California's new Ammunition Law

[shootbrownelk]

The only research into this was the word of a gun and ammo seller? I mean, I can't imagine how THEY might be biased...

Here's the full text if you'd like to read it:
http://downloads.capta.org/leg/BallotMeasures/Prop63_FullText.pdf

This law went into effect 18 months ago, Jan 2018. The only part going into effect NOW, July 1, is background checks for ammunition purchases. The proposition covers a ton of things, all of them pretty reasonable in my mind:

1. You must report lost or stolen firearms within 5 days of when you discovered the theft, except if it's an antique.

2. This also applies to peace officers, marshals, and members of the military (reporting loss or theft).

3. Licensees (vendors) have a new posting they have to put on the wall. It's too long to repost here, but what's the harm, nobody reads those things anyway.

4. Some mechanisms for how background checks are done were modified. In particular, words that say the Justice Department "may" participate in the National Criminal Background Check System "if funding is available" were struck to say they actually have to do it now.

5. The next bit goes on at length about procedures to follow if the Justice Department, vendors, or others discover the potential customer is a criminal. There are also notification procedures to the customer about any rejections.

6. Starting July 1 2017 (two years ago) if they receive information you're a criminal, they'll now report IN to the national background check system. Before they would look you up, but you may or may not be reported if you robbed a bank. Now you will be.

7. New specifics on punishments for violating any of these laws, particularly large capacity magazine restrictions (the restrictions were already on the books, what's new is specifics on sentencing). Sell a gun to a known criminal you get 10 years. Own a large capacity magazine you get fined $100 (per mag, tho). Note that possession is also defined as a misdemeanor, not a felony, which is important. This also all went into effect two years ago.

8. Exceptions to some of the above for current and former law enforcement and military members, those holding special weapons permits, etc.

9. A ton of additional procedures for enforcing those things above.

10. A new rule that says if you sell ammunition you're considered an ammunition vendor whether you're licensed or not. Just legalese to let the rest of the rules apply to you even if you try to skirt the system. But it does mean private party sales are ruled out - if you want to resell ammo you have to do it like firearms now, through a FFL.

11. Ammo purchases must now be face to face at time of purchase or delivery.

12. A ton of exceptions for law enforcement and others for the above.

13. A big exception that you can buy just about anything at a licensed range as long as what you buy is kept on premises.

14. Another exception that lets you give ammo to your spouse, family member, domestic partner, etc.

15. Striking the word "handgun" from basically all previous ammunition laws (which California already had a bunch of) so now it's any ammo.

16. Specific allowances for selling ammo at gun shows, provided you are licensed.

17. A police officer can apparently hand you a bucket-o-bullets, assuming they wanted to.

18. Similar reporting-of-theft provisions for ammo that apply to firearms. Similar procedures for what to do next, and punishments if you don't.

19. Starting January 1 2019 you need an ammunition purchase authorization before you can buy ammo. They're valid for 4 years, and you lose it if you commit a felony or do some other bad things. To get one you need to be 18 or older, not already a criminal, and pay a fee (not specified but not to exceed $50, determined by the department). They do your background check and are required to respond within 30 days. If you're denied they need to provide the specific reasons.

20. Interestingly for a not-necessarily "shall issue" state, they "shall issue" you an ammunition purchase authorization if they can't determine within 30 days that you're a criminal or otherwise disqualified: "If the department is unable to ascertain the final disposition of the application within 30 days of the applicant’s submission, the department shall grant authorization to the applicant."

21. Renewal is also "shall renew".

22. Established a fund where that "up to $50" (but you know it'll be $50) gets deposited and what gets done with it. Then add provisions to sweep it into the General Fund which you know is what's really going to happen.

23. A ton of regs regarding licensing of ammunition vendors.

24. A ton of regs regarding seizure of firearms, most of which was already law on the books. They could always seize your firearms when you got arrested but now as of Jan 1 2018 they also specifically say they WILL. There are like 3 pages of procedures on this bit, how search warrants are obtained and executed, etc.

This goes on for a bit more but there's NOTHING in here further about ammunition. The word "caliber" does not appear a single time in the text. Nothing in this text refers to a security or smart ID. There is NOTHING on buying ammo of a caliber for a gun you don't own.

Just think through how silly that would be anyway. The proposition specifically says you can hand ammo to a family member, but the background check is done on you, not your whole family. There's no way for them to determine someone in your family does NOT have a firearm in that caliber, and you have the legal right to buy it and hand it to them, so it would be nonsense to write a rule that says you can't.

This is the law. If you live in California and own firearms you should read it, particularly before trusting somebody else's statements about what it means. The text is legalese, but pretty readable and understandable. Anything you hear that is not in the text is somebody's opinion and is not the law. A store can set whatever policy they want, but other stores don't have to follow it and it doesn't make it law.

You are either being lied to or misinformed. Just another little reminder that BOTH "sides" have an agenda, and neither one necessarily has your personal best interests in mind. Just because you like firearms as much as a firearms vendor doesn't mean they won't take advantage of a scare over a new law to try to boost their sales.

All the above are "Pretty reasonable in my mind" ? Really? All 24 that you mentioned. I'm glad I live in Wyoming.

 

[taskswap]

Well, neither of us has to live there, so there's that. But I was born there, have family there, and still go there once or twice a year so I know the culture and it's just not their #1 priority. And that's fine. It's the whole point of states rights, if this is what they want, they can have it. But to be honest, I don't have any problem reporting lost or stolen firearms there OR here in Colorado. I think about half what they're doing won't actually help anything, but it's also not that big of a burden. It's made out that way, but it's just not that big a deal.

Firearms have bad "marketing" to the general public these days, at least in my opinion. They're becoming a right-winger-only thing. I'm getting sick and tired of the almost deliberately-offensive comments and posts I see online from people teasing or outright ridiculing "snowflakes", "libtards", and other labels like that who "don't know anything about guns or gun ownership." If people spent as much time reaching out to those folks and bringing them into the fold as they did ridiculing them, it would be the end of new laws like this.

Don't forget, nationwide the gun ownership rate by household is < 33% right now. That's already the minority, but in California it's even lower: 19.8% (source: some 2017 report I just Googled but it sounds about right.) Those numbers have dropped every decade for the past few decades. It's no surprise Wyoming citizens have kept their rights: the percentage there is >53%! It's much easier to hang onto a right you actually use.

In my opinion, the solution to heading off future restrictions isn't for the dwindling minority to fight harder to keep their rights. It's to stop the decline in the first place. Gun ownership should be the majority position, not the minority. But instead of reaching out to folks that don't own firearms, lobbyists and politicians spend their dollars and time fighting even truly useful reforms, some (not all but enough to cause harm) gun owners ridicule non-owners as "snowflakes," "libtards," or "wack-o's," and manufacturers spend their marketing dollars selling a 12th gun to a current owner rather than enticing a non-owner into their first purchase.

The result speaks for itself. Fighting universal background checks makes gun rights advocates themselves look like the "whack-os", because who in the world can defend the position that it should be easier for criminals to get guns? And using terms like "whack-o" in the first place to describe somebody who does feel there should be reforms just alienates them, and makes it even less likely that they'll ever consider purchasing a firearm themselves. And I have yet to pick up a Cabelas or Midway catalog and say "yep, if I was a first time home buyer, this totally makes me want to get a shotgun to protect my new castle." No, those catalogs say my 10mm auto and 44 rem mag pistols aren't enough, I really want a 9mm to round out my options. This one is even tactical!

I don't say I have all the answers. I'm far from perfect and I'm full of as many bad ideas as good ones. But I truly feel reversing the decline of gun ownership is the single best thing any of us could do to help the situation long term. For my part, when a non-owner talks, I listen respectfully even if I disagree with them. I offer to show them some of my firearms, and how I store and transport them securely, and handle them safely. I offer to take them to a range. And it works more often than you'd guess. It's not much, but it's the best I've got...

 

[87TT]

No wonder gun ownership in CA is so low. They make it hard for normal people to own or use them. I'l bet there are a lot of un reported owners out there. Call it by any name you want. But it still is a end run at your rights and a way to enforce their socialist ideas.

 

[shootbrownelk]

You will never satisfy the gun grabbers by giving them an inch. They want a mile and they never quit. Total confiscation is their end goal. Compromise with them never works.

 

[Gr8bawana]

You will never satisfy the gun grabbers by giving them an inch. They want a mile and they never quit. Total confiscation is their end goal. Compromise with them never works.

You really help drive home the point that "taskswap" was making.

 

[87TT]

You really help drive home the point that "taskswap" was making.

He sounds like why Colorado is just California East. I wouldn't want to live there either. I personally think all those new rules are nonsense and an "infringement" on the 2A

 

[kidoggy]

Last night's debate was a good reminder of what CA has to offer and why I never want to live there. Heck, they nearly have me scared to ever visit!

I would not set foot in that sh^thol% state for all the worlds wealth and I was born there . undisputable proof that even California can produce something fine!

 

[Prerylyon]

A lot of people are just plain misinformed about guns. A while back, in another thread, I shared how some unexpected folks are getting into hunting/guns through an indirect channels: the organic food movement, wilderness high adventure trekking; to name a few. I know some of these people don't share my political views, but if they want to hunt to get their organic meat and are open/interested in using firearms, I am happy to mentor to them. I think 'Task has a solid point: outeach and bringing new, maybe even untraditional firearm hunters to the stable has an important place. Its that whole "teach a man to fish" logic.

 

[kidoggy]

Ronny-"it's not that our liberal brothers are no intelligent , it's just that they know so much that isn't so!"
most are a lost cause but it's still worth the effort if even a few can be saved.

 

[Terry19]

Thank you for the info. Very useful!

 

[kidoggy]

Will the new state law on ammunition purchases in California will inspire other states to adopt similar or more stringent gun control policies in coming days? I think the probability of that other states will also replicate California’s new gun control policy is highly unlikely. The reason why I am not such optimistic is that Americans can think about their life without guns, ammunitions, scopes and boresight.

democrat states elect democrat leaders and those leaders are simply not capable of rational thought.

yes, democrat run states will adopt idiot gun laws.
do no good laws make people feel good . if it saves one, it must be fantastik ,right????????????????

for that reason ,so will republicans run states but to A much lesser extent.


when people think and act with their hearts instead of their brains good seldom comes of it!!!!!!

 

[Turbodude]

Most of what is in that law as stated is correct. But I can buy ammo for any of the rifles and shotguns I own and none of them are registered. They don't check for gun ownership when you buy ammo. But it is still a F'd up law and probably coming to your state if its run by Commiecrats. Moving out of here in 2 years I hope.

 

[nv-hunter]

Thought this was ruled against this summer?

 

[Turbodude]

Also our broke dick commie and chief outlawed propane for household appliances by 2025 and the sale of gas power vehicles by 2035. Its a green utopia here, NOT

 

[JimP]

I wonder where they are going to get their electricity at.

They can't handle it now with rolling blackouts and such. From what I have read it sounds a lot like a 3 world country like South Africa

 

[nv-hunter]

Think pge shut off power to 95000 plus customers today because of wind

 

[Turbodude]

Houses will be run all electric. Think we have blackout problems now, wait 5 years. South Africa will be a step above. They will try to grab power off the grid from other states.