This bill limits residents to 50 rounds a month and imposes a $25 fee to process background check at purchase.
Actually it doesn't, it requires that
sellers of more than 50 rounds a month register as vendors, etc, etc. There is also no "background check fee", but all your DL information IS required and recorded.
Now, let me say up front that I'm vehemently opposed to this bill, as we all should be, for the obvious reasons, but it's important to have the proper information. As always I suggest reading the bill in it's native form, however here is a concise rendering...
AB 362 (De Leon) would require that, beginning July 1, 2008, no handgun ammunition seller may sell handgun ammunition without recording the following information on a form prescribed by the State Department of Justice (DOJ): a) date of the transaction, b) name, address, and date of birth of the buyer, c) buyer's driver's license or other identification number, and the right thumbprint, d) brand, type, and amount of ammunition purchased, e) buyer's signature, and f) salesperson's name.
This bill would also require that no person shall sell or transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless they are registered as a handgun ammunition vendor with DOJ. It would require vendors to obtain a background clearance for employees who handle ammunition in the course and scope of their employment.
AB 362 would further mandate that no retail seller of ammunition shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the retailer or employee thereof. Violation of these provisions would be punishable as an infraction with a fine of $500, or as a misdemeanor.
Finally, AB 362 would further provide that handgun ammunition, which includes reloading components, may only be purchased in a face-to-face transaction. This would do away with all mail or internet purchases by lawful California users of handgun ammunition.
Where to begin? No interstate mail or internet transactions? I wish this bill
did limit customers to 50rds / month, because then it would never pass. As it stands, it's onerous enough to make you grind your teeth, yet innocuous enough that a bunch of pandering screwballs will line up to pass it.
These restrictions on sales never work. The sale of spraypaint is restricted, any impact on graffiti? Nope. The same for Alcohol and underage drinking, cold medicine and meth labs, you name it.. this sort of legislation has never had any success in abating the problems that engendered it.
It's a bunch of state money going to waste to install and monitor a record keeping system that will
never serve to abate gang violence, random shootings, etc.
For those of us who bang steel for fun, cinch up your wallets. No out-of-state sales eliminates most of the competition in ammo prices, CA ammo will be on the rise in short order once the vendors have us by the shorts.
In short, bad legislation, lots of bad info going around about it, just a wreck in general. If you do write or contact your rep, be sure to address the text of the bill, not the "hype" that is making the rounds, or your concerns will be dismissed out of hand.
I want legislators to do things which are measurably, objectively a positive influence on some clearly identified problem. That's not what most of them seem to be there for.