NRA Readies Lawsuit Against California Ammunition Control

[Smokepole]

NRA Readies Lawsuit Against California Ammunition Control



By AWR Hawkins
Breitbart
January 5th. 2018

The National Rifle Association is readying a lawsuit against California’s new ammunition controls and that suit focuses on the failure to meet “statutorily mandated” deadlines throughout the lead-up to the launch of the controls.

Breitbart News reported that the ammunition controls went into effect January 1, 2018. They bar out-of-state ammunition purchases and require that all in-state purchases be made from a licensed dealer. This shrinks the supply, which will inevitably drive up price.

Moreover, they require that any ammunition purchased online be sent to a licensed in-state dealer, who will then charge a processing fee for the ammo, thereby driving the price up even further.

This is all a prelude to the state’s January 1, 2019, goal of instituting point-of-sale background checks for ammunition purchases. Those sales will also carry a fee, ubiquitously to cover the cost of the background check. But the fee will drive the price of ammo even higher.

The NRA-ILA clams certain “statutorily mandated” deadlines were missed throughout the process of getting the ammunition controls in place, and argues that the controls must be halted because of this. According to the NRA-ILA, “The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has approved the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed ammunition vendor regulations after failing to meet the statutorily mandated deadline of July 1, 2017 and the effective date of January 1, 2018.”

The NRA has enjoyed recent success against California gun control. For example, on June 29, 2017, a “high capacity” magazine ban was blocked two days before its scheduled implementation. The ban was stopped via a suit brought by the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued the ruling. ABC News quoted Benitez saying, “If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.”

Law-abiding firearm owners face a similar, “untenable choice” if the draconian ammunition controls are allowed to stand.

[ChaneyD]

Since 64% of the people voted for it in 2016, I say let them live with it.

[j. d. crow]

so, what are they gonna do about hand loading and the components thereof?

[DP425]

so, what are they gonna do about hand loading and the components thereof?

If I recall correctly, bullets fall into the same category as ammunition as per the bill as passed.

[Roundballer]

If I recall correctly, bullets fall into the same category as ammunition as per the bill as passed.

I know that they already have some pretty draconian laws about lead, but what can they do about molds and swedging tools?

[DP425]

I know that they already have some pretty draconian laws about lead, but what can they do about molds and swedging tools?

I think that would fall into manufacturing, which is also covered if I recall correctly.

I mean, you could easily get around this law if you wanted to- the issue is at what potential cost?

[RockinRiley]

Since 64% of the people voted for it in 2016, I say let them live with it.

I usually say the same thing, but come on, bullets, I say hell no. That is ridiculous. It gives ideas to other states. Absolutely not. I say sue NRA, I say sue!
You can see by my post count I do not really say much, but I say bullets through dealers is ridiculous!

[slingshot77]

Looks like a perfect place for new Black Market items to show up untaxed & uncontrolled. I guess Ca. figures it is better that bootleggers & the underground community make a profit than normal taxable businesses.

But I guess I understand it being Ca. & all, make marijuana legal but ammo unobtainable (what could go wrong here?).

I suppose the Ca. law makers don't understand that the more difficult they make it to legally buy ammo the farther a lawbreaker will go to steal it, even if that involves armed robbery, or home invasion.

[AxlMyk]

... the farther a lawbreaker will go to steal it, even if that involves armed robbery, or home invasion.

I doubt that. People will just drive out of state, buy ammo, then drive back. It's not like the cops are going to pull over every car coming out of Nevada or Utah to check what's in the trunks.

[Roundballer]

I suppose the Ca. law makers don't understand that the more difficult they make it to legally buy ammo the farther a lawbreaker will go to steal it, even if that involves armed robbery, or home invasion.

I doubt that. People will just drive out of state, buy ammo, then drive back. It's not like the cops are going to pull over every car coming out of Nevada or Utah to check what's in the trunks.

I think that slingshot has it right. The cops won't be pulling people over, they will be looking for evidence that the ammo came from out-of-state like the cops here look for cigarettes without the tax stamp on the package. More than just a few packages, and they charge and let you fight it in court.