CA Legislative Info and Contact Tools
Latest Info: 10/12/2009 - The Governor has failed to veto AB962 Mail Order Ammo Ban. However, because California does not have a pocket veto, the bill will become law as though it received his signature.
Here’s what the miserable RINO permitted to become law:
The bill would provide that no handgun ammunition vendor, as defined, shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the vendor or employee thereof.
Existing law generally regulates what information is required to be obtained in connection with the transfer of ammunition.
This bill would, subject to exceptions, commencing February 1, 2011, require handgun ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers, as specified. A violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.
This bill would provide that a person enjoined from engaging in activity associated with a criminal street gang, as specified, would be prohibited from having under his or her possession, custody, or control, any ammunition. Violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.
The bill would prohibit supplying or delivering, as specified, handgun ammunition to prohibited persons, as described, by persons or others who know, or by using reasonable care should know, that the recipient is a person prohibited from possessing ammunition or a minor prohibited from possessing ammunition, as specified. Violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor with specified penalties.
The bill would provide, subject to exceptions, that commencing February 1, 2011, the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction, with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity of the purchaser or other transferee. A violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.
I’ll be stepping up my ammo purchases immediately. There is almost no ammo available locally, and this bill outlaws mail order purchases.
But at some point I am going to have to move out of this budding liberal-fascist tyranny of a state. I’ll probably be retiring to Texas, if I can unload my underwater domicile by that time, a dubious proposition all on its own.
I hope Arnold has no plans for continuing his political career. He will never get another vote from me.
UPDATE: This is, of course, receiving zero coverage in the MSM.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
UPDATE: How is this not a violation of the Commerce Clause? How is it different than establishing a tariff or other barrier preventing Californians from buying cars made in Michigan?
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
Bill -
A few quick thoughts on this:
1) Can you tell what that part about “…, subject to exceptions,…” means? I.e., what are the details of those “exceptions”?
2) As far as I can tell, at this point, purchase/sale of ammo components (bullets, primers, cases, powder) and/or tools used in reloading are not covered by this regulation. True?
3) Meanwhile…stockpiling the calibers you need would, indeed, seem to be in order. Beyond that, I would suggest:
a) Save your “brass” (empty cases) when you shoot. With care, used empties can be reloaded as many as 8 - 10 times.
b) Pick up a set of basic reloading tools, along with a reloading manual (instructions on reloading are also available online - but a hard-copy manual is good back-up, and has a lot of useful info in it).
c) Along with the ammo you buy, stockpile bullets, primers and some powder, using reloading info (from the manual or from online) as a guide for what to get.
If you’d be interested in an e-mail, I have some possibly-useful other thoughts on “walking around” this shitty regulation - some things, y’know, are better kept as “off-line” as possible…
Meanwhile - best of luck on relocating. Texas sounds pretty good - or maybe Arizona, now that Napolitano’s gone. Then again, you’d be more than welcome here in the Carolinas.
Dillon, Lee a couple good companies.
Wow, what a boon to the Nevada and Arizona. If I lived on that side of the country, I’d be looking for a little spot right on the border on the road from LA to Vegas and put me up a little gunshot with the biggest ammo selection I could muster.
Same for I-10 leading into Arizona.
As one commentator elsewhere noted, if Ah-Nold signed this bill, there will be more ammo coming across the Donner Pass than ever traveled along the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the Vietnam War.
Submitted to SU ;-)
You’d be welcome, and feel at home I think, in Texas.
In August, I helped my son move his girlfriend’s stuff from her home in San Francisco to Houston, where he’s finishing school this year. It would have cost $650 to rent a 17′ U-Haul truck to go from Houston to San Francisco, but it cost us $1350 for the same truck going to Houston from S.F. That price is, of course, set by supply and demand, and it tells you everything you need to know about how people are voting with their feet.
Wow! And I was wondering what to do when I retire! Reno. Carson City. Lake Tahoe. Anywhere in NV along 395. Lots of places along the several highways leading from NV to CA. Build in some really badas* security and start the Last Chance Ammo chain.
I’d pick NV over AZ only because I’d rather be in the cooler northern climes. Some warmer blooded kin might run the Yuma and Ehrenberg locations.
And I’d move out of the People’s Republic of California myself. This is just one more of the many reasons to do it.
Hint: Elko, Nevada (check out the Ruby Mountains and Lamoille Canyon)
The bill has some problems, mainly that Federal preemption statutes already exist and it’s going to be litigated. The secret-weapon that CA gun-owners have is the utter imbecility of our opposition in the Legislature - they write badly - it’s almost like they’re the subjects of the Cornell study, “Unskilled and Unaware,” they are deluded by their own self-esteem which hides their incompetence from them(selves). Here’s the CalGuns thread dealing with the limitations:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230676
One big exemption is for anyone licensed as a C&R FFL, with appropriate CA CoE docs. And, of course, this doesn’t apply to any “sworn peace officer” - nothing like further stratification of society into the haves, and have nots.
But, just a little brain-twisting here, what if a 1/2-million CA gunowners secured C&R FFL’s and CA CoE docs exempting themselves from this bill?
Bureaucratic Overload, anyone?
My wife and I moved form Los Angeles (I was boarn and raised in the SF area) to Houston about five months ago. Come on in, Bill, the water’s fine!
I’d be looking for a little spot right on the border on the road from LA to Vegas and put me up a little gunshot with the biggest ammo selection I could muster.
Right down the street from the Lotto store in Primm, NV would probably be the ideal location.
Regarding the first-ammo-shop-outside-California notion: I had the same idea regarding appliance stores when I heard that California was getting snotty about the power consumption of large-screen TVs. The same goes for power mowers and the California Air Resources Board. It shouldn’t be long before the most active economic zone in the US is the first mile of Arizona/Nevada/Oregon this side of the California border,
Don’t invest to heavily. If the state stays on it’s current path, there will be no one left in Cali that can afford to buy anything. Anyone with the means will leave, with the exception of the truly wealthy that have their money banked already.
Every elected animal control officer in California will now go to bed secure in the knowledge that Schwarzenegger can’t run against them.
Dump the property in Kaliporniataxnation. Let it go, walk away. Yah, it will do your credit, but so what? What do you want to do? Keep paying the mortgage for another X years and THEN walk away? I doubt if prices will return to bubble levels for 20 years. And you can quit claim your CA house and get financing in Texas for another one tomorrow. I wouldn’t want to be out there when the next wave of this depression hits. That will be when the next group of real estate goes under and CA doesn’t have the money to PAY the “entitlements” and you have MILLIONS suddenly without a govt’ TIT to feed off of.
What a revolutionary concept in law enforcement!
Do you think it’s worth suggesting another law that would require anyone buying heroin, cocaine, or marijuana from pharmacies to show ID? Way to stick it to “those persons who have no business possessing them!”
It’s not a violation of the dormant commerce clause because it doesn’t burden interstate commerce disproportionally. An ammo manufacturer in San Diego or Yreka will have just as much trouble shipping to you as would a manufacturer in Phoenix or Reno.
A shitty law? Absolutely. Unconstitutional? Under a very expansive view of the Second Amendment, maybe. Under the commerce clause, no way.
*deep head-scratching*
Must be a whole new category of “crimestopper” data-collection, right?
Wonder what the source might be?…I don’t ‘zactly recall seeing a category in the F.B.I. Uniform Crime statistics for “Illegal Ammo Purchases Recorded By Local Government”, or some-such…Hmmm…
Ah - now I get it…
‘Cause, as everybody knows, “…gang members, violent parolees, second and third strikers, and even people previously serving time in state prison for murder.” are just notorious for buying their ammo from places where they have their thumbprints, real names and addresses, driver’s licenses and other identifying information recorded, right? Which, of course, results in their being arrested, right?…I mean, just about all of them already being, y’know, convicted felons and all…
(Funny, somehow I missed all those arrests…were they only reported on CNN or CBS, or something like that?)
The Problem for the state of Kalifornia is that the Calguns Foundation is ready to file suit in federal court due to this:
The regulation of internet delivery of ammunition as drafted in AB962 is preeempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAAA ‘94).
AB962 Regulates The Routes & Services of Common Carriers
AB962 creates a misdemeanor in proposed Penal Code §12318 for not following the appropriate steps for “delivery . . . of handgun ammunition”. The bill goes on to state that deliveries may “only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the deliverer . . . being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee.” However, the bill exempts law enforcement agencies, sworn police officers, ammunition manufacturet/importers, “handgun ammunition vendors” as defined in the statute, and certain firearms collectors. As such, common carriers will now have to make modifications to their rates and services in an attempt to ascertain whether delivering a package marked ORM-D to any given address is allowed, or is punishable as a crime.
This requirement on a common carrier’s service is particularly difficult for carriers where a retail establishment meets the definition of a “handgun ammunition vendor” under the act, but is not otherwise a Federal Firearms Licensee. These retailers are exempted from the non-delivery requirement but there is no documentation proving that such a recipient is exempt. Many “big box” retailers in California sell ammunition but do not sell firearms.
Even if an alternate narrower statutory construction were to be followed, on the face of the proposed law, common carriers would have to attempt to obtain evidence of identity to comply with proposed Penal Code §12318(a), which is clearly a state law that has a substantial impact on a carrier’s service.
Regulation of the Routes or Services of Common Carriers is Federally Preempted
Federal preemption of the routes, rates, or services of common motor carriers is found in 49 USC §14501(c)(1):
Quote:(1) General rule. Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier (other than a carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier covered by section 41713 (b)(4)) or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.
Additional Federal preemption for common carriers was enacted in FAAAA ‘94 and was codified in 49 USC §41713:
Quote:§41713. Preemption of authority over prices, routes, and service
(a) Definition. In this section, “State” means a State, the District of Columbia, and a territory or possession of the United States.
(b) Preemption.
(1) Except as provided in this subsection, a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart.
…
(4) Transportation by air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier.—
(A) General rule.— Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement).
The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that laws which regulate delivery by “common carriers” are preempted.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a Maine statute that placed limitations on the delivery of cigarettes was preempted by the FAAAA. That statute is very similar to the restrictions on delivery found in AB962 .
In Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (128 S. Ct. 989, 2008) the Court found that a requirement for shippers to choose a special shipment method and that a carrier would be deemed to have knowledge that shipment had prohibited tobacco products in it, were both preempted by Federal Law. Maine attempted to defend the regulation by claiming that there was a public health exception to the FAAAA. The court replied to that argument as follows:
Quote:Maine’s inability to find significant support for some kind of “public health” exception is not surprising. “Public health” does not define itself. Many products create “public health” risks of differing kind and degree. To accept Maine’s justification in respect to a rule regulating services would legitimate rules regulating routes or rates for similar public health reasons. And to allow Maine directly to regulate carrier services would permit other States to do the same. Given the number of States through which carriers travel, the number of products, the variety of potential adverse public health effects, the many different kinds of regulatory rules potentially available, and the difficulty of finding a legal criterion for separating permissible from impermissible public-health-oriented regulations, Congress is unlikely to have intended an implicit general “public health” exception broad enough to cover even the shipments at issue here.
(Id. at 997.)
There is not any equivalent “public safety” exception to the FAAAA to allow AB962 either.
AB962, as written, is preempted by FAAAA ‘94.
Hey, J. S.
Where are you in the ‘Carolinas’?
DCP
DCP,
I’m currently in North Carolina - more specifically, in the Wilmington area - which has been “home base” (except for a few years’ work-related interlude in South FL) since the end of ‘97.
We decided, after substantial research during the early ’90’s, that NC was our best bet for long-term location, as opposed to MI, where we were (spouse was native there, I “migrated” there in late-60’s); made the jump, haven’t regretted it a bit. It’s got about everything we were looking for, very little of what we were trying to avoid.
Only serious drawback, to date, is not much steady work for me (I do design engineering, formerly automotive, now mostly mechanical or aerospace); I’ve ended up being elsewhere, on contract, a lot of the time. Currently, I’m out of work, hoping to either find something (even non-engineering) locally, or maybe do a small-business startup (I’ve done part-time gunsmithing, as a side-business, for a long time, whenever possible), so I can finally stay here, all the time.
Being “on the road” most of the time has gotten pretty old, after over a decade at it.
Are you around here somewhere, too?
J.S.
I’m in GSO during the week, NW FL a couple of weekends a month.
I’m an I/T Consultant, and have been ‘commuting’ for 19 years. (God, I HATE Hartsfield.)
Was wondering if you were close enough for lunch/coffee/drinks sometime.
Have only been to Wilmington once. Nice though.
DCP.