast .

To the OP , I'm trying to get conformation but parts of the ammo law has been postponed until 7-1-19 . I believe that is the background check system but after the first of the year you must do all ammo purchases face to face ( FTF ) meaning no internet sales after 12-31-17 . I'd assume many vendors will stop selling ammo to CA before that to insure delivery is by 12-31-17 . My guess would be somewhere around 12-20-17 you will start to see it harder and harder to buy ammo online in CA but that's just a guess about that .
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 12:38 AM   #21
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 353
Metal God: The "background check" required to purchase ammo is NOT a NICS check, it is a computer check to see if the buyer's name appears in CALIFORNIA's APPS (Armed Prohibited Persons System) list. It takes seconds and there is no "waiting period." As to NICS in general, California does run a NICS check for firearms purchases, but that is only a part of the background check performed by the DOJ. California also looks at state databases for convictions, TROs, GVROs, involuntary mental health holds, etc. Much is automated, and approximately 20% of all checks are processed within seconds, the majority take a few days, and the remainder take as long as 10 days. This is all detailed in the briefs in the pending appeal.

As an aside, the California waiting period was enacted due to the difficulty in days past of completing the background check faster (pre-NICS). It was only in the recent law suit that the State suddenly (and with no authority from the legislative history) declared that the 10 day wait is a "cooling off period," a period that is entirely irrelevant to people who own guns. Further, although the trial court, on the evidence presented, overturned the waiting period in part, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, and in doing so completely ignored the trial court's findings of fact. A petition for certiorari is pending before SCOTUS, but after denials in Kolbe and Norman, and even though the petition points out that there is no consistence between the circuits as to the proper standard of review, the chances the Supremes will hear the case are limited.

The part I don't know about is how out of state residents will be able to purchase ammunition if they come here to hunt or compete.

The part of the law that has been delayed is the licensing scheme. In order to issue licenses to buyers (which will simplify the purchasing process), the DOJ has to build a brand new computer system (for which it has borrowed $150 million against the anticipated revenues of $500 million) and then process approximately 10 million applications with required background checks.

As of January 1, 2018, in order to purchase ammo, you must present a photo ID. The dealer is required to record (and report weekly) the amount and caliber of the ammunition purchased, along with your name, age, address and photo ID license number. An APPS check will be performed. Ammo prices will rise to account for the time lost to fulfilling these requirements. Further, all ammo must be behind a counter or under lock and key accessible only to the vendor. Muy local Sportsman's Warehouse will be installing locking glass over all of its ammo shelves, and someone will have to wait on you.

Last edited by 62coltnavy; December 1, 2017 at 12:54 AM.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 02:44 AM   #22
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
The "background check" required to purchase ammo is NOT a NICS check, it is a computer check to see if the buyer's name appears in CALIFORNIA's APPS (Armed Prohibited Persons System) list. It takes seconds and there is no "waiting period
Thanks for clearing that up , I have a hard time sometimes getting straight answers on Calguns . That speaks to my over all point . How can CA have an instant background check of prohibited persons for ammo and that same check can't be used for firearms purchases ? Are they saying it's a lesser standard to buy ammo then buying a firearm ? If so what's the point ? You can either own and shoot a firearm or not , why would you have two standards of prohibited persons ????
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 12:51 PM   #23
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,529
Quote:
why would you have two standards of prohibited persons ????
Why not?? First, its CA, second, its a govt, and 3rd, its about guns!!!

people say we shouldn't have double standards, they are unfair, unethical, etc. Yet, we have them. We have them in many areas of our lives, DAILY, and most think nothing of it. Seems a double standard only really bothers people when it affects their personal lives.

The biggest double standard that comes to my mind first is set in law. Its an AGE discrimination. And, not surprisingly no "rights" group ever seems to tackle the issue anymore.

At 18, you are considered a legal adult. You can vote, you can join the military, and risk dying (or worse) in the service of your country. You can get married, you can buy a new car, or a house, or a boat, or a rifle, but you can't buy a beer, (most places) and you can't buy a new pistol, anywhere!

Now, I'm 40 years past the point where being over or under 21 matters to me, personally, but I can still REMEMBER when it did.

If you look at it one way, our entire system of government relies on double standards. Approved double standards, where state law differs from Federal law.

Every gun control law I can think of, save one, has a built in double standard. And the only one that doesn't is the (despised by many) Lautenberg law.

In the case of CA and ammo background checks, its clear, to me, anyway, why they have a double standard. It's NOT about protecting the public, though they will say it is. It's not about effieciency (they COULD use the Fed NCIS system, they chose not to). It's about the jobs, money, personal power, and bureaucratic "kingdoms" of the people in govt service.

Why else would CA (or anyone) spend MILLIONS of dollars (and borrow the money to spend in the first place) on a new computer system to do what the existing Federal system already does??

Their answer, of course, will be that "our new system is designed to meet our needs, the Fed system is not". And, there you go. Why doesn't the Fed system meet CA needs? Because there is a DOUBLE STANDARD!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 01:08 PM   #24
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,604
Quote:
In the case of CA and ammo background checks, its clear, to me, anyway, why they have a double standard. It's NOT about protecting the public, though they will say it is. It's not about effieciency (they COULD use the Fed NCIS system, they chose not to). It's about the jobs, money, personal power, and bureaucratic "kingdoms" of the people in govt service.
I do believe NY tried to use the NICS system to do ammo checks and the FBI told them no. it's not in their mandate.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is online now  
Old December 1, 2017, 04:09 PM   #25
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
I do believe NY tried to use the NICS system to do ammo checks and the FBI told them no. it's not in their mandate.
Interesting , I don't know the specifics of the NICS system but would think there's a box that needs to be checked long gun or handgun . If that box is not checked the system just stops until that box is check or allows the form to be completed only to later say they had incomplete info to process the check . I'm sure there are other parts as well that will lock up the system if you try to use it for ammo purchases . Either way I can see why ammo can't be checked using that system

44amp : I agree and think if argued correctly ( not that 'I' could ) that double standard should be able to be shot down . "If" the ammo background check is to stop prohibited person from buying ammo . Which seems logical , if your prohibited from owning firearms why do you need ammo ? Then why can't there new system be used for firearm purchases ? You're either prohibited or you're not ? right ??? Why would there be a need for two different checks and balances ?
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 10:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12006 seconds with 8 queries