2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: MMM on June 14, 2013, 10:53:18 AM
-
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2013/06/13/breaking-california-passes-ammo-permit-fee/ (http://www.offthegridnews.com/2013/06/13/breaking-california-passes-ammo-permit-fee/)
disturbing.....you need a permit for every purchase and they'll do a background check right there and then at time of purchase. they'll also track you if you reach 3000 rds of ammo. wow!
:shake: :shake: :shake:
-
I wonder if you can trade or buy/sell privately without the infringement?
-
I guess they never heard of reloading.
Or the black market.
Nice work, Cali! Now ammo is more expensive for good guys than bad guys. :thumbsup:
-
This is terrible!
-
It hasn't been passed yet. So hopefully it gets shot down.
-
Taxation wthout representation again!
also an attack on the LAW ABIDING
-
And how are they supposed to track 3000 rounds? Just 3000 sounds like a good weekend to me!
They do know ammunition gets expended, right?
-
This is what happens when liberals take over a state.
-
I hope Hawaii doesn't get any ideas, cause you know, _everyone else is doing it. "
-
Thats nuts! especially that bill in Florida.....WTF
-
I guess they never heard of reloading.
Or the black market.
Nice work, Cali! Now ammo is more expensive for good guys than bad guys. :thumbsup:
Ah yes, the black market will step in with a smile. Just a drive across the border to Nevada or Oregon.
Millions to be made.
-
1 more step forward for tyranny, 2 more steps backward for mankind....... :thumbsup:
-
Not a law yet..
-
I'm sure neighboring Nevada has no problem selling ammo to Cali residents without such requirements...
-
I share the same outrage and disgust over ridiculous laws that only punish the law abiding. But before we all get militant about we should properly vet the information and source...
The latest revision of bill section in question:
California SB-53
Article 4. Ammunition Purchase Authorizations
30370. (a) (1) Commencing on January 1, 2017, any person who is a resident of this state and who is 18 years of age or older may apply to the department for an ammunition purchase authorization.
(2) The ammunition purchase authorization shall entitle the authorized person to purchase ammunition from an ammunition vendor as that term is defined in Section 16663 and shall have no other force or effect.
(3) For purposes of this article, “ammunition” does not include blanks.
(b) The department shall issue an ammunition purchase authorization to the applicant if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The applicant is 18 years of age or older.
(2) The applicant is not prohibited from acquiring or possessing ammunition by the laws of this state.
(3) The applicant pays the fees set forth in subdivision (i).
(c) (1) Upon receipt of an application, the department shall examine its records and is authorized to request records from the State Department of State Hospitals, pursuant to Section 8104 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and if authorized, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as described in Section 922(t) of Title 18 of the United States Code, in order to determine if the applicant is prohibited from possessing or acquiring ammunition.
(2) The applicant shall be approved or denied within 30 days of the date of the application. If the application is denied, the department shall state the reasons for doing so and provide the applicant an appeal process to challenge that denial.
(d) The ammunition purchase authorization shall be revoked by the department upon the occurrence of any event which would have disqualified the holder from being issued the ammunition purchase authorization pursuant to this section.
(e) The ammunition purchase authorization number shall be the same number as the person’s California driver’s license number or California identification card number.
(f) The department shall create an internal centralized list of all persons who are authorized to purchase ammunition and provide access by ammunition vendors to the list for purposes of conducting ammunition sales. Law enforcement agencies shall be provided access to the list for law enforcement purposes.
(g) The department shall recover the reasonable cost of administering this section by charging applicants an initial application fee.
(h) All fees received pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Dealer’s Record of Sale Special Account of the General Fund.
(i) The implementation of this section by the department is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).
(j) The department shall annually review and shall adjust the fees specified in subdivision (g), if necessary, to fully fund, but not to exceed the reasonable costs of, the ammunition authorization program provided by this section, including the enforcement of this program.
(k) The Attorney General is authorized to adopt regulations to implement the provisions of this section.
I believe the articles floating around out there are purposely twisting and misrepresenting the facts. The only place $50 comes up is in section 30390 which applies to a vendor license; where it states "the fee shall not exceed fifty dollars ($50)". Also, it's not "per purchase", but an annual (possibly biennial) permit and the fees have yet to be determined.
Not a law yet..
Correct...still has to go through a final reading/vote. But given their history? It'll be law soon enough.
-
I hope Hawaii doesn't get any ideas, cause you know, _everyone else is doing it. "
They kind of already tried it with the whole proof of firearm ownership for ammo purchases.
Taxation wthout representation again!
also an attack on the LAW ABIDING
I get what you're trying to emphasize, but that's not exactly what the slogan means. The gun owners being "taxed" are represented by the people sitting in their state senate...it's just unfortunate that those who are "representing" them don't share the same views or values.
-
Thanks for bringing a little perspective to the conversation. It seemed like an Alex Jones article.
-
Seems to me outrage is justified despite any nit-picking over details or whether or not passage is likely. It would be nice to have accurate initial reporting, however.
-
Seems to me outrage is justified despite any nit-picking over details or whether or not passage is likely. It would be nice to have accurate initial reporting, however.
nothing like a little absurdity and drama to get your day going. :crazy: both sides go too far in respect to the real truths. passionate feelings and agendas get in the way of true reporting i guess.