TexasCHLforum.com

Apparently California has a problem with bullets running around killing people. http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_9815125

Only thing I do agree on is that it is very easy for criminals to purchase ammunition. Everything else - keeping records of ammo sales, prohibiting internet sale, etc is just dumb. Good ol' Kalifornia for you though.

BigDan wrote:Only thing I do agree on is that it is very easy for criminals to purchase ammunition. Everything else - keeping records of ammo sales, prohibiting internet sale, etc is just dumb. Good ol' Kalifornia for you though.

How do you suggest changing it? If criminals can easily get bullets (legally, or if they make it illegal, illegally) then everyone should be able to defend themselves if said criminals bullets walk over and try to hurt them.

Pinkycatcher wrote:How do you suggest changing it? If criminals can easily get bullets (legally, or if they make it illegal, illegally) then everyone should be able to defend themselves if said criminals bullets walk over and try to hurt them.

Convicted felons should have "FELON" stamped in big red letters on their ID, like some states do for "UNDER 21" people. Require people to show ID to purchase ammunition but keep no records of the purchase. This balances legitimate government interests with civil rights.

Any state that has the "UNDER 21" label already set the precedent so the ACLU has no reason to complain now.

boomerang wrote:

Pinkycatcher wrote:How do you suggest changing it? If criminals can easily get bullets (legally, or if they make it illegal, illegally) then everyone should be able to defend themselves if said criminals bullets walk over and try to hurt them.

Convicted felons should have "FELON" stamped in big red letters on their ID, like some states do for "UNDER 21" people. Require people to show ID to purchase ammunition but keep no records of the purchase. This balances legitimate government interests with civil rights.

Any state that has the "UNDER 21" label already set the precedent so the ACLU has no reason to complain now.

True, make it like an alcohol purchase

boomerang wrote:

Pinkycatcher wrote:How do you suggest changing it? If criminals can easily get bullets (legally, or if they make it illegal, illegally) then everyone should be able to defend themselves if said criminals bullets walk over and try to hurt them.

Convicted felons should have "FELON" stamped in big red letters on their ID, like some states do for "UNDER 21" people. Require people to show ID to purchase ammunition but keep no records of the purchase. This balances legitimate government interests with civil rights.

Any state that has the "UNDER 21" label already set the precedent so the ACLU has no reason to complain now.

Couldn't agree more

Pinkycatcher wrote:

BigDan wrote:Only thing I do agree on is that it is very easy for criminals to purchase ammunition. Everything else - keeping records of ammo sales, prohibiting internet sale, etc is just dumb. Good ol' Kalifornia for you though.

How do you suggest changing it? If criminals can easily get bullets (legally, or if they make it illegal, illegally) then everyone should be able to defend themselves if said criminals bullets walk over and try to hurt them.

Same old argument, a bit tired, but nonethess I've never seen the antis validly refute it, only attack it as such. A key component of a firearm is its ammunition; thus, a restriction on ammo is a restriction on arms, and there must be compelling government interest as well as proof that the law is both effective and the least restrictive way to accomplish the desired goal. Gun control is neither, regardless of the validity of any compelling interest.

Pinkycatcher wrote:

BigDan wrote:Only thing I do agree on is that it is very easy for criminals to purchase ammunition. Everything else - keeping records of ammo sales, prohibiting internet sale, etc is just dumb. Good ol' Kalifornia for you though.

How do you suggest changing it? If criminals can easily get bullets (legally, or if they make it illegal, illegally) then everyone should be able to defend themselves if said criminals bullets walk over and try to hurt them.

It's a very difficult proposition to come up with a reasonable solution. Only thing I can think of is make it so you have to apply for a Good Guy card. You have to attend a training session where you learn the legalities of shooting, responsibility that comes with it, and learn alternatives to Deadly Force and situational awareness. You must demonstrate proficiency in discharging the ammunition. Additionally, you take and submit fingerprints to the FBI in case you have done anything in the past or in case you do anything in the future. Then, if you are making purchases, if you have a Good Guy card, there's no waiting period or checks to make sure you can purchase.

I'm sure that would be a big stretch for some of us, but I imagine it's still reasonable. ;-]

BigDan wrote:

Pinkycatcher wrote:

BigDan wrote:Only thing I do agree on is that it is very easy for criminals to purchase ammunition. Everything else - keeping records of ammo sales, prohibiting internet sale, etc is just dumb. Good ol' Kalifornia for you though.

How do you suggest changing it? If criminals can easily get bullets (legally, or if they make it illegal, illegally) then everyone should be able to defend themselves if said criminals bullets walk over and try to hurt them.

It's a very difficult proposition to come up with a reasonable solution. Only thing I can think of is make it so you have to apply for a Good Guy card. You have to attend a training session where you learn the legalities of shooting, responsibility that comes with it, and learn alternatives to Deadly Force and situational awareness. You must demonstrate proficiency in discharging the ammunition. Additionally, you take and submit fingerprints to the FBI in case you have done anything in the past or in case you do anything in the future. Then, if you are making purchases, if you have a Good Guy card, there's no waiting period or checks to make sure you can purchase.

I'm sure that would be a big stretch for some of us, but I imagine it's still reasonable. ;-]

So would you have to do the same before speaking in public? Practicing your religion? Before being allowed to not get searched unreasonably? Do you have to get a card so soldiers won't stay in your house? Only good guys get due process? Of course we can all agree only good guys can get together in groups, but they're really only good guys if the government says they are good guys.

Yah, it's reasonable I think.

Seems to me that if strict gun laws acheive the goal the anti's claim they want, it won't do a criminal any good to buy bullets. What are they going to do, throw them at me? So why does there need to be any regulation of ammo?

My last was laced with sarcasm. Does that describe anything else we carry in our wallets now? ;-]

Unfortunately, things like sarcasm, wit, and caricature often don't translate very well in a written format. It's one of the shortcomings inherent in an online forum type of environment. At some point, something is going to be misinterpreted.

Of course everyone only wants "good guys" to have guns and ammunition, and to keep them out of the hands of "unsuitable" persons. Trouble is, to the Brady/Sugarman crowd, we are just as "unsuitable" as convicted felons.

Anyone walking around in public has the same right to self defense as the rest of us. They incur the same (or worse, often) risks in their daily lives while working and living in sometimes-undesirable places. Because prohibition is not prevention, nothing stops them from getting a gun except a desire to avoid prison.

As Pinkycatcher stated so well, "suitability tests" to practice rights are bad for very obvious reasons.

Only thing I do agree on is that it is very easy for criminals to purchase ammunition.

They can purchase cars without a license too. If we changed that, and instituted background checks and a special license required before you could buy one, their predatory range would be limited by walking or bicycle distance, or they'd have to steal their transportation. We'd be willing to put up with that minor inconvenience to gain the extra measure of safety, wouldn't we? Especially since owning a car isn't even a right directly protected by the Bill of Rights.

Then there's those pesky cellphones bad guys use to communicate with.......a simple background check and cellphone license could help out there too. And just think of the lives to be saved on the streets if those criminals didn't have them to talk on while driving. It would all be worth it if we could save just one life, would it not?

Don't forget all those unmonitored internet communications criminals use to defraud people, plan crimes, and move money. An email and browser license should be just the ticket to end this nightmare, with a "consent to be monitored" signature required. Our members wouldn't have any trouble qualifying for those so they could participate in this forum.

Do we see where this is going? There are folks who have developed this way of thinking into an art form, and they are not our friends. They would dearly like to convince us to buy their arguments so we would support legislation to restrict our own freedoms and participate in our own demise. Shame on us if we go for it.

Ben Franklin was right: He who would trade (or compromise - my add) a basic right to secure (what he thinks is) a bit of safety deserves neither.

For a while, this idiocy was actually in effect when I lived in Pasadena, California. A local ordinance was passed with great fanfare, requiring exactly that. Each and every time I bought ammunition, I had to fill out a form with my name, address, and driver's license number; plus the quantity, caliber, and lot number for each box of ammunition I bought. This went on for about 6 months or so, as I recall.

The only difference between the new proposal and what I experienced was that the Pasadena PD was tasked with collecting and maintaining the records from the gun dealers. The chief at that time, who was moderately pro RKBA, finally told the city that he wasn't going to do it anymore, and he stopped. He said they could either provide him with additional personnel above and beyond his already approved budget, plus additional storage space for all the records, or they could go shove it; because their silly rule would otherwise require taking officers off the street to administer it. The chief also pointed out that anybody could drive 5 more miles in any direction and buy ammunition from dealers located in cities that did not have this ordinance, so the effort was pointless anyway. He stopped collecting the records, and a week or two later, the city council quietly announced that they had "suspended" the effort (I always wondered where the fanfare went...), although I never did read where they had actually rescinded the ordinance. But from that day forward, ammunition "registration" was finished.

The critical difference here of course is that the SJMN editorial wants to burden the gun stores with maintaining those records... and of course they know that this would be an onerous burden, which is exactly what they are after anyway. For better or for worse, the state can force a merchant to maintain certain records - particularly for accounting purposes. I don't know what the constitutional support for that notion is, but I'm sure that it has stood the test at some point or other. Also, it can be reasonably argued that the maintenance of such accounting records is actually as much for the protection of the merchant as it is for the needs of the state, since those same records can be used for the merchant's defense as well as his prosecution.

I wonder if a challenge could be successfully mounted against such a law based on the state's failure to demonstrate how its enforcement is in the merchant's interest, since the sale of ammunition would remain legal despite the regulation. It also could be argued that, since ID can be faked, a merchant would have no way of knowing whether or not the ID presented by the customer was valid, and thus the merchant cannot be held liable for unknowingly selling ammunition to a person with a fake ID, or to a person who would be otherwise barred by this law from being able to purchase ammunition.