Guns And Stuff Related.

[Watashiwah]

Background checks for ammo in CA.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/ready...equiring-background-checks-for-ammo-purchases

 

[Elio Amazed]

I'm not up to date with current gun laws specially in California so maybe you guys can help me. If you own a gun with MORE than 10 rounds capacity bought in 1985, is this gun now considered illegal to own? And do you need to register it again as it's been 35 years.

I don't want to steer you in the wrong direction, so I'll open with this: I don't know for sure. Even if I thought I did, things in California change so fast, what's legal one day may not be legal the next. That said, I believe it's generally the magazine that's considered illegal if it has the capability of holding more than 10 rounds and not the actual firearm. Though any (rare) firearms that hold more than 10 rounds in a fixed magazine that may be considered to be illegal there. I can't think of any at the moment other than the regulated and modified Frankenstein AR-15s etc. that California forces it's citizens to own.The industry makes modified magazines for California and other communist states that are limited to a ten-round capacity for almost every common firearm out there. I believe that any firearm with "features" that California equates to being similar to "assault weapon" features is not allowed to have a removable magazine, but again, I'm not adequately familiar with the law concerning that. I also believe that there are some magazines that hold more than 10 rounds that have been "grandfathered" in California via date of manufacture. And let's not forget the "magazine freedom" period of time last year when due to a fair and impartial judge you could legally purchase a 10+ mag and have it considered grandfathered. Unfortunately even though the magazines that were purchased in that window of time are still considered legal to own and use, the window only lasted about two weeks or less. I suggest you get in touch with Gun Owners of America, or a similar organization for help with your questions. I'm sure that they could point you to the right resource if they didn't have answers for you directly,. In the mean-time, I'd seriously delete your post until you determine whether you're in violation of the law as far as recent registration requirements of said firearm or not. You never know what places on the internet big brother likes to hang out at.

 

[Elio Amazed]

Background checks for ammo in CA.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/ready...equiring-background-checks-for-ammo-purchases

I'll see your California ammo background check law and raise you one equally as ugly that's going through the state legislature in PA right now

Pennsylvania's Gov. Wolf is trying to push HB 2344, though while everyone is focused on his shut down of the state
Pennsylvania House Bill 2344 is a step in the wrong direction. If this gets passed it will be a huge step in disarming Pennsylvania citizens. Guns are useless without bullets.The fact this is being smoke screened by Covid-19 hysteria makes it difficult to get people's attention.House Bill 2344 is a Gun Control Bill that tries to limit access to ammunition. H.B.2344, if passed, goes into effect like this.
..
-You will be required to apply for a Ammunition Purchase Authorization Permit.
-You will apply for this permit through the Pennsylvania State Police which costs $50 and you have to renew your permit every 4 yrs.
-It will take 30 days to process your permit and background check.
-It will track all of your ammunition purchases and it gives the state the right to revoke your ammo permit at any time.
-Every ammunition purchase will include a $3 tax that will go to Pennsylvania Firearm Instant Record Check Fund.
-You can't purchase ammunition from out of state without transferring it to a licensed dealer first.
-You can order ammunition online but it will be against the law to deliver it to your home.You can do online orders but it must be delivered to a licensed dealer 1st. The licensed dealer will almost certainly charge you an additional fee for this service.

 

[AriLea]

I just had to jump in to make a point. I don't care what we do about guns. But please do something to make them safe. How safe? Safe enough that 51%+ of the people who vote, won't feel obligated to crush your right to own.

I get tired of the fight being in the wrong place. And the best people to figure out how to make things safe, are fighting tooth and nail to not face the issue. (not you guys of course!, although you could have the solution(s)) And the people who are afraid won't even let a proposal be considered.

I don't know what would work. It's a social, engineering and legal cross platform problem. I don't think one size fits all.

At one time, a company I knew, was working on a design that locked out anyone but the owner. Let's not get technical on that one. My issue was that both sides killed that one off. What the heck? If it worked wouldn't both sides be happier?
Too complex? OK, make it simpler.
Too expensive? OK, make it cheaper.
Not good for this one situation? Fix each in their own best solution.
Hard to regulate? OK, that's a little harder, but not impossible.(just don't give up)

I own a gun. I have had others. I want to keep it. I want it safe. I want yours safe. I want non-owners to feel and BE safe. Now get to work.

OK, so look at it this way. If all the guns were gone. And we could have them back only when they were safe in our context of use and ownership. Would we then come up with solutions? Why did we wait??

 

[Grumpy Cat]

I just had to jump in to make a point. I don't care what we do about guns. But please do something to make them safe. How safe? Safe enough that 51%+ of the people who vote, won't feel obligated to crush your right to own.

I get tired of the fight being in the wrong place. And the best people to figure out how to make things safe, are fighting tooth and nail to not face the issue. (not you guys of course!, although you could have the solution(s)) And the people who are afraid won't even let a proposal be considered.

I don't know what would work. It's a social, engineering and legal cross platform problem. I don't think one size fits all.

At one time, a company I knew, was working on a design that locked out anyone but the owner. Let's not get technical on that one. My issue was that both sides killed that one off. What the heck? If it worked wouldn't both sides be happier?
Too complex? OK, make it simpler.
Too expensive? OK, make it cheaper.
Not good for this one situation? Fix each in their own best solution.
Hard to regulate? OK, that's a little harder, but not impossible.(just don't give up)

I own a gun. I have had others. I want to keep it. I want it safe. I want yours safe. I want non-owners to feel and BE safe. Now get to work.

OK, so look at it this way. If all the guns were gone. And we could have them back only when they were safe in our context of use and ownership. Would we then come up with solutions? Why did we wait??

Liberty minded folks would have issues with this. I want my freedom. I want you to have your freedom. Restricting rights is not the way to have freedom. You don't have the right to "feel safe." You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Watashiwah]

Besides adding greatly to the costs (arguably another sort of tax that is actually a penalty) there will always be zip guns (and now ‘ghost’ guns, 3D printer guns, and even knives and baseball bats. And what about the guns already out there? There is no recalling them. The criminals will always have the guns.

 

[AriLea]

Besides adding greatly to the costs (arguably another sort of tax that is actually a penalty) there will always be zip guns (and now ‘ghost’ guns, 3D printer guns, and even knives and baseball bats. And what about the guns already out there? There is no recalling them. The criminals will always have the guns.

Like I say, fix it. Fix it your way. Otherwise, yea, they WILL take your guns away.
I assume that is easier than getting your own 'guns for every person' country.
If you think it is fixed enough to hold the line here. Well then, I guess everything is OK.
But I see evidence it is not a static situation, no mater what you think about 'those guys'.

Anyway, I'm good, I just wanted to let you-all consider an issue. Trying to get the argument into a more productive corner is probably harder to do than just living in the dysfunctional one. So, I'm done.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

Like I say, fix it. Fix it your way. Otherwise, yea, they WILL take your guns away.
I assume that is easier than getting your own 'guns for every person' country.
If you think it is fixed enough to hold the line here. Well then, I guess everything is OK.
But I see evidence it is not a static situation, no mater what you think about 'those guys'.

Anyway, I'm good, I just wanted to let you-all consider an issue. Trying to get the argument into a more productive corner is probably harder to do than just living in the dysfunctional one. So, I'm done.

I agree, we should fix it. Repeal all the anti-protection laws (all the gun control laws) and keep criminals locked up.

 

[Watashiwah]

I think I understand that AriLea isn’t judging one way or another, he’s just saying ‘where the issue is going and what will eventually happen.’ I hope he’s wrong but he unfortunately could be right: political decisions certainly never make everyone happy. There are monumental changes that quite a few candidates keep alluding to.

It’s really too bad that 99 percent of the people I talk with in my ‘age group’ feel that we are ‘lucky to be (~) 65ish, than (~) 6ish.’ That’s really sad in so many ways. Personally I’m one of those 99 percent but am mostly worried about on missing out on CW II. I’m trying to stay in shape for that. ‘Cause and effect’ have been so separated by motives that only extreme measures will get us back on a healthy course, and it might be too late for even that....

 

[Elio Amazed]

60 rounders. https://www.facebook.com/SurplusProvisions/photos/a.257374534461771/1286563244876223/?type=3&theater