California: New Bill would Require ALL Ammo Sales Reported to DOJ, Ban Magazine Rebuild Kits

There’s an old Chris Rock bit about how we don’t actually need gun control, we need bullet control. Apparently lawmakers in the state of California have taken that advice to heart, and are introducing legislation that would require ammunition purchasers to present identification and have the sales reported to the DOJ.

The goal is ostensibly to prevent criminals from stockpiling bullets, but I get the feeling that the real intention is to create lists of people who buy ammunition in bulk. BTW, I usually go through about 1,000 rounds of 5.56 ammo alone in about a month. The only logical reason to record these transactions would be to try and identify people who buy large amounts of ammunition and, in a Minority Report kind of way, stop them before they go shoot up a school or something. An obvious invasion of the privacy of law abiding citizens if I’ve ever seen one. What ever happened to “innocent until proven guilty?”

This happening on the same day that the NYPD’s “Stop and Frisk” policy was declared unconstitutional, BTW.

Nancy Skinner proposed the legislation and spoke at the press conference about the bill. According to her, “it was the bullets that killed [Californians]. Buying bullets should not be easy. Buying deadly bullets should receive the same scrutiny as the purchase of guns.”

I don’t think Nancy quite understands the boondoggle she’s asking for. The NICS system gets overwhelmed every time Dianne Feinstein opens her trap, so any system that would perform a background check for ammunition purchases would be overwhelmed as soon as it came online. It would turn into the situation we have in Colorado, where the law says firearms sales have no waiting period but the background check takes 8 and a half days.

There are two possible things going on here. Either Nancy Skinner is a control freak and believes that keeping lists of the legal activities of law abiding citizens is a benefit to a society that was founded on freedom and the right to privacy, or she’s well aware that such a system would be a natural emergency brake on ammunition sales and effectively be a back door ban.

Its an interesting end-run around the constitution — the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms, but there’s no mention of ammunition. And also an end run around that pesky Firearm Owners Protection Act that keeps the government from creating a list of firearms owners, since its the ammunition that is being tracked.

While the chief of police for Emmeryville was quick to point out that anyone can just waltz into a store and buy ammo without a background check, he conveniently forgot that the guns that fire those bullets are supposedly already tightly regulated in the state of California and require a background check in addition to all sorts of other restrictions.

While trolling through the comments, I couldn’t see a single one that didn’t think this was the dumbest bill they’ve ever seen. John Wilson makes a particularly good point:

Many of you don’t remember this in 1986, Congress repealed the 1960s-era ban on mail order sales that also called for the keeping of detailed purchase logs. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) testified in Congress that ammunition sales logs were not an effective law enforcement tool and accordingly they did not oppose removing this onerous record-keeping requirement. There is simply no reason to believe that recording ammunition sales will somehow now be an effective law enforcement tool when it has already been tried and shown not to be effective.

Also in the bill is language that would restrict the sale of magazine rebuild kits. Pre-ban magazines (10+ rounds) were allowed to be fixed using such kits, which was a loophole in the magazine ban in California that was a way to get new magazines into the state.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

68 Responses to California: New Bill would Require ALL Ammo Sales Reported to DOJ, Ban Magazine Rebuild Kits

  1. avatarNate says:

    Wonder how many criminals buy their ammo from gun shops and department stores?

  2. avatarjustamessenger says:

    Arms
    Plural noun
    1weapons and ammunition; armaments:
    they were subjugated by force of arms

  3. avatardirk diggler says:

    The same criminals who register their california approved guns

  4. avatarThomas Paine says:

    couldn’t find a copy of the bill. Does it say ‘bullet’ or ammunition or cartridge? According to Webster, ammunition and cartridge are the same thing. Everyone would become ‘rock chuckers’ overnight.

    Also, i always wondered whether cartridges are considered ‘arms’ under the constitution. Is a firearm really an ‘arm’ without ammunition? Both firearm and cartridge is an ‘arm’, without eachother, they are just rocks and clubs. I wonder what the supreme court would say. God, how did we get in this predicament?

    • avatarRKBA says:

      How did we get in this predicament, you ask?

      “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ” – Edmund Burke

      We The People continue to roll over and ‘compromise’ again and again, and roll our eyes every time our enemies, both foreign and domestic, use anti-gun propaganda to misinform the masses at every opportunity.

      We The People have kept our tails between our legs and heads in the sand for far to long….

      The anti-American, anti-gun, anti-freedom, pro-socialist progressives have slowly, and almost silently been building momentum to destroy the values that made America the most desirable place on Earth.

      They have succeeded greatly, because We The People have allowed them to.

      We The People must begin to PUSH BACK HARD, NOW. It will not be pretty, it will not be ‘PC’, and you likely will be harassed for doing so, but if you do not like the current direction the USA is being taken, each one of us must take extreme (non-violent) action immediately.

      For if we do nothing, evil will surely succeed.

  5. avatarMark says:

    “the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, but there’s no mention of ammunition”. No. The Second Ammendment enumerates the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, of which, ammunition is an integral component.

    • avatarDirk Diggler says:

      exactly – we need to make the same arguments against them about freedom of speech. you have the right to speak, but we can control your electricity, use of computers or printing presses and make you register with us. This really becomes an attempt at a time/place restriction, which is subject to a least intermediate scrutiny (ie, see Ezell v Chicago)

    • avatarKevinYK says:

      That’s like saying the first amendment only gives you the right to verbal speech but nothing to the written language. The law is not going to work. A guy who wants to commit a crime can still commit a crime after the purchase. Reporting the sales of ammunition does nothing to stop crime!

  6. avatarStacy says:

    Time to realize that this isn’t really about violence. It’s a culture war by coastal lefties against flyover land. They hate us, and they feel like they’re in charge.

  7. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    this bill may actually conflict with Obamacare . . . . since the state has to set up a health care exchange under the law: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/09/video-secret-gun-rights-provision-in-obamacare/

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      not sure, but i thought that part (protection of 2nd amendment rights on data collection)(page 2037, line 23) made it so any data collected by the Affordable Care Act data collection policies would not have anything to do with firearms.

      I don’t think it’s ANY registry, just registries under the Affordable Care Act.

  8. avatarBuzzlefutt says:

    I’d buy bullets one at a time.

    • avatarJeff O. says:

      If some horrible regulation like this ever saw the light of day, that would actually be a hilarious way for gun shops to protest.

      Sell every bullet alone and over burden the system.

      10 people buying 2 50 round boxes would be 1000 sales…

      • avatarWiregrass says:

        Trouble is, it’s a burden on the dealers too, and only serves to drive up costs, which is the real purpose of this bill: Make legal sales unprofitable, and make the legal ownership/use of firearms cost prohibitive.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      Good point.

      How about an ammo of the week club, that just ships/delivers the ammo of your choice on a schedule based on subscription. Whatever they set the buy limit at, you set the delivery schedule to.

  9. avatarMikeP says:

    *sigh* did TTAG just buy into the meme that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t cover ammunition? “There’s no mention of ammunition” the same way there is no mention of “firearms” or “guns”. Read it again. Very. Carefully. “Arms”. Keep in mind the folks that wrote that bill vividly remembered the Red Coats marching to take not only their muskets and rifles, but powder and ball as well. Hence, the more generic “arms”. They could have written “muskets”, but they didn’t. They could have written “long arms and pistols”, but they didn’t. In any other walk of life (such as imposing an “arms” embargo) we nod our heads in solemn agreement that “arms” covers not only weapons but ammunition/ordinance.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      Arms is even more generic than that – but I have yet to convince a lawyer to take my desire to carry a longsword to the Supreme Court.

  10. avatarChainsawWieldingManiac says:

    No one gave them the heads-up that criminals are poor and don’t stockpile ammunition, right?

    Even in Cali, I don’t see this one getting very far.

    • avatarPhydeaux says:

      +1
      Criminals actually tend to use much less ammunition than your typical legal gun owner. They usually practice little, and when used in a crime shoot very few rounds. Exceptions would be the few spree killers and gang style wars between criminal enterprises.

  11. avatarMisterTurbo says:

    This is going to make my bi-weekly trip to Walmart Arms & Co that much more entertaining.

  12. avatarstateisevil says:

    Ca will have to ban 3D printers soon, because they’re going to easily make magazines.

  13. avatarLarry says:

    I’m beginning to wonder if these folks work for the arms industry. They sure are effective sales people. Look for major price increases and sales of AR15 magazine replacement springs. I ordered mine already. Happy shopping.

  14. avatarPascal says:

    Maybe this morning I woke up with a Tin Foil hat….but….I do not believe those in legislature are smart enough about guns to come up with these ideas like banning rebuild kits. I wonder how many of these things are pilfered by the anti-gun crowd reading pro-gun blogs and forums and we in effect are giving them ideas.

    • avatarLarry says:

      Good point

    • avatarWhilemyTZgentlyweeps says:

      At the CCDL meeting last night the point was made that the legislators you will talk too from urban/suburban areas really know nothing about firearms. Literally, nothing. I would have a hard time thinking that their brethren in oppression in Cali. would be that much more knowledgeable.

      This stuff is clearly be driven by the organized civilian disarmament crowd who must lurk on gun forums trying to gather information. It’s one the most essential elements of warfare.

  15. avatarSanchanim says:

    Make the jump for the full text http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB48 Well if this is the case then I guess we will need to show id, pass a background check, and have a 10 day waiting period. But again I digress, this is set to require a drivers license or other government furbished ID. Not quiet as bad as a FOID card, but we see how well that is working in Illinois. Another unattainable requirement is “Submit a report to the Department of Justice for all of the transactions, in a manner to be determined by the department.“ So if I go in and buy 1 bullet. Yup just one, my name and information along with how much I just bought gets reported. The amount of overhead required to both the businesses and government is ridiculous.

    But wait there’s more!!!

    “This bill would require anyone in the state, prior to selling, transferring, or otherwise furnishing ammunition to an individual or business entity in this state or any other state to require proper identification, as prescribed, to be an authorized firearms dealer, and to report the sales to the Department of Justice. An individual who fails to make the required report or who knowingly makes a report with false or fictitious information would be guilty of a misdemeanor, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
    The bill would require the department to alert local law enforcement entities in the community in which the purchaser resides if an individual purchaser who is not a peace officer obtains more than ____ rounds within a 5-day period.”

    So now you can see it is currently left blank, but this means the local PD will need to get notified every time someone picks up a case of ammo, 500 rounds, 1000 rounds, 20 rounds? Who knows! It also seems confusing, as to how folks will be tracked, and essentially now they will criminally charge people out of state who sell to people in state essentially, thus banning internet sales of ammo, unless it is to an FFL. This law affects dealers out of state as well and pushes state law beyond it’s borders. That is something I don’t like and you shouldn’t like it either. I am going to assume if I went to Wally World in Nevada and bought 2,000 rounds of ammo, then drove back to California, That Wally world just committed a crime. Does this not bother you, just a little bit?

    But wait there’s more!!!

    “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.”

    We already have a ten round magazine limit here in our great state. I guess that isn’t enough for Nancy. See our local gun shops purchase those standard magazine kits, and then block the magazine. Many pin them permanently and many don’t. Most of us who like to save a few bucks purchase the kits, and then block them ourselves. Of course we don’t permanently pin it shut. The idea of going to a normal capacity should the SHTF is always there. We can also actually fix the magazine if it gets broken. Those too would now be banned. This also outlaws the blocked and pinned magazines as well just because they look like they could hold 30 rounds. Good lord I guess she can’t have some that just “looks” like it has more than ten rounds. Also based on the text we could no longer purchase repair kits for our magazines.

    • avatarChainsawWieldingManiac says:

      Magazine body that looks like it could hold more than 10 rounds is banned?

      Pro-tip to CA legislators: that is every 10rd magazine in existence. You can stuff more than 10rds in any of them once you remove the follower, spring, and baseplate. This law would effectively allow CA to indict any gun owner they wanted at their leisure. It is _ludicrous_.

  16. avatarBrad says:

    And how does this affect reloaders? Do they have to report how many rounds they make in thier basement?

    But seriously, won’t this cause the market for “black market” rounds to explode with crimnials who can’t get ammo paying big bucks for non-traceable rounds. Like the drug trade, it will go underground and thrive there, causing a new set of criminal enterprises surrounding it and many more headaches for LE to try and prevent it.

  17. avatarDerryM says:

    This just goes to show the gun prohibitionists will try anything to disarm The People.
    It’s getting very tiresome to be painted as a “Criminal in Potential” when all we are doing is obeying their goddamned infringements on our natural and Constitutional RKBA. We struggle to preserve these Rights for ALL American Citizens (irregardless of whether they choose to exercise the Right or not). We are told these Laws are “to keep guns and ammo out of the hands of Criminals”. yet we law-abiding gun owners always bear the brunt of these Laws.

    Maybe we need to change our tactics and start advocating more radical measures to penalize the Criminals and Crazies who ARE the problem. (Several things come to mind, but I’ll withhold them for now because they even sort of revolt me.) Maybe we need to emphasize that this fight is not just our fight, but for ALL The People. Maybe we need to make the gun prohibitionists and fence-sitters have to visualize the horrors a disarmed People will endure when they all defenseless against real Criminals, Crazies, Terrorists and an oppressive Government.

    We seem to be chronically on the Defensive, and I think that is because we allow ourselves to be so positioned. We need to re-examine where we are coming from. We may be “in denial” that we are allowing ourselves to be victims in this fight, even though we nearly universally condemn the “victim mentality”.

  18. avatar16V says:

    The only logical reason to record these transactions would be to try and identify people who buy large amounts of ammunition and, in a Minority Report kind of way, stop them before they go shoot up a school or something.

    Did you order that ammo over the phone or on the web? Then (at least) the NSA has digitally captured that transaction. Every telecom in the US has had Narus servers installed for surveillance for 5+ years, just like the ones in “room 641″ in SF.

    Does Target/Sams/Costco big data have the ability to figure out if you’re pregnant just by your purchases? Do the machine learning algos of Netflix do a decent job picking your flix? You betcha. Are the designers of programs far more sophisticated (expensive) for government use working on “precrime” predictive software? Been at it for years, and the primaries have publicly stated that in interviews. ‘Natch it’s for “anti-terrorist” purposes and will never be used on anybody else, except that it sifts through everybody’s everything to find the “terrorists”.

    There’s no tinfoil involved, it’s just the inevitable march of big data.

    • avatarWhilemyTZgentlyweeps says:

      Don’t worry. Victim or perpetrator, if your number is up, Mr. Finch and Mr. Reese will find you. But seriously, you’re right. The tech is pretty much there and will only increase in sophistication and power.

  19. avatarRightYouAreKen says:

    This is beyond dumb. How much ammo do most mass shooters use? I’d guess less than 200 rounds. Your average IDPA, USPSA, or 3gun competitor shoots way more than that per week. So what will they be looking for? People who don’t buy much ammo, then buy 200 rounds all of a sudden? Isn’t that most casual range shooters? I just don’t understand how they think this will help them in any way possible.

    It’s like trying to catch speeders by tracking their fuel purchases.

    No point to this. Just stupid.

  20. avatarSaul Feldstein says:

    Gun bans, gay marriage, govt funded abortions, destabilizing the Middle East, open border amnesty, destroying capitalism.

    America got what it voted for.

    • avatarjwm says:

      No. We did not. I have never voted for barry or difi or the rest of that crew. And elected officials are supposed to abide by the constitution, regardless of who voted for them.

      • avatarSaul Feldstein says:

        You seem to have missed the news, Obama has a mandate and the era of smug self serving tone deaf rulers like Bush is over.

  21. avatarBen says:

    Glen Reynold’s excellent article “Second Amendment Penumbras” addresses the issue of a backdoor attempt to ban guns by limiting ammunition. It is a short and worthwhile read.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2002132

    “What would such auxiliary protections look like in the context of the Second Amendment? If the core right is, as indicated in District of Columbia v. Heller, the right to possess firearms for defense of self, family, and home, then the auxiliary protections that might matter most would be those that would make that right practicable in the real world. That would include such auxiliaries as the right to buy firearms and ammunition, the right to transport them between gun stores, one’s home, and such other places—such as gunsmith shops, shooting ranges, and the like——that are a natural and reasonable part of firearms ownership and proficiency.”

    “Likewise, punitive controls on ammunition, designed to make gun ownership or shooting prohibitively expensive or difficult, would be unlikely to pass constitutional muster. If firing-range regulations that impose burdens on target practice violate the Second Amendment, then restrictions with a similar effect—such as the dollar-per-bullet tax proposed by a Baltimore mayoral candidate—would also constitute violations, it seems. Making it “difficult to buy bullets in the city”—the avowed purpose of the tax—would seem to be precisely the sort of purposeful discrimination that would violate the Second Amendment. It might even be analogized to discriminatory taxes on newsprint, or the licensing of newsracks, both of which have been found to constitute excessive burdens on First Amendment rights.”

  22. avatarBen says:

    For some reason I just can’t get this to post correctly.

    Glen Reynold’s excellent article “Second Amendment Penumbras” addresses this issue. It is fairly short, and ought to be required reading. I put the link in my name.

    Two excerpts follow:

    • avatarBen says:

      “What would such auxiliary protections look like in the context of the Second Amendment? If the core right is, as indicated in District of Columbia v. Heller, the right to possess firearms for defense of self, family, and home, then the auxiliary protections that might matter most would be those that would make that right practicable in the real world. That would include such auxiliaries as the right to buy firearms and ammunition, the right to transport them between gun stores, one’s home, and such other places—such as gunsmith shops, shooting ranges, and the like—that are a natural and reasonable part of firearms ownership and proficiency.”

    • avatarBen says:

      “Likewise, punitive controls on ammunition, designed to make gun ownership or shooting prohibitively expensive or difficult, would be unlikely to pass constitutional muster. If firing-range regulations that impose burdens on target practice violate the Second Amendment, then restrictions with a similar effect—such as the dollar-per-bullet tax proposed by a Baltimore mayoral candidate—would also constitute violations, it seems. Making it “difficult to buy bullets in the city”—the avowed purpose of the tax—would seem to be precisely the sort of purposeful discrimination that would violate the Second Amendment. It might even be analogized to discriminatory taxes on newsprint, or the licensing of newsracks, both of which have been found to constitute excessive burdens on First Amendment rights.”

  23. avatarready,fire,aim says:

    ok heres a wrench in their leftist works…I reload my ammo..what now Kalifornia……I guess I’ll have to report myself to the tyrants ….LOL

  24. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    PLEASE, do not help them improve this bill. Point out where it’s ludicrous and stupid if you must, but do NOT post any suggestions here, in a public forum, which would help anyone on staff at the CA legislature figure out how to tighten up this bill so that it’s practical or workable.

    We WANT this to be a horrible bill full of bad ideas and constitutional conflicts. That’s what kills bills like this in committee, on the floor, in front of the veto pen, and in the courts.

  25. avatarIdahoPete says:

    ” Either Nancy Skinner is a control freak and believes that keeping lists of the legal activities of law abiding citizens is a benefit to a society that was founded on freedom and the right to privacy, or …” I vote for the first option, Nick. It really is about disarming the peasants, isn’t it?

    And would anyone like to guess how many Californians will be taking “ammo tourism” trips across the borders to Nevada, Arizona and Oregon to buy ammo?

    • avatarJames says:

      State border checkpoints then follow. “Untaxed cigarettes? Any ammunition in your vehicle? Please pull over to the siding ahead.”

      • avatar16V says:

        There already are state border checkpoints into Cali.

        They are run by agriculture if memory serves, but they already exist. Even though it’s currently about keeping the Valley safe from invasive stuff, restasking those checkpoints could be done overnight.

      • avatarIdahoPete says:

        There are quite a few back roads into parts of NE California from the Nevada/Oregon borders that avoid the existing state ag inspection checkpoints. I used to live in that area, and there were quite a few ways to get into CA without passing through the checkpoints. A bit of scouting was useful, but most of the alternative routes were maintained county (gravel) roads. One caveat: “roads not maintained in winter, generally impassable in inclement weather”. And they mean it.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      4.5 hours from my house to Cabela’s just across the NV state line — and all of the other vendors of things that go bang in the Reno area aren’t much further. There’s plenty of skiing and summer sports activities in the Reno/Tahoe area to justify family trips at least twice per year, so it’s not like I’d have to factor in fuel costs in my ammo budget.

  26. avatarSilver says:

    Oy, California. Why won’t the Pacific swallow thee?

    I must say, this New Cold War between coastal progressives and true Americans is getting tiresome. Say what you will about the threat of nuclear annihilation, the Cold War with the USSR at least had a nice, solid “us vs. them” mentality about it. Now it’s “us vs. us” where our neighbors are our greatest enemies and other states are foreign countries.

    I think the Politburo could have taken tyranny tips from modern progressive politicians.

  27. avatarKyle T says:

    It’s like requiring a driver’s license to buy gasoline. Absolutely stupid.

    • avatar16V says:

      When the cocktail of choice becomes Molotov, there’s a way to track it.

      The scary part is this is all off-the-shelf. Write a database and a few simple comparative algos. That’s all. All fuel must be purchased with a credit card matched to the vehicles plate read at the gas station by the plate recog software. The amount of fuel in your tank and your rate of consumption are all currently available for upload via OnStar.

  28. avatarGeoff says:

    So if I don’t want the deadly ammo but just want the ammo that puts holes through paper I guess I won’t need a background check then.

  29. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Time to go on the offense instead of just doing a knee jerk to these pricks. Maybe one day we can see firearms owners listed with the others that cannot be discrimnated against under federal law, Randy

  30. avatartdiinva says:

    If they want a cheap and easy way to record ammunition sales they should require all sales to be made through the internet or mail order. That way they have a delivery address and a credit card number. Limiting ammo sales to face-to-face transactions is an inefficient way of monitoring traffic. It is an open invitation to black marketeering.

  31. avatarLance says:

    Figure I wish all the people who live ther can escape and move to safe states away from the People republic of Kaliforina!

  32. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    Arms does not JUST mean the gun – ammunition is a THE major component of “arms”. If you think that the founding fathers didn’t think gunpowder was not afforded the protections of the second amendment, while the musket was, you are out of your mind!

  33. avatarMark N. says:

    This bill is hardly new, n fact it is the thrid such proposal, The first ammo bill (signed into law by General Arnie), which required ID, a thumbprint and all ammo to be kept behind the counter, went down to ignominious defeat at the hands of a state court in Fresno, which then enjoined the statute on the basis it was unconstitutionally vague as to the ammuntition to which it applied. That case is still on appeal. The scond bill was passed last year, but vetoed by Gov.Brown, with a signing statement suggestiing everybody hold their horses until the Court of Appeal weighs in on the first bill. Now there is this third proposal. All ban internet sales (though how this passes muster under the Commerce Clause I am not sure). In addition, certain cities and counties have their own ordinances, including San Fran, LA and Sacramento. Most vendors will not ship to a number of zips to avoid falling afoul of these ordinances.

    Given the ease with which the last bill passed the Legislature, I expect no less this season. But there remains the question of whether Brown will veto it, and if he does, whether the democrat supermajority will overcome his veto. You can bet that the statute, if enacted, will be immediately challenged in court.

  34. avatarJustice06RR says:

    Lawmakers in California… What a joke.

    It would be a great place to live in if it wasn’t for their stupid laws. 10rd mag capacity and bullet buttons? Check. Glad I live in a free state elsewhere.

  35. avatarR7 Rocket says:

    Time to download and print out new 30rd magazines from a 3d printer… And gun parts too.

    • avatarJoe says:

      Well technically, the 3D printers are used to manufacture the tools needed to make them… And metal-cutting tools have been used for decades before. There’s these things called books and schematics and power tools/CNC machines. ;)

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.