CA: Ammunition Control
by Jennifer Freeman


How do you pass a gun registry law without attracting too much attention? Bury it in an ammunition bill. At least that's what the State of California is trying to do.

AB 362 would limit ammunition purchases to 50 rounds per month and would require the submission of a thumbprint and background check before the ammunition could be purchased. That is extraordinary, in and of itself. But there's more. The bill also states:

© (1) The Attorney General shall permanently keep and properly
file and maintain all information reported to the Department of
Justice pursuant to Sections 12071, 12072, 12078, 12082, and former
Section 12084 or any other law, as to handguns and maintain a
registry thereof.
(2) The registry shall consist of all of the following:
(A) The name, address, identification of, place of birth (state or
country), complete telephone number, occupation, sex, description,
and all legal names and aliases ever used by the owner or person
being loaned the particular handgun as listed on the information
provided to the department on the Dealers' Record of Sale, the Law
Enforcement Firearms Transfer (LEFT), as defined in former Section
12084, or reports made to the department pursuant to Section 12078 or
any other law.

(D) The manufacturer's name if stamped on the firearm, model name
or number if stamped on the firearm, and, if applicable, the serial
number, other number (if more than one serial number is stamped on
the firearm), caliber, type of firearm, if the firearm is new or
used, barrel length, and color of the firearm.

(emphasis added by Liberty Belles).

What is the purpose of all of this? One could argue that restricting access to ammunition could result in a decrease of gang violence. With over 100,000 gang members in Los Angeles County alone, California has a legitimate concern about gang activity.

Unfortunately, the majority of gang members are in the United States illegally or are the children of illegal aliens. Yet, benefits, jobs, and foreign language assistance is readily available in California. The State also has a major problem with jail and prison overcrowding. So convicted criminals are not serving their full sentences. Plus, there's no telling how many crimes are plea bargained to lesser charges resulting in lighter sentences. Why then isn't California deporting foreign-born criminals and building new jails?

California's crime problem has nothing to do with the availability of ammunition. In fact, ammunition is readily available all over the country. Crime rates vary due to a variety of factors, none of which have been linked to ammunition sales. It's as if California is reluctant to blame the criminal preferring instead to blame the criminal's instrument while simultaneously eroding the rights of the law abiding.

One could argue that this law isn't about reducing crime at all. It's about exerting control over the people of California. If the State can't take away your guns, it will take away your ability to use them. California relies on its abundance of criminal activity in order to justify its anti-gun, anti-ammo legislation.

AB362 passed the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 12-5 on June 7, 2007. This bill could pass quite easily unless there is an outpouring of opposition from the people of California. Contact your State Senator to express your opposition.

 

F2504X4, what is wrong with this bill? I must be missing something. Basically, it says that if you can't legally own a handgun, you can not buy ammunition for one. It does limit legal users to 50 rounds a month, but it does exempt .22 caliper rounds and any hand gun rounds sold at a gun range or target club for use on the premises.

It does require sales to be made face to face, not over the Internet or via mail - which may make ammunition more expensive. It also requires you to show ID, and give a thumb print. Is this so bad?

I am not sure how it works, but it also requires the holder of an restraining order to be notified if the subject of that order buys ammunition - but it does not prohibit the sale. I know if my daughter was involved in a contentious divorce, one bad enough to require a restraining order against her husband, I sure would want to be notified if the SOB bought ammunition for his hand gun.

It also prohibits the sale of ammunition to minors - which might help with all the drive by shootings we see. I wouldn't care so much if the gang bangers were better shots, but mostly they shoot bystanders instead of whoever they were aiming at.

I notice that you did not give an opinion or make a suggestion - you just pasted in something somebody else wrote. Have you read the bill? What makes it so bad? Did I miss something?

link to the bill:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...ed_asm_v97.pdf

 

Right here


California's crime problem has nothing to do with the availability of ammunition. In fact, ammunition is readily available all over the country. Crime rates vary due to a variety of factors, none of which have been linked to ammunition sales. It's as if California is reluctant to blame the criminal preferring instead to blame the criminal's instrument while simultaneously eroding the rights of the law abiding.

 

Oops, I thought I had put qoute tags on the body of my post,

But as to my opinion, Why do we need more laws that just cost money and are only enforced against law abiding citizens?

 

I guess I still do not understand - are you saying that keeping a gang banger from buying ammunition will not keep him from shooting his pistol into a crowd?

I guess I think that if he can not buy the bullets, we will not need to dig them out of a 5 year old's head.

I also do not understand "California is reluctant to blame the criminal preferring instead to blame the criminal's instrument. . . . . " As I read the bill, the criminal goes to jail, not the gun. But it is just a misdemeanor, so only in the most special cases would anyone go to jail.

"Why then isn't California deporting foreign-born criminals and building new jails?"

And I do get tired of hearing about how lenient California is - especially now that the Paris Hilton case has shown what a joke jail terms in California are. But the fact remains that we have a greater percentage of our population in jail than every other state in the union.

And it is silly to think California has the power to deport anyone - that is a power reserved to the Feds. They have failed to deport the criminals we ask them to - worse, they stick the locals with all the expense of keeping the illegal. Even my little county has $20 million in unpaid charges against the INS for the care and feeding of illegal aliens.

Fix federal law on immigration and watch how fast California deports the SOBs.

 

Thats exactly right though Clint....just because a gang banger cant buy ammo at a store doesnt mean that he cant purchase it from his buddies who go to neighboring states or to buy boxes of it for illegal import to CA. If he wants the ammo he will find a way....hes a criminal and thats what they do...find ways to skirt the system. The 5 yr old will still have a bullet...only difference is that it will have come through a network of underground trade....look at what happened with...prohibition.

If anything....this bill will probably spur a whole new trade in illegal ammo that the taxpayers will then be forced into bankrolling another ineffective task force to fight.

IMO...the bill is just another useless one that will only increase the ammount of red tape that you have to hack your way through in an effort to live in a country where you are supposedly given the right to bare arms and a whole lot of other things that people seem to have forgotten about.
-Chris

 

It's proposals like these that make the high and mighty and severly out-of-touch-with-the-real-world people, "feel" good.

As with all gun laws, they will only protect the law abiders from law abiding people, and do nothing to eliminate or change gun violence with the criminal aspect.

Assume I'm a "law abiding" kinda guy, and i love to target shoot.

50 rounds of ammo is eaten up in 10 minutes, now I have to wait until next month to buy another 50 rounds to blow off in another 10 minutes?

I'm not going to kill anyone, I just want to blow off 500-700 rounds and have some fun.

Now assume I'm a criminal, bar me from even owning a gun, prohibit me from purchasing ammunition.

Ya, right...you can't do it...I'll find a gun and ammo and do what I want to do. Since I'm a criminal and about to commit a crime, do you think I care if I obtain my gun and ammo illegally?

 

I used to target shoot competitively (long rifle stuff). A single match burned 30 rounds, and that didn't count any kind of practice time where I really burnt up the ammo.

I agree with this resistance, but not on principle. I think it will cost a lot of unnecessary enforcement money. My tax dollars at work should be spent on things that really make a difference.

 

"50 rounds of ammo is eaten up in 10 minutes, now I have to wait until next month to buy another 50 rounds to blow off in another 10 minutes"

There is an exemption for rounds sold by a gun club or target range - you can buy as many as you want, as long as the intention is to shoot the rounds while on-site.

and yes, a criminal will find a way around the law - and it is only a misdemeanor so even if he gets caught it will not be a big deal. But what it will stop is the 7/11s selling shells off the shelf in Watts.

I think the intent of the law is more to keep ammunition out of the hands of the kids doing the drive-by shootings. If we make it more difficult and expensive, maybe they will not do so much shooting.

 

Well ***** we are only one step away from this, and it is happening right now, so what do you about this?

http://www.readitnews.com/content/view/397/10025/

 

But they'll just go from the "7/11's" that at least have video survalence....to the alley behind somones house where theres a guy selling it out of a stolen car....its a useless law that only purposes to make it more difficult for those people who do things legally and try to follow the rules.

They made it more difficult for minors to buy alcohol...but you still hear of the highschoolers who die the day before graduation after getting drunk and speeding around in their cars....because they paid someone $20 to buy it for them.

Its just one more example of a law that really doesnt do any good...or stops any crime...but rather premotes the uprising of a new black market industry.

If they really want to end crime they need to start making examples of what happens to law breakers like they used to...but nowadays thanks to orginizations like the ACLU....homeowners defending their lives can be sued by families of criminals for the "wrongful death" of their relative who was dispatched of while commiting a home invasion robbery.

Long story short...we dont need this "law".
-Chris

 

And again, only law aboding folks would suffer.

If I owned a range, I'd now jack my ammo price up 200-300%...and keep jacking it up until I saw a drop off in sale.

Who get's the shaft?

Law-abiding-Joe


If I want to do a drive by shooting and I'm 12 years old, and can't even buy ammo anywahere (regardless of what law is passed) do you think that I won't commit the drive by?

Heck, would be no issue to get ammo illegally as it now is to get guns, regardless of bills, laws, etc.

I have to state this again, the ONLY people who will be safe, are law abiding from being safe from law abiding folks.

Plain and simple.

Heck, think of guns and ammo as any illegal drug.

We still have illegal drugs. Did making Cocaine, Cannibis, Herion, etc., illegal, stop the use?

Will making it illegal to buy XX amount of ammo, stop any "sensless" shootings?

I don't see how.

 

I think what we are seeing is the difference between rural and urban thinking - I don't care how many guns you own or how much ammunition, as long as you promise not to shoot me either by mistake or otherwise.

But I do see where the guys in LA and other big cities would. Modern ammunition will go better than a mile, and still drill through a stucco wall, perhaps hitting someone inside. Most rural people know gun safety, and would never fire toward a housing development. The urban kids do not have any inhibitions about where they shoot, or even who else might get hit.

Perhaps it would be enough to make it a county thing - sort of like fireworks were for so long. Let each county decide if they want to limit sales.

I too am upset at the number of laws we have that are not enforced - the worst being mandatory insurance. But the cops follow what they call "community-based policing", which lets the community choose what laws are enforced. If some town likes gambling or prostitution, they mostly ignore infractions of those laws. They will step in if it gets out of hand, but mostly the cops do as the citizens want.

If some citizen group complains to the Sheriff, the Chief of Police, or the DA about gun laws not being enforced, you can bet they will be.

"Well ***** we are only one step away from this, and it is happening right now, so what do you about this?"

F2504X4, I read the link you sent. I guess it depends on your thinking about the Federal Government. Some people see it as an evil, out to enslave the citizens, while others see it as a big sugar daddy able to give them cradle to grave protection.

I see it as people just like you and I, who will make mistakes but mostly do more good than harm. I also see it as being responsive to the citizens, and mostly doing what the majority of them want.

The article you sent the link to is very poor news reporting - very few facts and mostly the author's opinion. It should have been published as an editorial - not featured as a news story. It is all about what might happen, if the evil big government gets its way.

It uses words calculated to inflame the uninformed - and makes statements like, "If, in the future . . ."

"murdered young students as a rallying cry, the federal government has moved another step closer to a national computerized system capable of screening the entire population.


If . . . could be monitored under the guise of crime control.

In typical fashion, the bill coerces states

My question to you is, "who is the federal government?" Is it not us, working through representatives we elect?

 

F2504X4, what do you think of these quotes - from the Congressional Press Release?

"The common-sense approach will keep guns out of the hands of criminals while preserving the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

“Nothing is ever going to prevent evil people from committing evil acts. But this bill will go a long way towards making sure that those who have been judged to be a danger to society or have committed felonies cannot buy a firearm,” said Rep. Dingell.

". . . shows that even on the most divisive of issues, people of good faith and good intentions can work together to achieve the common good.”


http://www.house.gov/dingell/Press_R...h/06-13-07.htm