Poll: Californians Support Background Checks for Ammo Purchases, Banning Gun Sales to Americans on No-Fly List

(courtesy toplawyersfresno.com)

“A vast majority of California voters — including most Republicans — support proposals that would require background checks to buy ammunition and prevent people on the government’s ‘no-fly’ list from buying guns, the new Field Poll shows,” mercurynews.com reports. To put numbers to that . . .

(courtesy mercurynews.com)

Yup: 80 percent of Golden Staters want background checks for ammunition purchases. And . . .

(courtesy mercurynews.com)

Seventy-five percent of those polled reckon Americans on Uncle Sam’s secret, unaccountable, unconstitutional “no-fly” list should have their Second Amendment rights revoked. Because guns.

Just in case you thought the poll was an academic exercise, remember that California Lt. Governor Gavin Newson and his allies are busy collecting some 300k petition signatures to put NICS checks for ammo purchases on the ballot. They’ll get them, too.

I don’t suppose it matters that the right to keep and bear arms isn’t subject to the democratic process means much in a state where the right to keep and bear arms is subject to the democratic process.

comments

  1. avatar MdBx says:

    So sad..

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      Sadly, most people are manipulated by propaganda. People who can think for themselves, and come to rational conclusions are rare. Lies repeated often enough, are generally considered “truths”.

      A couple years ago, we made some new friends who had recently moved up from LA. He had never even touched a gun. I took him shooting, and he had a great time. Then, we took him and his wife out to shoot “sage rats – ground squirrels”. I also let them try my .22 revolver, 9mm pistol, AK and Mosin. Our other friends brought a 30-30 for them to try. They had a blast! After that, he was talking about buying his own rifle, but wasn’t sure if he wanted to get a .22lr or a .17hmr.

      He realized that shooting is fun. He also realized that a bunch of his new friends were not only gun owners, but owners of evil black rifles, and regularly carried concealed pistols.

      Most of the people surveyed have probably never been out shooting. We need them to realize the shooting sports are a fun, and harmless activity. We don’t often have the means to indoctrinate millions of people (like Big Media does). We have to convert people one by one. Don’t get discouraged. There are millions of us gun owners. We will rarely convert the hard core gun grabbers, but we can convert the untold millions of unthinking/undecided people in the middle. Those are the ones we need to work on.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      56% support expanding the state’s assault weapons law to include all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, an idea Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed in 2013.

      56% of California’s population is ready and willing to force their opinion on a very large minority based on zero knowledge whatsoever of the subject of which they have an opinion. Haters of freedom and tolerance ready to enslave everyone else under their opinion.

      Welcome the “new” assault weapons: The semiautomatic detachable magazine fed hunting rifle – the browning BAR:

      http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/13481/13749291_1.jpg?v=8CF527F5226D490

      Right alongside a host of other classic hunting rifles.

    3. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      If this passes I will be making trips to Nevada to my purchases.

    4. avatar Redfoot says:

      Ahem. Socal residents, along with Sacramento and San Fran support background checks. I know, I know, you guys are looking at the overall vote B.S., but there are plenty of us that support gun rights, the only problem is that we are not illegal immigrants, lefties, or from LA.

  2. avatar J. Tiesto says:

    Excellent sample size.

    1. avatar n64456 says:

      Exactly! 1000 people from the hyper-liberal San Fran/ San Jose area???? Wow, I’m SHOCKED that this BS poll wasn’t more in favor than that! There are NO Republicans in that area (that will admit it, anyway….) and if they were, then RINOs at the very least. Let them vote with their feet, or reap what they sow

      1. avatar hobbez says:

        I would like the see the wording of the questions. I’ll be this is yet another example of folks not answering the question that they think they are.

      2. avatar Blake says:

        The problem is that CA is run by San Francisco and LA.

        Those of us in flyover country CA have virtually no say in CA politics.

        1. avatar gipper says:

          Just like Oregon is run by Portland and Washington state is run by Seattle.Probably all Cali transplants polluting and spreading like a cancer anyplace they can.

        2. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          Jefferson State anyone? Or we can just cede to Nevada.

        3. avatar gipper says:

          sagebrushracer
          GO JEFFERSON….. Nevada has its own flakiness in Clark county (Las Vegas)

          Jefferson (State of) would be a great way to escape the Portland metro political stranglehold

    2. avatar jwm says:

      According to barry and friends the majority of gun owners want UBC’s and to ban “Assault Rifles”. This “poll” has no validity.

    3. avatar John S says:

      Here’s the .PDF link to the survey: http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2526.pdf The last page has the info about the respondents, and the questions asked.

      Field is a respected survey firm. Can’t blame them for the misinformation supplied every day to the uninformed CA residents.

      And, here’s the CA initiative about ammunition and other things: Proposition 1756, http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0098%20%28Firearms%29_0.pdf. Supporters are now gathering signatures to get it on the ballot.

      If those Field Poll numbers are right, it should easily get the required signatures.

  3. avatar Reggie Browning says:

    This is why Obama keeps going on TV and pretending that he has never heard a valid argument against the no fly no buy list. If 90% of these people heard the real reason that the legislation was shot down, they would stop supporting it.
    And if you have a gun then you already passed a background check. Making you go through another background check every time you buy ammunition is stupid. I guess this could be seen a way as helping to plug the “gunshow loophole” but if you bought your gun privately to avoid a background check you can buy your ammunition privately too.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The sole purpose of this requirement is to raise the cost of ammunition. It is not specified how much sellers will charge for doing a NICS check, but I can’t imagine that it will be less than $5 a pop. As it is, the proposed fee to get the ammo permit (with background check) is $50.

  4. avatar DerryM says:

    Death knell for 2A Rights in California.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Death knell?

      I’m pretty sure the second amendment has been convalescing in Hospice for quite some time now, in California. Peruta would probably have been the only means of resuscitation, and even that seems improbable now.

      1. avatar Julio says:

        I hope that you are wrong on that, Chip. The CA Solicitor General DID concede that the “Core Right” to bear arms extends beyond the home during En Banc oral arguments. That’s at least a big step in the right direction.

  5. avatar Smith says:

    To be honest, I’m losing a little bit of respect for California every day. All you gun guys in CA, hang in there.

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      All we can do is vote. Soon they will limit that as well.

      1. avatar Mike says:

        It’s already limited. We voted to take away part of our right to vote. Only the top 2 candidates in state election primaries are allowed on the general election ballot. (It was a ballot measure).

        1. avatar gipper says:

          Oh GOD, they tried to pass that concept in Oregon.
          the general election choice would have been …..
          Democrap
          or
          Democrap

          Thankfully that was defeated (for now!)

        2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          Ballot initiatives have played a huge role in destroying the once great state of CA. I grew up there. Only one of my old friends growing up is still there.

      2. avatar Chadwick says:

        Soap box, ballot box, cartridge box…

      3. avatar gipper says:

        Maybe we need to go back to only “Landowners” (men or women) being allowed to vote.
        It would weed out the the uninformed and the Nomadic resident.

        I have seen more elections affected by people that don’t have a tangible ( or financial -tax) stake in a measure (as in renters) causing property owners to pay burdensome higher taxes…..
        Landlords might possibly raise rents (or not) to compensate for increases, but everyday owners are stuck with the aftermath.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          I would suggest, instead of land owners (though that’s not a bad criterion), make it only people who make a positive net contribution to the public treasury. If you take in more in entitlements than you pay in taxes, you lose your right to vote until you are back on the right side of the ledger. You retain all the other rights of citizenship, but you can’t continually vote yourself a share of other peoples’ money.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          It’s a concept HOWEVER the purpose in life of citizenship is NOT to contribute your income/property to the overlord.

          Perhaps start by returning the franchise to 21 (on theory that have the maturity/wisdom of have the vote). And get rid of direct election of Senator. Pretty much EVERYTHING the progtards passed.

          ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF STATES. Make it happen.

        3. avatar Goose says:

          Being a member of the landed gentry,I wholeheartedly concur.

      4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        If voting could actually change anything, they would make it illegal.

        The proof? Look at how much effort they instead put into making all things firearms-related illegal.

      5. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        The free movement of people is what is limiting the voting power of Americans. Every single alien in this country is nullifying a citizens vote.

    2. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I’m shocked that you have enough respect for California remaining to be losing some daily.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Good point. Any lingering respect I might still have for California would necessarily have to be the deadest thing alive with strength enough left to die.

  6. avatar tsbhoA.P.jr says:

    so much fault…

  7. avatar James says:

    Here lies the challenge. We can preen about the Constitution and “shall not be infringed”. But the Constitution is only as strong as the willingness of the people to agree to follow it. Hence the coasts where 2A is heavily restricted and soon to be nonexistent in California. We are doing well in most parts on the hearts and minds, but we need to do even better. Our opponents are good at manipulating emotions and using euphemisms for more totalitarian desires. Unless we can find our own emotional manipulations (terrorism, long police response times, etc) and discredit thoroughly all main stream media in the majority of minds, we remain in a stalemate.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

      The United States Constitution is, after all, an ideal on paper and only as strong as our commitment to it, whether that commitment takes the form of adhering to it or enforcing it when people fail to adhere to it.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        I’ve been shouted down and called a heretic, even on this very site, for saying the same thing.

        The Constitution is merely a document, if the people do not hold to its tenets, it means literally nothing.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          So, ‘consent of the governed” is a double edge sword.

          The Founders were dealing with very big, high-minded philosophical concepts. Our culture drools over what dress some trollop wears on TV or which guy can throw a ball the farthest.

          There’s a disconnect for you…

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          JR_in_NC,

          Very true.

          Something about the fall of the Roman Empire … bread and circuses … comes to mind.

    2. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

      This is why I keep pointing out that we have to play the long game. That’s the one huge advantage the Anti’s have. The look towards the future. Too many here want it their way now and if they can’t have it, then they’ll take their toys and huff along home.

      Every time a teacher gets away with portraying guns as bad; every time a school is allowed to back down without repercussion, our Second Amendment rights get closer to disappearing.

  8. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

    Getting to where I’m of a mind to tell my Nazifornia cousin to just stay there, since he likes it so much. As in never leave the state at all, not even to cross the border. Hate to say it, but there you go. So frustrating, but I’m glad to live in a free state (so far).

    Tom

  9. avatar Joe R. says:

    CA is no longer a state it is a U.S. Territory governed by OK.

    CA, pack your sh_t and move to the Pacific Ocean, do not pass go, do not request assistance from your parent company Mexico, or your dad beelzebub.

  10. avatar Gadsden16 says:

    Yet another reason why I will never move to California. Too bad. Nice state with good weather most of the time.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Never move to California? I’ll never even visit.

  11. avatar Bob says:

    The no fly list thing is dangerous, because to most people, why wouldn’t you want this to be the case. Usually once you explain the nature of the no fly list, and it’s errors, they better understand why this makes no sense.

    These polls are dangerous because they are usually asking a simply stated question to people with little to no understanding of the subject. If I asked questions about particle physics in a poll, and worded it correctly I could achieve whatever I wanted as a result.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      ‘…they are usually asking a simply stated question to people with little to no understanding of the subject.’

      Sadly these same people frequently vote with little or no understanding of the subject.

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        That is, of course, the problem. The ballot initiatives themselves are all too often not only simple, but intentionally misleading in their descriptions. Just like an unscrupulous pollster can get the desired results by carefully phrasing the questions, unscrupulous organizations and politicians can get the votes they want. Bad juju. As long as the majority of people are ignorant or stupid (which can be ensured by complicity with the media, public schools, and universities), the useful idiots will vote exactly how they are told, regardless of their own interests.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      These polls are … asking a simply stated question to people with little to no understanding of the subject.

      That is the problem — people have little to no understanding of many important subjects.

      Any ideas on how to fix that?

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        First step: Break the power of the teachers unions (right to work!). Second step: Make sure taxes do not go through DC before coming back to the schools, so your own money doesn’t come back to your schools with strings attached. No federal money in local education. That alone will go a long way. Then, the battle to reform public schools so they are no longer simple leftist indoctrination camps will be much more winnable.

        Next, move on to public universities. As a first step there, force them to respect the 1st amendment.

  12. avatar Brianflys says:

    Only illegal aliens and libtards left in California. I left last year for Texas. Proud Texan now, nothing but distain for Kalifornia. They are a cancer.

  13. avatar Jason says:

    California needs to grow a pair. When is the last time they had an actual conservative in a position of power?

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Reagan.

      1. avatar Rog Uinta says:

        And HE signed off on the Hughes Amendment. SMH

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Yep. Reagan was a mixed bag at best on the 2nd Amendment. He did make it so I can drive through New Jersey with my firearms locked in my trunk without going to prison. That was his biggest and possibly only contribution. I don’t think he ever had a Republican legislature to work with though. Either in CA or DC.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Schwarzenegger claimed he was, least-ways he was a member of the Republican Party. He signed off on the microstamping law and the ban of all .50 cal BMGs.

      3. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

        >Reagan
        >signed open carry ban

        Good one.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Reagan was a conservative, not a 2nd Amendment hero. Jason asked when the last time a conservative had any power in CA and that was Reagan. I have no idea who the last pro 2nd Amendment politician was in CA.

  14. avatar LJM says:

    The problem with abandoning a state like CA is that it creates 40 million like minded people who think this is ok. The when they leave the state because they can’t afford it’s ridiculous cost of living, they drag that dogma to other “free” states like Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado… Etc. Same thinking applies to the right coast. So it always makes sense to fight for the rights for these people who share our views in these areas.

    1. avatar Troutbum5 says:

      Which is the primary reason Colorado is moving to the left. Outside of Denver, Boulder and Ft Collins, the state is solidly conservative, though the heavily Hispanic San Luis Valley tends to lean Democrat. Hey Californians, go home and fix your own mess, and quit trying to do the same thing to ours. It didn’t work there, and it won’t work here.

      1. avatar Avid Reader says:

        I wish. I just watch what’s happening on the local political scene in Colorado and shake my head.

        All the more reason to stay active.

  15. avatar Dan says:

    In August 2014 a district court ruled that the 10 day waiting period we Californians must undergo in was UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    It’s now 2016 and we still have to wait 10 days, eff this state, it’s never going to get better.

    1. avatar Blake says:

      If I remember correctly, the Sheriff of San Diego was told he had to start issuing CCW and he still refuses….with no consequences.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Not true. The trial court ruled in favor of the Sheriff, and a three judge panel reversed. However, before that judgment became final, the Ninth Circuit (at the request of one of the justices) granted en banc review, the consequence of which is that the former appellate decision was automatically vacated. Oral argument has been held, but the panel was heavily weighted with liberals (as is the entire Ninth Circuit). It has been many months and we are still awaiting the final decision. Presumably the loser will appeal to the Supreme Court. Consequently, it will likely be several more years before the case is final.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      That’s because the State appealed, and there is no judgment in effect. Oral arguments on the appeal, if I recall correctly, are set for next month. Given the long period of time since the Peruta arguments without a decision, there is no telling when the appeal will be decided.

    3. avatar Goose says:

      Southern california,AKA,East korea

  16. avatar Friedrich says:

    I live in ca, this is terrible.

  17. avatar Donald says:

    My son lives in California and when I visit I see the sights. But when he says he would like me to move there I tell him I would rather die first. He knows I’m a stanch conservative. Unfortunately his Ohio conservative up-bring is fading away.

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      Same situation here.
      My wife and I love the San Francisco area as much as our son who lives there. We visit as often as possible. It’s a damn beautiful part of the country wasted because of too many idiots electing too many other idiots to run the government.

      1. avatar Goose says:

        I understand it smells like piss and shit most of the time because of the bathroom habits of their bums.

        1. avatar LongPurple says:

          Not in my experience. I did notice something new this Spring, however. Homeless living in Golden Gate Park and Alamo Square. Never saw that sort of thing in SF parks before.

  18. avatar Magickaldood says:

    If there is an ammo regulation passed every single part of keeping and bearing arms in California will be subject to government approval.

    Firearms- The transfer, buying, selling, lending, carrying, keeping/storing and construction of firearms is all regulated.
    To transfer, buy or sell it must go through an FFL. And you may not transfer registered Assault Weapons or magazines greater than 10 rounds.
    You may only purchase a firearm with a Firearm Safety Certificate.
    You may only transfer a firearm to some else that has a Firearm Safety Certificate.
    Unloaded open carry is only legal in Unincorporated Areas of counties with less than 200,000 persons (31 of 58 counties, but only ~2,000,000 of the estimated 38,000,000 residents).
    Loaded open carry is only legal while shooting at a range or hunting.
    Concealed carry is for most people unobtainable (not certain on count/population breakdown). Most sheriffs accept b̶r̶i̶b̶e̶s̶ campaign donations in return for issuing permits (huge issue in the Bay Area for instance).
    You may not assemble any “Assault Weapons” as defined by the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and subsequent amendments. There are major complications with assembling semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines, they must be built in a “featureless” manner.

    Edged weapons-
    You may not conceal any fixed blades longer than 2.75″ or any automatic opening knives.
    You may not carry any dirks or daggers (non-specific language thought to mean sharpened on both sides of the blade).
    Open carry of knives is actually pretty relaxed (no length laws at state level, many big cities have length limits); however you do run the risk of an ignorant police officer trying to intimidate you into surrendering your knife.

    Blunt force weapons-
    Having a blunt force weapon on your person can be an instant felony in some cases.
    You must be a registered security guard with a special endorsement or a police officer to carry a baton, collapse-able or otherwise. The ridiculous part in all of this is that you could in theory legally carry a 3′ katana on you hip but you can’t carry an 18″ collapsible baton.

    Less lethal-
    Certain types of stun gun or tasers are “LEO/MIL only”.
    Different cities have different regulations on carrying less lethal, you could be walking down a block and cross an imaginary line and all of a sudden you are breaking the law.
    Pepper spray must be an aerosol smaller than 3 fluid OZ.

    With any type of regulation on ammunition, all forms of arms will be regulated in some manner in California.

  19. avatar Kyle says:

    California is really 3 ‘states’.

    The North, the east, and the coastal south.

    These 3 regions have absolutely zero in common with each other. Its why we keep trying to get the state split up. The reality is that the coastal south runs the state. They do whatever they want and the rest of the state sees their natural resources plundered and their wishes ignored. The powers that be will never let the state be split. Too much power for the democrats to keep it the way it is.

    This is the sad reality of California.

    1. avatar Blake says:

      I think the better move would be to become part of either AZ or Nevada.

      From a gun rights standpoint, AZ is the better choice.

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Support the State of Jefferson! Or Google it.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Never going to happen in the current partisan climate. Any reconfiguration of states that would affect either congressional districts or electoral college votes (which is basically any real change) would be firmly opposed by the party that would stand to lose seats/electors.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      I would say that the Coastal South, as you describe it, covers everything from Mendocino down to San Diego. North of Mendocino is kind of a mixed bag. And everything east of the Coastal Range, except Imperial County (for reasons I don’t understand) is pretty conservative, and mostly ag and cattle. The proposed State of Jefferson (which is a nice idea but has no chance of becoming reality) would cover everything north of Sacramento; it is an area that has practically no influence in the Legislature a) because it is mostly Republican, and b) because it lacks the population to make any difference.

  20. avatar William Ashbless says:

    In March of 2015 a lawyer named Matt McLaughlin Gathered signatures for an initiative he called the ‘Sodomite Suppression Act’ that would allow gays and lesbians to be put to death for practicing their sexual orientation. It brilliantly exposed the initiative process for what it is.
    We have another little method of passing laws that allows ANBODY to enter a state senator’s office with any law they wish to see passed and that senator can ‘sponsor’ that law on the floor of Sacramento. The law is then voted on and passes or fails without regard to the people of this state. This practice came to light when Home Depot did this with their proposal to mandate Carbon Monoxide detectors in residential use. Home Depot already had the jump on manufacturing and supplying a product that is now MANDATORY in every home in the state. That is how this state has turned into the insane asylum it has now become.

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      I wondered how that came to pass.

  21. avatar pres stone says:

    and this surpises anyone? no. those idiots are the ones that vote in gun control politicians. let them enjoy another shooting then. if you are in the informed, independent thought minorities in Commiefornia, MOVE. its your only option. sorry.

  22. avatar dlj95118 says:

    …I live in the San Francisco south bay (San Jose) and nobody asked me for my opinion concerning any gun-control issues.
    The Mercury News as a source? At best, a lefty-rag.

  23. avatar DrVino says:

    I don’t remember being polled…..

  24. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    BREAKING NEWS: I just asked 3 people at the gun store if they support more gun control?Overwhelming consensus is no!

  25. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    What we really have to change is the notion that a government law passed with overwhelming public support is always righteous.

    Imagine some tiny demographic that was only 3% of the populace. If 85% of the populace supported a government law to confiscate ALL of the assets of that tiny demographic, would that law and its enforcement be righteous? Would such a law be righteous if it only confiscated their bank accounts? If it only confiscated their golf clubs? If it only confiscated their ammunition?

  26. avatar Anonymous says:

    The source of the poll is here:
    http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2526.pdf

    Keep in mind there are some answers that show a decline in the opinion of imposing greater controls on gun ownership – which mercury news didn’t report in their article.

    Keep in mind also – that the report doesn’t indicate much information on the sample. Did most samples come from LA? Sacramento? San Francisco? This is an important figure that can skew the results.

    Keep also in mind that the poll itself is funded from the University of California and the California State University systems.

  27. avatar Jim says:

    I guess I’ll buy my ammo in Nevada or Arizona. I’ll double up on my indoor range ammo I buy when I go shoot. Just another reason to retire early and move.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It will be a felony to import ammo into the state without the proper permits and with the transaction processed by a licensed ammunition vendor. Cute, huh?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Actually, I’m wrong about that. It is an infraction for a first offense, and a misdemeanor for all subsequent offenses.

  28. avatar Publius says:

    This is why I cry every time I watch the 1978 Superman movie. Just let California fall into the ocean! You’d be doing the world a favor of immeasurable proportions!

  29. avatar Tom near Atlanta says:

    Part of the reason why I took my Family and headed south

  30. avatar TruthTellers says:

    California should be wiped off the face of the Earth.

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Ahhh the old Iranian position on Israel statement, now extended to CA from an American I presume.
      One less TTAG participant off my help (cover my flank) list.

      But hey that 1A thing can’t fix silly.

      1. avatar TruthTellers says:

        Cali-fornication ceased being a part of America a long time ago. Now they are a clear and present danger to the nation and must be treated as an enemy state. They are the enemy within and while not all in California are our enemy, they are Good Germans and are equally guilty.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          So many so called guns rights folks willing to concede to barry and kapo bloomberg that our constitutional rights are based on our zip codes.

          If CA is so scarey as to beat you into submission maybe we POTG are better off without you on our side.

    2. avatar Goose says:

      I understand that mental lee ill has nukes that can reach the left coast.

  31. avatar PeterW says:

    Time to stock up on reloading supplies. Gonna regulate wheel weights?
    Thankfully I can still mail-order ammo in SB county.

  32. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    From the article:

    “I would much rather control the source of something that could cause a problem than rely on the judgment of civilians,” said Dwonch, 42, who works as an analyst for a national wine and liquor distributor.

    A guy who makes his living through vodka sales wants to lecture me on the “judgment of civilians”?

  33. avatar Ralph says:

    Background checks for ammo purchases are overkill and will make the NICS system all the more unresponsive. In hoplophobic MA, I have to show my LTC in order to buy ammo. There’s no background check, just flash to pass.

  34. avatar Goose says:

    Yet another reason to kick california out of the union.california needs to be fenced off just like mexico.I wonder when they’ll get around to replacing their state flag with that rainbow one the gays like so much.

  35. avatar Jon T Barrett says:

    The poll is a freaking joke. They polled 1,003 registered voters … in a state of 18.2 million registered voters! That’s a 0.0055% sample! My college statistics professor would have beat me senseless for suggesting that a sample of that size would be representative of a pool that large. I bet they conducted the poll in the Bay Area too.

    1. avatar John S says:

      If your professor would truly complain, you should go get your money back for the course.

      See http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm Sample Size Calculator

      For a 95% confidence, +- of 4, 600 is a good number – Field picked over a thousand.

      Now, there does begin to be some cracks in the ‘telephone survey’ methodology.

      There are so many ‘junk’ phone calls that I let my answering machine pick up every call; if a survey firm gets my answering machine, I expect they just hang up.

      Similarly, I do not answer my cell phone unless I know the caller. If the caller has blocked caller-id, there’s no chance I’ll answer.

      I’ll speculate that I’m far from unusual in either habit.

      So, what kind of person answers the phone? Field clearly does some demographic info collecting, but I don’t see that in their release. If they get people stuck at home and desperate to talk to just anybody, I think they get a rather different subset of people than ‘random voter’ might suggest.

  36. avatar BDub says:

    Well, Its time to start that Drone-based ammo smuggling business, I’ve been thinking about.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      That’s right!

      Or just the following:
      “X” Sends bitcoins to “Y”
      “Y” puts ammo in a pre-paid box and mails with bogus return address to “X.”

      And there it is – the ammo background check completely circumvented.

      1. avatar Pvtt Dancer says:

        This.

  37. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    There are a lot more reasonable people in California than antis want to let on, taking to random strangers the conversations have been reasonable far more often than I would guess from the rhetoric. I still moved to Washington as the powers that be have destroyed the economy and ol’ moonbeam is trying to sign us up for long term stagnation.

    If you do move out of an anti cesspool, get active and involved wherever you land, something I need to figure out how to do.

    California’s truly tragic, such a beautiful state becoming unlivable if your aren’t on the dole. The way it’s run I’d swear they want everyone to live off the .gov.

    I’ll miss highway 1.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “The way it’s run I’d swear they want everyone to live off the .gov.”

      That is exactly the idea. The more dependent you are on the government, the easier you are to control.

  38. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Sorry to see this. Good luck-you’ll need it. Nice weather is NEVER enough…

  39. avatar S.Crock says:

    Screw it! I’m young and want a chance to live in a free state. I choose the flight option over fight.

  40. avatar Boyd says:

    Does the regulation of ammo include ammo components? So would they regulate gun powder, brass, bullets? Cause if they only regulate preloaded ammunition then so be it cause it’s usually cheaper to reload anyway. We will just see a large spike in purchases of reloading presses and dies, and everything you’d need to reload.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Not yet. “As used in this part, except in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” means one or more loaded cartridges consisting of a primed case, propellant, and with one or more projectiles. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.” However, for the purpose of vendor licensing, ” ‘ammunition’ includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. ‘Ammunition’ does not include blanks.” (Meaning no mag sales without an ammo vendors license.)

      But since this proposition amends the Penal Code, the Legislature can do the same through the normal legislative process. And they will. We are warned. We have two years to prepare before this proposition becomes law on January 1, 2018. (At which point in time, despite a year to prepare, the DOJ will have no system in place or personnel hired to perform the millions of background checks necessary to issue licenses, so it will be months before anyone will be able to buy any.)

      1. avatar int19h says:

        A bill that was just introduced in WA that proposes to tax ammo actually defines cases, bullets, primers, and even powder as “ammunition” for the purposes of that bill.

        The result actually doesn’t even make sense, because they then propose a 5c/round tax. What exactly is a round of powder is anyone’s guess.

    2. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Do you really think that they’ll stop at just factory ammunition? If they get away with it this time, it’ll be almost immediately expanded to cover “dangerous explosives” like gunpowder and primers.

      1. avatar gipper says:

        BUT gun powder is is technically not an “explosive” it is a “propellant” , is it not?

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          And a semi-auto AR-15 isn’t an “assault rifle”, nor is a 20-round magazine for one “high capacity”, but that doesn’t stop the anti-2A people from calling them that.

          Do you think these people lose a lot of sleep worrying about the technical definitions of things?

          In any case, my point was that if a law requiring background checks for factory ammo is allowed to stand, there’s no way they wouldn’t also try to “close the reloading loophole”.

  41. avatar Bob321 says:

    On the bright side, the blue states are disarming themselves, which means they will easily fall to the red states if this thing unfortunately gets ugly. It also shows that the red state governments trust their own citizens treating them as equals, while the blue state governments do not trust their own subjects.

  42. avatar Bob says:

    Wow! Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure…..

    Non-random Sample size of registered voters – 1003, and some of the questions were only asked of a “random” subset of 533. Voters were “screened” by interviewers and “the sample was weighted to align it to the proper distribution of voters by race/ethnicity and other demographic, geographic and party registration characteristics of the state’s registered voter population.” I’ll just bet it was!

    “The Field Poll receives financial support from leading California newspapers and television stations [i.e. liberal media], who purchase the rights of first release to Field Poll reports in their primary viewer or readership markets. The Poll also receives funding from the University of California and California State University systems, who receive the data files from each Field Poll survey shortly after its completion for teaching and secondary research purposes, as well as from foundations, non-profit organizations, and others as part of the Poll’s policy research sponsor program.

    And who is President of the University of California? Why, none other than Janet Napolitano!

    Got the picture?

    So, you cherry pick your sample to get the results you want to please your sponsors. No brainer.

    1. avatar gipper says:

      As in a court case (trial) it is always said of a Lawyer, “Don’t ask a question (of a witness) you don’t know what the answer will be”…….

  43. avatar Kyle says:

    Both of those policies sound perfectly reasonable to people in Caifornia. Background checks for guns, so why not for ammunition? It’s common sense! And of course people on the Terrorist Watch List should be banned from purchasing guns. It’s common sense. The problem is that the people who support these measures probably have not really thought them through or even have the requisite knowledge to do so. I’ll bet quite a bit of them would be more hesitant if they had it explained to them how doing that with the Terrorist Watch List is a major 5th Amendment violation and creates a dangerous precedent. Such people might not be convinced on the issue of ammunition background checks though.

    My major concern as a Californian would be are they going to try and ban semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines at some point.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      This news report was front page news in my local paper (where we have LOTS of guns), and the thing that struck me most about the quotes from the supposed “independent” voter was that these people DO NOT CARE about constitutional rights arguments, they just want the guns gone, and if limiting ammo sales or banning those on the terrorist watchlist from obtaining firearms helps accomplish that, so much the better.

  44. avatar Tom says:

    I do have a suggestion since the Newsom ballot proposal appears that it will pass, no small thanks to the leftists in the SF Bay and LA. Get a proposal on the ballot that if passed would impose current civilian bans on “assault weapons” and hi capacity magazines on all California law enforcement agencies. I think it can be passed and it would be a major slap in the face to the state. The biggest question is would Newsom and Harris make hypocrites of themselves by opposing such a ballot proposal. California gun owners, go for it and get it on the ballot.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It is estimated that the cost to qualify an initiative for the ballot runs into seven figures, mostly spent on paying people to gather signatures. Then there is the advertising budget to get the measure passed because, unlike leftist proposals, the news will not typically publicize the effort. Got a few mill laying around you have no need for?

      1. avatar John S says:

        And by a few mill, well …

        The CA Secretary of State has a web page for reported initiative financing – http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/list.aspx?session=2013 (they have lots of history)

        They are not nice enough to summarize, so I’ll do a rough addition on a couple.

        2014 Prop 1: ~21 million support, 100K oppose. Passed
        2012 Prop 36: ~2.6 million support, 120K oppose. Passed
        2010 Prop 19 (legalize marijuana): ~3.4 million support, 400K oppose. Failed
        2008 Prop 11 (redistricting): ~ 16 million support, 1.5 million oppose. Passed
        2004 Prop 68 (indian gaming 1): ~26.6 support, 50 million oppose. Failed.

        The indian gaming props (also Prop 70, which failed too) are my favorites – two ‘business groups’ in the ‘gaming industry’ were fighting over turf. Probably took it to the mattresses later. But I remember the TV ads, running at least 3x/hour during the day, and 5 or 6 times/hr late night and a big push into prime time the last week.

        Any gun-related proposition would be about the same as the gaming props; very few people actually would understand the issue, and the goal would be to get the most impressions of the bumper-sticker summary ground into the mush that serves for neurons for most voters. With newspapers and TV and radio all anti-gun, guess who gets the free exposition of their views?

  45. avatar jwm says:

    I’m an old fart with a stash of guns and ammo. All this passes and I just won’t buy any more of either. Long as I got at least one revolver and box of shells I beat them.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      I applaud people like you who choose to stay and fight. I am young californian and trying to start up a nice collection. For me personally I don’t want to fight a fight that already seems lost. Instead I am trying to flee to AZ and keep their rights in tact.

  46. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    A People deserve the government they elect.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      ^ Says someone who is probably not one of the 9,000,000 gun owners in california.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      So we deserve barry and company? Even if we didn’t vote for them?

  47. avatar Libertarian says:

    An fallen state !

  48. avatar Leo says:

    WOW, Californians are dumb!

  49. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    You deserve the government you voted for. And not voting is still voting. The Virginia democrat AG who just did away with CCW reciprocity with 25 other states won his election by 160 votes with over 2 million cast.

    The open homosexual ex cop Tom Ammiano wrote the law making rape victims and anyone else in California wait up to ten additional days to get a gun. He also was responsible for the California law banning the open carry of unloaded guns, when he saw black and white men open carrying at a Starbucks with their children.
    He is cheered by hundreds of thousands of homosexuals in gay pride parades. I wonder how many women have been raped and could not defend themselves because of this homosexual man?
    It seems this racist homosexual white man Tom Ammiano has a problem with black men who open carry unloaded guns in California.

    No one to protest at the closing of the last gun store in the homosexual power city of San Francisco? Where were the pink pistols??? Or anyone else???

    There are no white christian republicans who have sex in the missionary position with the lights turned out for you to blame, for the loss of civil rights in California.

    You could have voted for the pro 2A homosexual Justin Raimondo (antiwar.com) when he ran against Nancy Pelosi. But it seems in that case homosexuals do prefer a “breeder” over a second amendment gay man.

    Teaching kids about historical self defense and the second amendment is not important in California. But teaching them about famous people who have anal sex is important. How many ” non violent ” felons have been released so far in California?
    That legal medical pot you can get for any reason will help some of you to ease you pain.

    I grew up in Sacramento. I know California very well.
    Here is my suggestion to anyone in cali who wants it. Organize an empty holster protest like the ones in Texas several years ago. It would be better if you use bananas instead of sex toys in the empty holster protest.

    The bananas worked in Texas. They have open carry of fully loaded guns now.

  50. avatar Brad says:

    THIS CALIFORNIAN DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS CRAP!

  51. avatar Carl in Alaska says:

    All this prove is that 29,000,000 citizens can be wrong and asshats at the same time.

  52. avatar socaladam says:

    Absolute garbage. You cannot poll 1000 people out of 39M and expect a real result set.

    1. avatar John S says:

      If the proper care is taken in selecting the respondents, yes, one can.

      Many Californians have no idea about guns. Still many more people in and out of California have no understanding of statistics.

      Try here: http://www.mathcaptain.com/statistics/sample-size.html for an intro; yes, math is required.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “If the proper care is taken in selecting the respondents, yes, one can.”

        Wrong. There is simply no way 1000 people out of 10’s of millions is “representative” in this case.

        Statistical sampling depends on the sample size being large enough represent the distribution of “errors” in the full population. Personal behaviors and opinions and backgrounds are in no way, shape or form uniform enough for a 1/10,000 sample to be meaningful…

        ESPECIALLY when it is so easy to prove that opinions within a small sampled geographic region (SF) are dramatically different from the opinions of the state as a whole.

        Or, are you trying to argue that if 10,000 people in NYC are polled on gun rights opinions that it somehow represents the opinions of US citizens as a whole set?

        Pure hogwash, and shows that just because someone can say the term “statistics” does not mean they understand one iota of how such mathematics work.

        1. avatar John S says:

          For your criticism to be valid, you would have to demonstrate the sample selection to be as un-representative as you fear.

          Thus my qualification, which you quoted: “If the proper care is taken in selecting the respondents, yes, one can.”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email