2019 Calif Ammo laws Update w/ test

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

User avatar
senorgrand
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21498
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: 2019 Calif Ammo laws Update w/ test

Post by senorgrand »

Marlene wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:00 pm
I'm not a fan of government data collection, but I'm not sure I think of private data collection as any less a threat than government data collection.
private data becomes government data with one subpoena
Image

"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: 2019 Calif Ammo laws Update w/ test

Post by max129 »

senorgrand said:
Marlene wrote:
I'm not a fan of government data collection, but I'm not sure I think of private data collection as any less a threat than government data collection.
private data becomes government data with one subpoena
I totally agree. I make no real distinction between the two, except I note that private industry data collection is even more hidden and pervasive. And, as noted by senorgrand, private data is one subpoena or warrant away from becoming government owned data.

Anyone who has read cyberpunk science fiction will recognize that one variant of the dystopian future has been real for 4 decades: the "credit bureaus" and the affiliated "marketing data" companies predate google and facebook by at least 20 years. And they have been trafficking in our individual private data with virtually no regulation for the entirety of their history. In fact, there was a desire for a "data market" long before the 1980s, but the expense would have been too high. (Anyone remember that a bank savings account really recorded the transactions in a physical "passbook"? Why? There was no reliable online computer data available in real time in the 1970s. In fact, there was no network AT ALL between most branch banks in the 1970s.) Basically, until the era of cheap mini-computers (starting in 1978) it was impossible to traffic in personal data.

Sure, Google and Facebook get all the negative news about capturing data, and for a reason. The legacy big data companies try very hard to stay out of the spotlight.

For example, who hears about: Axicom, Xaxis, Epsilon? And they are giants in the data trafficing industry.
Image

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6735
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: 2019 Calif Ammo laws Update w/ test

Post by featureless »

Tangentially related little rant. When I bought my SP-01 earlier this week, it was a new CA experience for me despite buying all of my guns in this state.

1) I hadn't bought a new firearm since we moved 3 years ago, so I would have had to do the whole background check to buy ammo (couple week delay--great reason to buy a gun!). Now I won't have to do that, just wait around for my "instant" check and pay my $1 tax for the children (not that they'll see a penny of it).

2) I have a new "real ID" (I guess my last one was somehow unreal--the picture was pretty bad). The process to get it requires several forms of proof of residency, SSN card, birth certificate and three hairs from your left big toe (right big toe if you're a republican). Does this suffice as proof of address? No. You still need the "real id" and your car registration/utility bill just to make sure you didn't con the DMV with the other documents.

3) It was the first time buying a gun with a CCW. It was nice that I didn't have to take the competency test (old one expired) but, despite DOJ/Sheriff examination of my "skills, good cause, moral character and colon", the CCW does not qualify as an additional proof of residency, nor does it obviate you from any form of background check (DROS--not surprising) or ammo background check (WTF? I can carry the loaded gun but not buy more bullets?). It also does not obviate the 10 day "cooling off" period even though there are 3 handguns on my CCW I am licensed to carry already, all 3 of which could have been stuffed in my pants (although they weren't). :wtf:

California absolutely excels at paperwork, duplicity (both meanings of the word) and bullshit. Sheesh.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 22590
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: 2019 Calif Ammo laws Update w/ test

Post by CDFingers »

I did another test. I bought some GEC0 .45 ammo (review down in handgun ammo), and I bought some more shotgun ammo for clays. Zero problems, just like the last time. But I've not changed anything ID wise for like 30 years and have recently bought guns, so I did not expect any problems.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Major Domo said, "Why don't we give him rope enough to hang himself?
Don't worry 'bout the jury, they'll prolly take care of themselves."

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6735
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: 2019 Calif Ammo laws Update w/ test

Post by featureless »

For those that care, this is currently being fought out in the courts for an injunction and overturn (Rhode v. Becerra).

A supplemental brief for injunction was filed a few days ago. It has some interesting denial statistics. About 20% of ammo sales are currently denied based on the new law.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/up ... fs-MPI.pdf

Here's the brief's conclusion, based on data provided by the state:
Factual disputes are not a significant issue in this matter. The parties may quibble
on details. But they agree that: (1) the System rejects 20% of ammunition purchasers; (2)
the State does not directly inform those rejected of the specific reason for the rejection or
how to remedy it
; (3) there are no established timeframes for DOJ to update AFS records
that would allow a rejected person to purchase ammunition; (4) according to the most
recent data, a majority of those rejected do not later successfully acquire ammunition; (5)
DOJ denies people whose eligibility status it cannot determine; and (6) DOJ has denied
purchases to people who were later found to not be prohibited
. For these reasons,
Plaintiffs respectfully believe that neither the scheduled November 15 status conference
nor an evidentiary hearing is necessary to rule on their preliminary injunction motion. The
Court should grant that motion on the current record at its earliest convenience.
If one reads through the brief, most of the rejections are not related to prohibited status, rather inaccuracies with the AFS records with no clear path to identify or correct them.

User avatar
awshoot
Been around awhile
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 2:40 am
Contact:

Re: 2019 Calif Ammo laws Update w/ test

Post by awshoot »

featureless wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:23 pm
For those that care, this is currently being fought out in the courts for an injunction and overturn (Rhode v. Becerra).

A supplemental brief for injunction was filed a few days ago. It has some interesting denial statistics. About 20% of ammo sales are currently denied based on the new law.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/up ... fs-MPI.pdf
...
I've been following the briefing in Duncan on Michell's website -- can you post the link where they list all the briefing in this one? I tried to find it on my own but embarrassingly, failed.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6735
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: 2019 Calif Ammo laws Update w/ test

Post by featureless »


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests