Should Ammunition Buyers Face Background Checks? California's Voters Will Decide

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/25/499262781/calif-voters-to-decide-on-background-checks-for-ammunition

...
"A gun needs a component — and that's the ammunition — to be deadly. And the reality is today anyone can buy ammunition anywhere," Newsom said.
...
"Most of the provisions of this bill do not affect anyone who has been convicted of a crime. It does not affect terrorists; it does not affect potential mass shooters; it does not affect criminals. It only affects law-abiding citizens," said Craig DeLuz, spokesman for the Stop 63 campaign and a lobbyist for the Firearms Policy Coalition in Sacramento.
...

[Duckhunter935]

1. Nope

[procon]

2. Left to the voters to decide, there's a good chance this too, will pass.

California voters have already passed several other important gun safety laws and this one fits right in with the public's continuing desire to control guns in their communities.

[DonP]

3. Oh, you mean like when they passed Prop 8?

The reason we have a representative republic and not a democracy, is because we don't want a simple majority to pass laws that impact the minority.

That's why we have a constitution that includes a Bill of Rights. This law, if passed will wind up in court and be thrown out the same way Prop 8 was.

The end result will be multiple millions of dollars for the NRA, SAF lawyers, paid for by the taxpayers of California.

[procon]

8. No, I mean like the 6 new gun control Gov. Brown recently signed.

The ballot initiative would require background checks for ammunition and ban large-capacity magazines. I'm voting for it.

Look, the Bill of Rights includes the rights of all people, includes those who want better control of weapons. A gun control initiative on next week's ballot in California is supported by 58% of likely voters, while 35% are opposed, that's hard to ignore. And, I'm one of 'em.

When I look through voter guides and check Ballotpedia the only organized opposition to this measure are Republicans and gun groups. That's all I need to know. Yes, we live in constitutional democracy where the majority rules and the minority still have rights. Most people with still be able to buy guns, as is their right.

[DonP]

9. Exactly like Prop 8, more unconstitutional laws to impact people you don't like.

So fuck the 35% that are against it, right? They're all too stupid to know what's best for them. Nice "progressive" thinking at work there.

Feel the same way about Texas votes on a womans right to choose? After all, there were far more people for restrictions than against it?

Surprise! "Gun Groups" are not monolithic and include a lot of Dems and even some ACLU folks.

Try and expand your thinking beyond personal prejudice and bumper stickers that make it simplistic and all nice and black and white.

It will wind up in court, it will cost California millions of dollars, that will all go straight to the NRA and SAF bank accounts.

Gun control fans never seem to think beyond 5 minutes into the future. Then they're all pissed when the checks go to the NRA and friends.

We went through it in Chicago and Rahm wrote checks for over $3.2 Million to them ... so far. He has other cases still in court. And that's just one city.

This is a taxpayer funded ego trip for the Lt Governor Newsom that he thinks will boost his chances in the next election. It will have zero impact on crime or violence and it will all come out of taxpayers checkbooks.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. My take on California

There's pluses and minuses. On the plus side the salary and per diem is high as would be the frequent flier miles. On the minus side, there taxes are extreme and go to finance pro-control wet dreams and then the NRA and associates.

I'm staying close to the East coast for now.

[procon]

11. Cry me a river!

If a law stops some problematic people from getting a weapon, I'm for it, and if you're in that category, end of discussion. If not buying a huge magazine full of bullets is going to impact your life in the same way as a state enforced pregnancy will affect women, then your issues are not really about guns, yeah?

[procon]

13. You already have plenty of compromise.

If it never seems like it's enough, then the problem lays with you. You can't blame Chicago's gun violence on that state's gun control ordinances. The real problem is the lax gun laws in neighboring states such as Indiana, Mississippi and Wisconsin, that make it too easy to skirt around the strict gun laws in Illinois. If you live there, you should at least know that much.

Citing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives data — which shows that approximately 60% of guns used in crimes across Illinois came from out of state.

I have no pity for ignorance or whiners.

[gejohnston]

15. Except that the ATF said the

tracing data does not actually say that. It simply means the guns were purchased in those states at one time. Given that they "time to crime" is over a decade, the evidence does not support it. Not all of them are crime guns, and not all crime guns are traced. Question, how exactly do those gang members buy guns in those states? They certainly don't go to those gun stores, given that the Gun Control Act bans interstate transactions by non-FFL holders. They did not fill out federal forms before NICS including proving state of residence, and they don't do the background check now.
Also, several criminology studies show that criminals rarely go to gun stores. They almost never go to gun shows.
If you know current federal gun control laws, you know that.
https://www.atf.gov/docs/163564-ilatfwebsite15pdf/download

[procon]

16. Seriously? Straw Purchasers buy... oh, never mind. Class is over. Go home. nt

[gejohnston]

17. which is also a federal crime

and they would still need one in that state. If they had straw purchasers, they could get someone with a FOID.
Most of them get their guns from the black market, just like their heroin and cocaine.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. Just a few thoughts for you

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds." and "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

[Hangingon]

5. Nope!

[ileus]

14. Hopefully the people will crush this dumb idea.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. There is no law so stupid that you can't find at least one person in favor

When will people learn that not all problems can/should be solved with a law?
Then again, we're talking politics and most politicians deal with the law, enforcing the law, making the law, etc. When all you have is hammer everything looks like a nail.

[Eleanors38]

21. No.

The intent here is to place bureaucratic (and expensive) road blocks to curtail the Second Amendmemt. Frankly, this will lead to hording, and a situation where some individual buyers will become defacto dealers. Others will self-produce (in some ways, not a bad thing as the manufacturing base will expand and democratize, spurring innovation). Should this measure pass and then pass court scrutiny, the next step will be taxes and restrictions on amounts purchased OTC, and the materials used in reloading. When/if these measures then go to court, the prohis will then be establishing an anti-abortion-type track record of Intent through legislation to restrict a constitutional right.

It occurs to me that a poll tax-type restriction already attends the proposed BC for ammo (for now, a far more frequent purchase than one for guns). After all, who is going to pay for this BC? The state?