California ballot box (courtesy scpr.org)

Yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown signed a raft of new gun control measures — and left the state. Shortly thereafter his administration announced that another deeply unconstitutional measure relating to ammunition sales will be on the November ballot: Proposition 63. The Firearms Policy Coalition is gearing-up to fight Prop 63. They write this about that:

Our enemy is now identified. As of this morning, the Ammo Ban is official for the November ballot and has a new designation: Proposition 63 The below image was taken from the Secretary of State’s website right as it was updated.

prop63 image

Now the war is official. Here’s what the anti-gun Prop. 63 will do:

  • BAN all standard (“high-capacity”) magazines…even those “grandfathered” in
  • BAN online and mail order / catalog ammunition direct purchases
  • BAN the importation of ammunition purchased out-of-state
  • DESTROY virtually all small business ammo retailers with insane new regulations
  • CRIMINALIZE the sharing of ammunition between friends who may be hunting or shooting together
  • MANDATE a new $50 DOJ “ammunition purchase permit”
  • REQUIRE that ammunition sales are recorded in a new gun owner database

And here’s what it WILL NOT do:

  • It WILL NOT stop any criminals from obtaining ammunition or guns
  • It WILL NOT thwart any terrorist attack
  • It WILL NOT allow law-abiding individuals to exercise their Constitutional Rights
  • And it WILL NOT keep our communities safer

The Ammo Ban has now literally passed every single milestone, except for one. And that one is the November 2016 election. We are going to be running at breakneck speeds between now and then. We just need your assistance to do so. Click here to donate to the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Recommended For You

105 Responses to California Ammo Ban (Prop 63) On November Election Ballot

    • Nice perspective. How can this evil/leftist garbage be enforced? Talk about a black market, and “vacations” out of state. These anti-Americans MUST BE STOPPED!

    • Australia’s laws will look like the Wild West when after this ammo ban is voted into law the next mass shooting in California with percussion revolvers leaves dozens dead and the California legislation passes a law banning all guns (modern guns or antique replicas) and authorizes the police and National Guard to confiscate guns and ammo from all the citizens in the gun/ammo database.

      • I’m willing to bet there are going to be more noncompliant california gun owners than cops and national guardsmen in the whole country…… Should be interesting if it comes to pass.

  1. I remember the 68 gca where nationwide ammo sales had to be recorded in ledgers at the dealers. If hillary gets elected this CA crap is coming nationwide.

    • Forgive my ignorance, but what is this you speak of? Being as how I wasn’t born until ’87, I have no clue. (Not insulting your age or anything, but the way I read your comment made me believe that you saw this first hand)

      • Under the 1968 Gun Control Act, an FFL selling ammunition had to record the caliber, quantity, driver’s license number(?), name and address of the purchaser. The information sat in the dealer’s ammunition ledger and was never looked at again. That portion of the law was repealed in the Reagan Administration after BATF agreed that it was a waste of time to keep such records.

      • Sam answered it quite well. I did see it and the 68gca is what got me started in fighting gun control.

        I remember mail order guns and when I was 13(actually more than once during this period) I bought a rifle at a yard sale and rode it home on my bike.

        It was a different country then.

      • but the way I read your comment made me believe that you saw this first hand)
        I most certainly saw this nonsense first hand.

      • Really? You thought he was just making it up? Do some reading on the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, and the bill that at least attempted to fix some of that mess, the FOPA of 1986. They all happened before you were born, but they are important to understand how we got where we are today.

    • Then be sure you vote for Trump just to keep her out. Nope, he isn’t perfect but at least he’s not Clinton.

  2. The question I have is if this referendum fails, will it still pass?

    Does it matter how the votes go anymore?

    California is falling apart / has fallen apart.

    • “Does it matter how the votes go anymore?”

      Pftttttpt.

      The *only* thing that matters is who counts the votes.

      Keep that in mind the next time you hear of talk of how much better electronic or Internet voting will be…

    • JR_in_NC,

      There is no doubt in my mind that the referendum will pass with a healthy margin.

      • Indeed. Go walk around any public space in almost any part of America. Look at the people around you. Maybe one in 500 or 1000 give a shit whether a background check is required to purchase ammunition.

  3. It will be passed at the ballot box and do nothing to prevent or reduce crime. The CA legislators have already begun to draft the next round of legislation and regulations.

    • I wish I could retire and leave California to rot. But still have about 10 years in this hell hole.

  4. As per usual, why is it everyone that is involved in anti-Constitutional legislation is not tried and convicted of treason and/or taken out of office for breaking their oath to uphold the Constitution?

    According to political and lawmaker logic today, when a law is not properly enforced or if the people tasked to enforce a law are inept, the solution is to create more laws.

    So, the oath of office is obviously not enforced or the people that take the oath are inept. Time to make a new oath — this time of you break it you go to jail, no questions asked.

    • IMO – any elected official who votes in favor of a law that is later found to be in violation of the Constitution should face immediate removal from office (not just recall) and be barred for life from ever holding elected office at any level of government.

      There would be a lot of off-year appointments and elections for a while, but eventually the politicians would start to actually read the Constitution and the legislation they were writing and/or voting on.

      • Just remember that this would affect everyone who supported laws found to violate invented constitutional rights, like the “right” to kill your unborn child.

        • May need to include Federal Court judges and Supreme Court Justices. The Senate has the authority to impeach judges, including Supreme Court Judges. At same point they too need to be held accountable for their actions.

  5. You forgot to mention in the ‘what Prop 63 will do’ – ‘persuade (yet) another 400,000 people to leave the state for Texas.’

    This is their goal. Legal gun owners don’t vote for Democrats (mostly) so they need to be driven from the state. Just like they’re doing to the small businessmen. They believe they can be replaced with illegal immigrants from Mexico and central America who come in droves to live off their generous welfare benefits. They’re not supposed to be voting, but with no voter ID laws you can still count on their vote come November. See how this works?

    • “…‘persuade (yet) another 400,000 people to leave the state for Texas.’”

      Historically, that will turn Texas that much more blue.

      The new arrivals from Cali bring their politics with them…

      • People leaving CA for Texas in search of Second Amendment freedoms will not turn Texas blue. But either way the CA Democrats don’t really care.

        • I should add that hippies moving to Colorado for pot freedom does turn CO blue, however I’ve been hearing the CA Democrats are working on legalizing pot in CA to stop that exodus.

        • Our cost of living here in CO Springs is increasing dramatically because of the influx of potheads entering. (This is a response for your comment under this one)
          Not only that, but people coming in to buy houses and rentals to grow and move pot out of the state. Every day I read a story about someone being arrested for an illegal grow somewhere within a 75 mile radius. Don’t get me wrong, pot is great and all, not my cup of tea, but it’s freedom nonetheless. It’s pretty hard not to get pulled over right outside of the state because of it. The city just south of here is turning into Detroit Jr. with all of the crime and illegals causing problems. The cops are constantly hiring new people because nobody will stay employed with the crime.

        • As is usually the case, the only thing more pernicious than the vice is the prohibition of the vice. If pot was legalized nationwide there’d be no profit to be made since everyone could just grow their own for pennies. You could make a case for prohibition with the more dangerous drugs, but the subsequent black markets are still probably more damaging.

        • People started moving to Colorado from California years ago, before pot was legal here, and they’ve ruined the place.

          I don’t even try to go camping any more. All the nice areas within 3.5 hours of the Front Range are completely overrun. People camp illegally, shoot fireworks, call the cops if they see a gun… it’s just not worth it.

          Screw the people fleeing Cali. Wall off the state and let it turn into the Venezuela of North America. After half the population dies in toilet paper riots maybe the survivors will have learned their lesson and we can consider letting some people out and into the rest of the country provided they pass a series of tests. The rest can stay put and we’ll put their short and brutal Mad Max lives on TV as a warning to everyone else about what happens when you follow the Liberals down the yellow brick road to utopia.

          The citizens of Cali made their bed, they can lie it in. The rest of the country doesn’t need the bedbugs.

        • Strych9, it won’t do any good to wall off California, they’ll just visit Mexico and then walk across the border into Arizona, New Mexico or Texas.

        • Cliff,

          I was thinking of walling and tying that into a border wall along the AZ/NM/TX border all the way to the Gulf Coast and shooting anyone who tries to cross illegally. Probably should have said that…

          Either way, Commiefornians can stay in Commiefornia. They ruin everywhere else they move to. This a California problem so the people there can sort it out. The last thing we need is this sort of cancer spreading (it already has to Colorado).

        • With all the rapid communications available, successes in California spread almost instantly across a country, across oceans. The vanguard of sensible regulation generally originates in California, becoming the model for other states and cities to follow. The cat is, as you say, “out of the bag”. California proves that a committed set of voters can change society. With two circuit courts and the Supreme Court rulings that “reasonable restrictions” are allowed on gun ownership, that states have constitutional authority to legislate those restrictions, the wave of sensible regulation is in motion. One cannot catch water with a net, can one?

        • 2Asux:

          Well, your name pretty much tells the story and your comment has little to do with the discussion at hand but…

          What you consider sensible is not a view shared by a great many people and while communications make dissemination of information easier it also makes failures obvious very rapidly. Some other states might join California in this race to retardation but most won’t. Federal laws like this won’t be forthcoming with radically altering the Constitution.

          Just the new mag ban by itself is a blatant violation of the 5A and 14A as well as Article 1, Section 10. I’m not as cynical as some of the other people here on TTAG so I find it very difficult to believe that a law like this would stand up in court. Even if the court was willing to infringe on the 2A, throw out the 5A and the 14A, I doubt very much that they would be all in for gutting part of Article 1.

          This might not bother you now, but you should carefully consider the implications of a country that would embrace such ideas. In the future you very well may find yourself on the wrong side of the law regarding something else and without any legal protections. Government uses getting away with things like this as a “precedent” to go further, and it’s theoretically possible that under a future administration you could find yourself in legal hot water for something you did when it was legal to do it, and since “due process is killing us” you may find that the punishment comes before you get a fair hearing, if indeed such a fair hearing is deemed necessary.

          When amassing power for “good”, those who wish to amass such power should always consider the ramifications if their political opposition somehow came to power. In most cases you’ll find that the power you crave isn’t power you would want someone you disagree with to have.

        • On the contrary; my comment is dead-on. States exercising their power to regulate activity within their borders is precisely what the California laws are all about. Your constitution was written as a bound on the national government. The second amendment prohibits the national government from certain actions regarding the rights of people to possess firearms. The tenth amendment states that powers not explicitly granted the national government remains with the individual colonies (states). Thus, states are free to set their own laws. In textbooks, it is called federalism. So, you have a perfect example of federalism as it was intended, yet you and yours rant and rave about it. Why? You had the chance to convince the public and failed. The majority of those voting outnumbered the minority or yours voting. Isn’t that how it works for you? Now we see comments here and elsewhere talking about non-compliance. Which destroys any credibility about gun owners being the most law-abiding citizens in the country. You are law-abiding for those purposes which advantage or please you. Are you really going to refuse to remain law-abiding, and still claim to be law-abiding? What sort of person believes they are two different persons at once? Come on…there is a word for it.

          California law sets the example for the rest of your states. Wind flows from West to East. The breeze of states rights is upon you. It is much easier to win a town, a city, a state than to try to correct an entire nation all at once (unless it is a relatively small or isolated nation. Mao stated power emanates from the barrel of a gun. Today, power over guns emanates from the ballot; the vote of an ever increasing demographic. As I said, “Time……”

        • @2ASux:

          Aww that’s cute someone took an intro poli sci class and apparently learned out to torture logic to the point that it screams.

          Here’s the skinny you’re missing in the history lesson. See the SCOTUS invented this thing called “the 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine” and so the argument that the Constitution only binds the federal government is a dream that died long ago. Federalism and states rights are thing of the past. Further, Article 1, Section 10 explicitly binds the states and California has violated it so you lose on both counts.

          States exercising their power to regulate activity within their borders is precisely what the California laws are all about.

          Nope, sorry, there’s that dead dream again. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). The feds can regulate anything they want even if it’s completely intrastate and can overrule anything the state wishes to do on the subject. States rights are dead.

          “The second amendment prohibits the national government from certain actions regarding the rights of people to possess firearms. The tenth amendment states that powers not explicitly granted the national government remains with the individual colonies (states). Thus, states are free to set their own laws.”

          See above. Also, if this is true why is 47.7% of California not under Californian legal control?

          “Why? You had the chance to convince the public and failed. The majority of those voting outnumbered the minority or yours voting. Isn’t that how it works for you?”

          Apparently you didn’t make it to the 200 level classes. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is that, barring a massive majority of people deciding or acquiescing to an amending of the Constitution, the rights there enshrined are not up for debate or vote. The Bill of Rights is designed to avoid both “the tyranny of the minority” and “they tyranny of the majority”. The only way that is supposed to be possible to change is by following the Amendment process. You don’t get to say “52% of people think…” and trample the rights of the 48%. If you’re curious about how the “tyranny of the majority” works and how dangerous it is, ask a black person about this thing called “slavery”.

          “Now we see comments here and elsewhere talking about non-compliance. Which destroys any credibility about gun owners being the most law-abiding citizens in the country. You are law-abiding for those purposes which advantage or please you.

          This argument is a canard you write well enough that I suspect you know it.

          “Are you really going to refuse to remain law-abiding, and still claim to be law-abiding? What sort of person believes they are two different persons at once? Come on…there is a word for it.”

          First, I’m not refusing to do anything. I don’t live in California. Second, no one is completely law abiding, there are too many laws for that to be possible. You might not know it but you’re a criminal, unconvinced, but a criminal just the same. Third, this is a bullshit argument. Nonsensical, immoral and unconstitutional laws can always be passed. Simply obeying the law/rules/orders is the excuse the Nazis used at Nuremberg, it’s farcical at best. The fact that I won’t follow a law that requires me to kill you for speaking out against the 2A with your screen name doesn’t make me any more or less of a moral person, it makes me principled. I might not like what you say, but you certainly have the right to say it and it’s my duty to protect my fellow citizens from those who would take their rights away. You’re the type of person who likely would have branded Ghandi as a criminal deserving of severe punishment. The force government can bring to bear doesn’t make what government does right.

          See that’s the difference between you and I. I don’t think that anyone, at any level of power, should trample on your rights even if you use them in ways I disagree with. You on the other hand apparently think it’s fine for people’s rights to be stripped away from them as long as they’re rights you don’t really like or you agree with the “objective” of doing so. That is the difference between someone who is principled and someone who is just a troll.

          “California law sets the example for the rest of your states.”

          So impending bankruptcy is to be emulated? What school of economics did you study? This is a state where the only real influx of people are illegals. Legal citizens are fleeing in droves. Why would any other state want to follow in Cali’s footsteps?

          “Wind flows from West to East. The breeze of states rights is upon you.”

          Laughable for the reasons already articulated. If the “breeze” of states rights was upon us Texas would have legal machine guns available at WalMart while California went it’s own direction. Sorry bud, you don’t get to claim states rights for the things you like and then defer to the feds when a state wants to do something you don’t like and that’s exactly the type of bullshit you’re trying to pull here.

          “It is much easier to win a town, a city, a state than to try to correct an entire nation all at once (unless it is a relatively small or isolated nation.[sic]”

          Irrelevant to the topic at hand. California, NY, Connecticut, Illinois and a handful of other states have been tight on guns for a long time. The majority of the country is going other other direction. You can see that your arguments are wrong simply by studying Illinois’ gun laws and the related court cases, especially those in Chicago. Or by studying DC.

          ‘Mao stated power emanates from the barrel of a gun. Today, power over guns emanates from the ballot; the vote of an ever increasing demographic. As I said, “Time……”’

          This comment is for the lulz I assume? Mao took over a country by killing enough people to cow the majority into letting him do what he wanted, he was antithetical to voting. If you tick off gun owners enough you’ll find out which is more powerful: the ballot box or the cartridge box and I promise you, the one that provides high velocity projectiles will win every single time. I don’t want to see that happen, but we’re talking about a country with 300 million guns in the hands of at least 100 million people serious gun control isn’t going to happen any place than other a few states and I seriously doubt that some of Cali’s laws here will survive a court challenge. I don’t see how even a court as liberal as the 9th circuit can simply allow a law that, on the face of it, violates Article 1, Section 10.

        • Yes, yes. You are quite right. How does that change anything? The law remains the law as determined by courts. If the US legislature does not like a court ruling, the law can be changed, and/or the legislature can take such law out of the jurisdiction of the courts. Ever seen that happen? Why?

          Because on the whole, the legislature sees fit to let the courts sort things. Don’t like that? Change the legislature.

        • @2Asux:

          “Yes, yes. You are quite right. How does that change anything? The law remains the law as determined by courts.”

          Well, clearly that changes everything in terms of your argument. The states are not simply free to do what they would like. They are overseen by the federal court system which has embraced the “14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine” and therefore “states’ rights” matter very little. Ergo the wishes of California’s legislature and, by extension, the voters of California matter very little. You can see this in California voting to not allow down gay marriage, yet being overruled by a court.

          “If the US legislature does not like a court ruling, the law can be changed, and/or the legislature can take such law out of the jurisdiction of the courts. Ever seen that happen? Why?

          This happens all the time. Pay attention.

          “Because on the whole, the legislature sees fit to let the courts sort things. Don’t like that? Change the legislature.”

          While there is an argument to be made here for better public oversight of the court system (which already exists in limited form) the argument you’re making is not really germane to this discussion. We’ve already established that legislatures can be overruled by the federal court system, ergo “state’s rights” is basically a fantasy. Therefore the only check on a federal court is the US Congress which can impeach and then remove a judge (which has happened numerous times). And here we see the ultimate nonsense of your state’s rights argument. If a federal judge agrees with the California legislature the Congress of the United States has the power to remove that judge and replace them with one who disagrees with the legislature of California or vice versa. Either way, the voters of California have little to no say because they can either be overruled by a federal judge or, should that judge agree with them and the majority of Congress disagree, that judge can be replaced.

          State’s rights is a joke and therefore your argument that California has the right to do what it has now done, especially in light of the 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine, is also a joke. Clearly, under the current (and admittedly fucked up) system, the rest of us can overrule the Californian legislature and therefore basically dictate what can and cannot be California law. You know this to be true because people like you would be the first to go after California for “speech codes” under the guise of the 1A. Therefore you’re picking and choosing where you prefer federalism to be and…. well quite frankly should stop talking about it unless you really mean that a state should be totally free to ignore any portion of the Bill of Rights if they so choose.

          I doubt very much that you are so principled when it comes to the Constitution to say that the 1A or the 4A or the 5A only applies to the federal government.

        • Rarely does the US legislature (Congress) change specific law to overturn federal court decisions. Never does the US legislature restrict court jurisdiction and review. Indeed, thankfully,

          I am merely pointing out that two circuit courts and the Supreme Court have positioned the states to make what rules they may regarding privately held firearms (short of prohibition of all gun ownership). Thus, for this discussion, California is moving in an approved direction, without a court-ordered mandate. Without such mandate, States must then be acting within their 10th Amendment powers.

          States Rights is a slippery thing, isn’t it. It is useful when advancing laws that benefit federal programs and policies. In the case of so-called gun control, states can assert themselves individually to produce results the lackluster Congress cannot seem to accomplish. Courts have given the states the nod to proceed where federal legislation cannot. When States Rights serves the best interest of all the people, those rights are real, valid and court-endorsed.

        • “Rarely does the US legislature (Congress) change specific law to overturn federal court decisions. Never does the US legislature restrict court jurisdiction and review. Indeed, thankfully,

          Irrelivant to the topic at hand and also incorrect. Federal judges have been removed.

          “I am merely pointing out that two circuit courts and the Supreme Court have positioned the states to make what rules they may regarding privately held firearms (short of prohibition of all gun ownership). Thus, for this discussion, California is moving in an approved direction, without a court-ordered mandate. Without such mandate, States must then be acting within their 10th Amendment powers.”

          An argument I would generally accept if you had not gone well beyond it in your previous posts.

          “States Rights is a slippery thing, isn’t it.

          No, not really unless you’re a statist.

          It is useful when advancing laws that benefit federal programs and policies. In the case of so-called gun control, states can assert themselves individually to produce results the lackluster Congress cannot seem to accomplish.”
          All attempts will be lackluster because this country has a history of gun ownership and many people will not change. Criminals will not change either and “gun dogs” are not possible. We can’t even keep an ounce of coke or heroin out of our own maximum security prisons, you think we’re gonna keep guns out of this country? Look at Paris. It’s a matter of determination, not laws.

          “Courts have given the states the nod to proceed where federal legislation cannot. When States Rights serves the best interest of all the people, those rights are real, valid and court-endorsed.”

          SCOTUS has given this nod in terms of “reasonable restrictions” on which SCOTUS placed the restriction that the arm in question cannot be “in common use”. Since the AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles in the country, it would seem to fall under that restriction would it not?

        • Upshot: States can use their 10th Amendment state sovereignty to act where federal law (and Supreme Court rulings) do not prohibit. Heller says people have an individual right to arms in the home and adjoining property. Heller allows “reasonable restrictions” on possession of firearms. 9th, 2nd, and I think, 5th Circuit Courts have ruled that states can regulate types and use of firearms held by private parties. (yes, in some cases, the courts refused to rule, leaving lower court rules, allowing states to regulate, intact.)

        • @2Asux

          “States can use their 10th Amendment state sovereignty to act where federal law (and Supreme Court rulings) do not prohibit.”

          Right up until the feds or a circuit court say they can’t. C’est la vie. Sorry bud, the 10A died with the 14A Incorporation Doctrine. Nothing is reserved to the states or the people any more unless the feds decide to leave it alone.

          This is why a Republican House+Senate+White House scare the shit out of the Left, because they know the power they’ve amassed can be used against them if they don’t control it.

          Remember when I said “When amassing power for “good”, those who wish to amass such power should always consider the ramifications if their political opposition somehow came to power. In most cases you’ll find that the power you crave isn’t power you would want someone you disagree with to have.”?

          This is where you start to think on those two sentences and contemplate this: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”

          I’m off to bed. Sleep tight.

        • If I would have the power to rule with impunity, I would expect you to work to have me unelected. And if you had the power, I would expect to work to unelect you. That is how it goes. It is the tension between the two sides that keeps despotism at bay. Why fear the power of one side, when you can take back power at the next election?

    • Good analysis, Gov, but –

      “They believe they can be replaced with illegal immigrants from Mexico and central America who come in droves to live off their generous welfare benefits.”

      If the 400,000 (I believe that’s a low-ball figure) productive people leave California, who is going to pay the taxes the Liberals want to redistribute to buy low-information/welfare voter loyalty?

      The only problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher.

      • First, these people have never heard of Margaret Thatcher. Second, they’re counting on the rest of the country to bail them out when CA goes bankrupt. (See Detroit)

        • I left NY after the Safe Act was passed. But I was one of the lucky ones that is in a field of employment which made it easy to move and get rehired in another state. It can be difficult for people to pack up and leave family and steady employment. People will leave no doubt. But how many more will. You would think most pro freedom would have already left Comifornia. Divided we fall. They plan is to take this country apart piece by piece. The dominos are already falling. We could try containment and boycott these states. Police and other government officials that believe in freedom should strike.

  6. Sounds like some dealers will be making money taking forfeited mags and “removing them from the state” (read:selling them)

    • Yup and they’ll prolly give residents a whole $1 for a mag because the seller has no choice but to take whatever the dealer offers.

  7. Yeah, just click here and donate.

    F every single gun rights organization in his country…why…the path to ending 2A is set, let it remain in the Constitution then regulate it out of existence. The only folks making coin are legislators introducing bills faster than lawsuits produce. And gun support organizations selling poor push back performance.

    Citizens are being stripped of the right to lawful self defense, by a select group of legislators because everything they’ve tried to curb violence has failed, and only thing remaining is refuse citizens the right to carry arms. Refuse ammo sales, register every long gun, prevent transfers,

    The mantra of Legistatures is disarmament now, disarmament forever.

    America no longer exist.

    • Everything you said is correct, except that it has nothing to do with curbing violence. If the guns can ever be truly taken, that’s when the violence will START.

  8. Waiting for the second “shot heard around the world”. I’d really like to see the masses have a “come to Jesus” meeting involving their rights. From what I’ve seen, people are waking up faster and faster, and in bigger numbers. There just doesn’t seem to be that many of them in CA.

    I understand that people cannot just up and leave at a moments notice, but I would advise those who still want to hold on to their gun rights, and all rights for that matter, strongly consider vacating California. At some point, those behind the lines need to realize when they’ve lost the war, and leave with their dignity while they’re still able to. I know I’m just an Internet commando and talk is cheap, but there is nothing left of value in that place.

    • California Dreamers will never wake up. If they do, they leave. There’s a whole host of them ready to comply & give up their guns, that see this as a mere inconvenience worth suffering to enjoy the beaches and mountains. No better than the complicit lazy wretches that allow Rio to be such a corrupt shithole.

      • I can’t understand staying somewhere for the weather, especially with the high rate of taxes, cost of living, horrible tap water, and dirty hippies. Once I can convince the wife to leave this Blue wonderland, I’m gone for redder pastures.

        • That really depends on where you live in California. Up here in the North State, it was 104 yesterday, 107 the day before. The cost of housing is 10% of what it is in the SF Bay Area. There are a lot of red blooded Republicans who are really pissed off by what the Governor did yesterday. Front page news in fact. Just as an example, one of the gun store owners here is a retired CHP officer and former mayor of the City who is trying to build a new shooting range on ranch land just east of town. Some hippies, but most are over on the coast, especially during the harvest in a few months, and are transients. The county sheriff has issued over 5000 CCWs. So not all of California is the land of fruits and nuts (although there are fruit and nut orchards in the next county south.)

      • There may be a lucrative business opportunity in Nevada and Arizona purchasing and re-selling all the illegal weapons that must be removed from California next year. Not to mention a brisk business in secure storage facilities just over the border on I-10, I-40, I-15, and I-80, with adjacent shooting ranges.

        If I were to build such a range facility I would ensure that it exactly aligned with the California border and had its western-most edge right on the damn State line.

        • Not quite. The ban is on sales of “assault weapons” after the first of the year. If you have what has now become an “assault weapon”, you can keep it, but you have to register it with the State. And once registered, it cannot be sold or transferred to anyone else within the state. The intent is that when you die the weapon will be turned over to the police and destroyed, which can be avoided by an out of state sale prior to death, or a transfer to an heir who resides out of state after death.

    • This latest round of CA bullshit is exactly millions of CA gun owners ought to load up, mount up, and march on the Capital in a profoundly threatening show of force.

      All anti-gun politicians are bullies using pencils to write laws that strip the people of 2nd Amd rights, and then hiding behind armed mercenaries (cops, etc) who’ll shoot any disenfranchised citizens that get out of line.

      Bullies understand one thing only. Equal or greater force used against them. THAT, they understand. THAT is the ONLY way to stop a bully.

      This voting bullshit does nothing except waste valuable time when gun owners should be all but rioting. This voting bullshit also gives the anti’s MORE TIME to write more illegal laws that strip the last vestiges of 2nd Amd rights.

      THE PEOPLE MUST hold massive demonstrations and shows of force. THAT’s how EVERY movement made progress. The LGBT movement isn’t really all that big but they’ve made so much noise they couldn’t be ignored. Yes, they had MSM behind them but if LGBT hadn’t first been so vocal and visible they’d have achieved nothing.

      Demonstrating in the street is a viable political instrument and one the gun owners NEVER REALLY UTILIZED TO IT’S FULLEST EXTENT.

      “But I might get arrested if I march on the capital with my gun!”
      “I might get shot and killed!”

      THAT’S THE PRICE OF KEEPING A BULLY FROM TAKING YOUR RIGHTS. In EVERY fight you’re gonna get HIT.

      Rights are NOT RIGHTS if you don’t have the FORCE to keep them.

      Millions of CA gun owners are a potentially unbeatable FORCE to DENY CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS from STEALING THEIR RIGHTS.

      Ditto for millions of American gun owners nationwide.

      The QUESTION IS: how many gun owners are willing to go to jail for their rights? More importantly, to die for or kill for their rights?

      If brave men hadn’t been willing to lose their life savings, their homes, careers, freedom (by being jailed), or their lives (death from the opposing forces) then there would’ve never been an American revolution.

      You don’t stop tyranny by staying home and pounding out shit like this on the internet.

      You stop it by stopping it using any means necessary after every other means has failed or will continue to fail.

      The latter two prove the necessity for the former.

      • The problem with marching on DC is that the authorities will be waiting with roadblocks and armed opposition. We would have to do it without any prior notice, and that would be impossible to do.

  9. Report lost ammo. Doesn’t everyone drop and lose a.22 cartridge every time they go shoot ……..

    Wow the cops are sure going to,be busy taking all those reports !

  10. Here’s an idea for the Article V Convention of the States to create an amendment to the Constitution:

    Any contiguous metropolitan area whose population exceeds 25% of all the persons in that State shall be constituted as an independent State, with all the rights and duties of all other states under the Constitution.

    That is the only way I can see of countering the undo influence of huge Liberal Democrat urban areas on the less populated areas of their State.

  11. Are there exceptions for the private firearms of LEOs? They often get carve-outs in gun control legislation.

  12. ” Our enemy is now identified ” …….. Really ? They just figured it out , huh.? Quick send money !! What percentage of donations is used in ” The Fight ” ???? — How much goes to ‘ expenses ‘ ?

  13. NO Due process! No innocent till proven guilty in a court of law! No right to a speedy trail in court of law by ones peers! No right to an attorney, or to cross-examine witnesses, or face ones accusers! No protection against unlawful searches and seizures! No Liberty, No Freedom, And No Justice! THIS IS NOT AMERICA ! I SAY TO OUR MILITARY—WHAT THE HELL ARE FIGHTING FOR THEN ! WHEN OUR OWN COUNTRY NEEDS A SERIOUS ” ENEMA “!

    • Funny. The shooter(s) will be put down like dogs by the government leviathan. Just like Chris Dorner. We are way past that day.

    • Gonna be hard after they hand them all in. I don’t think Californian’s have the stomach to massively disobey like the New Yorkicans and Connectinites have. Probably be a nice neat pile of those evil 30 round mags right on the capital steps along with an apology letter for how wrong they were not to destroy them all 15 years ago. California is dead, we have to build a wall.

      • Actually, I doubt it. My understanding is is that these standard capacity magazines have been illegal to buy in California since the 1980s. There probably aren’t very many of them left in the state these days and those who have them probably don’t take them to the range.

        The criminals probably don’t even have them anymore.

  14. Another loss for the gun lovers. Two recent (2016) federal circuit court rulings point the better way to reasonable restrictions on unfettered gun possession (states), and as California goes, so goes the nation (what common sense regulation enacted in California has not gone nationwide – ever wonder why automobiles have so many safety and anti-pollution features?). Your vaunted federalism will be used, as it was designed, eh, to have the states determine what goes on inside their borders.

    “Time, time, time is on my side. Yes it is.” (Rolling Stones)

    • In case you haven’t noticed, California is one of the few places where that crud works…just about everywhere else has gone exactly the opposite. California serves as a warning to the rest of the nation and none of us out here in “flyover country” want anything to do with that mess. Go stuff your head back up Marx rotted backside, you communist swine.

  15. If I lived anywhere near the border of California, I would just drive over to Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona, and buy ammo. Those states don’t have any laws against it, and they’ll love the business.

    • People have tried this with standard capacity mags (which have been banned here for some time). It’s not unusual for CA cops to check gun stores near the border for CA plates, then stop the car when it crosses back into California. Obviously, you can get away with just about anything if you’re good enough and lucky enough, but trying to just drive into Reno, grab a few thousand rounds and drive back is unlikely to work out well.

  16. About as useless as prohibition. I may even get in on this one. The Peoples Republic of California has already made me a felon with the latest round of bill signatures. I might as well make a profit from it by buying ammo in Texas as I go back and forth. Sell it to friends in California. Pay for my trips as I look at property in Arizona.

    • Doesn’t the anti-importation element make bringing ammunition across state lines illegal? At least for individuals?

    • CA has “Agricultural inspection stations” on every highway into the state. Recently, these agriculture inspection stations have been making headlines for seizing fireworks coming in. Often you are directed to pull into secondary for inspection without the option of opting out. Even if you have nothing visible in your car and deny having any fruits or vegetables, and they have no reason that they can state, you will be inspected (searched). Your only option is to turn around and leave the state, even if you live here. Face it, we live in a police state.

  17. The NY Safe Act is very similar to these proposals. We are banned from ordering ammo online, all high capacity magazines are banned, all ammo purchases are supposed to be background checked but a system has yet to be built. Tracking ammo purchases is actually a way for the state to know what caliber of guns you own. In essence it’s a gun registry. So if you buy a lot of .223 or 5.56 you can be sure to expect a no knock warrant looking for the “evil” detachable magazines black rifle your not supposed to have. To me the ammo ban is unenforceable you can go over the stateline and bring it back who would know (etc.. War on Drugs…how’s that working) and you can always cast your bullets and hand load which may be the best option.

    • CA has “AG inspection stations” on every highway into the state. Recently, these agriculture inspection stations have been making headlines for seizing fireworks coming in. Often you are directed to pull into secondary for inspection without the option of opting out. Even if you have nothing visible in your car and deny having any fruits or vegetables, and they have no reason that they can state, you will be inspected (searched). Your only option is to turn around and leave the state, even if you live here. Face it, we live in a police state.

      • Move.

        I was stuck there for 18 months after getting out of the Army and I spent every minute doing a job search for gun friendly states until I found one and could move my family out of there. Second best decision I ever made, the first was leaving New York when i was 18 and never looking back.

  18. Well, instead of all Californians pissing & moaning about this shit, we all need to get out and vote against it in November so this bill doesn’t become a law & be done with it ! Tell Gov. Moonbeam to cram it with your votes !!

    • I agree with fighting for your rights, but California is overrun with wealthy Liberals and welfare recipients who will always vote with the democrats because they want to keep their gravy train on the rails. Non of them will obey the gun laws anyway, so they don’t care how much the average working American gets screwed over.

  19. If you live in California and are the type of person who reads this blog because you sincerely believe in the right of human beings to defend themselves, then get out now. You are not going to turn this around. California is a Liberal hell hole that will soon be even more of a playground fro criminals and terrorists than it already it and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

    • I agree 100%, with just one last year left until I’m done here, the anticipation grows daily.

  20. I wonder what will happen to Ammo dealers like LAX ammo who are based in California. Dealers who specialize in internet sales.. Not a good outlook I guess.

    • If they’re smart, they’ll move. I’m always surprised to see gun manufacturers and ammo retailers doing business from states like California and new York. Just Right Carbines builds and sells guns from a state where their guns are illegal. No way would I keep my business there and pay any taxes to them.

  21. 2Asux
    You are very wrong when you state the constitution is for the federal government only. It was written as the BASIS for ALL law in EVERY state. Yes is does severely limmit the federal government but it also sets limmits on state laws.

    • Yours is a common misunderstanding. The constitution was a restriction on the national government, reserving all non-delegated powers to the states. States at the time did not universally set about conforming their individual constitutions to “the” national constitution. It was only after the 14th Amendment, and a later Supreme Court decision, that the states were bound by the national constitution. States thereafter were subjects of the federal government, not the masters.

      • Quite true but Constitutional bull shit and reality are very different entities. The States have become so dependent on the Federal Government for money that the mere threat of turning off the cash flow renders the Constitution no more than a worthless piece of paper trash and of course to be laughed at by the dictatorial Supreme Court which should never have been appointed to power for life. Between the Federal Government “sugar daddy” and the thoroughly corrupt Supreme Court anything in the Constitution these days is only remnant’s from the dead hand of the past.

        • Isn’t 2Asux talking about how convenient it can be to push states rights to do something (gun control) the federal government can’t get done? I think he is saying the preferred path now is to get states to heavily regulate guns and ammunition, rather than wait on a grid-locked congress. He pointed out that courts are allowing states to do pretty much what they want in this area. 2Asux and others may run up against state anti-preemption laws if they try only at the local level, but it is easier, is it not, to get local politicians to control guns, then work up to state level?

  22. The main purpose is to make ammunition so difficult and expensive to buy that the average person will say it is just not worth jumping through all the legal hoops to purchase any and of course it will destroy the competitive shooting sports because what will follow is limited legal amounts one can buy or keep. In Britain it is my understanding that at one time you had to own land and then you were only allowed to buy 1 box of .22 rim fire ammo per year. I imagine by now this too has become illegal. A perfect plan for California which I am sure they will soon emulate. And of course the fanatical anti-Second Amendment Stalinist Dictatorial Supreme Court will rule it Constitutional.

  23. Prop 63 sounds awesome! The 2nd Amendment was never intended for every dumbfuk to own as many guns as they wanted. Gun ownership should be a privilege not a write. Repel of the 2nd Amendment needs to happen.

    • No, the repeal of the Second Amendment does not need to happen. Judging by the obvious spelling errors in your post that even Microsoft Edge’s crappy spell-checker would have caught you are not someone who we should be listening to on this subject.

  24. Totally outrageous law. I lean uber-liberal on most subjects but firearm control is one where I have to say “The problem is not the firearms, it is the criminals!”
    I mean, the FBI themselves say that 99.9%+ of firearm in general and 99.99%+ of ‘assault weapons’ meaning truly automatic or select-fire firearms are never used in a crime nor linked to a crime nor even accidentally used to harm another human being.
    Past time to stop the focus on the firearms and start the focus on the criminals who use the firearms to harm people, putting them in prison for long periods of time if not life.
    We should also focus on legalizing the drug trade since 80%+ of our firearm violence is directly or slightly indirectly linkable to that trade.

Leave a Reply

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