California passes ammo permit fee, background check

D

dakota.potts

New member
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cal...-checks-permits-and-fees-ammunition-purchases

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

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

Poor california. I don't see all of this passing constitutional muster if push comes to shove but that could take a long time to be decided.
 
I hope we all realize every one of these bills, if signed into law by the governor, will be tested for legality in federal court.
For a state that has so many money problems, you'd think they'd not do things which will force the expenditure of tax dollars so frivolously.
 
Not that it is much comfort, but those bills merely passed out of their house of origin.

Senate bills must also be considered by the Assembly, Assembly bills by the Senate; typically two different committees - Public Safety and Appropriations - in each house, then a floor vote, then, if the second house amends a bill, a reconciliation committee. THEN the survivors go to the Governor. That will be mid-September.
 
Didn't Kali already have a law pass that dealing with the sale of ammo over the internet and state line? In effect a face to face ammo sale. Didn't that law already get challenged?
 
Didn't Kali already have a law pass that dealing with the sale of ammo over the internet and state line? In effect a face to face ammo sale. Didn't that law already get challenged?
Click to expand...

There was a recent law that banned internet sales of handgun ammunition. It was reversed because "handgun" ammunition wasn't defined well enough.

They want to bypass that problem by limiting sales on ALL ammunition.
 
There was a recent law that banned internet sales of handgun ammunition. It was reversed because "handgun" ammunition wasn't defined well enough.

They want to bypass that problem by limiting sales on ALL ammunition.
Click to expand...

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

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

I honestly think a lot of this anti gun stuff is going forward now because the antis want to gamble we will see a change @ the SCOTUS in the very near future.
 
I don't see what problem they would have or not have because of handgun vs long gun ammo. Heller specifically addressed the right to own handguns so that ship has sailed for California if they are worried about a legal challenge.
Click to expand...

The law was written for "handgun" ammo and the hazy definition of the term was the grounds by which it was overturned.

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

They just don't care.
 
I buy over the internet with a credit card linked to a sparks NV address and have it dropped at that address and at my leasure go visit my Bro in Law in sparks to pick it up.
 
Unfortunatly there is no hope left for California. During my working years, I lived there and even owned a gun shop there. For some time back then, they required me to keep a log of ammo sales including personal info on the buyer. This was in case they had to prove someone actually bought ammo and used it in a crime. After a few years of this, they figured out they hadn't solved even one crime with it and told us we didn't have to do it anymore. I called the state Dept.of Justice (that name still makes me laugh), and asked them what they would like me to do with all the logs. They said I could just dispose of them. They still won't learn from past mistakes and will keep doing it over and over until there are no more guns and ammo. You are not dealing with any knowledgable people here. As an example, I once sent in papework to the DOJ listing the S&W pistol I was selling as having a 2 1/2 inch barrel. I got a call back from some female wanting to know what a Z 1/2 barrel was.
They have their priorities there....but what should one expect from a state that will protect a person's rights to wander down the streets naked, but won't protect their rights to defend themselves.
I watched one college town make their police officers take the shotguns from the racks in their cars and carry them in the trunks. They decided that being able to see them from outside the car was offensive to the people of that town. I watched the same town take down all the "dead end" street signs as they were offensive to the same people. Now they all say "no outlet"
I restate it....there is no hope for California...write it off..
 
As much as I would love to just write off California, I have to live here for at least a few more years. I'm not liking what I've been reading here or on CalGuns about this legislation. Does anyone know how these new laws will effect places that sell guns and ammo on military installations in the area?

I think California and New York just want to have a race to the bottom and neither wants to be bested by the other. It's actually kind of sickening to think about.
 
I would think the military installations would be exempt from the gun crazies there, but don't quote me on that one. The military bases sort of have their own laws to enforce. Just remember what Johnny Cash said " Don't take your guns to town son".
 
She3pdog:
I think California and New York just want to have a race to the bottom and neither wants to be bested by the other.
Click to expand...

It's a like a 2nd amendment tennis match; i just keep watching them bat that little scrap of paper back and forth....
 
Sales in neighboring states like Nevada are going to increase as a result of this inane action. It will hurt the states sales tax revenue and do nothing to prevent crime.
 
Does anyone know how these new laws will effect places that sell guns and ammo on military installations in the area?
Click to expand...

FFLs on military installations are required to follow state and local laws as well as Federal laws. For example, http://www.militarypartners.com/Links/WebGeneral.htm/promotionalcalendar_AAFES_Lock.asp
The decision to provide free trigger or cable locks on 100 percent of weapons sold builds on a wide array of safety programs exclusive to the Exchange’s firearms and ammunition selection. In fact, each Exchange facility offering these products must undergo a rigid checklist of safety measures prior to opening.

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

Once the firearm counter is open, ongoing measures include informing shoppers of federal, state and installation regulations that must be complied with, recording sales transactions and conducting instant background checks.
Click to expand...
 
I would think the military installations would be exempt from the gun crazies there, but don't quote me on that one. The military bases sort of have their own laws to enforce
Click to expand...

Military installations are FEDERAL property. State laws only apply to the degree that the Federal govt says they do. Federal law, and the UCMJ (which is also Federal law) are what applies.

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

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

Stepping outside the base gate with your AR would be an entirely different matter. You have now brought the "prohibited" gun into the state of California, and they now have legal jurisdiction.
 
44, your thoughtful post just prompted a thought.

Does the anyone know if FOPA protects a motorist who is traveling into a state in which his firearm is prohibited, and onto a military or other government-owned facility? (ie a soldier traveling with his personally owned non-compliant AR-15 onto a military base in California)?
 
As to any state gun law being enforced on a military base, its doubtful
Click to expand...
AAFES appears to believe it is bound by state gun laws. Since compliance costs them money, I tend to accept that evaluation.

Guns that stay on military installations are a different question.

It is certainly the case that both California and senior levels of installation command believe that the CA 'assault weapon' laws apply to service members and the personally owned weapons of those members.
 
AAFES appears to believe it is bound by state gun laws. Since compliance costs them money, I tend to accept that evaluation.
Click to expand...
I think it's a matter of choosing to comply in places where a legal challenge by the state, county, or city would be more expensive than just complying with the state's wishes.


The way they handle alcohol in dry counties is probably a similar model - they maintain their stance that they can sell whatever they want to anyone entitled to AAFES benefits. ...right up to the point that a legal challenge poses a serious financial threat; forcing them to adopt policies that restrict sales in some way. (Such as with Santa Rosa County challenging Eglin AFB, in the late '90s - and the 'offending' exchange wasn't even in the county.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top