No Gun Control Law Too Reasonable

Can there be any doubt that the Brady Campaign has never met a gun control law that’s not eminently reasonable, and common sensical, no matter what effect we may tell you it will have on legitimate hunters and shooters? Try finding odd calibers or match grade ammunition at your local corner gun shop. For a lot of competitive shooters, especially cowboy shooters, mail order is really your only option, and now Governor Arnold just told those people they don’t matter.

I can tell you, without my regular mail order houses, there’s no way I could find everything I need easily. The local gun shops are often poorly stocked with reloading supplies, and the nearest Cabela’s is 100 miles away. Even if you think it makes sense to regulate loaded ammunition, it makes zero sense to regulate components, because criminals are not going to hand load their ammunition. That was purely a fuck you to law abiding gun owners from the Brady Campaign and Governor Schwarzenegger.  Seriously guys, you might as well have elected Bustamante at this rate.

And guys like MikeB still want to insist there’s no hidden agenda here? Hell, it’s not even really that hidden!

UPDATE: Arizona is reporting that NRA is going to try for a repeal of this ammunition law.

UPDATE: Attractive Nuisance is reporting that the situation in California is even worse, because many areas in California are not serviced by gun shops at all. It’s a similar situation to most other highly restrictive states. You get a few restrictions in place, and gun owners either leave or give up the sport, which makes less demand for shooting related products, so shops close. Now you have the gun owners left in a precarious political situation, so you squeeze them more, then more, then more, until you’ve eradicated the right. You don’t have to make guns illegal to convince people to give up owning and using them. The other side is well aware of that.

13 Responses to “No Gun Control Law Too Reasonable”

  1. I think they musta gotten this idea from NJ, just took it to the next level though.

    I wonder what State will take CA’s bill to the next level.

    Ten X ammo will probably get a boost with in state sales.

  2. Ian Argent says:

    I have to wonder why NJ didn’t prohibit mail-order of handgun ammo when they passed the “must log” restriction? Did they think at the time (which as someone else pointed out has been the case for cigarettes) that they couldn’t regulate interstate mail?

    IIRC the only reason states can ban import of alcohol is the language in the Prohibition Repeal amendment

  3. daeglan says:

    Yeah… as if it wasn’t hard enough to be a gun owner.

  4. Regarding your 2nd UPDATE:

    Think if NJ. This is what happened.

  5. windex1 says:

    I understand that you’ll still be able to buy ammo via mail order/internet but it will have to be shipped to an FFL for pickup. Is this not true?

  6. Sebastian says:

    It’s true, but I wouldn’t exactly call that mail order, it’s more like you can get a local FFL to special order something for you. Then you have to pay for shipping, and the FFL will want something for his time. It drives up cost and trouble.

  7. Ian Argent says:

    By that definition I can mail-order a handgun.

  8. Matthew Carberry says:


    Don’t give away the “mail-order loophole”. That’s next on the list.


  9. Ian Argent says:

    Hey – I can empathize with the CA types right now; at least partially. I lost my FOID to moving (address change requires re-issue, basically); so I can ONLY buy ammo mail-order right now. Which is a pain in the neck finding ammo in stock. The silver lining of small gunny community was (relatively) plentiful ammo.

  10. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian, Thanks for a great post. I like the way you pointed out that reloading equipment is not something your average criminal or gang member is interested in and this proves the real agenda. Nevertheless, I stll like the law for the good it will certainly do inhibiting those same criminals and gang members from ordering ammo on the internet.

  11. Weer'd Beard says:

    Well it must be a good law. The criminals want it!

    Any word on Roman Polanski’s take on updated sex offender laws?

  12. Linoge says:

    To be fair, I cannot really ever think of a time that the Brady Bunch tried to keep their agenda secret… Sure, they will couch it in the typical, bleeding-heart phrases like “for the children”, and “reasonable restrictions”, and other nonsense like that, but their agenda has been pretty plain to see for anyone with a shred of intelligence.

    *shrug* As I said over my way, with a single stroke of his pen, the RINO-in-Chief of Kalifornistan ensured that Better Half and I will never live there again – I did my time. I am not going back.

    I stll like the law for the good it will certainly do inhibiting those same criminals and gang members from ordering ammo on the internet.

    *snickers* Sebastian called it. And I guess you know all about the actions of criminals, MikeB302000

  13. Ian Argent says:

    I doubt criminals order much ammo on the internet; not the gangers you want to target on this anyway. The criminal economy is a cash economy – and you have to have a credit card to buy on the internet. Which is why blocking internet sales is so damn foolish – the vendor knows who you are post-facto ANYWAY.

    The criminals are going to get their ammo, essentially, the same place they get their guns – this law won’t change anything. Moves the exit from the legal economy out of state, I suppose. U-haul and other rentals will probably make a bit more money off one-ways from Nevada and AZ to SoCal.

    And there’s no way to put a DENT in that kind of smuggling. It’s not – technically – contraband.

    Another feel-good law that will do NOTHING other than impede law-abiding citizens.


  1. Attractive Nuisance - Common Sense and Reasonable - [...] talks CA-AB962, which we have discussed here previously.  And he’s correct: the Brady Campaign and other [...]