California's new ammunition law takes effect July 1st (purchasing, professionals)

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by ysr_racer

In another quirk of fate, the CA DOJ wants all residents to have a federally compliant Real ID driver's license to purchase ammo.

Seems giving out CA driver's licenses to every Tom, Dick, or Jose that wandered across our southern border, might have far reaching implications. I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya.

So you support the right to self-defense, but not if the person has brown skin?

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

But, if you have family driving over they can bring you all you want. Ridiculous.

I think you'll find that to be a federal crime. Of course, you have to get caught. But still illegal.

But that's part of the problem that places like Chicago have. Other places have less restrictive laws, and people can drive in however many guns or however much ammo they want from other states.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

The issue is not the $1 tax. It's the fact that State of California will have a record of what you bought and the quantity you bought.

Look, we don't want felons to buy firearms or ammo. Felons are NOT responsible gun owners. Those would be "bad guys with guns" rather than "good guys with guns". The only way to verify that you are not a felon is to run your name through a database and verify it. In theory your name could then be recorded.

It's no different than how we need to track who says "nuclear weapon". So, necessarily, some computer is scanning the network looking for that. If it gets hits, it keeps a log, I would assume.

But it's never going to be illegal to say "nuclear weapon", nor will it ever be illegal to buy "a" type of firearm, because both prohibitions would be illegal under the Constitution.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

What if there's incorrect entry to the DOJ AFS? There are over 1 million gun purchases annually in California and mistakes happened. Now there is "mismatch" between the ammo you buy and the calibers you own. That will trigger a warning to the DOJ.

That's why we have a separate branch of government, with equal power, called "the judicial branch". I hate to break it to you, but there is more to the US Constitution than the 2nd Amendment, my friend.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by ysr_racer

I've got a gun room full of guns, making me wait ten days seems silly.

Well, that's not the point of it.

The point is, if you want to go kill your wife, so you go buy a gun and kill her the same night. Presumably the 10 day waiting period is an obstacle which either prevents that or makes it less likely.

Oh and ysr_racer, you saw the post where I said I was a submariner in the US Navy, right? I've seen far larger collections of firearms than that. Guns don't scare me. There was a time when they did...but now I have some experience with them. I'm still on the gun control side, but I'm not a fanatic about it, like when I was younger.

I agree with people who say that a lot of gun control fanaticism comes from people who have no familiarity with firearms. But I'm not one of those people. I've shot pistols, semi-automatic rifles and fully automatic rifles. I've stood watch holding them, loaded with a round in the chamber. I'm really not afraid of them. I just have no use for them, because I learned how to fight. But I understand there are those who can't fight with their body, for whatever reason, and therefore need a weapon for self-defense. I agree that humans have a natural right to self-defense and therefore I support the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as an individual right. But the State (meaning California or the federal government) has a compelling interest to promote and protect public safety, so they can impose reasonable restrictions on it, just as they do with every. other. right. we. have.

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Look, we don't want felons to buy firearms or ammo. Felons are NOT responsible gun owners. Those would be "bad guys with guns" rather than "good guys with guns". The only way to verify that you are not a felon is to run your name through a database and verify it. In theory your name could then be recorded.

It's no different than how we need to track who says "nuclear weapon". So, necessarily, some computer is scanning the network looking for that. If it gets hits, it keeps a log, I would assume.

But it's never going to be illegal to say "nuclear weapon", nor will it ever be illegal to buy "a" type of firearm, because both prohibitions would be illegal under the Constitution.

Spoken like a true bleeding heart liberal.

In the name of "we want to make sure you are not this", you strip away our individual rights to privacy, give the government more power to monitor & control private citizens behavior. Putting up one bureaucracy after another to blatantly blocking our constitutional rights. You, on the other hand, are willing to give up individual rights in order to feel protected by the State.

We will just have to agree to disagree. This is not what I want my government to do. I do not want a nanny State where it wants to control everything in the name of protecting a minority of victims. I do not want my government to assume I am an idiot and need its "protection" from all evils in the world. Most of all, I do not want my government to tell me how to live, the least of all; how to think.

I will be ordering several more thousand rounds of ammo as a symbolic gesture of my middle finger to the State of California on this issue.

[ysr_racer]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

So you support the right to self-defense, but not if the person has brown skin?

I couldn't care less about the color of some one's skin color, or their right to self defense. People that break the law, should be rewarded with driver's licenses.

Lots of people came here legally, my grandparents, my wife, my in-laws, it's not that difficult to follow the rules.

You need a Real ID to buy ammo, but nothing to vote? Only in California.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Look, we don't want felons to buy firearms or ammo. Felons are NOT responsible gun owners. Those would be "bad guys with guns" rather than "good guys with guns". The only way to verify that you are not a felon is to run your name through a database and verify it. In theory your name could then be recorded.

It's no different than how we need to track who says "nuclear weapon". So, necessarily, some computer is scanning the network looking for that. If it gets hits, it keeps a log, I would assume.

But it's never going to be illegal to say "nuclear weapon", nor will it ever be illegal to buy "a" type of firearm, because both prohibitions would be illegal under the Constitution.

You either get the "FACT" that this won't stop a felon from getting a gun or ammo or you don't. All the nonsense about how many guns you've touched means zero.

We already have laws to punish felons after the fact. We don't need more that impact the people not breaking the law to begin with.


That's about as simple as it gets. In summary people like you just dig it that gun owners are being hosed because you don't want to have one. We get that loud and clear.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Well, that's not the point of it.

The point is, if you want to go kill your wife, so you go buy a gun and kill her the same night. Presumably the 10 day waiting period is an obstacle which either prevents that or makes it less likely.

Oh and ysr_racer, you saw the post where I said I was a submariner in the US Navy, right? I've seen far larger collections of firearms than that. Guns don't scare me. There was a time when they did...but now I have some experience with them. I'm still on the gun control side, but I'm not a fanatic about it, like when I was younger.

I agree with people who say that a lot of gun control fanaticism comes from people who have no familiarity with firearms. But I'm not one of those people. I've shot pistols, semi-automatic rifles and fully automatic rifles. I've stood watch holding them, loaded with a round in the chamber. I'm really not afraid of them. I just have no use for them, because I learned how to fight. But I understand there are those who can't fight with their body, for whatever reason, and therefore need a weapon for self-defense. I agree that humans have a natural right to self-defense and therefore I support the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as an individual right. But the State (meaning California or the federal government) has a compelling interest to promote and protect public safety, so they can impose reasonable restrictions on it, just as they do with every. other. right. we. have.

Yet the woman can't go buy one to save herself. One on one with no weapons who do you think wins that one? The gun is the equalizer. You keep crowing about your self defense skills. How is a 100 lb woman to defend herself from you? That's pretty high and mighty of those like yourself to keep her from her own self defense.

[Kevroqs]

Since California is shaped like a high capacity magazine, they should ban themselves too.