California Ammo Sales Registration and Mag Ban Bill Revealed

nancy

California State Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner has introduced California Assembly Bill AB-48. It’s now headed to committee. The bill attempts to close “loopholes” in the Golden State’s unconstitutionally restrictive firearms laws. For example, at the moment, a shooter can lend or borrow a 30-round magazine at a 3Gun competition—-so long as the other person is on site. Skinner’s skinned that cat . . .

Except as specified, existing law makes it a crime to manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend any large-capacity magazine, and makes a large-capacity magazine a nuisance. Existing law defines “large-capacity magazine” to mean any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds but excludes, in pertinent part, a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

Then there’s the “issue” of shooters, dealers and other People of the Gun modifying non-California-legal magazines to California-legal 10-round magazine magazines (via a block, or something similar). This would be verboten under the new law, unless, maybe, you pin the magazine shut. Which of course makes it irreparable. Here’s the language:

This bill would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, to knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend any device that is capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine. The bill would revise the definition of “large-capacity magazine” to mean any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, including a readily restorable, as defined, disassembled large-capacity magazine, and an oversize magazine body that appears to hold in excess of 10 rounds. The bill would make related, conforming changes. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Here’s a new one: springs and ammunition magazines that look big would be illegal. The law prohibits . . .

. . . a readily restorable disassembled large-capacity magazine and an oversize magazine body that appears to hold in excess of 10 rounds. A magazine body is not a large-capacity magazine if it is only of sufficient size to accommodate no more than 10 rounds of ammunition and the internal working parts of the magazine, including the follower and spring.”

I guess they are scarier than small magazines? Parts kits are also now illegal, and well since you have to have a non serviceable magazine anyway, well you get the whole point.

30301.
(a) Anyone in this state, prior to selling, transferring, or otherwise furnishing ammunition to an individual or business entity in this state or any other state, shall do all of the following:
(1) Require proper identification from the purchaser in the form of a driver’s license or other photographic identification issued by a state or the federal government.
(2) Be an authorized firearms dealer, pursuant to Section 26500.
(3) Submit a report to the Department of Justice for all of the transactions, in a manner to be determined by the department.
(b) The Department of Justice shall alert local law enforcement entities in the community in which the purchaser resides if the purchaser obtains more than ____ rounds within a five-day period and the purchaser is an individual and not an authorized firearms dealer. The department is not required to alert local law enforcement of sales of ammunition made to peace officers.

So how many rounds do you reckon Californians will be compelled to report to the DOJ? One hundred? Fifty? Ten?

From the looks of it, if I were to go into the local gun store and buy one bullet, they need to inform the DOJ. Now what would the purpose be? Do they need to wait until they hear something back in order to actually process the order for my one bullet? If I provided false information then what? Does any of this make sense at all? I like the bit about allowing LEO’s to buy all the ammo they want. I guess they are special.

Skinner’s bill would also prohibit anyone other than an authorized firearms dealer from selling ammunition. They’d have to report the sales to the Department of Justice. If the authorized ammo dealer fails to make the required report or knowingly makes a report with false or fictitious information they’re guilty of a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The one upside to all this: I don’t see the original idea of making it illegal to sell ammunition online, although if the online dealer is not an FFL, and doesn’t follow procedure, then what? Are they going to charge out of state sellers with California state laws?

Never mind, ’cause . . .

“It shouldn’t be so easy to buy bullets, the very thing that makes a gun deadly,” Skinner told bloomberg.com. “While we have numerous safeguards in place to purchase a gun, it’s easier today to buy bullets than to buy alcohol, cigarettes or some cold medicines.”