California proposition 63

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by GlockGary, Nov 10, 2016.

  1. GlockGary

    GlockGary Glock Block Supporter

    2,573
    37
    48
    http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/states/california/ballot-measures/2/1

    Looks like the citizens of CommiFornia approved it.
     
  2. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,712
    113
    Here's a better description of what Prop 63 does.

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20161007/why-you-should-vote-no-on-california-s-proposition-63

    Individuals require a state permit and background check to purchase ammo.

    All ammo purchases must be done at a licensed ammo dealer. No online purchases unless they come through a licensed dealer.

    Individuals wanting to sell more than 500 rounds in a 30 day period must become licensed ammo vendors (cost for that isn't specified).

    More crap.
     

  3. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    601
    113
    I thought Kommifornia already limited you to 10 round pistol magazines. Are the new mag limits for rifles?
     
  4. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,265
    527
    113
    Sounds to me like the Dem's in CA haven't learned anything from this past election. If Trump has his way and puts the right Justice on the SCOTUs and in some of the lower courts this could be struck down. Not soon but at some time in the future.
     
  5. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,175
    244
    63
    Perhaps this action will attract more like-minded people to move to California, thereby cleansing the rest of the country form their mental illness. One can but hope.
     
  6. 00Dan

    00Dan Member

    175
    1
    18
    CA had a blanket 10 round capacity cap with an exemption for preban magazines. This proposition removes the grandfather clause, making all "high capacity" magazines contraband.
     
  7. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,265
    527
    113
    We can always look forward to CA leaving the union in the next quake.
     
  8. MLS 4506

    MLS 4506 Active Member

    1,513
    21
    38
    if everything west of a line 20 miles east of the pacific fell into the sea the demographic would swing to the right by 15 %
     
  9. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    I couldn't find a thread about the lawsuit that was filed in 2016after this law passed, so I figured I would put it here. California Rifle & Pistol Association challenging California's Ammo Sales Background Check

    Yesterday was a hearing: Rhode v Becerra (S.D. CA) - Hearing on CRPA's request for preliminary injunction.

    Thread on Twitter -
    Rob
    @rob99711


    Update on the Rhode v Becerra hearing (S.D. CA, 2016 ammo laws): "[Judge Benitez] was asking very good questions of the state about why the second amendment right is not treated the same as the other rights by the state." (1/2) https://twitter.com/rob99711/status/1163536391566954496?s=20

    Calguns.net thread- https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum...60273908dbbe2143da713&p=23325541#post23325541

    "Short version is our side believes there are to many rejections in the system ( 10,000+) in July with only 106 of those actually being prohibited persons . Something like 18% rejections in July . So we are saying this system is over burdensome to the general public."

    Here's a dooooooozy - This a hell of a position to take by the state

    "Right at the beginning the state conceded if you were from out of state visiting for hunting or what ever you can just have a friend who is a CA resident buy you some ammo or you can give that friend the money to buy you ammo and that was all legal . Which the judge just shook his head in disbelief because the state just said it's OK to do straw purchases in the state of CA."
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
  11. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,265
    527
    113
    18% sounds about right. More are delayed with a release without ATF follow up after 3 business days. If follow up is proceed then the customer is called then. this can happen within a few minutes of the customer leaving the store. If the follow up is denied the 4473 is marked as such and the firearm is not released. The problem is sometimes the denied follow up occurs 5 ,6 or even 10 days later. This means the firearm was released within Brady law standards to someone restricted from owning a firearm. We use gut feelings to decide wither or not to release a delayed firearm. Most of the time when the ATF calls and ask if the firearm was released we can say no. There are rare occasions when we transmit the 4473 and info to the ATF and send them after the firearm.
     
  12. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    "In an in-depth and wide-ranging interview, Michel says that during the first month of ammo law, 11,000 of the 65,000 ammunition purchases in the state were flagged, delayed, and in many cases denied. Does that mean 11,000 criminals were stopped from buying bullets? Not even close. According to Michel, the state of California says 100 prohibited persons were prevented from buying ammunition at retail in the state."

    https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/...unition-background-check-law-is-a-total-mess/

     
  13. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,712
    113
    If they only caught 100 prohibited persons who could the other 10,900 people have possibly been? :-k
     
  14. Craftsman

    Craftsman Well-Known Member

    2,973
    242
    63
    Intentionally discouraged from exercising their rights.
     
  15. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    Thousands of lawful California gun owners are being denied ammunition purchases. Here’s why
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article238203004.html

    Informative video at the link too.

    "Of the 345,547 ammunition background checks performed, only 101 stopped the buyer because he or she was a “prohibited person” who can’t legally possess ammunition, according to state Department of Justice data.

    Yet another 62,000 ammunition purchases were rejected as well. Those people left empty-handed because their personal information hadn’t been entered into the state’s system, or the information on their identification cards didn’t match what officials had entered into the California gun registry database, which retail sellers must review when they do the ammunition background check."
     
  16. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    Doh!

    "Fiona Benjamin, 23, is one of the new hunters the state is actively trying to recruit, but she said she found herself blocked from purchasing ammunition this fall because she hadn’t registered a gun. Up to that point, she’d borrowed a friend’s shotgun when she was out in the field.

    In order to get registered to buy ammo, Benjamin, a recent UC Davis graduate from Half Moon Bay, said she did what California lawmakers, who are wary of having more guns and ammunition in circulation, probably didn’t intend when they passed their gun legislation.

    She bought a new shotgun, and she said she plans on stockpiling ammunition when she clears the Department of Justice’s system."
     
  17. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,712
    113
    Another well thought out law that will stop the increase of guns and ammo in CA. Or maybe not! :shakehead:

    She better be careful her ammo "stockpile" doesn't turn into an "arsenal." :mrgreen:
     
  18. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    StarJack and phantoms like this.
  19. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
  20. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    California is about the start Freedom Week 2.0

    There is going to be a run on ammo.