Anti-gun hysteria has reached a fever pitch in the Golden State. The California Assembly is considering a bill (Assembly Bill 2062) this session that, if passed, will have dire consequences for California’s law-abiding gun owners.

AB2062 is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, May 7 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Sponsored by State Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), AB2062 would require that law-abiding gun owners obtain a permit to buy handgun ammunition and would impose severe restrictions on the private transfers of handgun ammunition. Applicants for a “permit-to-purchase” would be required to submit to a background check, pay a $35 fee, and wait as long as 30 days to receive the permit.

Under AB2062, it would be unlawful to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require vendors to keep a record of the transaction including the ammunition buyer’s name, driver’s license, the quantity, caliber, type of ammunition purchased, and right thumbprint, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Vendors would be required to contact the purchase permit database to verify the validity of a permit before completing a sale. All ammunition sales in the State of California would be subject to a $3 per transaction tax. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited. Any violator of AB2062 would be subject to civil fines.

Actually, I think this might have some merit. I'm not saying that charging a fee to get a permit to buy ammo is fair, instead, why not limit ammo sales to people who have a permit to own a handgun, then require showing that permit when buying that particular ammo. IE, if you've got a 9mm with a permit, you can buy 9mm, but not .45 ammo. This is just an attempt to keep it out of the wrong hands, but, in reality, it only takes one bullet so does it really help at all?

What happened to Ahnolds bill that required all handguns to "mark" bullets?

audtatious wrote:What happened to Ahnolds bill that required all handguns to "mark" bullets?

I believe it failed because there were a bunch of problems with it. Ridiculous bill to start with.

This latest action you posted is typical Kalifornia. It will do NOTHING to curb violent crime but will be a real PITA for your average law-abiding citizen.

That Dillon progressive is looking better and better all the time...

Repo Man wrote:
I believe it failed because there were a bunch of problems with it. Ridiculous bill to start with.

This latest action you posted is typical Kalifornia. It will do NOTHING to curb violent crime but will be a real PITA for your average law-abiding citizen.

That Dillon progressive is looking better and better all the time...

Throwaway's are still very accessible. Besides, people always travel, so they can either go out of state to purchase or have a friend purchase for them. Military people or drug lords for example can purchase ammo/weapons out of the country and smuggle them in. There's always a way around laws and law-enforcement.

rn79870 wrote:Actually, I think this might have some merit. I'm not saying that charging a fee to get a permit to buy ammo is fair, instead, why not limit ammo sales to people who have a permit to own a handgun, then require showing that permit when buying that particular ammo. IE, if you've got a 9mm with a permit, you can buy 9mm, but not .45 ammo. This is just an attempt to keep it out of the wrong hands, but, in reality, it only takes one bullet so does it really help at all?

We are already taxed on the ammunition that we buy in the United States. This is the same crap that they tried to pass in Illinios. It got defeated and its subsequent versions wont see the light of day. I think most state legislatures are considering:1. Bans on Lead Ammo2. Serializing Ammo to a buyer3. Restricting the amount of guns you can buy for a time period4. Stopping private transfers of handguns

None of this stuff is new.

Repo Man wrote:This latest action you posted is typical Kalifornia. It will do NOTHING to curb violent crime but will be a real PITA for your average law-abiding citizen.

And the hope is to make owning, buying or carrying so hard for lawful people that only criminals will do it. A defacto ban on guns....

I remember when Barb Boxer was trying to ban Body Armor. The idea failed big time because at the time family members of Military personnel were buying up body armor to send it to their sons/daughter serving overseas. Due to the lack of MI body armor.