The public safety bill, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger Thursday, stops all online ammunition sales, requires that all face to face ammunition sales be recorded and made available for the Department of Justice and requires the buyer to provide a driver's license and their fingerprints.
To me that makes perfect sense, but of course the pro-gun crowd are up in arms about it.
At The Range Pistol Club in Fresno, news of Assembly Bill 962's passing triggers some doubt.
"It's not going to do anything to directly prevent ammunition from falling in the hands of people who are under the age of 21 or possible criminals," Will Ayres, sales associate at The Range, said.
How does that work, exactly? How is it not going to directly affect sales to criminals and minors?
But over at The Range, they say they already require valid id's to buy ammunition. And without doing background checks, the new bill won't really change much except demand more work from employees, and possibly lead to higher prices.
"If they have a valid driver's license and they're over the age of 21, anybody can purchase handgun ammunition. Even now," Ayres said.
Mr. Ayers' argument makes as much sense as you'd expect from someone blindly arguing against something with no regard for the facts. Doesn't it make perfect sense that prohibited persons would benefit from the anonymity of the internet? Wouldn't it be wise to eliminate that option? Of course it would. Arnold is again right on the ball.
What's your opinion? Sebastian makes some good points on his blog, mainly that legitimate buyers of difficult-to-find ammo, sports shooters who can't find the supplies they need in the local shop, and regular gun owners who depend on internet sales for their supplies will be unduly hindered in all these efforts. Sebastian remarked:
And guys like MikeB still want to insist there’s no hidden agenda here? Hell, it’s not even really that hidden!
Part of the hidden agenda that's not very hidden is the idea that certain supplies are also included in this bill, supplies used for reloading ammunition, a practice that Sebastian points out is probably not done very much by criminals and gang members. Well, I certainly can't argue with that, but overall these regulations seem to be a perfect example of what I often talk about.
Legitimate gun owners need to be willing to be inconvenienced in order to assist in the efforts to minimize crime. Gun owners should be willing to do their part, otherwise how can they say they have no responsibility for the problem of gun violence?
What's your opinion? How can gun owners be so upset about this when just a few short years ago there was no such thing as internet sales of ammunition? Do you think this is an example of pro-gun folks resisting any and every gun control law regardless of its merits? Both sides do this, but it's not helpful if we want to find common ground.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Doesn't it make perfect sense that prohibited persons would benefit from the anonymity of the internet?"
ReplyDeleteAll ammo deliveries require you to show valid ID and sign a form.
It's not anonymous.
So criminals are going to stop stealing and buying ammo because of this law? There isn't going to be an underground market for it? Smugglers are not going to cross state lines to get some and sell to the criminals? Between no and when the law takes effect there won't be millions of rounds brought in and mail ordered in anticipation?
ReplyDeleteWow, if this law can stop so many crimes, California will be gun crime free by 2012.
Get real, this is only about control and will only affect the law abiding. Actually, I'll be surprised if the law survives until 2012.
And I know it will never happen, but if all of the big suppliers would band together and refuse to sell to anyone in California, including the government and police agencies, this would be over in a couple of months.
Mr. Ayers' argument makes as much sense as you'd expect from someone blindly arguing against something with no regard for the facts. Doesn't it make perfect sense that prohibited persons would benefit from the anonymity of the internet? Wouldn't it be wise to eliminate that option? Of course it would. Arnold is again right on the ball.
ReplyDeleteNo, it makes perfect sense. Unless you're going to require a background checks, the new law is utterly pointless. You can't trace ammunition back to the stop that sold it, unlike with guns.
And Mike, it's one thing to be inconvenienced because of a law that might have some conceivable effect on crime, it's another thing to be inconvenienced by a law that can have no conceivable effect on crime. There's no anonymity buying ammunition online, because you're not exactly going to fork over cash for it. But either way, you can't trace ammunition, so regulating it is pointless. Criminals don't need much ammunition to ply their trade, but people serious about shooting do. This is entirely going to inconvenience law abiding people. Criminals will find ways around it, like they do all gun control laws.
California, for all the laws it's passed in the past two decades, still has a much higher crime rate than most of the states the border it, and high rates than many other state which have considerably more lax gun control laws, and yet still have large cities.
You know Sebastian, I'm beginning to be persuaded. What you just said about criminals not needing much ammo like lawful shooters do, I find compelling. That next part about the crime rate in California, I don't find convincing any more than all the similar remarks about Chicago. But after reading a few of your comments, I feel myself putting this action in the category of the one-gun-a-month in New Jersey where it was already nearly impossible to buy more than that anyway.
ReplyDeleteWhy do these gun control folks at the legislating level do that? In Jersey, maybe Corzine was trying to make points for his upcoming election, but what's Arnold up to?
By the way, I asked my mother what she thinks about the two candidates for governor. She said their both crooks and it's proabaly better to keep the crook you know. It made me laugh.
Mike FYI it was impossible to buy any ONE gun inside of a month in New Jersey because of the paperwork. Now with One-Gun-A-Month it stops people from buying several in a sitting just to save time on the paperwork.
ReplyDeleteAlso what does this law really do? Ammo isn't much use without guns to put it in.
The guns are either legal or illegal. If the guns are legal who cares what you feed it and how much. If the guns are illegal, they got it somehow, you don't think the ammo might come from the same source?
What happens to all these fingerprints? 99.99% of them will be immediately filed away and never seen again.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that we have to put up with any inconvenience that might prevent a tiny fraction of criminal misuse is not acceptable. Many of us would accept or even support some restrictions, if they would likely be effective against criminals, and if the laws were written to minimize impact on the law abiding.
Problem is, we see constant attempts at gun control that appears to be deliberately the opposite--Designed to maximize hassle to gun owners, with minimal impact to criminals.
If we have to put up with the NICS system, PROSECUTE SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO FAIL THEIR GODDAMN BACKGROUND CHECKS!!! When someone commits a violent crime (with or without a gun), LOCK HIM UP FOR A LONG TIME!!!
Making me give fingerprints to buy ammo, preventing me from buying ammo mail order does nothing significant to deter criminals, but it will make ammo more expensive, will eliminate some dealers, will make some ammo unavailable, and will make it take longer to buy ammo.
How can gun owners be so upset about this when just a few short years ago there was no such thing as internet sales of ammunition?
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Before the "anonymous" internet sales, criminals were getting whatever ammo they needed. In fact, as internet usage has gone up, gun crime in California (and the nation) has gone down.
So if we don't see any decrease in gun crime after 1 year do you support the repeal of this law? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?
The purpose of the law is not to track ammunition used at the scene of the crime. The purpose of the law is so that police can get the records of who bought ammo, then compare those records to the "prohibited persons" list to find out who is buying ammunition for guns they aren't supposed to have. The thumbprint will make the names easier to match up in the system.
ReplyDeletePeople seem to forget that not all felons are gangbangers and tweakers. There are a lot of white collar felons, people with domestic violence convictions, convicted sex offenders, people with old felonies that walk around on the street today looking just as normal as you and I do. (Who would figure Martha Stewart to be a felon?) Most of these people do have jobs and credit cards and all the other staples of modern living.
Will this make it harder for these people to possess guns? Yes. Will it stop every person who isn't supposed to have ammo from getting ammo? No. Will it make it slightly harder for legal people to get ammo? Yes. Will baby gangsters still be able to shoplift ammo off the shelf? No. (The law also provides for ammo to be taken off the self-service shelves.)
I'm tired of the attitude of the pro-gun folks who want to coddle criminals just because they'll be a little bit inconvenienced. And it seems like 1/2 of the people opposed to the law don't have a clue how the law is supposed to work.
Apparently, Herr Schwarzenegger thinks so highly of his criminals that he doesn't believe that they steal ammunition.
ReplyDeleteOf course this won't inconvenience the more industrious shooters. They'll just rent a truck, drive to a free state and buy all the ammo they need for the year.
Just one more notch is California's fail belt.
As usual MikeB your ilk is passing laws that are unenforceable.
ReplyDeleteCA's new law is illegal. It is preempted by Federal law regulating common mail carriers by the FAA.
Not that such things ever stop anti-gunners.
Not to mention a criminal needs only a box of ammo for his trade, so how will these innumerable restrictions, including bulk online purchases keep ammo from him?
I buy virtually all my ammo online and in bulk, and if I lived in CA i'd find an out of state friend to buy ammo for me by the case.
"The purpose of the law is so that police can get the records of who bought ammo, then compare those records to the "prohibited persons" list to find out who is buying ammunition for guns they aren't supposed to have."
ReplyDeleteIf a prohibited person has a gun, they'll probably get their ammo the same way they got their gun: From some place other than a store.
"Will baby gangsters still be able to shoplift ammo off the shelf? No. (The law also provides for ammo to be taken off the self-service shelves.)"
Wrong. Stores get broken into, employees steal, things "fall off of trucks", etc.
This law fails at doing anything other than driving up the cost of gun ownership.
The thumbprint will make the names easier to match up in the system.
ReplyDeleteYou will have a warehouse full of millions of cards with something like a name, license number and a thumbprint taken by an amateur. How does a warehouse full of thumbprints add any value?
Anon, who maintains, scans and compares this mythical list of prohibitive persons in your fantasy world super law?
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure this law will be preempted by the FAA Federal law. I went back and read the Maine tobacco case and it had a lot of attributes AB962 doesn't have. Also, Fedex and UPS are already set up to do B2B deliveries. There is nothing new about this. They even give a discount rate for it.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see some other opinions before I decide what the real story is on all of this. I think those pro-2A lawyers are a little too optimistic sometimes.
If criminals are so smart, why do so many of them return to jail over and over and over again?
California has a computerized fingerprint system with millions of prints on file.
ReplyDelete"California has a computerized fingerprint system with millions of prints on file."
ReplyDeleteAnd who is going to go around and collect all the fingerprint cards and scan them into the computer?
California can't even pay it's state employees as is. The last thing they need is another person to owe money to.
"If criminals are so smart, why do so many of them return to jail over and over and over again?"
Because jail has become nothing but a vacation. Many of them look forward to going to jail: free meals, free bed, free gym, all your friends are there, networking opportunities galore, and you get to add to your street-cred.
Anonymous made a good point about the fingerprints. The fact that many of the crime prevention means are neglected or mismanaged doesn't change the fact that they're good ideas.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm still on the fence about this one.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI like this one and I hope it manages to become law.
Everyone says "you can just go over the border" but they neglect the fact that most of the population in California lives along the coastline and the big towns in other states are over 300 miles away. It's like telling someone in Miami to drive to Georgia if they want to buy ammo.
Secondly, you have to think about who is prohibited from having a gun: felons, people with domestic violence offenses, people with mental problems, underage people, people under a gang injunction, and... those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
The biggest criminal to fear for most people in populated California is the gangbanger who shoots at random. Many of these gangbangers are under 18-years-old. Some are as young as 11. Here's a link to a story about someone who became a "shot caller" at 14-years old: http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/2006/071407hpkills.html
Keeping ammunition away from kids is a good thing.
I know a lot of guns and ammunition are stolen, but people should just put up signs like I do: "This is a gun-free household -- we have no money or jewelry and our biggest TV is a 19" old style TV. We don't have anything you can sell for money unless you want our collection of Las Vegas ashtrays. If you break in here and we catch you, we are going to want whatever you have that is worth money. We'd really like a bigger TV."
I don't know how much this ammo ban will work with the gangs. I don't know where the gangs get bullets now. I know they buy stolen weapons off the street.
OK! -- but away from the gangs. Your average Uncle Joe sex offender is going to have a harder time buying bullets. That's a good thing because Uncle Joe is the kind of guy who will go into a gun store and give his fingerprint, etc.
And Martha Stewart and her elite type of felon? They'll buy with fingerprints too. They are not going to screw around with a two day trip to another state. That's just crazy. (We'll see Charlie Sheen and a bunch of others back in cufflinks.)
So... I like the law! I'm glad to see it was enacted!
As a practical matter, I don't a problem with requiring ID at the point of sale, and not much with turning over the list to the government. (I do have a problem with a ban on mail order)
ReplyDeleteAs a technical matter, a stack of fingerprint cards is close to useless, without a huge input of time and effort. Computers make it easier to match a fingerprint, but they don't do it for you yet. Comparing a print for every ammo sale would take a huge amount of skilled labor, and overwhelm the system.
And even if it were easy, I'm sure that every gang has access to someone who has avoided conviction and can still legally buy ammo.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteGangbangers, as you describe them, have not been legally able to obtain guns for over 40 years now yet they still do. Do you really believe that this law will stop them from acquiring ammo?
Legitimate gun owners need to be willing to be inconvenienced in order to assist in the efforts to minimize crime.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia gun owners have absorbed more than their fair share of "inconvenience" for the sake of crime prevention. We have, according to the Brady Campaign, the strictest gun control laws in the country.
And the sixth-worst rate of violent crime. In other words, the "inconvenience" we've experienced has been unaccompanied by any real progress with crime control.
So when some earnest gun controller comes along and tells us that we need to absorb yet more "inconvenience" for the sake of crime prevention, I hope you can understand why our inclination is to tell that individual to go straight to hell.
(And never mind the fact that "inconvenience", here, translates to "violation of our constitutional rights".)
I think the real point is our Constitutional right to bear arms. I know it sounds rhetorical and is often touted where maybe it shouldn't be, but the intent is where the issue is.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd amendment serves two purposes, to allow us to all defend our country (i.e. militia), and to allow us as individual citizens to defend against an oppressive government. Therein lies the problem. If my right and duty as a citizen of this great nation is to also defend against the potential threat of a tyrannical government, then said government should have no right to keep track of how often I choose to exercise my right.
On a side note, I find it amusing that the statement is made "Legitimate gun owners need to be willing to be inconvenienced in order to assist in the efforts to minimize crime." Of all the constituency, it is the gun owners that contribute most to minimizing crime already.
I'm amazed at the lack of common sense that seems to plague our country. Believe it or not, career criminals (who we are supposed to be protected from by this law) don't abide by laws. That's why we call them criminals. And that's why this will have zero impact on criminals and must have another intent.
FmrMarine, As one former marine to another, I thank you for coming by with a very thoughtful comment.
ReplyDeleteI don't really believe in that old criminals-don't-obey-the-law argument for the simple reason that the laws are not aimed at criminals in the first place. By making that argument you're being condescending and insulting because gun control people are as well aware of this as you are.
The laws are aimed at the law-abiding in the hope that if they're obeyed, the flow of guns and ammo into the criminal world will be diminished.
"I don't really believe in that old criminals-don't-obey-the-law argument for the simple reason that the laws are not aimed at criminals in the first place. By making that argument you're being condescending and insulting because gun control people are as well aware of this as you are.
ReplyDelete"The laws are aimed at the law-abiding in the hope that if they're obeyed, the flow of guns and ammo into the criminal world will be diminished."
So your argument is: "If we remove the rights of all citizens (specifically law-abiding ones) then we will be more affective in fighting the bad guys"
Your argument, in essence, is equivalent to the following: "If we limit the 4th amendment rights of all citizens, then it will make it easier for the police to catch criminals." (4th amendment is "search and seizure" for all of you playing at home)
I don't know about you, but I cherish each and every right granted under the Constitution. If you address the same sentiment you are asserting about the second amendment to any of the other amendments, do you have the same opinion? Sure we accept some limits to the rights in the first 10 amendments. Specifically, your right to freedom of speech is guaranteed up to the point at which you negatively affect others. However, this regulation goes past that point. Now it is limiting my ability to even maintain my second amendment right. Nevermind the numerous other shooting sports activities that generally use more than 50 rounds in a given afternoon, nevermind in a month.
Your argument is akin to saying that because people can tell lies and create libel, we should limit the number of sheets of paper than can be sold.
Second, as I understand the law, it is aimed at requiring anyone that purchases ammunition to provide a driver's license (verification of age) and fingerprint identification, among other things. How do fingerprints help deter crime? The only way it could help is by matching the type of ammunition used in a crime with all of the people who have purchased that ammunition type. Unless this ammunition is a special, non-standard type, this list of people could literally be in the thousands, just in a given county. You could argue that it does help to limit the list of suspects, but it doesn't help in any way if the ammunition was purchased illegally. The bigger issue here is, I have seen no studies that link whether crimes are generally committed with legally or illegally purchased ammunition. The inherent assumption of this law is that the people that commit crimes using firearms acquire their ammunition legally - which is totally unsubstantiated.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure laws and specifically the punishments for breaking said laws are meant to deter certain behavior. They are not meant to have a trickle down affect - besides being ineffective, that becomes more than just an inconvenience.
There is a certain subsets of the population for which these deterrents are not sufficient. Because there is no additional deterrent in this law, it will not change the proportion of the population that sees the already existing deterrent as insignificant. It only inconveniences those of us that would like to lawfully purchase ammunition. If you want to make a dent in violent firearm crime, start enforcing the laws we already have on the books and possibly increasing the penalty for said crimes. That will change the deterrent and make people think twice. If the penalty for selling a gun to a felon illegally was summary execution in a public square, how many of the people that now sell guns to felons would think twice about selling again? Even the irrational ones would get the picture after the bodies start piling up.
(As a side note, I would like to bring up the fact that this law really screws over people like me who enjoy shooting trap and skeet competitively. Back in high school, I competed nationally in american trap - I would regularly shoot more than 1000 rounds a weekend. This law will severly limit the ability of shooters in the California area from competing in the olympics in international trap and skeet. Not that there is anyone who actually cares, but I thought I might throw that out there.)
Anonymous, Thanks for those comments. Maybe you'd like to take a whack at some of our newer arguments. About this one all I can say is proper gun control laws properly enforced save lives. It's a shame that people have to be inconvenienced.
ReplyDelete