Give an inch, and they’ll take a mile. A slippery slope. Death by a thousand cuts. By whatever name you call it, Democrats in California have mastered the art of chipping away at constitutional rights. That’s what’s taking place right now in the Golden State where last week, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the state wants to raise the cost of an ammunition background check (that’s right, in California, you have to have a background check just to buy ammunition) from $1 to $5.
Of course, the fee increase is to cover the cost of doing the background checks Bonta says, checks that consumers never asked for and that the government imposed upon them in the guise of safety, but it’s just one of the reasons why such legislation is so egregious in the first place. It’s also a textbook example of why you can’t trust any politician who masks gun restrictions as “gun safety” and acts incredulous when citizens argue against their proposals despite them calling their restrictive policies “common sense” gun rules. But they aren’t common sense. They never are if you are actually aware of the issues and how the laws will later be applied.
The laws certainly won’t stop a person from buying a gun—or ammunition in this case—if they have the intent to wreak harm. Such laws, will however, make it more expensive for Californians to enjoy hunting, recreational shooting, competition shooting and defending themselves. It will make it particularly more costly and difficult for those people in our society who, as Kamala Harris likes to say, have not received “equitable treatment.” Assuming this means “disadvantaged” and in disadvantaged meaning “disadvantaged economically,” then they are some of the people who need to be able to defend themselves the most as by being economically disadvantaged they typically by default live in the most dangerous and crime-ridden neighborhoods. (It makes you wonder how serious Harris and Bonta really are about the welfare of those they proclaim to be the champions for?)
Here is part of Bonta’s pitch to California gun owners since it is the only person it will affect:
Prior to the passage of Proposition 63 of 2016 (The Safety for All Act) and Senate Bill No. 1235 (SB 1235) (Reg. Sess. 2015-2016), the sale or transfer of ammunition was not regulated in California. Although Penal Code section 30305 prohibited an individual from owning or possessing ammunition if they were prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, the Department had no mechanism to regulate the sale of ammunition. Proposition 63 and SB 1235 authorized the Department to complete an ammunition eligibility check or to verify that an individual’s Certificate of Eligibility (COE) is valid when the individual purchases or transfers ammunition from or through an ammunition vendor.
As authorized by Penal Code section 30370, subdivision (e), the Department’s current regulations established a $1.00 fee for a Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check (SAEC) and $1.00 fee for a COE Verification check. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, §§ 4282, 4285.) This fee has not been sufficient to cover the Department’s operating costs for the ammunition authorization program.
Effective January 1, 2024, the Department may raise the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check to cover the reasonable regulatory and enforcement costs for operating the ammunition authorization program. (Pen. Code, § 30370, subd. (e).) The proposed regulation raises the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check from $1.00 to $5.00.
But this is how anti-gun politicians fulfill their agenda literally at “any cost.” They can’t stop gun ownership legislatively or in the courts because this annoying little legal thing called the Second Amendment, the one our founding fathers believed was important enough to put right behind our freedom of speech, religion, the press or to assemble. So, they pass administrative laws that charge fees. And when they do it, they call it a “nominal” fee, simply to help offset the costs to enforce the restrictive law they passed. But then, that fee virtually always increases, the goal being to price people out of being able to exercise their rights and tax into oblivion what they can’t legislate.
And that my anti-gun friends (OK, as I think about it, I don’t know that I have any serious, like “go out and protest” anti-gun “friends.” That might be kind of hard to deal with on a daily basis. I did meet this chick in college who leaned hard left on the issue, but damn, she was so hot, I could forgive her for one night…but I digress. The truth is, currently, I do know some whiners, and I definitely have some weak-spirited, squeamish on the issue friends and relatives. We can’t all be the rare-breed sheep dogs. The world has to have its sheep…and sadly, wolves, as well.) But anyway, that is why supporting more gun legislation doesn’t work.
What on the face of an argument might seem like it would be “common sense,” when it comes to politics, is always fraught with deceptive traps beneath the surface.
So far at least in California, Bonta’s price increase isn’t the rule, yet. His proposed change must undergo a 45-day public comment period. The public has until 5 p.m. on Oct. 8, 2024, to submit comments regarding “the proposed regulatory action.” Here’s more details from the Bonta-gram:
This rulemaking is undergoing a 45-day public comment period. Any person or their authorized representative may submit written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The written comment period closes at 5:00 pm on October 8, 2024. All timely comments that specifically pertain to the proposed regulations will be reviewed and responded to by Department staff. Comments may be submitted by mail or email to:
- Mail written comments:
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 160487
Sacramento, CA 95816
- E-mail: [email protected]
The information below relates to recent rulemaking activity, including links to the regulations text and associated documents. Any person who has submitted a comment regarding a proposed action has the right to request a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons. The Final Statement will also be posted to this webpage upon completion of this rulemaking.
Public Notice and Related Documents
- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.pdf
- Text of Proposed Regulations.pdf
- Initial Statement of Reasons.pdf
- Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement (STD 399).pdf
- STD 399 Attachment.pdf
- Tips for Making Effective Comments.pdf
While I assume, the intent is to hear what the “public” in California has to say, since California feels it has the right to impose its rules on other states in a variety of matters, I feel like every gun owner in America has a right to submit comments and their thoughts to the addresses above. Let your voice be heard.
We know it won’t likely sway the state’s decision to charge more. This is the opportunity that has been in the works all along, but we can still be as much of a pain in their arse in the process. We can’t ever stop the fight.
cackle’s tampon tim walz…
Average Gun Control History illiterate Americans fall for Gun Control because they do not know anything more about Gun Control than what the media and Gun Control zealots have told them. Since it’s a given Gun Control zealots like harris/walz are never, ever going to Define Gun Control by its History it is left up to Gun Owners to educate the public. Therefore my response to California’s insane third reich level appetite for Gun Control is the following…
CA can pound sand. The people got what they voted for. Don’t like it? Tough, change it. Or not. But stop whining about it. Those of us who live in Free States don’t care. Just don’t bring your brand of shit here
…… you do realize they will and in large numbers until you or your descendants are bitching about it right? Kill it everywhere or live with it next door until it comes for you.
Because of this unconstitutional law I, as a non CA resident CANNOT purchase any ammunition in the state of CA. I have family in SD and travel to southern CA several times a year. The CA DROS system only processes CA ID’s. Also. If you as a CA resident can ONLY buy ammo in a CALIBER of weapon you have REGISTERED in the DROS system. If you have a .45 ACP not registered but a 9mm registered you can’t buy .45 ACP ammo but CAN buy 9mm ammo. Also what most people don’t know if you move and the DROS system isn’t updated with your current address you will be denied even though you aren’t a prohibited person. The worst part is that it can take up to 6 MONTHS or more for the DROS system to update your NEW address. An audit found tens of thousands of people were denied ammo purchases who were NOT prohibited from buying guns or ammo and had no criminal records.
The quickest way to update your information is to buy another gun, they did not foresee the unintended consequences of that, as most people I know simply bought another gun to update their info. Also, it does not limit the caliber you can buy, based on your current registered arms. That is a myth. The law still sucks and just don’t give them further ideas.
For all involved in your state does it cover reloading materials? Obviously wouldn’t help as much with 9mm and 5.56 but just about everything else evens out quickly enough even with monthly range trips.
The wheels of bureaucracy turn very slowly unless greased with folding green.
And bureaucracies are very expensive to run. Hence the price rise. It will in future have revenue targets and contributions to general revenue which will cause further price hikes.
we should start charging a tax to go to the polls as we-oh.
“why would someone want to bully thousands of rounds of ammunition at once?”–some idiot lib
Taxing people to fund an entirely unnecessary bureaucracy made up out of thin air designed to hinder their exercising of a freedom.
Government in a nutshell.
Well put Shire
Another deranged disgruntled democRat with a head filled with propaganda makes his move…lucky for him security was there to save him…
Skrewit! Have a weekend in Vegas. Not even an id check. Drive and buy as much as you want. Fly and you can bring back 11 pounds in a bag. 22 if you have a friend. 44 if you have a friend and 2 kids with bags.