Joining a parade of organizations such as almost every major police association in the state of California, liberal law makers including Keven DeLeon, world famous athletes including 6-time Olympian Kim Rhodes, and numerous conservation groups such National Wild Turkey Federation and Ducks Unlimited, the Liberal Gun Club opposes Proposition 63.

California already has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, and a majority of what is being proposed here duplicates what our state legislators already passed, but adding unnecessary huge additional costs and complexity – ramifications that make it unwieldy and damaging to Californians.

Ammunition Background Checks

This proposal seeks to add a ammunition purchase permit and infrastructure to our state. However, we already have a background check system that the legislature put in place, which is massively less expensive, whether you agree with the idea of the background check or not. Additionally, under Prop. 63,the process to obtain such a permit will certainly not be instant, as it is under current state law. For a woman who is under direct threat of domestic violence and has a restraining order on her abuser, waiting for months to get ammunition to protect herself in the event that the abuser violates the restraining order is wrong headed and can result in her death, as happens all too often in these circumstances.

Yet the proponents of Prop 63, when asked what additional safety benefit the 30 day wait provides, cannot give an answer – because there isn’t any.  Loopholes and the ease of obtaining ammo from outside the state mean that anyone seeking to do harm to themselves or another will not be deterred by the waiting period – only law abiding gun owners will be impacted.

Large Capacity Magazines

Like the first proposal, this also was already addressed by the legislature, whether you agree with the principle or not. What this does is accelerate the confiscation/turn in process for which the state is not ready to handle. The law we already have allows owners of said magazines an extra year to get rid of their magazines, which will prevent the flooding of out of state markets and allow the owners of these legally purchased and, until now, possessed items, to recoup at least part of the amount they spent on them.  Anything less amounts to a taking of property without compensation by the government, a scary and abhorrent precedent for California to implement.

Out of state ammunition purchases

Again, this was already handled by the legislature earlier this year. It merely moves up the timelines- this measure will do nothing to impact the safety or security of Californians, but instead is nothing more than feel good timelines to make it appear that the proposition does “something” without actually helping.

Reporting theft of firearms and ammunition

Governor Brown said this the best when he vetoed this measure that came on to his desk several times in the last few years: “I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not. I remain skeptical that this bill would change those behaviors.”

In 2014 another set of ballot measures had unintended consequences. While Prop 47 did some really great things with regard to right sizing penalties to the crime committed, it’s also why Prop 63 is now having to carve out an exemption for felonies with regards to gun theft. Prop 47 raised the dollar amount required for a felony to be charged to $1000- without thought as to the impacts. So now we’re fixing a past mistake on a ballot measure with more ballot measures- Ballot measures are an even blunter instrument than well-crafted legislation, and these measures show that again, enacting changes to our laws without concern to the unintended consequences is a bad idea.

This package of new laws will do nothing to reduce crime, but will instead cost California taxpayers millions of dollars and criminalize gun owners due to the ever more complex laws in our state. If we Californians saw these same types of efforts at restricting abortion like they have in Texas, we would rightly reject them. We urge you to vote no on these ballot efforts.