[Jefferson51]

Yep. And it demonstrates the slippery slope concept perfectly.

First CA required passing a test in order to buy a weapon.
Then they started registering them.
Then they restricted how many handguns you can buy in a year from a dealer.
Now they have forced us to essentially buy ammo retail face to face.
Next is a BC to buy said ammo.
I am worried about what might be next.

10 round mags are banned...but they are still crossing the border. Same will happen with ammo. Not very many will sign up for the ammo card, just watch.

"That ammo? Hell Ive had that for years" will be said twenty years from now! :biglaugh:

 

[Skindog2018]

Just went. To my Big 5 store where I buy 9mm , 22LR, only...I reload for all other calibers...there was a disclaimer on counter staying only gun licensed employees may sell ammo, and they aren't always on shift. The big change here in .ca is the AR+15 platform, which will need DOJ registration prior to 2019, and rifle needs to be made featureless...ie..fixed stock, no trigger pistol grip or forward grip, no detachable magazine, no bullet button which releases the 10 round max magazine....also you cannot transfer your current AR, sell it, lend it etc...it dies eith you here in People's republic of California.
If you do not alter the AR you are breaking state laws and face confiscation of and charges for illegal weapon possession. This will go into effect 2019...but you can take it to another state AZ and sell it there....but I'm gonna go with 24 words in Declaration which gives a well armed militia the right to bear and own arms....sorry "?California your gonna lose a few folks if you come thru my door without an invite.

 

[dsk]

Here comes Round Two

The assault weapons licensing scheme and expanded background checks legislation comes up for a hearing in the Senate Law & Justice Committee this Thursday the 25th. Time to go down there and make your voices heard.

 

[CVMASheepdog]

A net increase in the percentage means a net increase in people, period.

So a 6% increase is give or take 1.8 million people more moving into the state than left the state.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.me...1/california-population-nears-40-million/amp/

Ummm.

Most of the population growth came from births, which outpaced deaths by 220,000. More people moved out of California than in from other U.S. states, but foreign immigration made up the difference. Total net migration added 80,000 people, according to the report by the Department of Finance.

From year ending mid 2017........ just saying. Births and foreign immigration made up a lot of the growth....

 

[1911_Kid]

the net # is not that important.

lets say 40k move out, folks that have been there for 20+ years, had great careers and still going, but because CA sucks so bad they move out.

now, 48k people move in, why? some think they might find gold, others think its cool to be able to buy pot in stores, some got new jobs that have uncertainty in terms of a career, some try to make it in hollywood, etc etc.

the meaning behind the why is more important than the net #.

so any argument that has "well, then why are so many people moving to CA..." in it is a very weak argument.

 

[WhyteP38]

Yep. And it demonstrates the slippery slope concept perfectly.

<snip>

I am worried about what might be next.

Based on the below, I'd say a more-complete gun owner database:

(b) Commencing July 1, 2019, an ammunition vendor shall electronically submit to the department the information required by subdivision (a) for all sales and transfers of ownership of ammunition. The department shall retain this information in a database to be known as the Ammunition Purchase Records File. This information shall remain confidential and may be used by the department and those entities specified in, and pursuant to, subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11105, through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, only for law enforcement purposes. The ammunition vendor shall not use, sell, disclose, or share such information for any other purpose other than the submission required by this subdivision without the express written consent of the purchaser or transferee.

As near as I can find, the CA DOJ could not retain DROS records for long gun purchases before 1/1/14, but can for such purchases after that date. I couldn't find anything regarding handguns. Regardless, if you purchased all of your firearms before the CA DOJ could retain DROS records, your purchases of ammo will now add you to the database.

The new bill mentions "only for law enforcement purposes." If a gun confiscation plan is implemented, the official confiscation of guns would be a "law enforcement purpose," and the database could be used to support it.

 

[1911_Kid]

well, be smarter than the system, pick one of many.

Joe buys a ton of 22lr but does not own any 22lr firearms. Mary buy a ton of 45acp but does not own any 45acp firearms.

how would that database of ammo purchases be used? to find the heavy buyers of ammo? to try and match what ammo you buy vs the firearms they have on file for you?

in CA, is me selling my ammo to my neighbor illegal?

 

[WhyteP38]

well, be smarter than the system, pick one of many.

Joe buys a ton of 22lr but does not own any 22lr firearms. Mary buy a ton of 45acp but does not own any 45acp firearms.

how would that database of ammo purchases be used? to find the heavy buyers of ammo? to try and match what ammo you buy vs the firearms they have on file for you??

All they need to know is that you purchased ammo. If the state passes confiscation legislation, that's all they need for reasonable suspicion that you possess at least one firearm. Doesn't matter how much ammo you buy or of what type or how many guns you own or what type of guns. For confiscation purposes, "ammo purchaser" is the functional equivalent of "gun owner," since the two naturally go together. Even if you're a licensed ammo vendor, there's most likely reasonable suspicion you possess at least one firearm, not to mention your days as an ammo vendor are most likely over.

in CA, is me selling my ammo to my neighbor illegal?

As of this month, yes, unless you are a licensed ammo vendor or conduct the sale through one:

30312. (a) Commencing January 1, 2018, the sale of ammunition by any party shall be conducted by or processed through a licensed ammunition vendor.
(2) When neither party to an ammunition sale is a licensed ammunition vendor, the seller shall deliver the ammunition to a vendor to process the transaction. The ammunition vendor shall then promptly and properly deliver the ammunition to the purchaser, if the sale is not prohibited, as if the ammunition were the vendor’s own merchandise. If the ammunition vendor cannot legally deliver the ammunition to the purchaser, the vendor shall forthwith return the ammunition to the seller. The ammunition vendor may charge the purchaser an administrative fee to process the transaction, in an amount to be set by the Department of Justice, in addition to any applicable fees that may be charged pursuant to the provisions of this title.

 

[1911_Kid]

ah, i forgot that, i had read that in the past. ok, so i am not selling it to my neighbor, i gave it to him, which is not a sale

Joe doesnt need to own any firearms to buy ammo
If Joe buys 500rnds/wk of 45acp but he doesnt own any firearms, does CA state police come asking questions?

now multiply Joe by 50,000 people who 1) dont own any firearms, 2) are not prohibited from buying ammo, 3) do it because they can resell it on black market for profit.

or will commiCA start to limit how much ammo one can buy?

for every 1million rnds that come in on trucks brought into CA to avoid this CA scam, maybe a truck/car or two with 10k rnds total get caught and seen on the news.


also, i dont for 1sec believe CA is protecting your data! i am confident that bad actors from outside the US can just "walk in" and take what they want.

 

[WhyteP38]

Joe doesnt need to own any firearms to buy ammo
If Joe buys 500rnds/wk of 45acp but he doesnt own any firearms, does CA state police come asking questions?

At present, the California government probably won't have any interest in how much he buys or whether or not it's for any guns he owns or doesn't own (although he might get the attention of law enforcement if his purchases fit any profiles of selling on the black market, which is an illegal activity). It's when a gun confiscation scenario comes up that Joe's purchases, whether he owns any guns or not, could cause him some problems.

If he had purchased ANY ammo that was entered into the database, reasonable suspicion exists that he possesses at least one firearm. That's all the state needs for it to investigate. Ammo possession is generally a reliable indicator of gun possession, since one without the other usually makes no sense. So if the state is serious about confiscating all guns, why wouldn't they investigate? Joe may be able to explain why he bought 500 rnds/wk of .45 ACP but doesn't own any firearms, but he'll probably do so while state agents search his home under a search warrant.

now multiply Joe by 50,000 people who 1) dont own any firearms, 2) are not prohibited from buying ammo,

I'm not saying it's a practical thing to do. Gun confiscation in the US would not be a smart or practical thing to do.

However, it is what the anti-2A movement dreams of doing someday, and there's no shortage of smarmy politicians who keep attempting to do it in one guise or another, and will continue to try. If most of us on this forum didn't believe so, the topic wouldn't come up as often as it does, if at all. Unfortunately, California is now politically such that it may try.

3) do it because they can resell it on black market for profit

Given that such black market activity in California is illegal, I would expect law enforcement to crack down on it when it's found.

or will commiCA start to limit how much ammo one can buy?

Given the gun-purchase and mag-capacity restrictions already in place, it wouldn't surprise me if California tried it (which is a separate matter from whether SCOTUS would uphold such restrictions after the inevitable lawsuits).