Dealing with Kalifornia's ammunition regulations...
Posted: 12 May 2020 19:53
As many of you may know, CA pasted regulations requiring background checks to purchase ammunition. Requires that all ammunition transfers be in person at a licensed ammunition vendor. Prohibits direct ordering of ammunition to the consumer by mail, phone or internet. (ANY such order must go through a FFL and is subject to receiving fees in addition to the state use/sales tax and background check fees.) Requires that ALL ammunition transfers between individuals be registered with the state and subject to the same background check.
Since the Federal government told CA to go pound sand when they wanted to use the NICS for every ammunition purchase CA has hooked in to the state DROS system which more or less requires you to have purchased a firearm at your current address sometime after 2014 in order to get by with the $1 check. IF you are NOT in the DROS system at your current address you can pay the state something like $17 for a 'full background check' that is only good for THAT purchase or you can buy a gun to get into the CA DROS system.
I just got yet another indication of how invasive this STUPIDITY is on the part of the sate of CA.
About a month or so ago I made an online purchase of 300 projectiles for reloading.
Yesterday evening I receive an e-mail telling me the purchase had been cancelled at MY request.
I sent a response explaining that I didn't cancel ANYTHING and still desired the product.
Today I followed up with a phone call and spoke to a nice lady who after looking into it said she wasn't sure but she thought it was probably mistakenly cancelled because someone thought the Winchester bullets I had ordered were ammunition. Lucky for me they still had what I ordered in stock and she promised to get it on the way and apologized for the error.
This is NOT the first time I have been attempting to purchase reloading supplies only to find that the seller thinks I'm ordering loaded ammunition.
Recently a judge found that this law was likely to be overturned as too onerous and that it simply did not do what the state purported it to do. He issued a preliminary injunction. The atty general asked for a stay of his preliminary injunction and was denied but then took it to the 9th circuit court of appeals and got an emergency stay until it could be reviewed.
Here is a summary of some of the problems with the law:
https://reason.com/2020/04/27/court-str ... quirement/
Since the Federal government told CA to go pound sand when they wanted to use the NICS for every ammunition purchase CA has hooked in to the state DROS system which more or less requires you to have purchased a firearm at your current address sometime after 2014 in order to get by with the $1 check. IF you are NOT in the DROS system at your current address you can pay the state something like $17 for a 'full background check' that is only good for THAT purchase or you can buy a gun to get into the CA DROS system.
I just got yet another indication of how invasive this STUPIDITY is on the part of the sate of CA.
About a month or so ago I made an online purchase of 300 projectiles for reloading.
Yesterday evening I receive an e-mail telling me the purchase had been cancelled at MY request.
I sent a response explaining that I didn't cancel ANYTHING and still desired the product.
Today I followed up with a phone call and spoke to a nice lady who after looking into it said she wasn't sure but she thought it was probably mistakenly cancelled because someone thought the Winchester bullets I had ordered were ammunition. Lucky for me they still had what I ordered in stock and she promised to get it on the way and apologized for the error.
This is NOT the first time I have been attempting to purchase reloading supplies only to find that the seller thinks I'm ordering loaded ammunition.
Recently a judge found that this law was likely to be overturned as too onerous and that it simply did not do what the state purported it to do. He issued a preliminary injunction. The atty general asked for a stay of his preliminary injunction and was denied but then took it to the 9th circuit court of appeals and got an emergency stay until it could be reviewed.
Here is a summary of some of the problems with the law:
https://reason.com/2020/04/27/court-str ... quirement/