19 June 2009

When You Can't Ban Guns, Restrict Access To Ammunition

California is on the verge of doing it. Restricting access to ammunition since state and local banners keep losing in the courts system.

So now we are at Dateline Sacramento .... The State Assembly (sort of a House of Representatives) has passed Assembly Bill 962, by a vote of 42-31. AB 962 now heads to the state Senate, where it has been assigned to the Senate Public Safety Committee. The bill would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month.

Sponsored by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), the bill, if passed into law, would require ammunition retailers to be licensed, and dealers would be required to store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers.

Further, the bill would also require ammunition purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Additionally, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

Bottom line: The bill would essentially criminalize the transfer of one box of ammunition to even a family member or friend, unless you are registered as a "handgun ammunition vendor" in the Department of Justice's database.
This from a man who thinks its okay to trample on access to self defense tools by law-abiding citizens, but feels it necessary to apologize for past discrimination against Chinese in California. Who will apologize to current citizens for this blatant restriction? Making lawful Californians jump through hoops to make political points?
Assemblyman de Leon is one of a handful of useful idiots. Tools of the control freaks.


BobG said...

About all the law would do is generate a huge black market for bootleg out-of-state ammo. Someone could make a good killing just bringing in bricks of 22's.
The author of the bill is a complete and utter idiot, which is probably why he went into politics.

Old Easterner said...

Historians will note that CA had a ammunition registration law a coupel decades ago. I don't recall whether sellers were licensed, but they were required to keep a log with buyers' ID for each sale by caliber and quantity.

Even in CA it became obvious that the whole excersize was a waste of time as far as crime prevention, and it was replealed.

But, as a means to harass those who would own guns and would use them legally, it is very effective.

Brent Greer said...

OE, thanks for writing.

It's even worse in California. Some years back a measure was enacted at the behest of the then state attorney general, to require the registration of all competition rifles -- the Brady Campaign calls them "assault weapons." Anyway, the measure was pushed through with assurances that he had no plans to collect them...the state just wanted to know where they were.

The next attorney general elected to succeed the first gentleman thought registration was a good idea also. But he disagreed with letting them stay in private hands. And within a couple years he had pushed through measures to require that they be turned in, if you owned them. So registration does indeed lead to confiscation. If not not, later....