Horrific ammo bill put in 'suspense file' by state Assembly
One of the worst pieces of anti-gun owner legislation in a number of years effectively has been tabled by the California legislature when Los Angeles Democratic Assemblyman Kevin De Leon's AB962 was put in the Suspense File by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday this week.
The bill would have stopped the private transfer of more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month between individuals or by stores to individuals. It would have licensed and taxed anyone selling ammunition commercially and forced these stores to get background checks on anyone selling ammunition. It would have required a thumbprint from anyone buying handgun ammunition (and a costly bureaucracy to manage those thumbprints) and it would have banned all mail-order ammunition sales.
The stated intent of the bill was to stop felons and gang members from getting ammunition. If you can figure out how those provisions would have somehow stopped that, give me a call and explain that to me.
Since the so-called intended targets of the legislation would have easily avoided its requirements, it became clear the legislation was all about harassing, taxing and discriminating against legal gun owners and those in the business of selling ammunition.
Lawsuit challenges arms ban
A lawsuit challenging California's arbitrary ban on many handguns based on a set of criteria that supposedly make the guns "not-unsafe" was filed last week by The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and four California residents.
The California regulations have prevented any new firearm from being added to the list in three years, and it will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns, as manufacturers change models or refuse to pay annual fees to have their guns "certified." The four individual plaintiffs, Ivan Pe a, Roy Vargas, Do a Croston, and Brett Thomas, all have individual reasons to challenge the California regulations.
California "tells Ivan Pe a that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions," said Alan Gura, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs in this case. "A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government- approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee." "The Para Ordnance P-13 was once approved for sale in California," Pe a said.
"But now that a manufacturer didn't pay a yearly fee, California claims the gun I want to own has somehow become `unsafe'." Vargas story varies the theme: "The Glock-21 is the handgun I would choose for home defense, but California has decided the version I need is unacceptable. I was born without a right arm below my elbow and therefore the new ambidextrous version of the Glock-21 is the safest one for me. " Vargas said.
Do a Croston's handgun would be allowed if it were solid black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly `unsafe' merely based on color.
"I didn't realize that my constitutional rights depended on color. What is it about two colors that makes the gun I want to purchase `unsafe'?" asked Croston.
Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for Dick Heller, in its landmark decision affirming that Second Amendment is an individual right last year. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured.
"There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment, and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun," Thomas said.
Co-counsel in this case Jason Davis said it perfectly: "The California Handgun Roster has always been about making the possession of handguns for self defense more difficult by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions that limit choice and increase the cost of exercising a fundamental right."
7 years 31 weeks ago, 5:11 PM