California proposition 63

3434 Views 23 Replies 12 Participants Last post by tmoore912, Apr 25, 2020

GlockGary

Discussion Starter · Nov 10, 2016

This measure would prohibit possession of large capacity ammunition magazines and requires background checks for ammunition purchases. A "YES" vote supports a ban on large capacity magazines. A "NO" vote opposes a ban on large capacity magazines.

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

Looks like the citizens of CommiFornia approved it.

Save

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

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.

Save

Phil1979

· #3 · Nov 11, 2016

I thought Kommifornia already limited you to 10 round pistol magazines. Are the new mag limits for rifles?

Save

Wegahe

· #4 · Nov 11, 2016

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.

Save

UtiPossidetis

· #5 · Nov 11, 2016

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.

Save

00Dan

· #6 · Nov 11, 2016

Phil1979 said:
I thought Kommifornia already limited you to 10 round pistol magazines. Are the new mag limits for rifles?

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.

Save

Wegahe

· #7 · Nov 11, 2016

We can always look forward to CA leaving the union in the next quake.

Save

MLS 4506

· #8 · Nov 14, 2016

Wegahe said:
We can always look forward to CA leaving the union in the next quake.

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 %

Save

tmoore912

· #9 · Aug 20, 2019

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/i/web/status/1163536391566954496

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."

See less See more

Save

Malum Prohibitum

· #10 · Aug 20, 2019

18% are rejections? :-?

Save

Wegahe

· #11 · Aug 20, 2019

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.

Save

tmoore912

· #12 · Aug 23, 2019

"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/

Save

moe mensale

· #13 · Aug 24, 2019

tmoore912 said:
"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."

If they only caught 100 prohibited persons who could the other 10,900 people have possibly been? :-k

Save

Craftsman

· #14 · Aug 24, 2019

moe mensale said:
If they only caught 100 prohibited persons who could the other 10,900 people have possibly been? :-k

Intentionally discouraged from exercising their rights.

Save

tmoore912

· #15 · Dec 12, 2019

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."

Save

tmoore912

· #16 · Dec 12, 2019

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."

Save

moe mensale

· #17 · Dec 12, 2019

tmoore912 said:
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."

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:

Save

tmoore912

· #18 · Apr 24, 2020

Rhode v Becerra -

Judge tosses California ammunition purchase law
https://apnews.com/da939b10185f662e536ec96dc6156aa2

[URL='https://twitter.com/2Aupdates']Rob @2Aupdates·[/URL]
1h
BREAKING: Rhode v Becerra (S.D. CA): In a 120pg order, Judge Benitez grants preliminary injunction against California's ammo background check law. "That a majority today may wish it were otherwise, does not change the Constitutional right. It never has." https://courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.60.0.pdf…

[URL='https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1253446244845969408/photo/4]

[/URL]

See less See more

Save

Reactions: 2

tmoore912

· #19 · Apr 24, 2020

"...the Second Amendment is not a "loophole" that needs to be closed."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253446244845969408

See less See more

Save

tmoore912

· #20 · Apr 24, 2020

California is about the start Freedom Week 2.0

There is going to be a run on ammo.

Save

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month