The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => Right to Keep and Bear Arms => Topic started by: Beak Boater on March 28, 2018, 07:15:47 PM
-
She is serious about proposing legislation.....wont go far. But concerning that she would try. Interesting to note, she says a gun is just a useless hunk of junk without bullets. It also cannot pull its own trigger.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-florida-school-shooting-wasserman-schultz-legislation-20180323-story.html
-
Recently here in California you can no longer have ammunition shipped to your place of residence. You are required to have it shipped to an FFL where you are charged a transfer fee to pick up the ammunition, instant background checks for ammo purchases will soon follow. We are banned from bringing ammunition in from another state as well. Semi auto rifles with removable magazines are no longer legal to buy. If you owned a semi auto with a removable magazine before the law went into effect you are required to register it with the state.
I wish they would ban career politicians.
-
You mean Wasserman Shulz isn't in jail for subverting an election??? Oh yeah she was promoted to the Clinton campaign right after rigging the primary debates against Bernie...colluding with Russia in creation of the fake dossier used in the FISA court to unmask Americans, spy on politcal opposition...
Clinton foundation profits from USA transfer of Uranium assets to Russia.
Hard to believe that Dems still hold on to Watergate as the scandal of century, lol.
Just say, "No".
-
I'm sorry, Tok, that state was bad when I left in 1989, out of the service. I was hauling the UZI I bought right before Roberti-Roos.
I understand there is all kinds of restrictions on reloading, too.
-
Kaleefoornya is a prime example in fact that liberalism is a serious mental disorder and they have it bad like a stage 5 cancer.
wasserman schultz is another loon,she's parroting what feinstein proposed in the early 90's along with patrick moynihan. They wanted back ground checks and exorbitant taxes on ammo. moynihan claimed"we'll tax them out of existence"
-
At one time, they tried to ban "Saturday Nght Specials - cheap guns - but I believe some court, maybe the Supreme court, ruled it was unconstitutional as it discriminated against and disenfranchised the poor. Maybe that approach would work against this law if it passes...
-
Please discuss the subject of the post, not wander off the track into general bitching about politics. Thank you.
-
They're not going to require a process that requires 10-15 minutes to fill out paperwork plus some undetermined wait for purchases that happen as regularly as ammo purchases. It'd be like having a DUI checkpoint on an interstate -- sure, you could technically do it, but the extreme impracticality of it makes it more or less impossible in practice.
-
New York State passed a law like that as part of our SAFE ACT, but it was never implemented because law enforcement said it would be near impossible to do all of those checks, the nics system would just crash
-
They're not going to require a process that requires 10-15 minutes to fill out paperwork plus some undetermined wait for purchases that happen as regularly as ammo purchases. It'd be like having a DUI checkpoint on an interstate -- sure, you could technically do it, but the extreme impracticality of it makes it more or less impossible in practice.
Do you really think anti-gun people care about inconveniencing ammo buyers & sellers? They're probably hoping sellers will stop selling due to the inconvenience. By the way, I have seen a DUI check on an interstate - late at night on Interstate 75 in Kentucky...
-
I never said they care. I said it?s not going to happen ? and it?s not going to happen because it?s preposterously impractical to implement. It?s simply not going to happen. And everyone here who believed it will never notice they got suckered (again) by a bit of typical gunsite fear-mongering.
And you have never seen a DUI checkpoint on an Interstate. No local LEO agency is bringing interstate traffic to a halt for a DUI checkpoint. ::)
-
I never said they care. I said it?s not going to happen ? and it?s not going to happen because it?s preposterously impractical to implement. It?s simply not going to happen. And everyone here who believed it will never notice they got suckered (again) by a bit of typical gunsite fear-mongering.
And you have never seen a DUI checkpoint on an Interstate. No local LEO agency is bringing interstate traffic to a halt for a DUI checkpoint. ::)
With respect, you aren't qualified to say what I have seen or not seen. It was a DUI checkpoint and it was conducted by the state patrol around midnight about 20 - 25 years ago - state authorities, not some local LEO agency (although some local LEO may have been present). It remains the only one on an interstate I have ever seen, which is why I remember it so well. I remember I couldn't believe they would do one on an interstate.
I guess this one never happened: http://fourthamendment.com/?p=19881
and I guess Nebraska doesn't do them on I-80. https://www.criminaldefensene.com/ruse-checkpoints/
Apparently they're all liars like me...
-
This all sounds like a great opportunity to setup an ammo supply shop on the border to the Socialist Republik in some place like Quartzite AZ!
Of course when you stop at the border check station where they currently ask you where you are coming from, and where you are going, and also about any vegetables or fruit - they will be asking about ammo and guns then as well. People will have to work on their "Poker Face" to show "your papers please" and answer in the manner required to make it back into the Socialist Republik without being detained and interrogated while they search your vehicle for smuggled contraband. I'm sure they will come up with some sort of "trusted comrade" type of documentation to help speed the process of entry. I can't help but wonder how many years you will get in the gulag for attempting to smuggle in ammunition from the "free states" that border it?
-
This all sounds like a great opportunity to setup an ammo supply shop on the border to the Socialist Republik in some place like Quartzite AZ!
Of course when you stop at the border check station where they currently ask you where you are coming from, and where you are going, and also about any vegetables or fruit - they will be asking about ammo and guns then as well. People will have to work on their "Poker Face" to show "your papers please" and answer in the manner required to make it back into the Socialist Republik without being detained and interrogated while they search your vehicle for smuggled contraband. I'm sure they will come up with some sort of "trusted comrade" type of documentation to help speed the process of entry. I can't help but wonder how many years you will get in the gulag for attempting to smuggle in ammunition from the "free states" that border it?
Good point about the "border check stations" which are similar to DUI checkpoints on an interstate. The trouble is if it's a federal law...
-
While I believe that our legislative branch would pass such a law while not worrying about the implementation of it (somebody else's problem), I do believe that it would be impossible to implement (as New York's example illustrates). However, they could require special licenses for ammo purchases which would not require so many background checks. If I'm not mistaken, Illinois requires a special license/ID to purchase ammo? At least I heard that from a friend who tried to buy ammo while there for a match.
Update: Illinois requires an FOID (firearms owner identification) card to transfer or possess ammo and this is likely the model that this proposed law is based on.
-
As far as I know, it's going to only be a CA specific law that penalizes the law-abiding citizens for daring to exercise their second amendment rights. The check stations that are already there are for Agriculture purposes. There are also Border Patrol check stations that stop traffic, but are generally staffed well enough to not jam up the works. Who knows, they may set up yet another set of check stations looking for 2A contraband.
The entire goal of this is to slow down or completely stop anybody from actually exercising their Constitutional Right to Bare Arms - through any means possible. Allowing separate states or municipalities to suspend Constitutional Rights of citizens who have done nothing wrong is a huge mistake and should not be allowed to continue. But worse yet, they are looking to expand this infringement of our rights. It's long past time for our Federal Government and the SCOTUS to make it clear that the Constitutional Rights of all Americans - APPLY EVENLY AND CONSISTENTLY TO ALL CITIZENS - REGARDLESS OF LOCATION.
-
A law like this will make straw purchasers who sell to thugs rich. Since Illinois already has a similar law, how are all the criminals in places like Chicago getting their ammo? Duh!
-
As far as I know, it's going to only be a CA specific law that penalizes the law-abiding citizens for daring to exercise their second amendment rights. The check stations that are already there are for Agriculture purposes. There are also Border Patrol check stations that stop traffic, but are generally staffed well enough to not jam up the works. Who knows, they may set up yet another set of check stations looking for 2A contraband.
The entire goal of this is to slow down or completely stop anybody from actually exercising their Constitutional Right to Bare Arms - through any means possible. Allowing separate states or municipalities to suspend Constitutional Rights of citizens who have done nothing wrong is a huge mistake and should not be allowed to continue. But worse yet, they are looking to expand this infringement of our rights. It's long past time for our Federal Government and the SCOTUS to make it clear that the Constitutional Rights of all Americans - APPLY EVENLY AND CONSISTENTLY TO ALL CITIZENS - REGARDLESS OF LOCATION.
The Wasserman-Schultz proposed law (copied from previous attempts - she isn't smart enough on her own) is a proposed federal law.
-
From the article: ?You do not have the right to bear bullets,? Wasserman Schultz said.
What do you think? Does she have a point?
-
The word ?arms? is short for ?armaments? and refers to all gear and equipment used to wage war, as opposed to the typical interpretation of the word to mean something more akin to small arms or firearms. But arms is all gear and equipment, to include ammo. So NO, she does not have a point. ;)
-
I never said they care. I said it?s not going to happen ? and it?s not going to happen because it?s preposterously impractical to implement. It?s simply not going to happen. And everyone here who believed it will never notice they got suckered (again) by a bit of typical gunsite fear-mongering.
And you have never seen a DUI checkpoint on an Interstate. No local LEO agency is bringing interstate traffic to a halt for a DUI checkpoint. ::)
Never seen a DUI checkpoint on the highway, but I have seen a Border Patrol checkpoint on I-93 in my home state.
-
NICS checks on ammo please gentlemen, not DUIs, is the subject of this discussion
-
This was the law at one time, although it didn't require background checks. See below.
From the NRA-ILA website:
"The Gun Control Act of 1968 originally required ammunition dealers to be licensed and to record ammunition sales, similar to the requirements that continue to pertain to sales of firearms by licensed dealers. In 1982, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition was exempted from the federal record keeping requirements, followed in 1986 by the repeal of both the licensing and record keeping requirements as they pertained to ammunition dealers. An official from the ATF testifying on the 1986 bill characterized the proposed repeal as a ?positive? development, noting that the then-existing requirements had ?no substantial law enforcement value? and that ?their elimination would remove an unnecessary recordkeeping burden from licensees.?
-
The sitting President (If this were to ever pass) would need to grow a set and tell the BATFE they will only answer firearm checks. If FL calls in, trying to BGC all of this other ridiculousness, politely tell them it's their state's job and hang up.
Then bill FL $$ per call for waisted man hours.
Didn't CA already try to add bgc for things that fell outside federal law? They put it on their state patrollers, and it tied up too much time so they stopped it?
-
Recently here in California you can no longer have ammunition shipped to your place of residence. You are required to have it shipped to an FFL where you are charged a transfer fee to pick up the ammunition, instant background checks for ammo purchases will soon follow.
FWIW, Targetsportsusa.com will ship to CA residents that have a C&R type 03 FFL. Well worth the $30 every 3 years if you can have ammo shipped directly to your door....
-
Pardon bumping this old thread but isn't this the law that goes into effect in July 2019? I was informed I could not have ammo shipped at residence and any ammo purchased from a store also required a background check. However in the last few months the managers still did not know the cost per application. My question is if they can call in a NCIS background check for ammo and it can be completed while a buyer waits in store, why can't they do the same to buy a firearm? Sorry not trying to derail the topic too much.
On a related note I see online deals for ammo but most state cannot ship to CA even an FFL. Why is that?
-
It's not so much they can't ship to CA, it just not worth the cost and effort to do so. CA requires them to have a tax ID and collect sales tax, and meet all the other stupidity the insane legislators have created. Makes me so glad I left that miserable state 25 years ago this month.
-
New York State passed a law like that as part of our SAFE ACT, but it was never implemented because law enforcement said it would be near impossible to do all of those checks, the nics system would just crash
Correct,I think our Great Governor just thought the NICS system would take over for his proposed ammo checks,, the Feds said NO and yes it would more than likely crash the system. I'm sure it is still floating around in the back of there brains but you don't even hear talk about checks for ammo anymore, at least I haven't!
-
Pardon bumping this old thread but isn't this the law that goes into effect in July 2019?
I believe the original post / thread was about a proposed Federal law from Wasserman-Shultz.
With respect to the CA law that you're referring to, parts went into effect in 2018 (no direct ship from out of state, among other things). July 1 2019 the background checks become required.
I was informed I could not have ammo shipped at residence and any ammo purchased from a store also required a background check. However in the last few months the managers still did not know the cost per application.
If you appear in CA's AFS (automated firearm system? can't remember) the cost of the check is $1. If you don't, $19. Anyone who has purchased a gun in CA that required a DROS will be in AFS - so for anyone who has purchased a handgun in the past many years or a long gun since some years back, the cost for the background check is $1.
My question is if they can call in a NCIS background check for ammo and it can be completed while a buyer waits in store, why can't they do the same to buy a firearm? Sorry not trying to derail the topic too much.
I don't believe they are running a NICS check in CA for ammo - just a check against CA DOJ's databases.
On a related note I see online deals for ammo but most state cannot ship to CA even an FFL. Why is that?
As noted by others, many vendors just don't want the hassle.
It may be worth your while to get an FFL03 + CoE. The FFL03 is the Curios & Relics collectors license (not a license to deal in firearms) and costs something like $30 for three years. The Certificate of Exemption (CoE) is a CA DOJ certificate and is a bit more spendy -- something like $71 in fees, plus the cost of a livescan fingerprint service (~$25 at various places like UPS Store, etc.). After the initial application, it is $22 to renew annually with no further fingerprinting costs.
I bring all this up because CA law continues to permit direct delivery of ammo purchased from out of state to holders of a valid FFL03 + CoE. And there are many non-CA ammo vendors who will happily ship to CA residents who hold FFL03 + CoE.
As a final note, I believe Judge Benitez is assigned to the case brought by CPRA / NRA against the CA ammo law. Judge Benitez is the USDC judge who recently wrote a very strong decision on the CA magazine ban that is being appealed to the 9th circuit. The issues are different than the magazine issues, but I suppose we could do a lot worse than arguing before Benitez regarding the entire ammunition sales process imposed in California.
-
Hiya and thanks for whomever started the thread and brought it back from the dead. And I think its great our community can enlighten members of the variety of efforts in legislation that relate to background checks for ammo purchases and beyond. Its our tax dollars at work,in all the different cities,counties,states and assume reflects the wishes of the 75percent of americans that don't own guns,or some percentage of them. Find our who your local districts,city,and state representatives are and reach out to give our minority a voice. We should have about 60millions voices for them to listen to. Making a regular and active effort over decades will make the difference, who wants to deal with an email in box of a few million concerned citizens a week. Be well.
-
I've heard a lot of talk about this from the demonrats. Something they never talk about is how they are going to pay for it. I realize that we are actually the folks who do that. But if they require a background check on ammunition then it means that more people will need to be hired at NCIC to handle what would be a huge overload of calls. Especially if people started buying one box at a time several times per day. Just my thoughts on the matter.
-
Background checks to buy ammo go live here at the beginning of July. All ammo must be purchased face to face. It will be interesting to see how people that are not tuned into this stuff react to the change.
-
Any word on how this is shaking out from anyone affected?
-
I would suspect that when they get to the spot on the form (web based or phone based) where it ask what is being approved for purchase and nothing is applicable it will cause a problem.
NICS "What type of firearm?"
Seller "Ammo"
NICS "Why are you calling us?"
Seller "New state law"
NICS "Call the state"
Steve
-
From SoCal here. Cal checks against their own records, not NICS for ammo sales. My understanding is the the Instant check with NICS has a very specific legal basis and is not funded or equipped to add other capabilities and/or checks for state specific desires. I'm a little surprised that the new system apparently didn't collapse. The record for implementing this sort of thing has been poor. The last registration process was poorly thought out and required a lot of info that seemed un-required by law, was hard to work, delayed, overwhelmed, etc.
There had been rumors and an attempt to put in "emergency" regulations requiring RealID for firearms and ammunition purchases so I helped spike sales, just in case. Apparently the few adults in the room in Sacramento determined that that wasn't going to be required. And the DMV is still struggling with the RealID.
So, I didn't buy ammo right off the bat on 7/1. I purchased a 455 Scout just before the 1 July point, including the 10 day wait, delivery 6/29. I have recently purchased some .22 lr for the Scout, etc. (The existing requirements for handling, purchase, delivery, etc., for ammo is a whole different set of discussions.) Part of this is the way this particular store works, part is the legal fooling around.
They "pre-qualify" an ammo purchaser by asking if we have recently purchased a firearm in the state. The check is against firearms purchasers listings. If you have, they file an on-line check. If not, the prospective purchaser has a different set of hoops to jump through. I had, including the extremely recent Scout. They used my CDL, did some data entry, recorded some info, grabbed the ammo I wanted, made some copies, fussed around, waited a couple of minutes. I came back ok. They took the paper and the ammo to the check-out, I paid and left. Impact on me was standing around a while. they had the impact of fussing about with the paperwork and I think that takes longer than advertised. This was mid-week, mid-day so not a long line. I'm going to guess peak times will be far more problematic just doing the paper for more customers.
If a "new" buyer, there is a background check, Ca style akin to a firearms purchase so it takes a while and the result is valid for a set length of time. I believe if a purchase is made during that period, then the regular check can be made after that.
Or, one can buy a firearm and do the check, then buy ammo.
-
Well Illinois is not far behind California. FOID is just card that you must have for anything firearms/ammunition related. When you actually have to be an FFL to purchase ammo thats completelly bananas. I guess FFL type 3 is a must.
P.S. FFL type 3 is required to file for SBR.
-
Well Illinois is not far behind California. FOID is just card that you must have for anything firearms/ammunition related. When you actually have to be an FFL to purchase ammo thats completelly bananas. I guess FFL type 3 is a must.
P.S. FFL type 3 is required to file for SBR.
part of what makes me glad I escaped from ILL-Annoy last summer.