Good luck to the gun owners in California

[Artful]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/a608d417-fec3-3ea0-aecc-b4d9dce33d5c/ss_%26%2339%3Bveto-gunmageddon%26%2339%3B.html


'Veto Gunmageddon' Wants to Pick Off 7 New California Gun Laws

Thousands of California gun owners rallied to the call of San Diego-area businessman Barry Bahrami and his grassroots “Veto Gunmageddon” group’s effort to repeal seven of the state’s new gun control laws. Within just a few days after Veto Gunmageddon’s Facebook page went live, it had already attracted more than 13,000 “likes.”

But Bahrami, chief executive officer of Commercial Network Services, will need millions of gun-toting California voters to accomplish the Veto Gunmageddon’s goal. “I did it because the clock is ticking and it needed to get done,” Bahrami told Guns.com. “That is all. It is very much an effort of many individuals from all political affiliations coming together to fix the mess created by our elected officials.”

Veto Gunmageddon launched separate petition drives against each of the seven laws on Aug. 12. The petitions ask for ballot referendums that would ask voters in November to repeal the laws.

Six of the gun control laws in Bahrami’s sights were signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D)July 1 (http://www.capradio.org/articles/2016/07/01/brown-to-act-on-gun-bills-friday/). The seventh was signed July 22 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-ghostguns-idUSKCN1022MB). Brown vetoed five others that he felt should be decided by voters.

The new laws that Veto Gunmageddon wants to stop cover assault weapons, ammunition sales and the registration of guns “personally manufactured or assembled,” along with new regulations regarding lost, stolen, or borrowed firearms.

“My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Gov. Brown wrote in his signing message.

Amanda Wilcox, a lobbyist with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told the New York Times she especially liked one of the bills. It requires background checks for ammunition purchases.

“It can give us a handle on who has illegal guns in the state, as well as limiting access to ammunition by dangerous people who may have illegal guns,”[/B] she said.

Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, certainly doesn’t see any of the legislation as being positive.

He described the measures signed by Brown as “constitutionally-illegitimate laws passed by a patently illegitimate government that had the audacity to attack and criminalize millions of its own people in Stalin-esque fashion.”

Craig DeLuz, (http://www.capradio.org/articles/2016/08/15/bid-to-referend-new-california-gun-laws-is-a-long-shot/) a spokesman for the Firearms Policy Coalition, said the group supports the petition drives launched by Veto Gunmageddon.

But DeLuz, who is also a lobbyist for the California Association for the Federal Firearms Licensees, the state’s largest group of firearms retailers and manufacturers, understands the political realities of life in the Golden State.

“Our prayers are with them. Unfortunately, it is not impossible but likely improbable,” DeLuz told Capital Public Radio in California.

“Organizers of this effort basically have about six weeks in order to gather about a half a million signatures per referenda,” DeLuz pointed out. “So we’re talking about a grand total of about 3.5 million signatures.”

Bahrami believes his people can get 465,000 signatures for each measure by Sept. 29 to surpass the 365,000 signatures needed to put the ballot referendum proposals before voters in November.

“What we’re doing is we’ve pretty much signed up every gun store and range in the state – most of them, and for them to reach out to their customers, it’s not really a big deal,” Barhami told KCBS-TV (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/08/15/veto-gunmageddon-group-looks-to-overturn-gun-control-laws-signed-by-jerry-brown/) in San Francisco. “Don’t forget there’s 13 million gun owners in this state, and the power of social media is pretty good.”

Wonder if Ms. Wilcox knows her history - doubtful - we already had Ammunition registration.



The Gun Control Act of 1968 required federal licensing for all ammunition dealers, and required that a record be kept on all handgun ammunition sales by retailers—including the popular .22 rimfire cartridges. The requirements proved to be such a heavy burden on retailers that in 1982, Congress removed .22 caliber rimfire ammunition from the record-keeping requirement.

Even with that change, the value of ammunition sales licensing and record keeping was doubted by many, including the nation's top firearms law enforcement officials. In 1984, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that ammunition dealer licensing "was not necessary to facilitate legitimate Federal law enforcement interests."1 In 1986, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supported eliminating the record keeping requirement:

"The Bureau and the [Treasury] Department have recognized that current record keeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value."2 As a result, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 repealed the ammunition restrictions, with little opposition despite heated debate over other provisions of the bill.

Good Luck in repealing/Stopping these liberal laws in Kalifornia.

[myg30]

It's really a shame they want more n more laws but won't/can't/ don't even know about enforcing the ones they have. They let criminals n illegals out of jail so they can get more votes.
With all the restrictions and laws on all drugs legal or not over the past 4 decades you would think we would have a drug free society ! Yup, blow more smoke.
I'm suprised in Cali they still sell sugar and white bread ! Humm.

But we all make our own choices and some folks choose to live below the water table.

Mike

[jmort]

Liberals do not deserve guns. Liberals do not want citizens to have guns. California is run by liberals. Pretty simple deal.

[dragon813gt]

I'm trying to figure how the background check on ammunition will let them know who has illegal guns. I guess the "illegal" part is truly lost on them. They already went through the trouble of obtaining an illegal gun. W/ ammunition being easy to acquire over the state border they essentially gave the gun runners a new lucrative profit stream. Someone is always willing to provide "illegal" merchandise. The buyer just has to be willing to pay the high price.

[opos]

The politicians here are now embroiled in a "contest" to see who can do the most restrictive legislation...We have a Lt. Governor that figured it would take too long to get his "ammo bill" through the state legislature so he's going direct to the voters with a referrendum in November...that action angered several state assembly members as they already had bills going through the legislature to accomplish about the same thing...so now they are in a food fight about who's the baddest of the bad on gun and ammo control..

I will be very cautious about what I say....the laws are way over the top..for example it's going to be illegal to buy ammo on line or to buy it in Arizona, Oregon, or Nevada....there are agricultural check points at all major border crossings (have been for many years) and the talk is to have them "search cars" for contraband like ammo. The highway from Vegas to L.A. on a Sunday afternoon and night runs at least 90 mph and it's like 4 wide at Talladega...who are the politicos fooling? Nobody stops for anything unless they hit it..same with the folks going from Lake Tahoe to San Francisco..highway 50 and 80 are wide open race tracks.

The state of confusion that reigns supreme in California will collapse on itself...Remember the 55 mph speed limit? After about 2 weeks of that mess the CHP would give warnings to drivers driving under 70 on the major freeways for impeding traffic...

We don't have enough LEO's to enforce any of the gun laws...the new "move" is to get your neighbor to tattle on you or to have plants at the ranges, etc to be the eyes and ears for "law breakers"...going to be some serious confrontations about all that malarky...Most of us just plan to puddle along and not be visible and comply with the laws the best we can..they are trying to eliminate all guns by "death with a thousand paper cuts"...a little here, a little there etc....Shooters and outdoorsmen are pretty resourceful. Lots of "work arounds" being put into place already...we'll see.

[Artful]

Don't doubt that first arrest on bringing your own ammo into the state from another state (restriction of interstate commerce) will bring that part of the law down - but saw in another thread that the Commie Government in Venezuela was going to laser etch all the ammo going to LEO's and .Gov as their is a heavy black market - in a country with no gun rights.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

opos--guys used to come up by the car load to Oregon to our gun shows and buy items restricted in Calif. The Calif. State D.O.J. has agents walking around the shows that observe who's buying what, and when they leave if they have a Calif. license plate they will follow them until they cross back into Calif., initiate a traffic stop, search the car and make arrests. I haven't heard about that happening for quite a while now.

Conversely, here in Oregon the liquor business is a State-run monopoly and the prices are fixed by the State and the same in every State-run liquor store. The prices are significantly higher than in Calif. where free market and competition control the prices, so it is not uncommon for people in Oregon to drive a short distance into Calif. and purchase alcoholic beverages in quantity and haul them back north. If the Oregon State Police see a car not too far into Oregon that is weighted down in the back they've been known to stop the car, look in the trunk, confiscate the liquor and issue citations.

With the impending restriction in Calif. of magazines and ammo, still sold freely to all comers in Oregon, I'd expect the Calif. State D.O.J. undercover agents to be back in business again, so tell your friends it might not be a good idea to do their shopping here. As for the legality of it all, I hate to say it, but it probably is legal. If a car is inspected at one of the Agricultural Inspection Stations and an Inspector sees contraband other than undeclared fruits or vegetables it has been discovered lawfully because it was found during the course of a lawful search, and he is obligated to bring it to the attention of the appropriate agency--which might just have a unit sitting at that location for that purpose.

[opos]

No question about the "smuggling" concept into California....I know folks that are already chattering about their plans...even to the point long routes away from the main roads just to get past check points....I'm a fairly low volume shooter and reloader and have made plans for whatever I think might be realistic in my remaining years...(old man) so I'm not worried...I will not buy ammo or supplies where there is a "permit" or registration needed so I'll hope to be "full up" and cruising when they pull the string on the new laws...Some people just won't realize that this is all real and it's only a start here...it's going to move across the Country if Hillary get's the nod....she doesn't need to blow out the 2A situation...she can work to deter manufacture and distribution of ammo and components. If the law only allows 1 box of 50 rounds of ammo per month per caliber it's going to put quite a crimp in the volume shooters days. That was tried here and almost made it and may happen again.

[dragon813gt]

What is the legality of checkpoints for non commercial vehicles? DUI checkpoints are illegal but no one wants to fight them. Having checkpoints to search vehicles when they cross state lines is well into illegal territory. Every day this country gets closer to it's breaking point.

[opos]

What is the legality of checkpoints for non commercial vehicles? DUI checkpoints are illegal but no one wants to fight them. Having checkpoints to search vehicles when they cross state lines is well into illegal territory. Every day this country gets closer to it's breaking point.

California has had dept of agriculture check points at the borders of other states since I was a kid...I'm almost 79 now..it's to keep certain restricted plants out of the state that could ruin the huge cash crops if the pests it carries get going...there are also border patrol check points along the main roads in and out of California...got to stop those pesky illegals and all..they also include truck weigh stations, etc....weigh stations are all over the U.S. and many have highway patrol stations with them...the only search is if there is something suspicious...if it is a tinted window suburban with blankets all piled up in the back they will probably want to take a look...if it's a truck and there is a lot of Spanish mumbling coming from the back they will probably want to look..My Wife and I pass through with a wave all the time....nothing to hide and nothing looking strange...if there is nothing to hide then so what?

[dragon813gt]

if there is nothing to hide then so what?
This is the reason you have them in the first place. W/ an attitude like that no one has challenged them. Even the checkpoints for illegals are illegal. Due process has completely gone away in this country. And CA sending officers into OR to see what CA residents are doing is beyond ridiculous. It's none of their business what an individual is doing. Now if they are involved an investigation I understand. But for a regular citizen in good standing they have no right to monitor your activities outside of their jurisdiction. Abuse of power like this bothers me to no end.

[Artful]

Conversely, here in Oregon the liquor business is a State-run monopoly and the prices are fixed by the State and the same in every State-run liquor store. The prices are significantly higher than in Calif. where free market and competition control the prices, so it is not uncommon for people in Oregon to drive a short distance into Calif. and purchase alcoholic beverages in quantity and haul them back north. If the Oregon State Police see a car not too far into Oregon that is weighted down in the back they've been known to stop the car, look in the trunk, confiscate the liquor and issue citations.


- An adult entering Oregon may bring the following amounts of alcohol with them into Oregon: Four liters (135.2 fluid ounces) of distilled liquor. Two cases of wine or cider (620 fluid ounces) of wine or cider. Two cases of malt beverages (576 fluid ounces)

Just how much junk did you have in your trunk?

[Artful]

What is the legality of checkpoints for non commercial vehicles? DUI checkpoints are illegal but no one wants to fight them. Having checkpoints to search vehicles when they cross state lines is well into illegal territory. Every day this country gets closer to it's breaking point.

They don't do Checkpoints in Arizona but do have a DUI Task Force with saturation patrols.

The task force is essentially a group of police organizations that get together usually in one place (and they switch depending on the holiday where they get together) whose sole function is to get drunk drivers off the road. Law enforcement takes this stuff very seriously.

I’ll give you an example; our office is in Tempe, Arizona and the Tempe library is right down the street. The Tempe library parking lot is often used as the location for a task force roundup and it ends up becoming the home base of the task force. They have large Truck Van for processing and impound of vehicles.

You’ll have police agencies from Scottsdale, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, sometimes Phoenix, and they’ll all send their vehicular units to this task force. And then from there they’ll go out into local areas around the task force, and pull over or stop any vehicle that exhibits even the most minor of traffic violations.

When I say minor, I mean: not using your blinker, swerving in your lane one time, make a wide right turn, not having your headlights on, etc. These are all reasons a task force officer would pull you over.

So people get pulled over for nondescript civil violations, such as speeding, not turning into the correct lane or mechanical defects. The officer will approach the vehicle and you are obligated to talk to the officer. Usually it doesn't last very long and no citations issued. Unless suspicion of driving impaired then they have you go to the parking lot.

Scottsdale DUI Lawyer Rosenstein said a person only has to provide their name, proof of insurance and vehicle registration when stopped by police.

[pill bug]

Oh no! On top of the waiting period i'm thinking they will also charge a DROS fee to cover the cost of the back round check. Jeez, ammo is already expensive enough!

[Der Gebirgsjager]

This is the reason you have them in the first place. W/ an attitude like that no one has challenged them. Even the checkpoints for illegals are illegal. Due process has completely gone away in this country. And CA sending officers into OR to see what CA residents are doing is beyond ridiculous. It's none of their business what an individual is doing. Now if they are involved an investigation I understand. But for a regular citizen in good standing they have no right to monitor your activities outside of their jurisdiction. Abuse of power like this bothers me to no end.

I will try to explain this to you. To understand, you have to possess a knowledge of the laws regarding search and seizure. Start with the Agricultural Inspection Stations. Like opos said, agriculture has been the mainstay of the CA economy since the beginning of its history. As an illustration of how important agriculture was and is, for about 100 years the legal definition of grand theft in CA was the stealing of something worth $500 or a pig. That was changed about 20 years ago, the dollar amount was increased and they dropped the pig. So the stations were set up to prevent the importation of destructive insects and weeds. The ones that I'm familiar with are very much like a toll booth for a bridge or expressway. The agent has a little booth to get out of the rain, and some of them span the highway with a roof or overhang. The motorist drives up to the booth and the agent usually doesn't even come out of it, just asks, "Do you have any fruits, vegetables or plants in your possession?" If the answer is "No" (since this is CA they really get tired of hearing jokes like "No, just a fruit and nut bar.") and they don't see anything they wave you to proceed, sometimes even wish you a nice day. But, suppose they see a lug of apples or peaches sitting on your rear seat. This is a perfectly legal observation, because there is a legal search and seizure axiom "The eyes can not trespass." An agent does not need a search warrant to inspect and if necessary seize something that he is in a position to lawfully observe. Looked through the transparent window, saw the box of apples. Said, "Hand the apples to me, please." Inspected them, found that they had a label that said Grown In Washington with a bar code. Knows that they've been sprayed with an insecticide during their growing period, hands them back, "Have a nice day." Or, finds that they're home grown on your uncle's farm and that many of them have worm holes and contain the worm or other insects. The agent probably walks over to an open top 55 gal. drum and dumps them in. Then he'll probably ask if you have anything else, and since you didn't declare the apples he'll probably look under the seat and in the trunk. He has the option of issuing a citation, but will probably just call it good with a warning. Of course, like any kind of a conversation with someone enforcing the law you can probably talk your way into a ticket. Now, if you're driving a 16 wheeler the agent will probably climb up on the running board to see what he can see. If "Acme Fruit Co." is painted on the side of the truck he will no doubt ask to see your manifest papers and if there's any indication of fruit or produce he is within his right to inspect the interior of the trailer. If your found to be hauling a large shipment of an infected produce it's kind of like being in possession of a baggie of marijuana or a truckload. The severity of the offense and the penalty depends on the amount, so if you have a lot of a prohibited produce you're wobbling between a citation and handcuffs. Now, if during the course of the search for what he is legally allowed to be searching for he should happen to see some other substance or items prohibited by state law, that falls under the legal axiom of "Observed or discovered during the course of a lawful search." The agent has the right to be where he is doing what he is doing, so any other violation of law he reasonably observes can be legally seized and used as evidence. However, CA's various law enforcement agencies and departments kind of tend to specialize. An agricultural inspection agent knows little or nothing about drugs and weapons (well, has little formal training...) so these items will be turned over to someone like a sheriff's deputy who does know about such things and who can write a coherent report and testify about them in court. Funny how often a sheriff's unit or CHP unit will be sitting in the parking lot of the Agricultural Inspection Station. They are often kind of remote and usually have coffee available. As for the undercover agents operating out of state, they have no authority or jurisdiction out of state but still have legal use of their eyes. If they see a CA resident buy a case of ammo at a gun show in Oregon they have no jurisdiction at that point. But they have seen what they have seen, and once the CA resident enters CA with a prohibited item that they know to be in his possession, then a crime has been committed and they can initiate a traffic stop and search to recover that item. So that's how all of that works. The Ag Station can stop you because there is a state law that authorizes them to do so. They have been granted that legal power. The Highway Patrol has the legal right to stop you to for an arbitrary check your driver license and vehicle registration. This is seldom done, but can be done. A sheriff's deputy can stop your cattle truck and inspect the brands on the cattle. The rules of search and seizure apply to all of these situations. That's how it is, and has been for many years in CA. Might be different in your state.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Just how much junk did you have in your trunk?


Art--I'm going to take the 5th on that question!
DG

[Der Gebirgsjager]

A further commentary and items of interest: About the pig--in early CA having a pig was a good thing because you could slaughter it and feed your family through the winter, or have it increase into more pigs. Also included in that statute, which I forgot to mention, was theft of a case of artichokes. They're still pretty high priced, and a case is large and holds a lot of them. So the difference in theft between a misdemeanor and a felony was $500 in value of anything, a case of artichokes, or a pig. Next thought that comes to mind is that another axiom of search and seizure is that a search may often be made without a warrant incidental to an arrest. So if the Agricultural Inspection Agent finds sufficient grounds for an arrest because of his observations he can then go ahead and do a complete search beyond that which is readily observable. But he can also do the search because contraband was found in the vehicle and therefore probable cause exists to believe that there may be more. Then, there is also the US Supreme Court ruling that sometimes a warrantless search can be performed if the contraband, presence observed or suspected, is mobile and can be moved. So rather than having to get a warrant signed by a Judge to do a complete search of the vehicle, during which time it might be driven away, the search can be done immediately with probable cause to believe contraband exists. Another arbitrary right to search in CA belongs to Fish and Game Wardens who are allowed to stop any vehicle observed in a suspicious location at a suspicious time and search for poached wildlife. Now I do understand that some folks think this is bordering on, or definitely illegal, but the facts of the matter are that all of these rights to search granted to various enforcement personnel by the CA Legislature have gone to the Calif. Supreme Court, and most of them more than once, and have been upheld. Perhaps the US Supreme Court might rule differently. Then, the matter of drunk driving checkpoints that has been brought up. I know that it was being challenged legally and am not myself up to speed on the current status of the challenge or whatever decision may have been reached. But, since they do continue in use here and there I would have to hazard a guess that they haven't been completely outlawed.
This may be a case where the enormity of the drunk driving problem and the interest of the public is weighed against the lack of an observable violation to justify contact with a driver who otherwise would not be stopped. I honestly don't know the latest on DUI checkpoints.

[Duckiller]

dragon you need a better source of legal advice. DUI check points have restrictions but are legal. There are lots of rich drunks in California that have fought them and lost. DOJ agents have also gone to Las Vegas gun shows to observe and have discussions with Cal residents when they reenter this go;den state. You of course know that no FFL in another state will sell me a gun and let me take possession of it in that state. I can pay for it and have it shipped to my Cal FFL. ATF will enforce Cal laws.

[Artful]

dragon you need a better source of legal advice. DUI check points have restrictions but are legal. There are lots of rich drunks in California that have fought them and lost. DOJ agents have also gone to Las Vegas gun shows to observe and have discussions with Cal residents when they reenter this go;den state. You of course know that no FFL in another state will sell me a gun and let me take possession of it in that state. I can pay for it and have it shipped to my Cal FFL. ATF will enforce Cal laws.

Actually when I was a dealer (yes, I know long ago ancient history) I could sell a long gun (ie Rifle or Shotgun) to someone with a current non-resident/out-of-state hunting licence from a contiguous state and they could take possession, but no handgun sales were allowed. The reasoning, as I recall, was if someone broke their hunting firearm they could get a replacement to continue hunting (Out of state tags/licence were many times more expensive than instate resident fees.).

[mcdaniel.mac]

Actually when I was a dealer (yes, I know long ago ancient history) I could sell a long gun (ie Rifle or Shotgun) to someone with a current non-resident/out-of-state hunting licence from a contiguous state and they could take possession, but no handgun sales were allowed. The reasoning, as I recall, was if someone broke their hunting firearm they could get a replacement to continue hunting (Out of state tags/licence were many times more expensive than instate resident fees.).
This was the case when I was an FFL as well. I'm still watching Mance vs Holder, last I heard it was appealed to the 5th circuit after a district court found in favor of Mance