U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:29 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,085,846 times
Reputation: 4165

Advertisements

The article contains the usual misinformation and lies about the availability of ammunition, the results of a ban, etc. What did you expect?

It also curiously omits any mention of the political party of the legislator proposing the bill, and the mayor supporting it.

Yes, they're both Democrats. Looks like the paper didn't want you to know that.

--------------------------------------------------

Shootings Prompt New Gun Bill | NBC Bay Area

Shootings Prompt New Gun Bill
A new bill would restrict ammunition sales in California

by Marianne Favro
Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 | Updated 7:24 AM PST

The massacre in Newton, Conn., and other mass shootings have prompted for a call to curb gun violence.

California assembly member Nancy Skinner answered that call with a proposal to restrict ammunition sales in the state.

“2,800 people in California were killed last year by gunfire," Skinner said. "It is easier to buy bullets than cough medicine or alcohol. It should not be that easy. We need to have much more scrutiny when it comes to the purchase of guns."

Monday she unveiled Assembly Bill 48. It would require bullet buyers to show identification. It would also require ammunition dealers to be licensed and report all sales to the department of justice.

Emmeryville police chief Ken James supports the tighter restrictions.

”Right now you can buy bullets in any store and the sale is not recorded”, James said. "Gun violence will continue unless we control the sale of bullets."

Oakland mayor Jean Quan also said she supports the bill and that Oakland has seen too much gun violence and the changes may help.

The so-called "bullet bill" would also ban kits to convert ammunition clips into high-capacity magazines.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:40 AM
 
10,092 posts, read 7,626,990 times
Reputation: 3409
I don't see the problem. The NRA itself called for dealing with mental health issues as a way of addressing the issue. Part of that is to make sure that mentally ill people and criminals can't buy guns--it means stronger background checks for every gun purchase. The easiest way to make sure that guns aren't used by people who currently own them but can't pass a background check is to restrict their access to ammo. As far as high capacity mags go--the only reason you need one is for competition or to kill lots of people quickly--you can't legally hunt with them, and a 12 gauge shotgun would work better for home defense.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,067 posts, read 78,822,508 times
Reputation: 27669
That's the only way I can see a ban forced on guns.

Can't change the constitution but you can remove all the bullets from the shelves.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:44 AM
Status: "R.I.P. Science" (set 16 days ago)
 
39,061 posts, read 21,203,637 times
Reputation: 19360
I'm concerned about the DHS purchase of 450 million bullets, not what John Q Public purchases for his own use.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:45 AM
 
11,768 posts, read 9,493,208 times
Reputation: 3441
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
I don't see the problem. The NRA itself called for dealing with mental health issues as a way of addressing the issue. Part of that is to make sure that mentally ill people and criminals can't buy guns--it means stronger background checks for every gun purchase. The easiest way to make sure that guns aren't used by people who currently own them but can't pass a background check is to restrict their access to ammo.
How does that stop them from making it in their garage? Anyway, the same requirements that are in place for guns also cover ammo. It's not really enforced though, just ID.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,067 posts, read 78,822,508 times
Reputation: 27669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
I'm concerned about the DHS purchase of 450 million bullets, not what John Q Public purchases for his own use.
It's should concern you more that it was hollow point ammunition they purchased.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:51 AM
 
Location: SWUS
5,420 posts, read 8,565,933 times
Reputation: 5832
Because this is clearly going to stop people from committing criminal acts. Someone will just buy ammunition from somewhere else, or roll their own.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 10:52 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,085,846 times
Reputation: 4165
"Arms", that we have the right to keep and bear, obviously includes ammunition for them. Without ammo, guns aren't "arms" at all, they're just heavy toys.

This proposed bill is as unconstitutional as the rest.

(yawn)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 11:06 AM
 
Location: South Dakota
2,608 posts, read 1,953,881 times
Reputation: 769
These LWNJ's want to turn the US into Mexico...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2013, 11:17 AM
 
10,092 posts, read 7,626,990 times
Reputation: 3409
The hysteria isn't on the part of the people trying to pass the legislation--it's what I'm hearing from some of you. Sorry, but having to show your drivers license before you buy ammo isn't "taking your guns away." From the little I've read here about the legislation, they're not even requiring a background check for the ammo sale--just that it be recorded with ID. I personally think you should have to get some kind of licensing--comparable to a drivers license--to buy a gun or purchase ammo. That would in no way restrict your gun ownership rights unless you have a criminal record or some other reason that would cause you to fail a background check. If you can't pass the background check, you have no business owning a weapon to begin with. My family hunts, and this will absolutely NOT impact people like us. You're right--controlling ammo isn't going to stop every criminal, but it will stop some of them, and it will make it a lot more difficult for people who can't pass a background check--mentally ill people or criminals--to use the guns they already have. I think all gun sales should go through a licensed dealer and require a background check.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top