Bullet bill shoots from committee

April 3, 2013

bulletsAmmunition sales in this state would be more tightly regulated under provisions of a bill passing its first committee test Tuesday. (Sacramento Bee)

Attempting to increase what she called “reasonable safeguards” on the purchase of ammunition, Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, asked members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, “”Why is it easier now to buy bullets than alcohol, cigarettes, or Sudafed?”

The committee passed the bill, AB 48, on a 5-2 vote supported only by Democrats.

Among other provisions,  the proposed legislation would require sellers to be licensed and purchasers to provide identification.

The Department of Justice would be required to notify appropriate local police officials of large-quantity purchases of more than 3,000 rounds in a five-day period — except when bought by law enforcement personnel.

And failure to make the required report or knowingly making a report with false or fictitious information would be a misdemeanor.

Firearms groups oppose the plan, partly on assertions that parents would be prohibited from giving their children ammunition for a shooting range, and Boy Scout merit badges would be adversely affected.

Skinner asked opponents if amendments would take care of their concerns. One espoused by saying he has 10 pages of what he called “deficiencies” in the bill.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Time to stock up.

Have been for three years now. I’ve got plenty, and have turned a few crates around for a nice healthy profit! I love panic.

Don’t sell arms/ammo to eachother, somebody might get killed. Sell them as you’re largest export to anybody in the world with the money, let THEM get killed. Outa sight, out of mind.

This country better pray there’s no such thing as Karma.

Well, if Bengazi is any indicator, there does not seem to be.

In my opinion, only, to me, what constitutes an “extreme” Second Amendment supporter is a person who feels that any regulation, law, rule or ordinance that somehow restricts the ability for someone to purchase, own or carry a firearm is what I call an “extreme” supporter of the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I know that most people, especially the supporters of the amendment know, breath and live by the second half of the wording; how many of you truly understand the implications of the first half, the part that I highlighted with bold text? “A well regulated … ” Don’t you get that our founding fathers thought it important enough that they wrote it into the wording that there is going to be regulation of firearms?

And yes, the existing laws should be enforced, mental health screenings should be mandatory, IMO, for all who wish to own firearms; but that is a function of government which most of the extreme 2nd Amendment supporters think is too big, too invasive, and not to be trusted (which is more about the perception of who is in charge currently). Would all of you feel the same way if a President Romney were pushing to have an assault weapons ban, ammo tax or other programs designed to curtail the number of firearms owned by the general public? I do understand that most likely he would not push for that, but what of an eventual conservative President trying to keep a lid on the number of gun deaths in the future? Will that too be an overreach by the government?

There is plenty of disagreement about the intent behind the wording of the second amendment. I would not be surprised if the amendment was written the way it is because there was disagreement among the “founding fathers” on the subject. If such is the case, then anyone’s interpretation is dependent upon which school of thought they support. Personally, I support the school of thought Thomas Jefferson advocated which is distrust of the corrupting effect of government power and the rights of the people to rebel should it become excessive.

On a similar note, I felt the same way when Nixon and GW Bush were in power and using that power to try to suppress dissent with their policies. And I can assure you that most gun owners do not like what Mayor Bloomberg (a Republican) of New York City is doing either. Are there some among us that are blinded by partisan propaganda or overwhelmed with prejudice? Of course. But that isn’t the determining factor in their opposition to gun control either.

When it was written, a “regulated” militia did not mean government regulation. Regulated meant equipped, armed and trained – ready for muster, as it were.

I hope no one is surprised at this left wing gun and ammo grab…if you are you haven’t been paying attention. This has been in the works for years and the media is aiding the whole thing. I suggest you find a friend that owns a machine shop and buy yourselves a loader…

Several years ago I was surprised to learn that an individual could order 1000+ rounds of various caliber ammo via the internet, and have UPS deliver it to a residential address. On-line ammo dealers asked for a ‘scanned copy’ of a driver’s license, or ‘other proof of age’ to setup an account. The ordering page states that buying ammo via the ‘net is ‘like buying wine’.

I asked the L.A. area relative, who’d given me the info, if ammo deliveries had ever been left at his door when he was not home. He laughed and replied that if he ‘leaves a note’ , the ammo case is left there.

Sounds like efficiency.

I do not even leave a note, nor scan my ID. I always buy ammo by the case (or crate). FedEx or UPS delivers to the door and leaves it there. The boxes are even clearly labeled cartridges and have the “ORM-D” on it. Often has the EU regulation stuff, too, when it’s the military-grade stuff I get on the cheap from Russia, Turkey, or wherever.

Russian ammo for russian arms, US stuff for american arms…. rule of thumb.

All this crap from Government is just smoke. Because we all like to focus on the smoke, no one ever looks to the fire (or what the other hand is doing). Way to go low-info people! Let’s get behind some lame “cause de celeb” that has absoloutely no impact on anything, while we are sold down the river while not looking where we need to be looking.

How do the democrats plan to enforce this on gang members and drug dealers?

Anyone that really thinks that controlling guns or ammunition will stop or reduce crime is a moron.

That is a slight overstatement. Otherwise intelligent people can let the “cause du jour” override any critical thinking or examination of evidence if there is adequate media support or if their emotions drive them into a state of wishful thinking. Their thinking on this issue may be a bit moronic but that doesn’t make them morons on all other subjects.

This problem occurs on other issues too from the “war on drugs” and “war on terrorism” to teaching “abstinence only” birth control or denial of evolution.

Most people who vote for Californian politicians are morons. Short-sighted and touchy-feely without any ability to comprehend what is down “The Road We’re On”

Just remember, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were all supported by a good chunk of their populace in the beginning. It’s nothing new to find people defending these government radicals all the way to their very end. Sad, really.

This is a complete waste of tax dollars and a classic example of the priorities of some. Time to vote for someone else.

And of course, the NRA members and like thinkers would prefer that there is absolutely nothing done at all to stem the tide of gun violence. Is this bill a “perfect” solution? Of course not; but it is an attempt to slow down the flood of weapons and violence that can accompany them. We all know that convicted felons, mentally challenged individuals and violent predators should not have access to weapons and ammunition; what, if anything, do any of you extreme Second Amendment supporters propose be done, if not this bill?

Extreme Second Amendment Supporters?? LOL So which amendments do you think US Americans don’t have a right to abide by?

I believe that all Americans should be able to avail themselves of all of our rights; unless, of course, there are laws that restrict some of the access to those rights – like convicted felons owning firearms and so on. Otherwise, all Americans should be able to exercise their rights. Next question?

Do you extend the Right to Life to unborn children? Hmmmm?

You sound like an extreme first amendment supporter

I guess this ‘extreme’ 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th……amendment supporter would prefer the following to stem the tide of gun violance;

1. Fund the National Instant Criminal Background Check System passed by Congress in 2007. This included mental health individuals. Congress under Obama Administration has failed to fund it. Go look it up.

2. Prosecute people who falsify background check information. Obama Justice Department prosecuted less than 1% of those reported by the FBI who falsified their information. Go look it up.

3. …………….list goes on…..

We can’t enforce the laws already on the books but we are going to come up with new stupid ones? Everyone wants to feel good about passing new gun laws so they can tell themselves they made a difference. Passing laws is not going to reduce gun deaths enforcing them will! Lets start with the ones we already have.

Bob your accusing NRA members and like thinkers we prefer to do nothing to stem the tide. Well then I’m going to call you a hypocrite.

The only way to “stem the tide of gun violence” would be to confiscate all guns, something the left would undoubtedly approve of, unfortunately it would not lower the number of violent deaths. A corresponding rise in knife, club, vehicle, spear, arrow, etc, etc, etc, violence would commence, criminals kill, period. The method is all you would change. Laws on the law abiding are a waste of paper.

Bob, you cannot see the forest for the trees in this case. I know you’re very left, and that’s fine, but you are on the wrong side of this. Do not think it’s a right-wing / NRA / whatever-you-aren’t issue. This is something that effects those on both sides, and I know more “left” people that worry about this than those on the right.

I was actually surprised to find this out, too. Maybe my “sampling” is skewed (obviously), but I no longer attribute a person’s ideology to the “gun issue” – it still is an ideological issue for D’s and R’s, but most clear thinkers have abandoned both.