New California Ammo Buying Rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
"" I would think if they leave the ambiguous language stand then ammo companies will just mark their boxes "for rifle only" and ship to California. ""



Oooo! Ding! Problem solved. " But it says right on the box, for rifle only. "
 
Well it is a new year here in my home state of Kalifornia and we have added 725 new laws so we are now over 57,000 laws including way too many relating to firearms. Here is link - http://lamesa.patch.com/articles/there-outta-be-a-law-californians-getting-725-new-ones-in-2011 - to an article headlined on Drudge Report from the LaMesa patch dated 12-31-2011 entitled "There Outta Be a Law..." My point, without getting political, as I am want to do, is that, aside from the new handgun ammuntion law, we will for sure get many more firearm related laws with a new governor and essentially the same old legislature. The comments section below the linked article says it all. Looking forward to a great New Year here in the Golden State.
 
Al, I agree completely. But a judge must decide one way or another. The point I was trying to make was that the judge is going to be more driven by his or her stance on gun control than by the specific language of the law simply because it is so poorly written.
 
Interesting point: the judge is hearing the case in Fresno, so probably lives there. If that judge instead lived in San Francisco or Los Angeles, I'd consider the case to be hopeless. But Fresno . . .

Cordially, Jack
 
seems like the industry could squash this whole thing by simply refusing to sell ammo to state, county, and city agencies untill the citizens freedoms are restored
 
Jaydubya, there were reasons that the Fresno court was picked.

For reasons of standing, Herb Bauer's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a plaintiff. Herb Bauer's principle place of business is in Fresno.

There were also strategic reasons that the Fresno Court was chosen. You would have had to follow the conversations on CalGuns to have some idea why OOIDA and Parker were filed where and in the manner they were filed.

Smoakingun, ammo dealers sell an awful lot of ammo in CA. The majority is sold to various State actors.

While it would have been nice if all these companies would have had the guts to do what Barrett did, we just can't expect for-profit companies to forgo their meal tickets.
 
It would do no good. If we had the population of smaller state we would not have very many handguns sold here. It is only our numbers that force the manufacturers (ammunition and firearms) to put up with all our stupid gun laws. And it will only get worse. Same idiots in the legislature and a new governor to "work" with his own kind. The only people who would suffer are those of us in the "minority" while the "majority" would be thrilled that we were boycotted by the firearms industry.
 
It is sad, but there is no way to show our displeasure with offical CA policy and laws through a boycott without also harming the interests of the good people of CA, of which there are not nearly enough.

Barrett's boycott is symbolic, and certainly has cost Barrett some lost profits. However, its a niche market. Other than the obivous "in your face" message, (richly deserved, IMHO) its impact on the general body of CA shooters has been slight. Their govt is the one prohibiting them from buying Barretts, so Barrett is not selling to their govt.

Now, an ammo boycott...tempting idea, but not going to be effective, except against the already overly harassed civilian buyer. CA govt agencies would simply bid out for foreign made ammo, and import it, possibly even saving the state some money in the process!

And any kind of boycott on the general population's ammo supply only punishes the innocent. The (probably intended) consequence is that some businesses will voluntarily cease doing ammo business in CA. There is always added costs (and possible legal liability) to a business when the laws and regulations governing the business increase in complexity. If that cost outweighs the profit from the business, the business goes away.

An ammo company in CA could perhaps, take up the lost business from when out of state suppliers decide it isn't worth doing business in CA anymore. But, I don't know if the cost and complexity of doing that in CA would be justified by the market.

We'll see how the court cases go. Hopefully, reason will prevail.
 
Hopefully, reason will prevail.
Click to expand...

This is California politics were talking about here... I only see things getting more difficult for law abiding gun owners.

Hell we banned the 50 bmg because it "could" put a hole through an engine block... never mind that no crimes have been committed with one, that I know of. Besides what criminal wants to carry around all 20-30+ pounds of one, when they can get a fully automatic assault riffle off the street for less.

I digress, the new ammo law is terrible, and just causes more overhead, and head aches for gun shops and owners alike.
 
With Kamala Harris as CA AG (her signature move was to enable San Francisco as a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants) and Democrat majorities in the Legislature, I don't look for any progress out here. At least one sheriff has decided "self-defense" is good cause to issue a carry permit, but there is no way Harris will allow that on the state level. Harris' opponent might well have done so.

As it is, we are stuck with an opinon of "good cause" that pretty much means the perp has to have a hand on your throat to issue, which is used by sheriffs in metro areas to enrich their campaign coffers and get invited to parties with the lefty urban glitterati. Rural sheriffs are more practical, but the inequality before the law doesn't bother solons in Sacto. The biggest impact is on poor urban minorities they want to keep dependent, and they dutifully reelect the people selling them out.
 
Harry -- our future solution will not be found in Sacramento, whichever party the Attorney General belongs to. It will be found the court system, both federal and state. AB 962 is set to be tried in Fresno, with a verdict promised before 1 Feb, the date it is to become effective. A favorable verdict could be the opening of a flurry of law suits that will make us very happy campers.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court has decided that the words above in italics no longer govern the Second Amendment; the underlined words do that now. The issue of "keep" is resolved. Now we must nibble away in the court system to do the same for the words "and bear arms".

Cordially, Jack
 
So if a Californian drives to Quartzite Arizona, buys a couple thousand rounds of xxx and yyy face to face, then drives back into California, have they violated the law?

It wasn't a catalog or Internet sale, it was FTF.
What am I missing?
 
This then, is probably another one of those business opportunities where there will be more than 1 gun and ammo shop open up in Ehrenberg, AZ, literally just east of the river separating Arizona and California on I-10. Their clientele would likely be willing to pay slightly higher prices than available in Phoenix.

Maybe a J&G outlet store?

Wouldn't be the first time one jurisdiction created a lucrative business opportunity in an adjacent one.
 
Even if, somehow, one corralled all the ammunition manufacturers and got them to agree not to sell to any California state or municipal agencies, does anyone really think those agencies wouldn't be able to obtain ammunition? I think that, without question, California would be able to buy all of the ammunition it needs from the federal government.
 
California would be able to buy all of the ammunition it needs from the federal government
Click to expand...

With what, an IOU's? California is broke, we have some thing like a $25+billion deficit. Even with the feds taking IOU's thats just more debit that the state cant pay and will increase the deficit and likely our taxes. The cost of living in California is high enough, it doesn't need to get any higher.
 
Sounds Like Medford, OR, Reno and Las Vegas, NV, and Phoenix, AZ gun shops and Wal-Marts will be doing brisk ammo sales to traveling Californians.

How far off shore does a boat have to be to be outside US jurisdiction? 12 miles? Ocean fishing could become real popular too.

The ambiguity and the business killing aspects of the law make it seem impossible this will stand (either in the courts or legislature), but you never know these days. I hope the Fresno District court rules well and throws the whole thing out.

The good thing is that ammo stores well so it would be easy for someone to save up and just make one trip to NV and buy a years worth of ammo.

By the way, do gang bangers obey the ammo laws like they obey the gun laws?
 
NWPilgrim said:
Sounds Like Medford, OR, Reno and Las Vegas, NV, and Phoenix, AZ gun shops and Wal-Marts will be doing brisk ammo sales to traveling Californians.
Click to expand...

Looks like that's the deal. One of my son's lives in California and he has what I think is the typical response.....he is stocking up no matter what happens in court. Just the fact that they initially passed the ammo bill is enough for many to build their ammo stocks.

Talk about giving a shot in the arm to the ammo business, the new number one import into California will now be ammo. I think that's what they call a self defeating bill.:cool:
 
By the way, do gang bangers obey the ammo laws like they obey the gun laws?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on them obeying any gun related laws, many are busted with illegal weapons, possession, concealed carry, and other crimes with guns. There is no reason to think they will be conforming to the new guns laws.

Most of California guns laws do nothing to stop crime. With AB 962 a person obtaining "handgun" ammunition will be required to show id and have their thumb print taken. The records are then stored at the businesses where the ammo was purchased for five years, to be inspected at will.

Nothing is sent to state or federal government. By the time they "inspect" the records, what ever crime this bill was intended to prevent will have already been carried out. It is just another hoop a law abiding citizen must jump through, and another law a criminal will break.

If they absolutely have to have another "check" for you to buy something, it should be the same background check they use to purchase a firearm. If you are a felon, you do not get to buy ammunition. It is as fast or faster than taking down the other information, and will actually do something to help prevent crime, not just create piles of paper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top