Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Assembly to Consider Severe Restrictions on Ammunition Sales!
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action ^ | Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | NRA ILA

Posted on 03/19/2008 9:19:29 PM PDT by Califreak

Next Wednesday, March 25, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will consider legislation that would require gun owners to obtain a “permit-to-purchase” before buying handgun ammunition.

Introduced by State Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), Assembly Bill 2062 puts ammunition sales in the crosshairs. AB2062 would require that law-abiding gun owners obtain a permit to buy handgun ammunition and would impose severe restrictions on the private transfers of handgun ammunition. Applicants for a “permit-to-purchase” would be required to submit to a background check, pay a $35 fee, and wait as long as 30 days to receive the permit.

(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org:80 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: ab2062; ammunition; banglist; california; callegislation; democratparty; democrats; gunrights; rkba; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-108 next last
To: brazzaville; Dr.Zoidberg

The other poster may be considering this:

>The extra burden of California’s regulations could drive even more businesses away and possibly make it more difficult for law enforcement to obtain their necessary arms. Some gun manufacturers are refusing to even deal with California. STI International has already halted all shipments of firearms to California. The company will no longer sell any firearms to civilians or law enforcement in this state. Barrett Firearms is following suit. This was in response to the micro stamping fiasco.<

However, I won’t do as he suggested because I wouldn’t want to be an unwitting tool of the gun grabbers, as you stated.


81 posted on 03/20/2008 9:05:22 AM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: brazzaville
Actually, what I'm suggesting, is that the manufacturers stop selling to california government entities. Local Police, CHP, private security companies, anyone who purchases bulk lots of ammo through state contracts.

That's why I said CONTRACTS and didn't reference retailers or wholesalers, those entities that are the common source of ammunition for most citizens.

There is a subtle difference that might have been hard to perceive without careful reading of the post.

As for calling me a tool of the gun grabbers, I will disregard that insult as a very unfortunate misunderstanding.
82 posted on 03/20/2008 9:17:17 AM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (Mohammedanism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
I like 240 gr JHP in .44 Mag, for both the Super Blackhawk and the Marlin. About 1400 fps is good for 'short' shots in the rough breaks, and I've take whitetail at 100-150 yards with the Marlin. Handy having both in the same caliber, and the loads I load are mild enough with the 7 1/2 bbl on the Ruger that I don't suffer.

If I'm out of the badlands (shortgrass prairie) or working along the butte tops, I prefer .30-06 for deer--much better at those ranges, although my favorite rifle for that work has a scope on a tip-off mount and iron sights in case I decide to work the bottoms and don't want to switch rifles.

While my son-in-law has taken quite a few deer with the .30-30, I never bought one for some reason.

I don't think it would be fun to shoot out of a handgun, and yes, I have shot T/Cs before. I reckon the light loads would make a difference, though.

83 posted on 03/20/2008 9:23:06 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Califreak

Buy Buy Buy !!!! now


84 posted on 03/20/2008 9:25:39 AM PDT by ▀udda▀udd (7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Califreak
Good morning.

I fully support Barrett's decision, as it impacts government, those trying to disarm us, more than it does the average citizen. I can't afford a Barrett .50 and have no need of one other than for the sheer pleasure of shooting it.

I shoot a minimum of 100 rounds of .45 ACP and an equal amount of 9x18 Makarov a month, more if possible. Remove my ability to replenish what I use and you have turned my guns into pretty clubs. There are the bayonets for my Mausers and Enfields, but I'm just too old for that.

This is a tough one, but I believe fully that we must use the soapbox and ballot box on this, at least until the other box becomes necessary. I guess recognizing when that time has arrived is the hard part.

Buy ammo, while you can.

Michael Frazier

85 posted on 03/20/2008 9:32:02 AM PDT by brazzaville (No surrender, no retreat. Well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

***I seem to recall that there’s a legal provision that any sitting member of the House or Senate can get a federal CCW permit that’s similar to that of Federal Marshals, which is a 50 state CCW***

Of course they can, because they’re the Chosen Few!


86 posted on 03/20/2008 9:32:27 AM PDT by wastedyears (More Maiden coming up in a few months!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Another reason to be glad we left Kalifornistan for Florida.


87 posted on 03/20/2008 9:32:43 AM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
Good morning.
“As for calling me a tool of the gun grabbers, I will disregard that insult as a very unfortunate misunderstanding.”

Thank you, I appreciate that. I tend to get overheated on the subjects of California and guns.

I see what you are saying, and yes, this is proper. Please accept my apologies.

Michael Frazier

88 posted on 03/20/2008 9:37:47 AM PDT by brazzaville (No surrender, no retreat. Well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg

>Actually, what I’m suggesting, is that the manufacturers stop selling to california government entities. Local Police, CHP, private security companies, anyone who purchases bulk lots of ammo through state contracts.<

I thought this might have been your reasoning and it does make sense. Not looking to pick a fight or anything, but do you have information regarding these contracts? Links maybe?

How bad would the impact be? I wrote a letter last night and was looking for information like that to include. During quick search, I only found 2 company names.

Not looking to insult people, just gathering information.


89 posted on 03/20/2008 9:49:46 AM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: brazzaville

No worries, I’ve made similar mistakes more than once.

And your apology, though unnecessary, is gladly accepted.


90 posted on 03/20/2008 10:06:47 AM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (Mohammedanism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Califreak
Unfortunately, I don't have any links for ammo manufacturers, but it shouldn't be hard to find.

After a quick web search, here's a place you can start.

http://www.huntingsociety.org/ammunition.html

91 posted on 03/20/2008 10:15:05 AM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (Mohammedanism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim
“Nothing prevents them from going out of state to buy ammo, but when they return via Interstates 10, 15 or 40, they will inevitably have to stop at the “Agricultural Inspection Station” at each inbound lane on those highways. California may decide to spend more money to add “Ammo Inspectors” to stand beside the fruit/veggie police.”

I wouldn't worry about the Ag stations at least on I-80 outside of Truckee. That has been unmanned for the longest time. I am guessing that they can't afford to staff it due to budget concerns and the now massive shortfall in the budget. The state would also have to close down the road thru Truckee and the freeway access ramp that bypasses the Ag station.

92 posted on 03/20/2008 10:34:29 AM PDT by Polynikes (Hey. I got a question. How are you planning to get back down that hill?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
“A favorable outcome on Heller will still take many years to filter down to cover state laws that are in conflict with the 2nd Amendment.”

I'm aware of that. I was 13 when GCA 68 became law. I'll be 53 in a couple of months. I didn't have the money to fight such things, then. Now, I not only do, I'm quite aware of the need. Wish I had more money, in fact. We need a George-Soros-spend-alike who wants to protect the Constitution instead of subvert it.

93 posted on 03/20/2008 10:36:22 AM PDT by Old Student (We have a name for the people who think indiscriminate killing is fine. They're called "The Bad Guys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
I have the Marlin 1895GM 45-70 lever action in addition to the BFR revolver. I have to be careful loading ammunition as the BFR is only rated for 31,000 PSI. The Marlin rifle is good to 40,000 CUP. Both are fairly pleasant to shoot with the typical "cowboy" 45-70 405 gr loads.

I was very favorably impressed with the accuracy and muzzle velocity developed with the T/C Encore using the 15" 460 barrel. I fired a .454 Casull 200 gr round at one of my steel spinners. It nearly punched all the way through the 3/8" steel. The same load in the Ruger Super Redhawk just made a moonscape of the spinner. Clearly, the 15" barrel provided additional velocity. I now have a 20" 460 barrel to place on the T/C Encore. That should be a very fine rifle and capable of 45LC, .454 Casull and 460 S&W mag.

94 posted on 03/20/2008 10:44:30 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Old Student
I'll turn 52 in August. We're pretty close in age. Like you, I finally have the resources to get involved in political activities. When I was a kid, all I could do was walk precincts and leave flyers on doors. I was going to run for an opening on the city council, but my employer sent me out of town just in time to miss the necessary filing dates. On Monday of this week, AMI Semiconductor started laying off employees. One of those employees is on the city council. He resigned the city council seat to seek employment as the city clerk. The mayor is going to appoint a replacement. It might be a good time to toss my hat in the ring.
95 posted on 03/20/2008 11:15:50 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

For some reason I can’t locate the text of Title 18, section 921, paragraph 3 or 4


96 posted on 03/20/2008 12:29:57 PM PDT by B4Ranch ("In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." FDR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

A shooting buddy in CA sent this to me, he’s a competitive shooter. It’s a letter to his state congresscritter:

Dear Assembly member Patty Berg,
Once again I beg of you to oppose another piece of mindless anti firearms regulation that negatively impacts your constituents on the North Coast.

Under AB2062, it would be unlawful to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. I use more rounds than that in a single pistol match, not counting practice. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers.

The bill would also require vendors to keep a record of the transaction including the ammunition buyer’s name, driver’s license, the quantity, caliber and type of ammunition purchased, and right thumbprint, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice or the number of his handgun ammunition purchase permit. Vendors would be required to contact the purchase permit database, to verify the validity of a permit before completing a sale.

No retail sporting goods store has the time and liability for these restrictions and will be forced to cease ammo sales. All ammunition sales in the State of California would be subject to a $3 per transaction tax. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.This alone will eliminate small bore .22 caliber competition in this state. Any violator of AB2062 would be subject to civil fines.

This legislation would literally put legitimate target competitors out of business and force most legitimate sporting goods dealers to stop carrying pistol ammunition, including .22 caliber rim fire ammo which may also be used for plinking as well as rifle competition.

Instead of the California Legislature continuing their assault on law abiding citizens of this state, they would be a lot more effective, working on budget problems and a sagging economy. Forcing more citizens to leave the state they used to love, because of asinine, restrictive and oppressive anti firearm legislation, is not the way to build a more prosperous economy.

I urge you to vote NO on AB2062, should it make it out of committee.

Thanks for your time,
XOXOX XXXXX
PO Box XXX
XXXXXX, CA


97 posted on 03/20/2008 1:30:15 PM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

> I seem to recall that there’s a legal provision that any sitting member of the House or Senate can get a federal CCW permit that’s similar to that of Federal Marshals, which is a 50 state CCW, though I don’t believe that they’re able to carry while in chambers.<

That’s what I thought.


98 posted on 03/20/2008 1:47:50 PM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg

Okay, thanks for the link.


99 posted on 03/20/2008 1:50:14 PM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: blackie

Here’s what I sent to everyone listed in the article(except Fiona Ma-different email did not allow enough room)and Noreen Evans, who has always been pretty much useless on these issues. Keep in mind that I never said I was good at this!

To Whom It May Concern:

Assembly Bill 2062 would impose taxes on the base material requirement to exercise a Constitutional right, specifically the Second Amendment.

Minnesota unintentionally did something like this regarding the First Amendment by imposing a “use Tax” on paper and ink. A major newspaper took it to court. The tax was upheld by the Minnesota Supreme Court but the US Supreme Court reversed it.

>U.S. Supreme Court
Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm’r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)

“Minnesota’s ink and paper tax violates the First Amendment not only because it singles out the press, but also because it targets a small group of newspapers. The effect of the 0,000 exemption is that only a handful of publishers in the State pay any tax at all, and even fewer pay any significant amount of tax. To recognize a power in the State not only to single out the press, but also to tailor the tax so that it singles out a few members of the press, presents such a potential for abuse that no interest suggested by Minnesota can justify the scheme. P P. 591-592.”

Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/575/

Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/575/case.html

Assembly Bill 2062, on this basis, is unconstitutional! This law would impose onerous burdens on law abiding gun owners who already pay fees for background checks when they purchase guns, as well as our bankrupt government, which cannot afford to provide the personnel and materials to enforce these frivolous feel good laws.

Businesses have left California in droves already. The extra burden of California’s regulations could drive even more businesses away and possibly make it more difficult for law enforcement to obtain their necessary arms. Some gun manufacturers are refusing to even deal with California. STI International has already halted all shipments of firearms to California. The company will no longer sell any firearms to civilians or law enforcement in this state. Barrett Firearms is following suit. This was in response to the micro stamping fiasco. The extra burden placed on vendors will surely cause many of them to discontinue sales which will reduce tax income. Criminals will only go to a thriving black market for ammunition like they already do for guns. The law abiding armed citizens who are confronted by them are forced to fight them with one hand tied up by their government. The unarmed who are confronted by them are completely at their increasingly rare mercy.Criminals and terrorists flourish in a “gun free” zone. They love these laws because their lives are made much easier and their actions are made much freer of risk.

The most dangerous thing about this law is the further criminalization of an overtaxed, over legislated public. All of the gun owners I know are very responsible and law abiding. They handle their guns with more care than some people in law enforcement do. While honing their skills regularly at the shooting range they use a lot of ammunition. I know married couples who give each other several hundred rounds of ammunition as a gift to be used on future trips to the range who would be criminalized for not being registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the DOJ database.

Sincerely,

XXXXX XXXXXX

(resident of the 7th District and registered voter)


100 posted on 03/20/2008 1:56:06 PM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-108 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson