User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/14/2016 7:29:45 AM EDT
[#1]
This one adds insult to injury with respect to the laws passed by the legislature this summer. Definitely a "no" vote on this one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2016 12:52:18 PM EDT
[#2]
This is Gavin Newsome's baby, correct? That alone makes it a "no" for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2016 4:03:09 PM EDT
[#3]
No !!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2016 4:23:19 PM EDT
[#4]
I'm voting yes on this one, of course.
Whatever I just wrote above, I'm doing the opposite of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2016 9:43:00 AM EDT
[#5]
Nope
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2016 11:57:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope And another nope here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2016 12:57:30 PM EDT
[#7]
The gun provisions are not even the worst thing about this one. Read the section about the probation departments duties following a defendant being convicted and prior to sentencing. It involves an investigation of how many guns the defendant bought/registered and a report on have they all been accounted for/ they all surrendered. If they were not all surrendered then the judge shall issue search warrants for the decendents properties and storage lockers, ect. All to occur before sentencing.
Do you want cops getting shot confiscating guns? Because prop 63 is going to result in cops getting shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2016 3:19:32 PM EDT
[#8]
Fuck Gavin!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2016 9:46:47 PM EDT
[#9]
One asshole voted yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2016 7:30:37 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One asshole voted yes. That's what we get for lettin' them Texans get happy with our polls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2016 1:47:07 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is Gavin Newsome's Nuisance's baby, correct? That alone makes it a "no" for me. fify |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 7:08:39 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what we get for lettin' them Texans get happy with our polls. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One asshole voted yes. That's what we get for lettin' them Texans get happy with our polls. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2016 8:52:18 PM EDT
[#13]
I got two gun-agnostic registered Dems to vote no.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2016 2:44:26 AM EDT
[#14]
The text of this bill defines speed loaders as ammunition.
This is common sense legislation I can get behind. 
"(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, "ammunition" includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include blanks." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2016 11:05:13 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This text of the bill defines speed loaders as ammunition. This is common sense legislation I can get behind.
"(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, "ammunition" includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include blanks." But, but, but,... you cannot fire from a firearm any speedloader, magazine, clip or even a full cartridge. Only the bullet or projectile gets fired from the firearm. So we are safe, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2016 11:42:22 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But, but, but,... you cannot fire from a firearm any speedloader, magazine, clip or even a full cartridge. Only the bullet or projectile gets fired from the firearm. So we are safe, right? We'll be safe if this legislation passes! But seriously, I can't tell from reading it whether it's supposed to be "bullets, cartridges, magazines, clips, speed loaders, and autoloaders are ammunition, and any projectile capable of being fired from a firearm is ammunition as well" or if it's all of those things ONLY if they are capable of being fired from a firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 6:44:07 AM EDT
[#17]
It passed. At about two to one.
I'll be making an Arizona run soon. Oh it's not for ammo, I just like the drive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 9:58:25 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It passed. At about two to one. I'll be making an Arizona run soon. Oh it's not for ammo, I just like the drive. Driving can be relaxing but IIRC this BS isn't scheduled to go into effect until 2018. There is still *time to purchase these goods like a free man. Correct me if I am wrong... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 9:59:35 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It passed. At about two to one. I'll be making an Arizona run soon. Oh it's not for ammo, I just like the drive. I already made the run, and ended up buying a house there. I'm going to basically keep what I need for an emergency here and move everything else to Az. I know of a a couple of great realtors in the Lake Havasu/Kingman area if anyone needs that info.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 10:55:36 AM EDT
[#20]
nm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 11:24:32 AM EDT
[#21]
Ah shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 12:04:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Yupp.
Counting the days until I can eject ... five years, six months, 12 days .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 12:17:38 PM EDT
[#23]
So people that don't own guns, can tell me I have to jump through hoops to buy ammo. Time to repeal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 2:22:54 PM EDT
[#24]
does this go into effect in the new year? 2017?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 9:57:05 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
does this go into effect in the new year? 2017? This is what I want to know. I'm struggling to find info on when this actually becomes enforceable law. Oh, and FUCK be upon Newsom and every asshole that voted for this law. 
Damn I hate this state and everyone in it. Or everyone south of the upper third, anyway. EDIT: Sorry. I'm still tired as hell from last night. Just found the info I needed in the other thread about the new laws. January 1, 2017. Fuck me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 12:00:19 AM EDT
[#26]
It looks like the magazine ban is July 1, 2017.
The ammunition portion is January, 1, 2018. They set aside $25 million to set that program up, amazing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 3:17:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is what I want to know. I'm struggling to find info on when this actually becomes enforceable law. Oh, and FUCK be upon Newsom and every asshole that voted for this law. Damn I hate this state and everyone in it. Or everyone south of the upper third, anyway. EDIT: Sorry. I'm still tired as hell from last night. Just found the info I needed in the other thread about the new laws. January 1, 2017. Fuck me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: does this go into effect in the new year? 2017? This is what I want to know. I'm struggling to find info on when this actually becomes enforceable law. Oh, and FUCK be upon Newsom and every asshole that voted for this law. Damn I hate this state and everyone in it. Or everyone south of the upper third, anyway. EDIT: Sorry. I'm still tired as hell from last night. Just found the info I needed in the other thread about the new laws. January 1, 2017. Fuck me. I found this Licenses to Sell Ammunition. Beginning January 2018, individuals and businesses will be required to obtain a one-year license from DOJ to sell ammunition Other Regulations. Beginning January 2018, state law generally will require that most ammunition sales (including Internet and out-of-state sales) take place through a licensed ammunition dealer. In addition, beginning July 2019, most California residents will be prohibited from bringing ammunition into the state without first having the ammunition delivered to a licensed ammunition dealer. Failure to comply with these requirements is a misdemeanor. Large-Capacity Magazines. Since 2000, state law has generally banned individuals from obtaining large-capacity magazines (defined as those holding more than ten rounds of ammunition). The law, however, allowed individuals who had large-capacity magazines before 2000 to keep them for their own use. Beginning July 2017, recently enacted law will prohibit most of these individuals from possessing these magazines. Individuals who do not comply are guilty of an infraction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 12:51:40 AM EDT
[#28]
What I cant stand is that people dont for these laws because they actually beleive in them, its more of a big FU then anything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 3:37:15 PM EDT
[#29]
CRPA, NRA-ILA, Coalition For Civil Liberties, CalGuns Foundation, are taking Prop. 63 to court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 5:38:19 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CRPA, NRA-ILA, Coalition For Civil Liberties, CalGuns Foundation, are taking Prop. 63 to court. They have my support and any cash donations that I can afford to make. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 11:00:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I cant stand is that people dont for these laws because they actually beleive in them, its more of a big FU then anything. I disagree. They DO believe them. They think that, over time, they will have the desired effect. Don't forget their incrementalism, too - this bit today, more tomorrow. They also feel good about the big FU. They would spit in your face if they could. The leftists are THAT bad. Remember, the socialists killed TENS of MILLIONS of people last century, all to further their agenda. Fear them! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2016 9:34:19 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It passed. At about two to one. I'll be making an Arizona run soon. Oh it's not for ammo, I just like the drive. Outside from Ohio! Just heard about this a few days before the election. My condolences!!! What I'm reading, They did not put anything in the law. Stopping someone from crossing State lines to buy ammo? I believe I heard it stops all private shipping of ammo into the State. IMHO from The red State of Ohio The next thing will be: This did not work.
So now you can only buy 1000rds a year total! If can not show where your 10000 rds came from./ Guilty as charged!!! That Damn Camels nose!!! I hope I'm wrong! PITA45 
P.S. Buy it cheap (out of State) and stack it deep!!! Good luck!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2016 10:15:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Outside from Ohio! Just heard about this a few days before the election. My condolences!!! What I'm reading, They did not put anything in the law. Stopping someone from crossing State lines to buy ammo? I believe I heard it stops all private shipping of ammo into the State. IMHO from The red State of Ohio The next thing will be: This did not work.
So now you can only buy 1000rds a year total! If can not show where your 10000 rds came from./ Guilty as charged!!! That Damn Camels nose!!! I hope I'm wrong! PITA45
P.S. Buy it cheap (out of State) and stack it deep!!! Good luck!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It passed. At about two to one. I'll be making an Arizona run soon. Oh it's not for ammo, I just like the drive. Outside from Ohio! Just heard about this a few days before the election. My condolences!!! What I'm reading, They did not put anything in the law. Stopping someone from crossing State lines to buy ammo? I believe I heard it stops all private shipping of ammo into the State. IMHO from The red State of Ohio The next thing will be: This did not work.
So now you can only buy 1000rds a year total! If can not show where your 10000 rds came from./ Guilty as charged!!! That Damn Camels nose!!! I hope I'm wrong! PITA45
P.S. Buy it cheap (out of State) and stack it deep!!! Good luck!!! 30314. (a) Commencing January 1, 2018, a resident of this state shall not bring or transport into this state any ammunition that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained from outside of this state unless he or she first has that ammunition delivered to a licensed ammunition vendor for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 30312. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2016 10:16:49 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
30314. (a) Commencing January 1, 2018, a resident of this state shall not bring or transport into this state any ammunition that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained from outside of this state unless he or she first has that ammunition delivered to a licensed ammunition vendor for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 30312. By this a non resident can bring more ammo into CA? How about someone moving to the state? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2016 3:40:06 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By this a non resident can bring more ammo into CA? How about someone moving to the state? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
30314. (a) Commencing January 1, 2018, a resident of this state shall not bring or transport into this state any ammunition that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained from outside of this state unless he or she first has that ammunition delivered to a licensed ammunition vendor for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 30312. By this a non resident can bring more ammo into CA? How about someone moving to the state? I don't find those 2 specific questions addressed in the proposition so I'm assuming a non-resident could bring in their own ammo whether it is to go shooting/hunting or if you're moving here. If you started selling it you would most likely fall under the ammo importer/vendor rules. I also found this exemption for residents to bring in ammo. (6) A person who acquired the ammunition from a spouse, registered domestic partner, or immediate family member as defined in Section 16720. It appears that if my son lives in Arizona and buys ammo and he gives it to me, I could legally bring that ammo in to California. IANAL. We will have to wait until regulations and procedures are actually implemented. A lot of "unknowns" except none of this is going to have any impact on crime other then to turn normally law abiding citizens into criminals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2016 10:15:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It looks like the magazine ban is July 1, 2017. The ammunition portion is January, 1, 2018. They set aside $25 million to set that program up, amazing. You mean the $25million that they stole from the DROS account ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2016 3:50:52 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean the $25million that they stole from the DROS account ? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It looks like the magazine ban is July 1, 2017. The ammunition portion is January, 1, 2018. They set aside $25 million to set that program up, amazing. You mean the $25million that they stole from the DROS account ? I don't know anything about that. It just says in the law, near the end, that $25 million was set aside. It doesn't say where the money came from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2016 11:25:51 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2016 7:51:16 PM EDT
[#39]
Now that the Supreme court will most likely tilt back conservative, the NRA says that they will file suit against some of these laws. They were not going to waste the time and money if HRC won. It will end up at the Supreme court. I hope they follow through and finally do something for us here in Calif. I have not been to impressed with them in the past. Craig
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
