Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG….Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

ACTS Main Banner

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: NRA Readies Lawsuit Against California Ammunition Control

  1. #1
    Front Page News Moderator/Editor Smokepole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gun Shine State!
    Posts
    17,308

    NRA Readies Lawsuit Against California Ammunition Control

    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.
    “I don’t have concerns. I create them,”
    --General "Mad Dog" Mattis

    ALL of my postings represent my personal opinions, unless otherwise stated, and do NOT reflect the policies, or opinions of any organization, including that of "MGO", or its officers.

  2. #2
    Since 64% of the people voted for it in 2016, I say let them live with it.
    Retired Military
    VFW Life Member
    NRA Life Member
    DAV Life Member
    GOA Life Member
    MOPH Life Member

  3. #3
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    St. Joseph Co.
    Posts
    250
    so, what are they gonna do about hand loading and the components thereof?

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by j. d. crow View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    17,770
    Quote Originally Posted by DP425 View Post
    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?


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    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?

  7. #7
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    396
    Drive up costs on ammunition and the already relatively expensive firearm then becomes unattainable by any but the wealthy... those who have a real need for protecting themselves, namely the poor, will essentially by barred to own firearms thanks to the costs involved to do so. Same thing happens when they make concealed carry licenses or licenses to own prohibitively expensive.

  8. #8
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    17,770
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonJ View Post
    Drive up costs on ammunition and the already relatively expensive firearm then becomes unattainable by any but the wealthy... those who have a real need for protecting themselves, namely the poor, will essentially by barred to own firearms thanks to the costs involved to do so. Same thing happens when they make concealed carry licenses or licenses to own prohibitively expensive.
    That was actually the intent of NFA '34. At that time, $200 for a tax stamp was about 1/5 of the total avg income for a year. A machine gun itself was only about $25.


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  9. #9
    There have been quite a few 2nd Amendment cases that have been refused by SCOTUS. I hope they start taking some of them. Maybe if Trump gets to appoint another justice...
    No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
    William Rawle - offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    That was actually the intent of NFA '34. At that time, $200 for a tax stamp was about 1/5 of the total avg income for a year. A machine gun itself was only about $25.
    And if SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear ANY argument for the defendants in the Miller case, that tax very well may have been struck down. Alas, Layton and Miller were no where to be found.

    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm

    ♦ the Supreme Court:


    ◊ never read or heard the defendants’ views, because they were not represented in any form
    ◊ heard only one side of the matter, the government’s side
    ◊ did not accept most of the government’s arguments
    ◊ based its conclusion on a small part of the government’s argument
    ◊ declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)


    ♦ a brief for Miller and Layton might have argued that:


    ◊ short-barreled and sawed-off shotguns were military weapons, having been usedby both sides in the Civil War
    ◊ shotguns were widely used by U.S. forces in World War I
    ◊ the Supreme Court in 1856 implicitly reaffirmed the law-abiding person’s civil right to be armed, when it declared that the government, in the form of a sheriff, had no duty to protect the average person
    No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
    William Rawle - offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter