Thumbprint for Ammo in CA

I agree with Al Norris on the negativity. If you think things are bad, think back to the recent past before McDonald and Heller. Most didn't even dream (well maybe they did dream) of the changes that are happening or seem likely to happen.
 
It does make sense that a secret agenda of all these laws is to make gun ownership more difficult and more importantly, more expensive. This way it raises the minimum cost of owning a gun so high that its basically takes gun ownership away from the lower class of citizens. The more expensive guns are, the less people there are that can afford to own one. And as law makers see it, it is the "poor" people who commit the crimes. Then, there is the micro stamping that becomes law in CA soon too. that will in turn increase the price of guns. In CA, you have to pay your background check fee for 25 dollars, then you have to pay somwhere around 5 or 20 dollars to do a "handgun safety certification" test. You have to score 70% or better i believe. then you get a certificate that is good for only 5 years, then you have to do it all over again.
 
I thought California was broke. How can they afford this?
Click to expand...


If I understood the O.P correctly, the retailer will be required to print the buyer and maintain the print, so no cost to the state other than enforcement if the state chooses to do so.
Now is the retailer required to put a name and any other buyer’s information with the print?

Hint… I should not share, when being printed by an amateur simply twist the digit just before you lift it off the paper. This will smear the impression just enough it will never be clear enough to compare.
 
Contrary to popular belief, while the microstamping law did pass, it has not gone into effect. There are some technical hurtles that must be met, before it can.
 
Al - That was a nice summary of what is going on in California. I hope all those that preceded your entry have read it. I almost gave up wading though their stuff. Glad I did.

I'm a San Diegan, and I am waiting with bated breath for that federal judge's verdict on Peruta. It could break this logjam wide open.

Cordially, Jack
 
mrgoodwrench76 said:
I know where my negativity comes from. The fact that we have to fight to keep these rights in the first place.
Click to expand...

Wrong. We are not fighting to keep them. Prior to Heller, we were fighting in a defensive position... And we were losing ground.

We are now fighting offensively to regain what was lost. It is nothing less than a classic civil rights struggle. We will make gains and have some setbacks, along the way. We didn't lose our rights overnight and we will not gain them back overnight.
 
A little history, and a little warning

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68) put record keeping requirements on ammo sales, nation wide. And while over time, the restrictions were eased a lot, they were still in the law until the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA 86) finally ended them.

The thumbprint requirement is just the same old horse with a new saddle.

Al did a fine job of summarizing the pending court challenges to many of CA's onerous gun laws, and until these play out, nothing is permanent.

Now, a word to all the posters, especially our newer ones;, please read/refresh your memory about the special rules of behavior in the L&CR forum.

Name calling and denigrating the state of California is not acceptable here. I know its emotionaly satisfying, but that kind of thing should be saved for other forums. No matter how upset we are at the job the current administators of the state are doing, invective speech, including changing the spelling of the state name are not to be done here in this forum.
Its a slippery slope thing, you see.;)


and no, I'm not from California.
:D
 
This just in: Judge Morrison C. England, Jr dismissed, without prejudice, both OOIDA v. Lindley and State Ammunition v. Lindley as not being ripe. The order in both are almost identical.

This leaves the Parker case still moving.

Don't be discouraged, as there are plenty of options still open.
 
Dismissed without prejudice isn't too bad...

... since it means the suit can be filed again. The judge is basically saying that the harms caused by the bill are theoretical at this point, and until a plaintiff shows actual harm, he's not hearing the case.

He could have let the case move forward, but at least he didn't kill it. He just postponed it.

So, I'm not thrilled, but I'm not dejected. (Without using any denigrating terms, I like living in a state where the government actually believes 2A is an individual right; I don't live in CA, so this case only affects me as a matter of potential federal precedent.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top