Most of the posts that I have seen have been angry, sub-literate scrawls about how this proposed tax is a threat to the liberty of every patriotic american in california. To all of those people I have but one question: How many people are you planning on shooting? If you just want a gun for home defense, you should only need to buy one box of bullets. Ever. Unless you are fighting off nightly hordes of looters, you will never use more than one clip of ammo. Chances are, your house won't be broken into, at least not while you are there, so you won't even use a single bullet. So what is the problem? Simply pay the one time cost, and go on with your lives.
As a final point, I would like to point out the fact that the Second Amendment was written during a time of social upheaval when the only means that many communities had to protect themselves was through the use of citizen militias. The Second Amendment was intended to prevent overzealous government officials from disarming entire communities and leaving them defenseless. Today, if we took away every privately owned gun in america people wouldn't be defenseless. That is what the police are for. Fault them as you may, but they are trained and prepared for situations that may erupt into violence. You, as a jittery gun-owner, are not trained for those situations. You may be trained on HOW to use a gun, but you are not trained on WHEN to use a gun. Maybe you should leave that job up to the professionals.

Quoted:
You see, he's of the ruling elite and is entitled to carry firearms.  You and I are mere proles who exist only to slavishly vote for this guy, grab whatever "entitlements" he generously grants us, and pay his ever-increasing taxes.

So he should have guns and you should surrender yours.  What's so hard to understand about that?

Wow I think I'll move to CA.  It's so . . . progressive.  [puke]

How come the papers aren't covering this gem?

My reason for seeking renewal is as it has been in previous applications:  my public policy efforts to seek rational regulation of firearms have engendered the enmity of some individuals who have made overt threats on my life and the well-being of my family.  The rapidly expanding access and anonymous use of the internet have measureable added to this problem.

How many of us do you think Kalifornia turns down for this same reasoning? How many women has Kailfornia denied CCW because their reason for applying was "overt threats" by an ex-husband, boyfriend, etc.?

Quoted:
I replied to their forum but the comments are filtered through the moderator. Whatcha wanna bet they don't print my response?