AB 962 passed in CA limiting handgun ammo purchase

Well, the governor signed AB 962

No more internet or mail order sales of handgun ammo in CA.

Local purchases will include-
· Obtain the buyer’s thumbprint.
· Record the buyer’s driver’s license information.
· Transaction records must be kept by retailer “for a period of not less than five years from the date of the recorded transfer.”
· Records “shall be subject to inspection at any time during normal business hours by any peace officer…

Cabelas will no longer ship any ammo to CA.
http://calnra.com/ http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m 9d24-Cabelas-No-more-ammunition-for-California

For those in California, better plan on stocking up for your
needs, especially if you have an odd caliber.

Wow...that means that MA will follow suit shortly...I may have to start going to NH to purchase ammo!

So prices in CA should increase while availability takes another hit. Nice.

Effective Feb 2011.

I'm into reloading instead. Raw bullets are not banned yet.

Rimfire ammo might be banned-can't reload those.

Cabela's may not ship your components
either.

I expect that this will instigate yet another run on ammo. Well, glad I got what I could while I could. Gonna be Springtime before they will have the shelves stocked again now.

Prices on firearms that use "rifle" ammunition can be expected to go up, as well.

Edited for the inevitable political opinion that enters into these threads.

Thanks Martin. I thought I was a bit over the top on that too and was coming back to delete it myself.

First, there is nothing about that in the 962 (AFAICT).

Second, the Cabela's is good, but not the best place to shop for reloading supplies.

And most importantly the 962 doesn't prevent Cabela's to ship ammo to a FFL of your choice. Sure that's a lot of a hassle to reorder the business for both, but still a legit excuse to rise prices.

Hmm. Maybe it's time for me to quit the IT business and open a gun shop?

Retailers already have to keep their records of gun purchases onhand and available for inspection, this will simply add a whole bunch of records to their files.

I'm thinking of some of the effects this will have on places like Bass Pro Shops, they have aisles of handgun ammunition in their stores, they're going to have to redesign their firearms department in order to put all of it behind a counter.

I'm also trying to figure out how long it will take for someone to challenge this legally, if someone hasn't already done so. I imagine the papers are already being delivered to a courthouse somewhere in the state.

Anyone happen to know the laws concerning ammunition purchases in Nevada and Utah by a non-resident?

I'm going to be traveling thru in a few weeks.

This would be Cabela's not wanting the hassle and liability.

They already have stated they won't ship RIFLE ammo even tho it
is a Handgun ammo law, they may not want to ship components
given CA description of what a "bullet" is in other legislation.

If Cabela's won't ship, whats to say midway, midsouth, powder
river etc. won't either.

There were no FFL's in my area that would do that sort of
sales for firearms because of the headache involved in just one lost shipment by UPS. Ammo could likely be the same.

In any case, expect prices to go up on reloading like they just
did in the last scare. I still can't find any Winchester
Large Rifle Primers to buy.

All this law will do is take more revenue out of the state and burden law abiding citizens. After 02/11 I imagine lots of people will be heading to Nevada and maybe Oregon for purchases. Unless it would also be illegal to own unregistered ammo? It also depends on how soon California officially declares bankrupcy and how desperate the state gets to collect revenue. If there's enough capital flight I imagine they may postpone the implimentation of the law somehow. I think state sovereignty issues will also be a major issue in the coming years so that could have an effect as well.

If we can find space to put you, I'm pretty sure the Burlington VT area will welcome a couple of dozen highly skilled ETSers. Heck, I'll even help to get you moved in!

Seriously, there is very little that I can say that wouldn't be political, but is a pretty good tactic if you can't ban firearms. Cabelas' might find themselves getting black balled by a lot of the community though.

Well, VT isnt too far a trip from the Peoples Republic of MA....if the laws get too strict, I am migrating!

And this law will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop crime. Awesome. All it will do is limit law-abiding citizens.

Man, Arnie has sure changed since his Terminator, Predator, True Lies days...

I am now compelled to remind all folks here that the inevitable gun/ammo discussion path is happening...I've already had to edit this thread once. Please don't make me lock it.

Don't jump on my case about this, and don't call me a "gun banner" - I'm life member of the NRA and ACLU. I'll defend your right to free speech with my guns, if needed. Just not here.

That out of the way....

1. It's not a BAN - so don't call it that. It's a severe restriction, but it's not a ban.
2. Laws can change. Typing about a law you don't like in this forum is entertainment. If you actually want to change the laws, you have to take the time and expend the energy to participate in the ugly mess that is, was and always will be politics. Writing letters, making phone calls, all of that stuff.
3. In a representative democracy, nobody gets all of what they want from the political process, but everybody at least gets some. The alternative is where some get all of what they want and the rest get none.

SO....

Assuming you're in CA, and assuming you have/want a handgun, getting ammo legally is going to be an issue from now on.

Stop [censored] about it.

First of all - to the members in CA -

a. What have you heard about how legal handgun ammo purchasing will be handled? Do you have more, accurate information?

b. Assuming that these restrictions stay in place, has anyone discussed how the role of the FFL dealer affects purchasing?

c. Are clubs and other organizations subject to this law?

Let's get some facts, and assuming that the law is in place, let's get some discussion on how/why this affects your personal preparedness.

If you want to talk about the politics of this law, by all means, do so. Elsewhere. Here, we discuss logistics and planning only.

Assuming the law stands and is not stricken by the courts, it seems fairly clear (once you get through all the deletions).

a. My internet purchases will no longer be available as a source. The retailers I do business with will need to move the cases of ammo they now keep out on the floor behind the counter. Don't know how they'll do that without renovations, but the cost will be passed on. Other than that I'll be able to buy cases of ammo, but will need to give a thumbprint and sign for it as stipulated in the law which means I'll be registering the ammo. Hmmm -- how does that work without serial numbers on the cartridges?

b./c. Don't know how this will effect the FFL or clubs, but the transfer of ammo requires paperwork be maintained which will add to the burden of paperwork they already hold.

(snipped content by moderator)

martinfocazio:

I have a hard time characterizing it as a "severe" or a "restriction".

It doesn't seem to keep anyone presently allowed to buy the ammunition from doing so.

For comparison try buying pseudoephedrine.

CalGuns foundation is working on it!
www.calguns.net People should donate in CA and not CA then it spreads

Maybe you missed the part where you can no longer buy online.

For people like me that requires 2 hours or MORE out of my day in hopes of getting ammo at wal-mart.

It is a severe restriction for many of us, maybe not you.

Keep in mind that's hoping I have a common caliber wal-mart has or they have it in stock (which has not been common the last 13 months).

Also it requires only FFL to sell ammo that further restricts WHO I can buy it from.. Wal-Mart may not even sell it anymore.

This is a HUGE restriction.

Pseudoephadrine means you go to the counter to buy it, ask for your name to put it in their book, and show them your license to prove you are over 18. Or if you are like me, they look at you and tell you how much you owe.

What california has done is make it easier to buy tobacco and alcohol than it is to buy ammunition.

This is going to require physical retailers to reorganize their physical layout, not just planograms, but actually making it so that you can not get to the ammunition.

This requires that the purchaser be finger printed by the staff. Ignoring the mess, it takes time. Your thinking "not that much time", but that is if the print works the first time. It takes practice to make a usable card, and often a couple of tries.
The information has to be stored as if a 4473.

Internet retailers have been told to sod off, they don't get to play.

As far as I can tell, there is no list of "handgun" calibers. This could be construed several ways. One is "ammunition commonly used in pistols", "ammunition that might be used in pistols even though there are a number of rifles that fire it", or "someone makes a pistol for it, this is pistol ammo". If that latter, becuase of the T/C Contender and Encore, that means everything up to the 30-06 class.

For people who don't have a drivers license, what other forms of ID will be accepted? Or are people who various medical reasons, or because a car is too much of a pain to maintain in the city, no longer worthy of buying pistol ammunition?

There seems to be no statement that this law will require only a DL number and thumb print. In fact, it seems kinda open ended. Given the creative interpretation of laws and powers seen by certain federal agencies, I have no doubt that california will in a few years require more than just this.


I have little doubt that chain retailers (Walmart, Dick's, Gander Mountain, et al) will decide this is too much of a hassle. If you can't ban something, just make it harder to sell and inconvenient to buy.

Content edit by moderator for technical foul in violation of Godwins Law

Sounds like an opportunity to me.
Ammo Delivery. No, I'm serious.

You know how the "Snap-On" tools trucks drive around to garages and stuff?

What's to say - under this law - that you could not have a mobile ammo shop? You could do a circuit - stop in location X in the morning, location Y in the afternoon - it's all legal and all that - and you don't "Order" ammo - you call them and ask if they "Stock" ammo - and if they don't, they say, "By the time we're in your area again, we expect to stock that."

Might be a bit expensive - and then again, maybe not. I haven't read the laws on selling ammo in CA, does this sound daft?

Oh Martin, I would expect such a venture to draw a heavy scrutiny from the constabulary. It would be a challenge to make the route when you are getting stopped every 10 minutes for a search and interrogation.

You actually have to conduct FFL related business (and since this new law requires only FFL holders to sell ammo it falls within that) @ the address on your FFL not anyplace else.

Thus you could not be mobile.

In CA they consider a handgun caliber anything that CAN be fired from a handgun. Obviously that's open to interpretation by each retailer. I know Wal-Mart "asks" when you buy .22LR if it's for a handgun or file... will they require more questions and checking or will ALL ammo that can be shot from a factory sold handgun be considered handgun ammo even if it is not normal (30-06,.223, etc) and 99% of time used in a rifle.

Who knows?!?!

I don't wanna go all constitutional here but there's no amendment to that document guaranteeing the right to own pseudoephidrine.

There are also alternative medications that a person can buy over the counter without providing any ID, not really the case with ammunition.

Oh well.

Humor sure makes the little moderating edits easier to take.

Thanks,

and thanks to M Godwin. I will use that one myself.

Well, let's try to keep this on track. The Constitution is rather deliberately open-ended, and the basic issues here have nothing to do with the "right to buy" anything in particular.

I'd also like to point out that I can come up with a rather long list of things that I buy that require me to provide ID:

1. Homes
2. Automobiles (well, really almost any motor vehicle that I plan to drive on a public road)
3. Certain medications
4. Explosives and certain fireworks
5. Mobile Telephone Service
6. Most Hotels

I'm sure I'm missing a lot.

The real issue here is that there's ample precedent for one state to ban the sale of X, Y or Z where it is legal in another state. Heck, I can't buy "good" fireworks here in PA, but there's a store right on the border - on the PA side - that will sell "good" fireworks to anyone who shows an out-of-state ID.

Severe ammunition restrictions are the nuclear option for those who would prefer to not have an armed populace.

That said - let us consider for a moment some of the more reasoned elements of the law.

First, is restricting physical access to ammo. Yeah, yeah, I know, reconstructing the store and all that. YOU are not a shoplifter. YOU are not likely to have stolen guns. YOU pay hard earned money for your guns and ammo. YOU are not the problem.

However, YOU are affected by the folks who can - and will - attempt to slip a box of ammo into a pocket because they are the kind of people who would do that. YOU are affected by the kinds of people who would shoot into a crowd just trying to hit the one person who did them wrong in a drug deal. YOU are affected by these people who might have gained access to a stolen gun but no ammo. Yes, it's criminalizing all of us, and yes, for people like ToddW, it's a major hardship. However, there has to be some means of managing the irresponsible, the dangerous, the (dare I say) Immoral access to firearms and ammunition by some people. It's an over-reaching law, by a lot, however, I can see the emotions that led to it and why it passed.

I would politely disagree, it's entirely about one of the most basic issues in the constitution. It's not about a "right to buy" it's about the right to bear.

There is a specific constitutional amendment regarding the rights of the people to bear arms, some would argue that that right would include relatively unfettered access to ammunition.

There is no constitutional provision or amendment that addresses the peoples right to buy specific medications, fireworks, automobiles, homes, groceries, toys, etc. I would submit that if there was a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the people the right to own/buy pseudoephidrine and a state took it upon itself to aggressively moderate the people's ability to do so as this bill does with ammunition, that would then become a constitutional issue.

If a store is having it's inventory stolen, shouldn't the steps taken to alleviate that be their responsibility, not the government's?

There is nothing in the written versions of this bill that addresses shoplifting that I've seen. There is nothing in it that addresses the issue of stolen ammunition being a problem in the first place. One might assume that if having ammunition stolen were such a problem that the retailers would take the steps they felt necessary to try and stop it themselves. The fact that a lot of stores have ammunition sitting on shelves accessible to the public leads me to think that having it stolen isn't a major concern. If the bill in question was about helping to stop the theft of ammunition, why then is it limited to ammunition used in pistols? Seems to me that if a person was of a mind to steal ammunition in the first place, they'd steal whatever they can get their hands on. I'd submit that using the theft of ammunition as a reason why this bill is important is an attempt to throw sand in the bulls eyes, as I think Plato said of rhetoric.

Until that argument goes all the way to the Supreme court, you'll have stuff like this going on.



OK, without "sand in the eyes" and all that, let me take you through the thinking of this legislation. I don't like it at all, however, I do have the ability to see more than one side to an argument - it helps you understand why and how to disagree if you fully understand what the other argument is all about.


Let's assume three things.
1) You have a non-law abiding citizen who has a gun. OK, they are a criminal, we know that and they should not have the gun in the first place. See sentence one.

2) Let's also assume that you have a place with a quantity of ammunition suitable for a variety of weapons of many kinds. Let's call this place a gun shop, but it could be a Wal-Mart or a bait shop, depending on where you are in the USA.

3) Let's assume that this non-law abiding person has access to ample quantities of cash, from any number of sources, none legal.

Now, when you or I buy a gun, we fill out the form, we do the background check, and we get our gun. No big deal. I do it all the time.
Every year, there's a list of ding-dongs who have criminal records who get caught with this trivial step. I find the whole process a little silly, but what it does it it keeps those who definitely can't buy a gun (legally) out of the stores (and onto the streets, which is a whole bigger issue that we should not take up here).

Now the same guy comes into the store, a place where if he was to try to buy any guns, he'd trip the background check...but he wants to buy 1,000 rounds of .45 ACP. Forget stealing it - he wants to buy it. What, exactly, does a guy who is not legally able to own or handle a gun need 1,000 rounds of ammo for?

And that's the path of reasoning that led to this law.

Now, the problem is, of course, that they really aren't concerned in the least with people who are legally buying ammo for their hobby, for their club, or for their personal self-defense.

While this is a defective law, the logic behind it is consistent.

There must be better ways to get to the same ends - reducing ammo getting to people who should not need it.