Ammunition

Opti-Mist · Nov 10, 2016

dickfoster said:
That should wind up before the supreme court in short order. In fact I imagine since the election and Trump gets the court and justice department squared away, California can look forward to spending a lot more time there answering for a lot more of their idiotic nonsense.

It could just die a natural death like it apparently did in NY. The local cops couldn't handle it and the FBI told them to get lost. So, they have a law with no way to make it work, and everyone ignores it.

dragoneggs · Nov 10, 2016

hawkeye08 said:
Or you could move up to Washington where you can loose your guns if are accused of being harmful to yourself or others (not convicted of any crime, just accused of a potential problem)....

I voted NO on that one but it passed 70+%. The reality though IMO, there is already law on the books that can basically do the same thing. This law just specifically allows court-orders to temporarily prevent gun access to persons exhibiting mental illness or behavior indicating they may harm themselves or others.

hawkeye08 · Nov 10, 2016

dragoneggs said:
I voted NO on that one but it passed 70+%. The reality though IMO, there is already law on the books that can basically do the same thing. This law just specifically allows court-orders to temporarily prevent gun access to persons exhibiting mental illness or behavior indicating they may harm themselves or others.

Unfortunately, lots of folks bought into how you summarized it and voted for it. I did not, it is violating my rights, I don't have a chance to respond at all before the court order...

From voter pamphet (online since I did not receive one in mail and had to use online version)....

A broadly defined set of people, including former roommates and police, can file a petition against you. Due process is undermined by allowing immediate ex parte orders; hearings and judgments without notice to the accused person. The definition of “Extreme Risk” is unclear. A judge can issue an order based on arbitrary factors and reported behaviors including simply purchasing a gun legally. To be released from an order, a person must prove he/she is not a danger to themselves or others and pay for the tremendous cost of their own defense.

k0ua · Nov 11, 2016

hawkeye08 said:
Unfortunately, lots of folks bought into how you summarized it and voted for it. I did not, it is violating my rights, I don't have a chance to respond at all before the court order...

From voter pamphet (online since I did not receive one in mail and had to use online version)....

A broadly defined set of people, including former roommates and police, can file a petition against you. Due process is undermined by allowing immediate ex parte orders; hearings and judgments without notice to the accused person. The definition of “Extreme Risk” is unclear. A judge can issue an order based on arbitrary factors and reported behaviors including simply purchasing a gun legally. To be released from an order, a person must prove he/she is not a danger to themselves or others and pay for the tremendous cost of their own defense.

You are correct. That sounds VERY open ended. If your roommate is angry at you for leaving your socks out of the laundry basket, you could easily lose your gun rights.

two_bit_score · Nov 11, 2016

Trump has said he favors treating CHL's like drivers licenses. They would be recognized equally in any state. Our Sr. Texas Senator John Cornyn tried to get it passed but Obama killed it. Now, it will eventually pass and be signed.

TBS

dragoneggs · Nov 11, 2016

two_bit_score said:
Trump has said he favors treating CHL's like drivers licenses. They would be recognized equally in any state. Our Sr. Texas Senator John Cornyn tried to get it passed but Obama killed it. Now, it will eventually pass and be signed.

TBS

While I am all for states to have their own licenses, regs, etc. and this is part of what makes America what it is... having reciprocal agreements across more of the states would make it easier to travel and not inadvertently break the law or cause a huge inconvenience.

PhysAssist · Nov 11, 2016

Opti-Mist said:
It could just die a natural death like it apparently did in NY. The local cops couldn't handle it and the FBI told them to get lost. So, they have a law with no way to make it work, and everyone ignores it.

But I still can't buy ammo online and have it shipped to my home- so I have it shipped out of state to family, and pick it up on vacation.

RoyJackson · Nov 11, 2016

PhysAssist said:
But I still can't buy ammo online and have it shipped to my home- so I have it shipped out of state to family, and pick it up on vacation.

I think NY's "SAFE" Law is another one, like CA's background checks on ammo purchases, that are onerous burdens on exercising a Constitutional Right...and should go to the Supreme Court after it gets 9 members

aczlan · Nov 11, 2016

dickfoster said:
That should wind up before the supreme court in short order. In fact I imagine since the election and Trump gets the court and justice department squared away, California can look forward to spending a lot more time there answering for a lot more of their idiotic nonsense.

The NY 10 round restriction ended up getting shot down IIRC, not sure why CA thinks that they need to try it too...

dragoneggs said:
While I am all for states to have their own licenses, regs, etc. and this is part of what makes America what it is... having reciprocal agreements across more of the states would make it easier to travel and not inadvertently break the law or cause a huge inconvenience.

Its fine to have a requirement for people from your state, but (IMO) as long as your state of residence has a permit process that meets federal standard X, you should be allowed to carry in all 50 states (just like with a drivers license).

Aaron Z