Wednesday, March 11, 2009

AB 962 - Internet Ammunition Sales to be Made Illegal?

Will purchases of ammunition over the Internet become illegal in this state? It certainly seems so if Assembly Bill 962 becomes law.

What this law proposes is, after July 1 2010, to make sales of handgun ammunition regulated. They would have to occur in a face-to-face transaction, and certain information would have to be collected by the vendor, and records maintained by the vendor.

Vendors would also have to obtain a license to sell handgun ammunition.

Information to be collected are

(3) Commencing July 1, 2010, a vendor shall not sell or otherwise
transfer ownership of any handgun ammunition without at the time of
delivery legibly recording the following information on a form that
is in a format to be prescribed by the department:
(A) The date of the sale or other transaction.
(B) The purchaser's or transferee's driver's license or other
identification number and the state in which it was issued.
(C) The brand, type, and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise
transferred.
(D) The purchaser's or transferee's signature.
(E) The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or other
transaction.
(F) The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee on the
above form.
(G) The purchaser's or transferee's full residential address and
telephone number.
(H) The purchaser's or transferee's date of birth.
The bill also states that the transaction must be made face-to-face:

SEC. 6. Section 12318 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12318. (a) Commencing July 1, 2010, the sale or other transfer of
ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face
transaction with the seller or transferor being provided bona fide
evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee.

It seems to me that these requirements would make sales of ammunition over the internet illegal, even though such sales are not specifically mentioned in the bill. It is certain that at a minimum this will cause the price of ammunition to rise even further, and probably not make a dent in crime, since a black market in ammunition will undoubtedly arise.

The authors of this bill are Kevin De Leon (D - 45th District) and Bonnie Lowenthal (D - 54th District).

This bill is scheduled to be read in committee on March 29th, 2009, and it would seem to be one we need to keep an eye on.

45 comments:

Ed said...

How about reloading your own ammo, is that next? Are we living in 1933 Germany or what?

Anonymous said...

Ed. Shhhhhh. Quiet please. We don't want them attacking that next.

Anonymous said...

god damnit I hate this state

Anonymous said...

i hate the worthless politians constantly trying to justify their existence by passing ridiculous laws. let's make it easier for the criminals to have full run of the place, forget about protecting yourself and your family

Anonymous said...

If you want to run around 'protecting yourself' with handguns move to a new state. Any step towards making the ownership illegal or further regulated is in the right direction.

Anonymous said...

You know, it's funny. Back when I was a dumb 17-year-old kid, I rarely recall having much trouble finding someone to buy me alcohol and cigarettes.

Is it really going to be that difficult for a criminal to find someone with a clean record to buy them ammunition? Or simply cross state lines to make their purchases?

The only thing that this law does is to harass law-abiding sportsmen. Criminals don't follow any of the other gun laws on the books and they won't follow this one.

Anonymous said...

Funny how both of these Assembly 'people' are from the Metro LA Area. You gotta love how San Fran and LA run this state. Makes Nevada look more promising every day.

Anonymous said...

There is little credible evidence that any of the gun control regulations in the United States have resulted in a reduction of gun related homicides or reductions in gun related crime versus what would otherwise be the case. The effectiveness of such laws is usually measured by how many firearm sales are stopped, or weapons confiscated, which is tenuous evidence at best, and virtually no evidence of a reduction of crime or any cause-and-effect relationship between the frequency of gun ownership and the crime rate. In fact, gun ownership is often higher in areas with lower violent crime rates. Much of the anti-gun propaganda is unfounded at best, and in some cases could be used as classic examples of how to lie with statistics. For example, the blood bath that anti-gun proponents claimed would ensue in states with right-to-carry laws never materialized. None of them ever came back and admitted that they were complete wrong. Being accurate was never part of the process for the anti-firearms propagandists. The burden of proof appears reversed from what one would reasonably expect when debating new legislation. Rather than an unfounded assumption that any gun control laws are worthwhile and will result in a reduction of crime unless proven otherwise, proponents should be required to show that these laws will actually have a beneficial effect rather than being just a lot more worthless politically-motivated symbolism.

Anonymous said...

By the way, AB 962 is on Arnie's desk awaiting his signature (or veto). Probably should send him an e-mail respectfully asking him to veto this worthless piece-of-crap.

Anonymous said...

Just emailed Arnold. This bill is ridiculous. As many have said, the criminals don't care about new gun laws! They'll break those laws, too! That's what makes them criminals! What is this state coming to...

Anonymous said...

I am insulted by the ignorance of some people. I am a White 42-year old professional woman here in California. GUNS DON'T KILL, THE PEOPLE USING THEM DO. It will not make a difference if ammo internet sales are banned & we are required to only make face to face purchases of ammo. A gun is an inanimate object, duh. Whether ammo is purchased face to face or via the internet makes no difference. It takes a human being to place those bullets in a gun. My sister was murdered with a handgun in 2001. Am I angry with the gun or bullets that killed her? Hell no. I am angry at the cowardly son of a bitch that killed her then killed himself. Should have done himself in & left her alone. Do you not realize that any gun or ammo regulation we subject ourselves to is taking away another piece of the freedom we enjoy here in the USA our forefathers fought so hard for? The criminals will always find a way to get guns & ammo & you will be left with no way to defend yourself. Try living in other countries & see how you like it. I bet the good ol' USA would be quite appealing to you then. You wouldn't care about the lack of gun control or ammo laws then.

Anonymous said...

One of the excuses they use to try to push AB 962 is to be able to track and run down Gang members.
WHAT A CROCK!!!
They can't even control the ones in Prison, example: Mexican Mafia
This is a total oppressive move by the Socialist/Commie politicians.
CALL ARNOLD 916-445-2841
Tell him VETO!!!

Anonymous said...

More gun control masquerading as crime control. Yep. Another gun control measure that will surely cut down on street gang violence........NOT!

Anonymous said...

I urge you to email AND give Arnie a call (916) 445-2841 or fax (916) 558-3160. It's easy, just follow the voice prompts it takes 1 min and you can voice your opinion on this crazy bill. Press 2 to oppose/veto.

Anonymous said...

I am sick and tired of the LA Asshole politicians making useless laws that doesn't do a damn thing but affect law abiding citizens. Don't they realize it will not stop crime. They are criminals they don't go to the store and purchace bullets or guns. Please everyone pray for a earth quake and wipe LA off the map.

Anonymous said...

I want to leave a question for all of you to seriously answer with out being rude...I seriously want to know what you think!!! If we just forget about trying to regulate anything with guns, basically...let you do whatever you want...zero laws. How do you think this world would be? It is already pretty bad...so, without any gun laws..do you not think this world would get worse? Imagine...now, at least some laws may seem rediculous but at least it is trying & maybe working somewhat to stop more crime/violence/death. I would rather see people trying to help with the guns/ammo getting into the wrong hands then to see no one doing a thing. I really think if we did not at least try...rather it works or not....I would rather see them trying then see myself caring a gun every where I go to protect myself. If you think about it, people say they need them to protect theirselves. How often do you use it when your being robbed, your house broken into? You don't here people are dying because they had to pull a gun to protect themselves. You hear about how a gun killed an innocent person because they were in a gang, use it to rob, use it to kill a significant other....these are the people that need to be stopped and without laws...this will get worse. Bottom line....don't knock them for trying,instead...if you have better worthwhile ways to stop it then come forward. Believe me...my son was killed being robbed and you know what....I spend every day thinking how could we control these guns in the wrong hands of people who are misusing them and I can't come up with an answer. But, when I hear people upset and mad at laws...I think instead of being mad...help find a solution, because I should be mad but instead I want a solution. So, to all of you bickering and complaining....help find a way!!! Stop & think we all hate rules and laws. We all know some are ridiculous but...we do need boundries to keep the world at least half way good. Without laws/rules just imagine what we would live in. I get scared just to think of how crazy this world could get. Just listen sometimes...and find ways! That is all I am saying.....Thanks! Much Love

Anonymous said...

Very few people, even ardent gun enthusiasts, claim there should be no gun laws. But the sort of laws I think are appropriate should be more along the lines of safety laws similar to those that regulate automobiles. The analogy with automobiles is actually pretty illustrative of the point. Automobiles are useful in the right hands, dangerous and deadly in the wrong hands. Automobiles kill far more people than firearms - something like 50,000 per year in the US. We don't seek to deny the use of automobiles to safe drivers just because a small number of drivers are unsafe. To do so is to, in effect, treat everybody like a criminal because a few people choose to be criminals. Instead, we try to identify and either counsel or punish unsafe drivers. There is always going to be a trade-off between freedom and safety. Most people understand the risk to life and limb and can live with that regarding their automobiles. Likewise, gun owners can live with the risks associated with responsible firearms ownership. Gun laws should be directed toward firearms safety and prevention - not denial of firearms to the safe and the law abiding. The gun owners on this thread get upset and blow off steam because we get frustrated and feel oppressed. But most of us are willing to discuss the subject fairly and objectively if our political leaders are willing to listen.

artdyke said...

I don't understand what there is to be against in this bill. Is it really that big of a deal to drive to the store to buy ammo? Sure you can debate how effective this will be at helping control ammo sales and prosecuting crime, but the bottom line is, does it really abridge our gun rights? Apparently not: all you have to do is present a driver's license, and you can still buy all the ammo you want, so why be against it?

Anonymous said...

These folks did a bang up job (pardon the pun) summarizing the effects of gun control legislation. Bottom line, you can't legislate away criminal behavior or gun-violence. It has been tried ad naseum over and over again, it does not work:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Anonymous said...

If all law abiding citizens were allowed to carry guns then crime would drop significantly. People in cities think its no big deal to drive to the store to get ammo, what about those who live in the mountains? The ones who are lucky if they can drive to town once a month? If your son had a CCW he might still be here.

Anonymous said...

In response to, "Is it really that big of a deal to drive to the store to buy ammo?" You obviously haven't been to a gun store lately for ammo. They are quickly running out of ammo from all the people trying to stock up anticipating this bill. Also, requiring businesses to be licensed, currently there is no licencing process which leaves a large grey area in legality for businesses currently selling ammo. In one extreme scenario, this bill has the potential to cut off ammunition ownership completely in CA (depending on licencing requirements), and in a more realistic scenario, you will be waiting at least 2-3 weeks before you can buy ammo because of the demand, that is the situation already for the most common types of ammo and why internet sales are so important in this. Internet sales allows people to buy ammo even when the local stores are sold out (which they are). More to the point, all ammunition sales over the internet already require a +18 or +21 (depending on the type of ammo) signature on delivery and cannot be left on a porch, it is already a face to face transaction. It is a sneaky and redundant way to "abridge our gun rights" which we certainly could do without especially with our budget the way it is.

artdyke said...

Look, I am definitely pro-gun-rights, but you guys are just making us look paranoid. I have lived an hour from town, but you know what? I can't imagine any scenario in which I would go through all my ammo before I'd be able to take another trip to the store. Let's be realistic. And internet suppliers are just as prone to running out of stock for high-demand products as brick-and-morter stores are (just ask anyone who tried to buy a Nintendo Wii during the first year it was out). In any case, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and I don't feel threatened by having to show my friggin driver's license to buy ammo. I think we'd get further in the cultural debate on this issue if we were all a little less knee-jerk about things that don't *actually* abridge our rights.

Anonymous said...

The last comments don't appear paranoid to me, it's the status quo. If you call your local big 5, you will most likely be told that the ammo is sold out, I was but was able to get ammo within the week from another store (restricted to 50 rounds because of supply). In the case of the Wii, that is a single sourced product (Nintendo) that for a short time on release had a very large demand. Ammo has many suppliers even at a single internet site but allow a much wider search of suppliers which is it's appeal for both legitimate and criminal parties. As mentioned before, internet sales, because of the nature of the contents, already require a presentation of a drivers licence or ID to verify age (maybe not identity) but in either case, I think the point was relevant, its redundant and ineffective regulation. A far better way would be a criminal database for violent crimes offenders which would be required to be checked for all sales in CA (even internet), which they are saying might happen. That should be the target of the bill, not a by-product of it. But the law makers are not targeting criminals and I think that's why many people are upset. I would propose that similar restrictions for felons (as far as guns go) be applied to all violent crimes perps, even domestic abuse cases. Many people seem upset because our politicians these days are not coming up with ideas that apply critical thinking to solve the problems and the rest of us cant practically do it for them.

Anonymous said...

The problem with AB962 is that it will also limit you to 50 rounds a month (unless this provision was dropped at the last minute). I don't expect that this would harm a person who just wants enough for protection or harm the criminal who just wants to rob a few places a month. Who it will hurt is anyone who does any type of shooting competition. An average shooting match will consume about 150 rounds. The matches in my shooting sport are monthly. The 50 round limit might cut me short a bit.It will also severely hamper a new gun owner from practicing to become safe (I thought we wanted that). In short, I don't mind gun laws that actually target the criminal misuse of a firearm. I do mind laws that seen to target and harass the average honest citizen shooter. Thanks

artdyke said...

ok, the 50 round limit is some bullshit. This should definitely be emphasized.

Anonymous said...

No gun control in Canada ....... low murder rate

Guns are illegal in Mexico ....... duh!

Poverty and drug trade are the reasons for violence. Not ammo.

Anonymous said...

The pro-ammo-restriction arguments seem to go like this: IF it could reduce crime, then gun owners should be willing to make the small sacrafice of limitations on their ammo availability. My attitude is [1] the proposed law must FIRST demonstrate that it WILL provide the benefit claimed [2] ONLY THEN do we move on to the discussion of costs and problems imposed on gun owners. There is NO credible evidence (other than histrionic anti-gun propaganda) that the ammo restrictions will reduce crime. I don't even want to discuss how much of a problem it is to have my access to ammo restricted until it can be shown that there is something to be gained. Even a small sacrifice is not justified in this case - and the magnitude of that sacrifice is arguable as well, since most of those against firearms ownership don't really care and will soft-peddle the impact on gun owners of any restrictions as no big deal.

Anonymous said...

In the case of the California legislature, the paranoia is justified. They aren't interested in reasonable gun laws (even though they call every one they propose "reasonable"). Case in point: The ban on 50 caliber rifles, even though there is no record of a 50 caliber rifle being used in a violent crime. What was the benefit of this law? Look, we reduced the level of crime with 50 caliber rifles from zero, to....er....zero. When was the last time anybody held up a liquor store with an elephant gun? But that didn't stop the inane propaganda in the media regarding terrorists shooting at planes (yeh, like this law will keep Osama from getting big guns), shooting at police (never happened), etc. The same nitwits who crafted this anti-gun drivel are at it again. If they were reasonable, I wouldn't be so worried.

Anonymous said...

As i always say you want to see what happens to crime when you do not make so many gun laws, look to Texas! just about everyone carry's out there and there crime rate is nothing like Cali's, if you didnt get the point yet its simple, if you think i am armed your probly not gonna shoot at me or hold me up since i might just shoot back.

Anonymous said...

Don't ban firearms. Legalize some of the narcotics that fuel the illegal drug trade and finance the violence. During Prohibition, Al Capone funded a criminal empire with black-market alcohol. Alcohol is legal now, and it funds little (if any) organized crime, and produces big tax revenue. Lucky that the idiots who promoted prohibition couldn't sell the argument that Prohibition wasn't the cause of the violence, it was access to firearms that produced the likes of Al Copone. The earlier post was right on: Small illegal narcotics trade in Canada - Low Crime; Big illegal narcotics trade in Mexico - High Crime.

Anonymous said...

What is going on limiting sales of ammunition to 50 rnds. per month. I mean come on how many rnds. does it take to kill someone. 1,2, or possibly 3. It sounds like a Black market will open up, selling amunition to people willing to buy withing the state, state to state, or even reloads, which in the future could be worth a small fortune. THINK ABOUT IT ARNOLD, DO ONE THING RIGHT IN YOUR OFFICE AS A SWARN REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!


HEAR THIS MY FRENDS FOR IT IS TRUE!!!!

Jeff said...

How about capital punishment for those who use guns in a crime? Wouldn't that stop gun violence and allow me, to still have the freedom my forefathers died for?

Anonymous said...

He signed the bill. AB962 is law. What a jackass.

Anonymous said...

How bout we all wake up and smell the rot. This has nothing to do with crime. Crime goes down when the public is armed. Politicians want crime. Crime means scared public, and scared public means more excuses to raise taxes, claiming it's for police. This is about control.
Politicians are convinced they are in charge of us. We're becoming and Oligarchy.
And yes, we are becoming a 1933 Germany. Question is what's next.

Anonymous said...

Why don't these moronic liberal legislators work on fixing REAL California problems like, oh, maybe the BUDGET and water for production of food instead of hacking away at our rights.

The Govenator should not be allowed to affiliate himself with the Republican party or conservatives after his shameful act of signing AB 962.

Color me TOTALLY DISGUSTED!!

Anonymous said...

First I am pissted at the spineless moron who wrote the bill. Second Arnold just showed what type of sheep he really is. Us folks who live in rural areas, will have a snow balls chance in hell finding any ammo once we drive an hour to the closest gun store. AB 962 should be rolled up real tight and shoved up the authors backside.
All mail order including reloading components now illegal... BS!

Anonymous said...

Those of us living in the free states offer our condolences. This bill is garbage and you should all be infuriated.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have any tar and feathers?

Doug said...

Well its here! Now what? There is a law enforcement exception. Just have your friend the cop buy you some ammo.

Prog Talker said...

Thank the Retardicans who allowed this to happen. De Leon may have authored the bill, but it was the Retardicans who approved it. Oh, who approved the assault rifle ban in Ca? Davis? No Wilson. Who raised taxes in Ca? Davis? No, Wilson, Deukmejian and Schwarzenegger. Who singned to law A.B. 962? Wait, Davis was impeached. The Brady Bill? Seems like the Republican Party has been taken over by a bunch of Retards, and you people voted for them.

SE said...

artdyke said...

Look, I am definitely pro-gun-rights, but you guys are just making us look paranoid.

Just another useless, pro-state troll.

artdyke said...

Just another useless, pro-state troll.

...who can probably shoot better than you. Please.

Anonymous said...

Really Artdyke? I doubt it because you never practice. How do I know? Because you never run out of ammo. I shoot 200 to 250 rounds a week. In different calibers. How am I supposed to do that when I am limited to 50 rounds a month? You are a state Troll or just a phoney.

TheReverend said...

if you are a law abiding citizen why do you really care if they ask for your thumbprint, they got it when they sold you the gun...if it deters 1 person from getting ammo that may use it in a crime then it has done it's job

Anonymous said...

The problem with having to give up our finger print every time we want to buy a product, is that we, the law abiding citizens, are getting treated like criminals.

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

Furthermore, the whole thing of "if it saves one life...", if you are really that concerned about saving lives, then lets outlaw cars, the biggest killer in the country. We could also get rid of the 4th amendment, that way the police can search every home for illegal activity whenever they want. And let’s not forget the 5th amendment! We could also get rid of the 14th amendment and that whole due process thing; we would be able to get the criminals in jail that much faster and not have to worry about judges, juries, lawyers…fairness.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And if passing laws to make it harder to obtain certain items, or making them illegal altogether, creates a safer more crime free world, then why don't we make murder, rape and narcotics illegal; look at all the lives we would save there. What? Those things are already illegal? Damn, laws are perfect and work wonderfully to prevent people that are determined to do bad things, from doing bad things.

One final quote and I'll leave you all be.

"Dangerous laws created by well intentioned people today can be used by dangerous people with evil intentions tomorrow.”
Alan Eppers