California’s war on guns will soon broaden to a war on ammunition as a ban on the possession of bullets purchased out-of-state takes effect January 1, 2018.
Then, in 2019, all ammunition purchasers will be required to undergo a background check like those currently required for firearm sales. That background check will require the law-abiding citizen to “pay a $1 state fee” for the check. That “fee” is yet another tax.
This is one of many steps going into effect which will quickly place ammunition under controls similar to those which Democrat lawmakers have placed on firearms.
According to the Sacramento Bee, it will also be illegal “to transfer or buy ammo” from anyone other than a licensed dealer within the state, beginning January 1. California residents can order ammunition from a catalog as long as they have that ammunition shipped to a licensed dealer for pickup. The dealer will then add a “processing fee” to the cost of the ammunition.
In this scenario, a “processing fee” is just another tax that law-abiding citizens will pay for the bullets they buy.
Then, in 2019, all ammunition purchasers will be required to undergo a background check like those currently required for firearm sales. That background check will require the law-abiding citizen to “pay a $1 state fee” for the check. That “fee” is yet another tax.
This is how gun control or, in this case, ammunition control, works. First. they limit the supply by passing a law that it is only legal to possess ammunition purchased in California. Then they pass a law narrowing options even further, so that it is only legal to purchase in-state ammunition from a licensed dealer. Then they apply a tax but call it a “processing fee.” And in 2019 they will apply another tax of $1 to help cover the cost of a point of sale background check for law-abiding ammunition purchasers.
Sent to me by a friend. All I can say is, California Liberals Strike again. Things like this confirm my previous decisions and make me glad I didn't accept those four different job offers I had in CA.
------------------ Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!
California’s war on guns will soon broaden to a war on ammunition as a ban on the possession of bullets purchased out-of-state takes effect January 1, 2018.
The obvious question is; how will they know?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-24-2017).]
Seriously thinking about purchasing a .410 revolver for the household. Kind of waiting to finish up this large remodel that I am doing. Thankfully I do not live in Cali.
State's rights are paramount. If the citizenry want it, let 'em have it.
Maybe it will attract more Libs to the state and at the same time make other states more attractive to Cali conservatives.
That's how it's supposed to work.
Doesn't mean I don't think it's stupid.
I don't think I want anyone that enjoys the "California way of life or thought process" coming to my state; liberal or conservative.
How does that go? First they came for the socialist.
People have been clamoring on for years about outlawing guns by making ammunition too expensive. I guess a state tax is an even better plan to do it that the serial number from a revenue generating standpoint. I don't understand how gun rights have gotten so far out of whack, but they are. I guess criminals will be less likely to have ammunition now though, so lucky them!
I don't think I want anyone that enjoys the "California way of life or thought process" coming to my state; liberal or conservative.
How does that go? First they came for the socialist.
...
Well said. I think of Sandpoint, Idaho when I read this. A beautiful community, but holy hell is it richie rich democrats. A ton of them from California, including the Hollywood elite. Here they can sail and ski their way to expensive luxuries while the community serves them. Eh, maybe I am being a we bit biased?
Originally posted by RayOtton:Well, practically speaking, unless the citizens of Cali challenge the constitutionality of the law, it will stand.
So again, it's up to the citizens to fix it. If they don't, it signals tacit approval of the law.
I feed bad about my attitude because the people that do not vote are the cause and I blame them. I have mine, so f-them. My "assault weapons" are registered, I can not take them to the range because most of them do not have 10 round and under magazines. I have cans of different rounds, good for a single small battle. I am busy with other things, getting older, and my vision poorer all the time. At some point I will just go to Free American and sell the most of them.
Well, practically speaking, unless the citizens of Cali challenge the constitutionality of the law, it will stand.
So again, it's up to the citizens to fix it. If they don't, it signals tacit approval of the law.
Which is precisely what more level headed states and their voters need to do.
I really don't understand the theory (other than tax revenue) why anyone would support such a law. Do they really think those who possess weapons illegally care about where their ammo comes from or, stop those people from getting that ammo and using it however they see fit to use it? ------------------ Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-24-2017).]
Controlling the ammo is the real way "gun control" will likely happen I think. Making it way to expensive, restricting it to death, etc. Making it unobtainium, turning many guns into expensive clubs. Imagine all the ammo that will be buried.
Controlling the ammo is the real way "gun control" will likely happen I think. Making it way to expensive, restricting it to death, etc. Making it unobtainium, turning many guns into expensive clubs. Imagine all the ammo that will be buried.
Outlaw lead and consider gunpowder as hazardous materials. No ammo will be legal. Problem solved..........oh wait,...criminals don't follow laws. We will just have a Country full of potential victims for the gun toting criminals.
When the Democrats passed the "high capacity" magazine ban, Cal DOJ sent agents to Reno, NV to take down the license plate numbers of cars with California plates at gun stores or gun shows. They then had the CHP pull them over as soon as they cross the state line and search their vehicles. You can find the stories about that on CalGuns.net.
I expect them to do the exact same thing this time and I have been warning every gun owner I know. If they go out of state to buy ammo, park across the street or anywhere else other than at the gun store or gun show.
When the Democrats passed the "high capacity" magazine ban, Cal DOJ sent agents to Reno, NV to take down the license plate numbers of cars with California plates at gun stores or gun shows. They then had the CHP pull them over as soon as they cross the state line and search their vehicles. You can find the stories about that on CalGuns.net.
I expect them to do the exact same thing this time and I have been warning every gun owner I know. If they go out of state to buy ammo, park across the street or anywhere else other than at the gun store or gun show.
I honestly don't see this law winning a challange in a higher Court (especially now that Trump will bring common sense and ballance to the 9th). Ammo is not illegal in California, it is not illegal for a Californian to buy it in another State, so why is it illegal to own or possess ammo from another State in California. What about people who do not live in California but have a legal firearm with out of State ammo? Retarded liberal politicians. As soon as this law victimizes a citizen, the law will be challenged and the law will be struck down or modified. Sadly enough, if the law victimizes an illegal alien, it would be modified sooner, IF the illegal alien is not out right apologized to and financially compensated and issue swept under carpet.
I honestly don't see this law winning a challange in a higher Court (especially now that Trump will bring common sense and ballance to the 9th). Ammo is not illegal in California, it is not illegal for a Californian to buy it in another State, so why is it illegal to own or possess ammo from another State in California. What about people who do not live in California but have a legal firearm with out of State ammo? Retarded liberal politicians. As soon as this law victimizes a citizen, the law will be challenged and the law will be struck down or modified. Sadly enough, if the law victimizes an illegal alien, it would be modified sooner, IF the illegal alien is not out right apologized to and financially compensated and issue swept under carpet.
I was also thinking about federal law and Constitutional issues with this, particularly with regard to interstate commerce law, which is set by the United States Congress.
The idea of making any legal product somehow illegal to possess if it was purchased outside of a state's borders is highly likely to violate a number of constitutional and federal law provisions.
quote
Originally posted by Tony Kania:
Cigarettes are stamped.
This is true.
Commodities such as tobacco and alcohol are routinely "stamped" for taxation, however that only applies to those items sold within a particular state.
There are no individual state legal provisions that I'm aware of that make simple possession of those same commodities illegal if they were purchased outside of the borders of any individual state if the same commodities are legally sold and / or possessed inside that state's boundaries.
As an example:
Cigarettes are legally sold and legal to possess in Florida and in Georgia.
If the price of cigarettes is sufficiently lower in Florida than in Georgia enough to cause someone to cross the state border and purchase cigarettes and bring them home to enjoy in Georgia that does not make the possession of the cigarettes a crime.
(I am specifically and intentionally citing individual use in this instance and not commercial reselling)
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-28-2017).]
Commodities such as tobacco and alcohol are routinely "stamped" for taxation, however that only applies to those items sold within a particular state.
There are no individual state legal provisions that I'm aware of that make simple possession of those same commodities illegal if they were purchased outside of the borders of any individual state if the same commodities are legally sold and / or possessed inside that state's boundaries.
As an example:
Cigarettes are legally sold and legal to possess in Florida and in Georgia.
If the price of cigarettes is sufficiently lower in Florida than in Georgia enough to cause someone to cross the state border and purchase cigarettes and bring them home to enjoy in Georgia that does not make the possession of the cigarettes a crime.
(I am specifically and intentionally citing individual use in this instance and not commercial reselling)
I heard tales of state troopers waiting at the state line for people bringing back 6pt beer into Oklahoma from Texas. Wouldn't that fall under the same thing? I've never had a problem with it and it could just be a fable. I also don't regularly go stock up on 6pt beer. I just plan ahead and get cheap liquor store beer instead if it's that important. :shrug:
There used to be a thing between Budweiser (I think) and Coors beer. One would sell theirs where the other could not. If I remember like the Mississippi River was the break line. Cant remember that much about the details to be certain. What I did know is when I was stationed in Texas/Oklahoma, I did bring a bunch of Coors with me to Ohio to sell for profit, and the other back with me to Okla. I think that was the back story for Smokey and the Bandit movie. I dont think either was illegal, more of a deal between brands. I do know I would have gotten in trouble legally if cops stopped me and found a bunch of cases of Coors in the back. But, thats probably more of transporting for sale without a licence thing.
Coming down from those lofty heights are rivers that do, on occasion, develop ice on them. I hear the phenomenon is even more common around Yosemite.
Well, ya got me there. Although, definitions do matter. Developing ice versus being a frozen river might be two different things. But, I'll still agree with you. Ya got me.
