Anti-Gun Bills in California Headed to Senate

They passed the assembly earlier in the week, and are now slated to head to the Senate:

Assembly Bill 2062 was passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, June 17. The bill now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee for its consideration.

Sponsored by State Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), AB2062 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database.

Internet bulk ordering?  Forget about it.  It’ll be illegal.  And as if that weren’t bad enough:

Assembly Bill 2235 has been assigned to the Senate Public Safety Committee and is scheduled to be heard next Tuesday, June 24.

This legislation would prohibit the sale of handguns other than “owner-authorized (or “smart”) handguns”– that is, handguns with a permanent, programmable biometric feature that renders the firearm useless unless activated by the authorized user.

And, of course, law enforcement is exempt.  I guess either their kids don’t matter, or this isn’t about kids at all, but about making sure people can’t buy guns that actually work.

16 Responses to “Anti-Gun Bills in California Headed to Senate”

  1. BC says:

    The only way this stuff is going to fail to become law is if the governator vetos it. I actually talked to my Assemblyman about this at a town hall meeting: I told him that I was a recreational target shooter who could go through 50 rounds of ammunition in a half hour, never mind a month, and that passage of AB2062 would effectively destroy my hobby. His response? “Get a new hobby.”

    The mask is off. They just don’t care.

  2. Robb Allen says:

    Mind boggling that people are so stupid they’ll allow this kind of crap to happen to them.

    I don’t live in California, so writing the “idiots in charge” won’t listen to me, but this kid of asininity affects me just the same.

    How can you legislate that a product be required when that product not only doesn’t exist, but has very little chance of ever existing?

  3. Sebastian says:

    I would have ripped into him for that one. The constitution that he took an oath to uphold says you have a right to that hobby. In a free society, politicians don’t dictate what people can and can’t do with their free time, and with their money.

  4. RedneckInNY says:

    By not upholding the Constitution, he is violating his oath of office and therefore, should be recalled.

  5. Sebastian says:

    BC… mind saying who your assemblyman is? I think that story needs to be told :)

  6. And I thought NJ was bad...... says:

    Holy Smokes!

  7. chris says:

    i just cannot see how the technology could ever work… chances are it would have to be electronic which means soldered connections… now imagine a circuit board inside a baseball… and slam that baseball up against a wall hundreds of times… there is no way in hell that the circuit will handle that kind of abuse…

  8. mike w says:

    So they’ve passed “smart gun” legislation when the technology doesn’t even exist yet?

  9. Inebriated Arsonist says:

    There’s more onerous requirements in the ammunition bill, Sebastian. Try this little excerpt:

    (3) Commencing July 1, 2009, a vendor shall not sell or otherwise
    transfer ownership of any handgun ammunition without at the time of
    delivery recording the following information in a format to be
    prescribed by the department:
    (A) The date of the transaction.
    (B) The transferee’s driver’s license or other identification
    number and the state in which it was issued.
    (C) The brand, type, and amount of ammunition transferred.
    (D) The transferee’s signature.
    (E) The name of the salesperson who processed the transaction.
    (F) The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee on the
    above form, unless the purchaser or transferee presents a valid
    hunting or sportsman’s license issued pursuant to Section 714,
    paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 3031,
    or Section 3031.2 of the Fish and Game Code, or a handgun ammunition
    purchase permit in which case the vendor shall record the number of
    the license or permit.

    Californians would not only have to sign a book, Sudafed-style, but also submit to fingerprinting just to have the privilege of buying handgun ammunition. Remind me never to move to California.

  10. ATLien says:

    Since the Army is occupied at the moment in Iraq, can we form a multi-state militia to liberate California?

  11. Robert says:

    WOW, You know I live in this infested state and after the court overturned prop 187 and then overturned the gay marriage ban I am truly of the opinion that we live in the Socialist Republic of California. We are not a part of the USA anymore.

    AtLien I think that might be closer to reality than you think my friend.

    Get all the firearms you can before they decide only criminals can have them.

  12. Jim W says:

    I will withhold comment until after 10 AM on Monday.

  13. Robert, it looks like, at the least, all your spare change needs to be going towards bulk ammunition purchases. You could always go give your sales tax money to another state, but I think the CHP would just kill you on the spot if they stopped you with a few cases of ammunition crossing the border…

    Or not, because they’re going to try an outright gun ban in california (for the less-equal citizens anyway) probably in our lifetimes.

    Jim W: ;)

  14. B Smith says:

    Oh, I am a baaaad man!
    50 rounds per MONTH???

  15. JJR says:

    So much for those big bricks of 250 Remington .22LR…50 rounds makes for a really short day at the range.

    California, this is insane, and probably unconstitutional. Some state attorney will probably try to argue that they’re not prohibiting arms, just ammunition, which is a bogus, weasily way to argue. It’s still flagrant infringement however you slice it.

    Also, bye-bye revolvers of any kind, too.
    Collective insanity.

    Unfortunately Ahnold the Govenator has proved himself to be a RINO, so I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for a veto.

    (I am ok with the Gay rights thing, though.)

  16. the governator was a RINO from the start, and I remember (I was there, at the time) that the three conservatives left out there were saying so during the runup to the election. Of course, if it’s a choice between gray-out davis, some dude you never heard of, and the Terminator, like DUH of course you know who is going to win this popularity contest.

    I hold out zero hope for the people of kalifornia. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if it breaks off, I hope it doesn’t sink. Then the hippies and queers and whatnot that just loooooove california for the weather and views, will get to keep them, and the more-conservative Nevada could be our nation’s important seaport state. I’m not holding my breath though.


  1. SayUncle » Quick hits - [...] Going after ammo in Cali. Only 50 rounds a month? I shot six times that on Tuesday. [...]