California's Ammo background check struck down again

[James K2020]

Outdoor Life said the guy paid $10.

Other source:

"In a nutshell, all ammunition purchases or transfers made in California will require a DOJ “point-of-sale” eligibility check at the cost of $1 (or $19 – more on that later) paid by the consumer to the DOJ."
California Ammunition Purchase Laws - LAX Ammo OC 31 Jan 2024
https://laxammooc.com › ammunition-laws-in-california

The proposed law would require a $1 BG check for Californians buying ammo who are on record as having bought a gun and their drivers license address matches the address where they last bought a gun. If there is no gun buy record the ammo buyer pays $19 for an ammo purchase BG check. The higher BG fee reflects the assumption by the state of California that they are buying ammo for a ghost gun.

Could be but my DL is current and Real plus I've bought plenty of guns here so it's a buck for me. What they also plan by July this year to do is lay another 10% excise tax on ammo and gun purchases. Time to stock up!
And starting in 2025 they will limit all gun purchases to 1/month even if it's a private party sale. Right now it's 1/month only for retail purchases. Gonna be a busy year.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The CA DoJ advises that the easiest way to get your address updated to pass the ammo backround check after moving to a new address is to go buy a new gun.
I am tempted to compare this to Jim Crow literacy tests for voters - a deliberate delay to deny tactic.

 

[Big_Al]

Looks like it's back in effect

California ammunition background check law can remain in effect, court rules

(Reuters) -California can proceed with enforcing a law requiring people to undergo background checks to buy ammunition, after a divided federal appeals court on Monday put on hold a judge's ruling declaring it unconstitutional. A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on a 2-1 vote stayed last...

news.yahoo.com

 

[Mk-211]

I have nothing CoC compliant to say!

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I have nothing CoC compliant to say!

Same, man. Same.

 

[Old Hobo]

Here is a recent update concerning this issue. The 9th Circuit Panel has ruled the following:

"Ninth Circuit Panel Grants Stay: Ammo Controls Enforceable While California Appeals Earlier Ruling"

Ninth Circuit Panel: Ammo Laws Enforceable as CA Appeals Lower Ruling

The Ninth Circuit granted a stay allowing California's ammunition controls to be enforced while Judge Roger T. Benitez's ruling is appealed.

www.breitbart.com

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has granted a stay allowing California’s ammunition controls to be enforced as District Judge Roger T. Benitez’s ruling is being appealed.

"On February 5, 2024, the Ninth Circuit stayed Benitez’s permanent injunction while California appeals his decision.

"The California Rifle & Pistol Association reacted to the stay by noting, 'The Ninth Circuit doing Ninth Circuit things.' "

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

The state government of California is not friendly to the shooting community. That state's government isn't friendly to the United States Constitution. Personally, I wouldn't live in that state. I would encourage Americans to leave that Left Coast state -- same for Oregon and Washington State.
.

 

[Spats McGee]

Yes, the 9th has stayed the injunction. That said, I noticed that there is actually a dissent in the stay order. Off the top of my head, I can't recall ever seeing that. To the best of my recollection (as sorry as it might be some days), the 9th has typically issued its stays largely without comment and certainly without any dissent.

 

[rust collector]

If I remember correctly from the last time something similar happened, the matter went to a motions panel, where the stay was granted, but the stay was then reversed by the merits panel. I hope that will happen again, but every one is a crap shoot. The only certainty is that respect for the legal system will be one of the casualties of these shenanigans.

 

[James K2020]

I just picked up 700 rounds of 45 ACP today from a local CA FFL that I had ordered on-line just before the Benitez ruling. Normally they would charge $20 for the transfer plus the $1 background check. He was feeling sympathetic I guess and didn't charge me anything. Still had to run the check but did save me $21. Pretty nice of him.

 

[rust collector]

It will be interesting to see where the additional revenue ends up.

 

[James K2020]

If I was still living in the People's Republic of California, I would drive across the state line to buy ammo, just to give the middle finger to Newscum. Especially after July when they start raping gun and ammo buyers an extra 11% just to make it more expensive. Screw them.

As far as I know, there is nothing in the new law restricting you from buying ammo on-line and having it delivered to an FFL.

 

[Spats McGee]

This is Legal, y'all. Please stick to the Legal issues.

 

[James K2020]

True enough, but then you still have to pay the middle man, and go through Newscum's ammo background check...Which Judge Benitez rightly pointed out has a failure rate of between 11 - 16%.

Not to mention, you have to find an Ammo seller out of state willing to put up with California's Bullscat shipping requirements.

Nope, save the hassle and go on a road trip. That, and take in a show in Vegas or Reno. Make lemonades out of Newscum's lemons.

Well, as I stated above I recently obtained 2 separate shipments of ammo- one from auction and another from a vendor without issue. There's plenty of vendors that will ship to CA and so will auction houses. The LGS waived the $20 transfer fee and the $1 background check fee on the second buy. Still had to run my DL but I have no issue with that. Keeps the criminals and ghost gun people from buying ammo and that's a good thing in my book.

 

[rust collector]

Keeps the criminals and ghost gun people from buying ammo and that's a good thing in my book.

It may keep the criminals from using their own ID, but they will get ammo. Invoking the "ghost gun" myth makes it sound like all gun builders are intent on crime, and of course that is nonsense. Additional expense and hassle affects only the law-abiding. Criminals know how to get what they want.

 

[hk940]

The trouble is some stores will not get the memo. Back in NJ 40 some odd years ago one needed an ID card to buy ammo, then NJ changed the law so one did not need an ID card. But some stores still would ask for a ID card when purchasing ammo. CCI 100 pack $1.97!

 

[natman]

Invoking the "ghost gun" myth makes it sound like all gun builders owners are intent on crime,

FIFY. Now it reflects the way CA government regards gun owners.

 

[James K2020]

You are exactly the kind of gun owner that Newscum loves. Make sure your handgun is locked up when you go through the In -N-Out drive through in Oakland ( or San Francisco, L.A. or Fresno) You know, all those multicultural Utopias.

Sorry, don't eat fast food.

 

[Some_Mook]

Sorry, don't eat fast food. Just believe that regulations adding additional costs and requirements for the Law Abiding of this land are effective tools for preventing people who do not abide by laws from acquiring items that they would be prohibited from acquiring legally.

FIFY

Just out of morbid curiosity, if someone who would not legally be able to purchase ammunition but instead stole a quantity of ammunition worth less than $1000 in California, would they be charged for any crime at all?

 

[Frank Ettin]

A number of posts have been deleted. This is not a place for rant fests. Let’s have some substantive, evidence based discussion or the thread will be closed.

 

[RickD427]

FIFY

Just out of morbid curiosity, if someone who would not legally be able to purchase ammunition but instead stole a quantity of ammunition worth less than $1000 in California, would they be charged for any crime at all?

They could.

If the value of the stolen ammunition was $950 or less, they could be charged with the misdemeanor of Petty Theft under California Penal Code section 488. That carries a max penalty of 6 months in jail and a $1000 fine. But you should be aware that California tends to treat petty theft as a very minor crime, jail time is quite unlikely given the jail over-crowding conditions. Just prior to my retirement as a California LEO, it was possible for one to serve a 30 day jail sentence by spending just a few hours in jail.