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 1-5051-100101-108 next last
To: Smokin' Joe
Exactly. What a farce.

It does bring to mind my youth and the salesman at the hardware store asking what I was buying .22 ammo for. I asked him what difference did it make? He stated if I had said a revolver or pistol he wasn't allowed to sell it to me.

Stupid laws, I'd say it never changes but that would be wrong. It always seems to get worse.

51 posted on 03/20/2008 1:43:15 AM PDT by SiVisPacemParaBellum (Peace through superior firepower!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
They will never admit honest law abiding gun owners are not the problem. Law-abiding gun owners are not the ones committing gun crimes. These politicians are insane.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand

Mark

52 posted on 03/20/2008 4:53:21 AM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 7mmMag@LeftCoast
Sorry to be repeating myself here, but...

This is a perfect example of turning law-abiding citizens into 'criminals', while the real criminals keep on using their illegally procured weapons and munitions. The California Assembly is filled with either the most ignorant legislators in the country or they really do have diabolical designs.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand

It's "diabolical designs." There's no doubt whatsoever.

Mark

53 posted on 03/20/2008 4:55:42 AM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Califreak
They don’t need our help. I’m sure they are all covered.

Even DiFi has a CCW permit!

I believe that DiFi does, or at least did have a CA CCW permit. But it doesn't really matter. 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. I seem to recall reading about this some years ago.

Mark

54 posted on 03/20/2008 4:59:27 AM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Califreak
...this would mean we can’t give each other half a dozen boxes of ammo for gifts!

Sure you can - Reno Vacation!

55 posted on 03/20/2008 5:27:44 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
California leads the way...

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

56 posted on 03/20/2008 6:04:44 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Califreak

Why don’t we just give Kalifornia to Mexico?


57 posted on 03/20/2008 6:05:34 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Oh thanks! I was just thinking about pinging you on this!


58 posted on 03/20/2008 6:07:16 AM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

While I understand your sentiment completely, I would prefer to remain an American, thank you very much.

LOL!


59 posted on 03/20/2008 6:08:32 AM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Califreak

60 posted on 03/20/2008 6:28:39 AM PDT by Gritty (If we get rid of all guns, fewer shootings; If we get rid of all penises, fewer rapes-V Suprynowicz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
They will never admit honest law abiding gun owners are not the problem

They ARE the problem. Just not the problem that most of us think of. The "problem" that the government wants to "solve" with gun bans, ammo restrictions, etc. the the ability of the citizens to effectively resist tyranny. In this care the biggest problem IS the threat that law abiding citizens will sooner or later will get pushed beyond their breaking point and start taking second amendment action agaist tyrants, tyrant wannabes and their jackbooted minions. Kali's Henry Earwax wants to ban .50 cals because they could reach out and touch someone riding in a limo. Wonder whose skin he's worried about.

The gun banners are not in the least worried about criminals, because criminals pose no threat to the government. Criminals only threaten individuals, and the neo national socialists who propose these laws couldn't care less about the fate of individuals. You want to protect your family against home invasion by ms-13? Tough, if you can protect against one gang then you might be able to protect against the gang that wears blue. AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT CAN WE?

61 posted on 03/20/2008 6:35:25 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sailor4321

Cabelas beat you too it om I-80 where they have a brand new store just inside the Nevada State line.


62 posted on 03/20/2008 7:04:46 AM PDT by Inyo-Mono (If you don't want people to get your goat, don't tell them where it's tied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
T/C barrels are available in pistol and rifle lengths, thus encompassing a broad range of ammo as "handgun" ammo.
63 posted on 03/20/2008 7:07:44 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

> Criminals only threaten individuals, and the neo national socialists who propose these laws couldn’t care less about the fate of individuals.<

How true! Please indulge my alarmism for the moment.

Would it be unheard of for “neo national socialists” to use these thugs to enforce martial law if it hits the fan?

I wouldn’t put it past them for a NY minute!


64 posted on 03/20/2008 7:30:05 AM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
“I seem to recall a case many years ago when taxes were laid upon ink used to print newspapers. That was deemed an infringement of the 1st Amendment. Requiring a license to buy ammunition is exactly the same kind of infringement on the 2nd Amendment. I'm so glad I moved out of California. The communists in Sacramento never stop.”

I particularly agree with your last two sentences. I hope these idiots procede, and that the SCOTUS backs Heller. I will personally contribute to one or more lawsuits against these jerks, and ask that they be prosecuted for deprivation of civil rights under color of authority.

Not that this is any surprise. I left Kalifornia over 30 years ago...

65 posted on 03/20/2008 7:36:01 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 7 | View Replies]

To: All

By Debbie O’Hara
April 27, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

We are led to believe that gun control laws are for the benefit of the common people, but what are the real results of gun control? There are those like government educators and the main stream media who would have us believe that ordinary citizens would be safer if they were not allowed to own guns. They would have us believe that a government monopoly on force would make our nation’s people more safe and secure. But is gun control really the necessary tool we need to create a less violent society? Would gun control allow us to better live our lives without fear of being victimized by violent criminals? Are everyday citizens really made safer when the ability to defend themselves and their families from human predators is against the law?

A look at history will show us that gun control does not benefit ordinary citizens. In fact it makes them far more likely to fall victim to violent crime. After a thorough investigation of the history of gun control, any logical-thinking person can only come to one conclusion - gun control advocates are either ignorant or they are evil.

The only people empowered by gun control laws are governments and criminals. And unfortunately sometimes one is the other. What happens when a rogue government takes control of a nation? History’s worst serial killers have been governments that turned predator against segments of their own populations. The inability of innocent victims to defend themselves against their own governments cost the lives of over 170 million of the world’s peoples in the 20th century alone.

In February 1915 a secret plan was made to eliminate Turkey’s Armenian population. It was not difficult for the nation’s new government to set these plans in motion because there were already gun control laws on the books requiring people to register their guns. With this ready information it was a simple task for the authorities to make house to house searches confiscating the weapons of the country’s Armenian Christian minority. Homes were ransacked and people were tortured in order to take their arms. On June 26, 1915 the final part of the plan was put into motion. The government announced that all Armenians would be sent to remote camps. Armed guards rounded them up; most were women, children, the elderly and the handicapped. They were led over rough terrain and into the deserts where many dropped dead from heat and exhaustion. Fewer than 1 in 10 survived the march, only to be butchered in the end by their captors. The total count of the annihilated was 1,500,000 or three-fourths of the Armenian population of Turkey.

In the early 1930’s while the rest of the world was being brainwashed into believing that the Soviet Union was a worker’s paradise, in reality millions were being starved to death by their own government. Wanting to confiscate the grain from Ukraine to pay for industrial expansion, Stalin required that the farmers give up their land and move onto collective farms. Because of ten years of gun control laws, the farmers had no way to defend themselves when they were required to give up their land to the government. Millions of the most prosperous farmers were either sent to forced labor camps or were shot outright. With granaries full, some estimates show Stalin starved as many as 10 million people.

By 1935 the Nationalist government of China forbade the Chinese people to own firearms. This certainly didn’t make the Chinese people safer when from 1942-44 four million people died from starvation when the government confiscated their crops. Another four million were tortured and murdered when they didn’t want to join the military or were “uncooperative” soldiers. In 1937 hundreds of thousands of the women and children of Nanking were left defenseless against Japanese invaders because of gun control laws forbidding them to defend themselves. They were raped, buried alive, burned alive and forced to watch as their own organs were cut out of them. The worst was yet to come in 1949 when the Communist takeover brought about the murder of another 35 million Chinese. Some historians put the death toll by the Communists as high as 100 million. We can believe Chairman Mao when he told us that guns are the ultimate source of all political power.

Article posted in its entirety is from this link:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ohara/debbie22.htm


66 posted on 03/20/2008 7:51:15 AM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Califreak
Would it be unheard of for “neo national socialists” to use these thugs to enforce martial law if it hits the fan?

I wouldn't put it past them either, but I think that they'll stick with their beloved ski masked minions unless the ski masks get too many holes.

67 posted on 03/20/2008 7:52:01 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Califreak

No, brass and copper/lead purchase. :P


68 posted on 03/20/2008 7:55:14 AM PDT by looscnnn (DU is a VD for the brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1341941/posts


69 posted on 03/20/2008 7:56:38 AM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sailor4321

Count me in as an investor.


70 posted on 03/20/2008 7:57:41 AM PDT by looscnnn (DU is a VD for the brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All

>Another kind of story about the Russian mafias is the direction of violence by the state agencies themselves. According to Handelman, “assumptions are widespread that the crime groups are not only protected, but also in some cases instructed by Government officials and the police” (1993, 32<

THE RED MAFIA: A LEGACY OF COMMUNISM

http://www.auburn.edu/~mitrege/FLRU2520/RedMafia.html


71 posted on 03/20/2008 7:57:48 AM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
T/C barrels are available in pistol and rifle lengths, thus encompassing a broad range of ammo as "handgun" ammo.

Yep. And the rifles I mentioned chamber and fire ammo in what are commonly considered pistol calibers.

So which way will this boondoggle go? Banning .45-70 as "handgun ammo" because someone somewhere has a T/C bbl for it? --or will they loosen up on 9mm, .357, and .44 mag, because there are rifles which fire those calibers?

Of course, we know the answer to that, but the question needs to be raised loudly and often in the press out there.

72 posted on 03/20/2008 8:05:15 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Old Student
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.
73 posted on 03/20/2008 8:08:58 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
No, brass and copper/lead purchase.

Add some semi-precious metals to your investment portfolio! (8^D)

74 posted on 03/20/2008 8:12:38 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
My 45-70 handgun is a BFR revolver. 10" barrel and 2" cylinders to accommodate up to 500 gr bullets. Magnum Research recently offered the 30-30 in a BFR revolver too. I have a 10" octagonal barrel for the T/C Contender in 30-30. Very painful to shoot. It's just too light. I load "puff ball" 30 caliber rounds with the 100 gr "Plinker" bullet. It's fine for 30-30, .308 and .30-06. The lighter bullet makes the recoil tolerable enough for my wife to shoot it.
75 posted on 03/20/2008 8:15:33 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 386wt
“Ammo Inspectors”

Oh goody! A new CA public employee category. I can't wait to apply. $100k per annum after 20 years plus overtime. Retire with 20 years sick leave and vacation time ($300k cash at retirement) at 95% base. Sign me up.

Well, when you think about it, it's perfectly reasonable that these new hires should be covered by the Cal Prison Guards contract....

76 posted on 03/20/2008 8:21:26 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

Yes, that is true. So many things that were legal are not anymore. So many more felonies today. Plus they are also hoping you don’t know your rights and sign some of them away. They will lie to you to get you to sign away/waive your rights. And once you do that, they are gone forever.

Just remember, if you’re unlawfully convicted and think you may lose your guns, you may not have to.

1. There is no federal law that says felons can’t own guns. Title 18, section 921, paragraphs 3 and 4 are there to ensure felons can own guns.

2. Check your state laws. Your state may have a law that felons cannot own guns. But many states do not have a such a law. If you live in such a state, and have a felony or domestic abuse misdemeanor, you can still own firearms.

3. Never sign any piece of paper saying you will never own a gun again as part of any ‘agreement’ with law enforcement. If you do sign such a document, you have legally waived your 2nd amendment right to have a gun (which is what they are trying to get you to do, and law enforcement can lie to you to get you to waive your rights), and if you are ever caught with a gun (or possibly even ammunition) that piece of paper you signed gives them the ability to arrest you for having a gun.

Signing away your 2nd amendment right is not required, you cannot be forced to give up your 2nd Amendment right. Cite the federal law 18:921 para 3 and 4, and that your state doesn’t have a law that felons cannot own guns (if you live is such a state), and they will drop the matter because you know the law.

It’s one thing for them to attempt this on an actual violent criminal. I don’t think many people would be crying if the violent gangbanger signs away his/her rights to own a gun. It is a very different matter if you are a regular law-abiding citizen who is getting the shaft from a bogus charge, or gets wrongly prosecuted for defending yourself, or has a felony that has nothing to do with an armed violent conflict, much less a bogus domestic abuse charge.

Know your rights. Many politicians don’t realize that the new laws they pass that turn people into felons are also going to be attempted to be used to disarm citizens. Some actually do know this and are doing it on purpose, whether they tout this as a benefit of a new law or not.


77 posted on 03/20/2008 8:45:29 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

Well, some animals are more equal than others!


78 posted on 03/20/2008 8:47:11 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
Good morning.
“If you buy ammo, contact the manufaturers and ask that they stop all sales on california contracts.”

Do you live in California?

You are suggesting doing to those of us who do what the damn Socialists in our government want to do - take away our ability to buy ammo.

I hope it pleases you to be an unwitting tool of the gun grabbers.

Michael Frazier

79 posted on 03/20/2008 8:55:33 AM PDT by brazzaville (No surrender, no retreat. Well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

Thanks for posting this info!


80 posted on 03/20/2008 9:02:48 AM PDT by EdReform (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF*GOA*SAS*RWVA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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 1-5051-100101-108 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