I hope you don't mind but I copied part of your letter for my letter. I'll be sending it in today.

That's it. When the big quake hits , we aren't letting any of you commies across the border . You'll have to take the bridges by force ! And you thought the 9th Armored had a tough time at Remagin ...

[size=6][red][b]Nous sommes la Résistance, imbécile![/b][/red][/size=6]

A business, hmmmmm.... i'm all for that!

Thats right, yes we are!

May I humbly suggest Yuma, Arizona as another location?  That's a lot more convenient for us here in the Extreme Lower-Left Corner, and not a bad drive from Hell-A.

Dopey me, I thought this died.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this also include an excise tax or something so [i]technically[/i] if you buy out of state you have to declare you bought it to pay a tax?

Man they get you from all sides...punk ass politicians.  Literally make you a criminal for having a gun...

I wonder if you have a tax-id (no, not an SSN) if you can be exempt from the tax???

Hmm... Borderside ammo depot...

I don't think CA taxing out of state purchases would last, due to being a 'hinderance on inter-state commerce'. After all, if they could do that, they'd tax catalog orders, internet purchases, etc... If they do do border-checks, someone should sue....

Use taxes are usually 'feel good taxes' to assure politicians and in-state businesses that 'tax will be paid, even if they fly the coop'... We have one on all out-of-state purchases in WI, but no one pays it (except larger businesses)... The problem is that the state can't prove where you bought your property, and since the tax is collected at the register on in-state purchases, there's no way to prove you didn't buy in-state and allready pay tax. So not only is it not paid, it's not enforced...

Good luck CA people...

I'm basing this on how they do cigs.  I am fairly sure they tax you in CA if you buy cigs out of state...that is if they catch you...[:)]

Someone on 1911 forum told me they will tax you from out of state, but I'm not sure since I suck at reading legalese...

There is the usual agricultural inspection at the AZ/CA border. My brother in law just drove here from Texas. In addition to the Agricultural inspection, the [b]CHP[/b] was there asking him to open his trunk for inspection. [b]What do you think they were looking for?[/b]

Bill

Ok im not too familiar with this Bullet Tax.
Is it 5 cents per bullet or 5 cents per box?
Also you have to reme,ber that taxes always get higher,if this is passed next year they will raise it.

Bullet...people are still unsure I think how shot will be applied.  Unsure if its per shell or per pellot.  Also I can't recall how it affects reloaders...think they're getting double taxed somehow...

The bill is supposed to tax reloading components as well, but I'm not sure how they plan to exercise that over powder and shot.  But cases, slugs, primers, hulls and wads would all definitely be taxed.

CA sucks :(

The dipshits enacting this law Im sure dont know the meanings of any of those components

They cannot tax newspapers because of the 1st ammendment. They got away with taxing  firearms/ammo by imposing sales tax.  Specifically taxing firearms and ammo will be the first step towards making it harder to afford our second ammendment rights, which could be grounds to repeal the law if it is enacted.

(Title 2 weapons is a whole new ball of wax.)

Agreed!    [50]                      
So that would mean 5-cents for one whole round of loaded ammo

And if you're reloading, that's 5-cents each for
the bullet, primer and powder charge, for an extra 15-cents per reloaded round.

This tax would raise the cost of 1k pistol primers from about $20 to $70!


Like they care?![:(!]

Sorry M4, I had a bad case of keyboard clusterf@#k!

From the bill:

For purposes of this section, "munition" means a projectile
with its fuse, propelling charge, or primer fired from a weapon, or
any of the individual components thereof.  "Munition" does not
include a BB or a pellet commonly used in an air rifle or pistol.

[b][red]YOU ARE SCREWED!!![/b][/red]

[img]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fzado4/kermit-sm.gif[/img]

How would they tax mail order ammunition from another state if they did not know you ordered it? And how can they stop you from buying ammo in another state, say Nevada? I think the people writing this law forgot about enforcement or are more JBTs going to be hired to enforce this?

CRC

Not only does the bill's author (state senator Don Perata) have a CCW permit(!), I managed to obtain his "good cause for issuance" statement from the Alameda County Sheriff's office.  You think you were pissed off BEFORE seeing this?

[img]http://nrawinningteam.com/calnra/perata/perata3.gif[/img]

Hopefully.  We don't want any of those CA residents getting out unless they provide proof of sanity.  You know, bring a gun and a membership card for the NRA, GOA or other such organization.  Then we'll let them visit/emmigrate to the United States of America.  We'd also need a list of CA politicians.  Can't let our border guards allow them in.  [:D]

I also thought this had died, i guess the zombies in our ASSembly brought it back.

As a big fan of the Ammoman, i usually don't buy my ammo in the PRK. But the letter has been written and mailed.

Thanks for the ref's 89.

How much to start up?  

This has been posted before. Send a copy of the letter to the CA state legislature.

The tax people in this state are good at what they do.  There are many ways they can find out since I know/heard of a lot of smokers had to pay the taxes that they [i]skipped[/i] out on by mail order...

For boxed ammo it's per round.  The killer is for reloaders, where the 5 cent tax is for all components, bullets, brass, powder, primer.

I've crossed from AZ to CA at Yuma about 300 times in my life, including about a dozen times in cars or moving trucks with non-CA plates.  I've seen CHP officers at the agricultural inspection station many times but have NEVER been accosted by the CHP there.

They were most likely looking for human cargo:  A missing kid, an illegal alien, a corpse, etc.  I doubt very much that the CHP has EVER done spot-checks for guns or ammo.

Federal law (Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 926A) protects anyone transporting a firearm across state lines, if it's locked up (e.g. in the trunk of a car) and unloaded and the person is legally allowed to possess the firearm at the beginning and end points of the journey (which could both be in Texas).

I'm intrigued by this report.  Did the cop say what he or she was looking for?

[^]

Unless you can think of something better, you could all dress up as In^H^H Native Americans and dump your ammo in the harbor. Unless impersonating a minority is a crime in California that is. Dumping lead, a substance known to the state of california to cause democrat voters, into the harbor would be another no no. Leaving ammunition where a minor could theoretically get to it is another. And you probably need a permit to assemble for political protest.

Sounds good but ammo is to expensive for me to just dump.  Excluding .22's of course...I'd be weeping knowing that case of ammo I just bought would be sleeping with the fishes...

Dude  you quoted the wrong guy. I didnt say "CA sucks"

Here's my letter to Senator Perata...

Senator Perata;
I read with some considerable bemusement your ?Just Cause? statement submitted for obtaining a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license in the state of California.  This is the missive dated 02JUL1999, submitted to Lt. Brian Masterson of the Alameda County Sheriff?s Department.

In this letter, you state your reason for requiring a CCW license as follows ?

?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 measurably added to the problem.?

I have also enclosed a copy of your letter that your memory may be refreshed.

Senator Perata, while I can commiserate with you, and wish no ill toward you or your family, I can say that I would like nothing more than a clear, concise definition of what you call ?rational regulation of firearms.?  From what I have heard from your in open forum, it sounds as though your idea of ?regulation? runs quite close to ?outright ban.?  Is this not so?

Moreover, if you find firearms ? notably personal firearms ? to be so dangerous, how can you, in good conscience, justify obtaining a CCW for yourself?  Why should you be able to defend yourself against threats, but not anyone else?  Why are we any different?

Another question ? I find SCA12 to not even be a ?feel-good? measure.  Honestly now, how can we expect a nickel a round to make a difference?  It?s not so much the idea of the tax, but the amount that would apply to every sale ? this isn?t a revenue-enhancing measure, this is simply a punitive fee (much like the original $200 transfer tax under the national Firearms Act of 1934.  Remember that?  A $200 transfer tax on a $50 Sten gun?)

If we are looking to fund emergency rooms for treating the injuries they see most often ? from those self-same injuries, why do I not hear for a punitive tax on liquor served in bars?  Drunk drivers kill more people annually than all firearms deaths combined.    How about taxation applied to medical treatment?  Statistics have shown that ?therapeutic misadventures? account for eighty-three times the lives taken by firearms ? whether people were shot accidentally or on purpose.

And another question ? will you also be subject to your tax?  I know that you must pass range training and proficiency testing in order to renew your CCW ? and that you have to obtain ammunition for it.  Will you be buying ammo, and if so, paying your tax on it?  Or does you position as a state Senator mean that I have to pay for your ammunition as you draw it from the ACSO?

In short, Senator, I request ? no I demand answers to the questions I have posed.  While you are not the Senator from my district, your actions can impact my well-being and my hobbies.  I am a target shooter, hunter, and a part-time Range Safety Official and firearms trainer.  If your ammunition tax passes, I lose a job because people can?t afford to buy ammunition anymore?


FFZ

And to the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee...

I am writing to this committee in reference to SCA12, as authored by Senator Don Perata.

SCA12 would seek to impose a ?use tax? or an ?excise tax? of five cents per round of ammunition, or five cents per component of a round of ammunition.  This means five cents added to the cost of each pistol round, rifle round, shotgun round, .22 rimfire round (notable, as they ore often bought by the thousand for plinking at the range!) brass case, primer (also bought by the thousands,) bullet ? and Heaven only knows how this tax would be imposed upon propellant, but I shudder to think?

I submit that this is not actually a ?revenue-enhancing? measure, but is a punitive fine levied under the colour of a tax.  This is not an impossible concept ? one need only look at the history of the National Firearms Act of 1934 to see SCA12?s predecessor.

Under NFA34, a tax of $200 was levied against fully automatic firearms, select-fire firearms, and sound suppressors.  A transfer tax of $5 was levied against short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and ?Any Other Weapons.?  While these devices are little more than collector?s items or curiosities, AOW?s include firearms such as the General Motors ?Liberator,? (airdropped into France during World War Two,) and CIA/OSS ?hidden guns.?

Why do I bring up the NFA?  In the 1940?s and 1950?s, the $200 transfer tax was being levied against the popular, widely issued, and commonly sold British ?Sten? submachine gun.  I mention the Sten specifically as it had a production cost of approximately $35 in 1941.  The Austrailian ?Owen? is a refinement of the Sten, and was produced for approximately $45.  Each of these firearms is subject to a tax of $200 every time they change ownership!  Suppressors also ? a modern suppressor still has a production cost of less than $100 in most cases, but you must pay an additional $200 in order to have one transferred to you.

On public ranges in Europe, it is considered impolite to fire your firearms without a suppressor installed!

Moving back to SCA12, tax on a box of pistol ammunition sold for $10-15 (containing fifty rounds) would be $2.50.  Tax on a box of rifle ammunition (normally sold in 20-round boxes for $4-20, depending upon caliber) would be an additional $1.  Doesn?t sound like much?  Let?s continue ? shotgun shells are sold, typically, in lots of 5 or 25 ? meaning a tax of $0.25 or $1.25.  Still not too bad?

SRTC, Part two...

Ammunition in the .22 rimfire calibers is typically sold in one of the following ways:

Box of 40 rounds - $2.00 (base cost, $2 for regular, $10-15 for ?target? or ?match? grade, used in competitions.)
Box of 50 rounds - $2.50 (base costs as above.)
Box of 100 rounds - $5.00 (base cost of $4-$20)
Box of 400 rounds - $20.00 (base cost of $12-30)
Box of 500 rounds - $25.00 (base cost of $14-30)
Box of 1000 rounds - $50.00 (base cost of $25-50)
Case of 5000 rounds - $250.00 (base cost of $50-100)
Case of 10,000 rounds - $500.00 (base cost of $100-200)

I do have to estimate several of these costs, but I did recently buy a case of 5000 rounds of CCI Blazer.  It?s been a bit, but paying $60 or so sounds about right.  Something about adding a tax of $250 to a $60 box of ammunition that I use for shooting at paper targets doesn?t sound right.  Remember that ammunition in .22 Long Rifle is typically sold in volumes of billions of rounds per year ? this represents an entire segment of an industry that can dry up if this ?ammo tax? actually gets passed?

I thank you for your time in reading this letter.  I have also written Senator Perata to express my views on this resolution (and others!) and I look forward to hearing from both of you.

FFZ

they'll probably just amend it to exclude .22 rimfire, and raise the tax to 7 cents on the rest to make it up.

Is this hearing open to the public?

If so, maybe we should consider showing up at the hearing to show our opposition to this.

And, no, I don't mean a protest march. I mean show up in the designated committee room at the designated time, dressed appropriately (and unarmed) and prepared to politely voice our concerns.

I nominate DVDTracker to be our spokesman.

That politician is right.

There should be a 5 cent tax. I support that 100% and will be voting in favor of it.