4 ms·

The gun store issue in California is even worse because of the gun laws. You cannot lawfully acquire ammunition anywhere except at a gun store. You cannot lawfu

by wl 6y ago

The gun store issue in California is even worse because of the gun laws. You cannot lawfully acquire ammunition anywhere except at a gun store. You cannot lawfully acquire or transfer a firearm to another person except at a gun store. Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out. And if you have a place to shoot right now, your ammunition supply is probably a little perilous.

jeffdavis 6y ago
The background-check-for-ammo law is a constitutional disaster. There was recently an injunction against the AG enforcing it, but the ninth stayed the lower court's order. I read the decision granting the injunction, and wow. The ID requirements are even higher than for buying a gun -- you need certain kinds of ID that proves that you are a citizen (passports can take a long time to get, and some people have complications with their birth certificate). For those who were able to provide such an ID, the background check falsely rejected 16% of applicants, amounting to over 100K people. I really think that people would be more willing to compromise if they felt that their rights were respected. But what a lot of people don't realize is how outright hostile these gun control laws are. They are meant to penalize and annoy gun owners, not provide safety. Another example is the handgun roster in California, where you can only buy certain models that were approved before 2013. They aren't safer, they just made the new standards infeasible to meet, so no more models are approved. This doesn't help anyone, unless you think annoying gun owners is a worthwhile goal.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kmonsen 6y ago
Curbside pickup ammo and guns is allowed, see for example http://reedsindoorrange.com/ http://reedsindoorrange.com/
- jeffdavis 6y ago
  Allowed the whole time in all California jurisdictions, or allowed now (after lawsuits)?
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    It was not allowed until after (but not necessarily as a result of) the lawsuits. CA gun stores first started getting shut down in March. On April 10th, the ATF issued guidance saying that it was OK to do curbside pickup (for the whole country, not just CA: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/atf-business-premises-guidance-letter-4-10-2020/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/atf-business-p...)
- masonic 6y ago
  and guns Not according to your stated example. Quoting: "Ammunition and accessories only No firearm registrations."
dragonwriter 6y ago
> . Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out. In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days, civil unrest not required, and the rules are looser for family members out to grandparents/grandchildren. In the event of some imminent need due to civil unrest, the general criminal defense of necessity, which is recognized in California law, would be available even if the loan was otherwise prohibited. The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  >In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days... The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against. Maybe before you go around calling names it would be beneficial to do some research of your own? I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that your knowledge of CA firearms laws is outdated as opposed to being maliciously incorrect: Years ago you could lend guns to anyone with an FSC or HSC for <30 days. However the powers that be decided that this was a "loophole"[1] and banned all loans to non-relatives. These are not "fake restrictions", you can verify them on the state of California's own website[2] edit: as mentioned below, it's still legal to let a non-owner handle a firearm as long as the original owner is constantly present and supervising. So sharing on a trip to the range is legal, but letting someone take a gun home afterwards is not. [1]: https://a17.asmdc.org/article/2016-legislation-0 https://a17.asmdc.org/article/2016-legislation-0 [2]: Law which amended PC § 27880[3] to ban nonfamilial loans: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1511 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... [3]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=27880 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
  - billme 6y ago
    >> “banned all loans to non-relatives” False; see PC § 27885: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=27885 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... —— To give some idea of how complex firearm law is in California, take a peak at the 141 page document below (current as of 2019) covering “just” the state’s penal code: https://www.atf.gov/file/117166/download https://www.atf.gov/file/117166/download
kurthr 6y ago
There's an interesting constitutional issue there... which is that the right to bear arms is not the right to buy ammunition. That is made all the more challenging for an originalist, because metalic cartridges with percussion caps were not invented for almost a hundred years after the Bill of Rights. If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged? Is it merely that you as a fully unprepared militiaman are inconvenienced? Does that mean that if you're late for a TV interview, zoom meeting, or tweetstorm you're free to drive through traffic lights in pursuit of the 1st amendment?
- jeffdavis 6y ago
  "If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged?" Your idea has been deemed dangerous by the internet police, and your ISP connection will be cancelled. Don't worry, you are still free to write a letter to your local newspaper, so your rights have not been infringed. Our rights are naturally extended with technological advances in the same spirit. Demanding cell tower records is considered a "search" and twitter is "the press".
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    "Our rights are naturally extended with technological advances in the same spirit" It seems to me that very frequently, people declare something to be completely different just because it uses new technology. And then people argue if it really is different or not. There's never an airtight proof of who is right. A saying that I think I may have first seen on HN is something about quantity having a quality all its own. E.g. maybe at some point from a musket to a rifle to a machine gun to a bazooka to a nuke, there is a line to be drawn.
    - banads 6y ago
      >“though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.” -George Orwell

by wl 6y ago

jeffdavis 6y ago

The background-check-for-ammo law is a constitutional disaster. There was recently an injunction against the AG enforcing it, but the ninth stayed the lower court's order. I read the decision granting the injunction, and wow. The ID requirements are even higher than for buying a gun -- you need certain kinds of ID that proves that you are a citizen (passports can take a long time to get, and some people have complications with their birth certificate). For those who were able to provide such an ID, the background check falsely rejected 16% of applicants, amounting to over 100K people. I really think that people would be more willing to compromise if they felt that their rights were respected. But what a lot of people don't realize is how outright hostile these gun control laws are. They are meant to penalize and annoy gun owners, not provide safety. Another example is the handgun roster in California, where you can only buy certain models that were approved before 2013. They aren't safer, they just made the new standards infeasible to meet, so no more models are approved. This doesn't help anyone, unless you think annoying gun owners is a worthwhile goal.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kmonsen 6y ago

Curbside pickup ammo and guns is allowed, see for example http://reedsindoorrange.com/ http://reedsindoorrange.com/

jeffdavis 6y ago
Allowed the whole time in all California jurisdictions, or allowed now (after lawsuits)?
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  It was not allowed until after (but not necessarily as a result of) the lawsuits. CA gun stores first started getting shut down in March. On April 10th, the ATF issued guidance saying that it was OK to do curbside pickup (for the whole country, not just CA: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/atf-business-premises-guidance-letter-4-10-2020/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/atf-business-p...)
masonic 6y ago
and guns Not according to your stated example. Quoting: "Ammunition and accessories only No firearm registrations."

dragonwriter 6y ago

> . Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out. In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days, civil unrest not required, and the rules are looser for family members out to grandparents/grandchildren. In the event of some imminent need due to civil unrest, the general criminal defense of necessity, which is recognized in California law, would be available even if the loan was otherwise prohibited. The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Rebelgecko 6y ago
>In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days... The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against. Maybe before you go around calling names it would be beneficial to do some research of your own? I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that your knowledge of CA firearms laws is outdated as opposed to being maliciously incorrect: Years ago you could lend guns to anyone with an FSC or HSC for <30 days. However the powers that be decided that this was a "loophole"[1] and banned all loans to non-relatives. These are not "fake restrictions", you can verify them on the state of California's own website[2] edit: as mentioned below, it's still legal to let a non-owner handle a firearm as long as the original owner is constantly present and supervising. So sharing on a trip to the range is legal, but letting someone take a gun home afterwards is not. [1]: https://a17.asmdc.org/article/2016-legislation-0 https://a17.asmdc.org/article/2016-legislation-0 [2]: Law which amended PC § 27880[3] to ban nonfamilial loans: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1511 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... [3]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=27880 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
- billme 6y ago
  >> “banned all loans to non-relatives” False; see PC § 27885: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=27885 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... —— To give some idea of how complex firearm law is in California, take a peak at the 141 page document below (current as of 2019) covering “just” the state’s penal code: https://www.atf.gov/file/117166/download https://www.atf.gov/file/117166/download

kurthr 6y ago

There's an interesting constitutional issue there... which is that the right to bear arms is not the right to buy ammunition. That is made all the more challenging for an originalist, because metalic cartridges with percussion caps were not invented for almost a hundred years after the Bill of Rights. If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged? Is it merely that you as a fully unprepared militiaman are inconvenienced? Does that mean that if you're late for a TV interview, zoom meeting, or tweetstorm you're free to drive through traffic lights in pursuit of the 1st amendment?

jeffdavis 6y ago
"If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged?" Your idea has been deemed dangerous by the internet police, and your ISP connection will be cancelled. Don't worry, you are still free to write a letter to your local newspaper, so your rights have not been infringed. Our rights are naturally extended with technological advances in the same spirit. Demanding cell tower records is considered a "search" and twitter is "the press".
- perl4ever 6y ago
  "Our rights are naturally extended with technological advances in the same spirit" It seems to me that very frequently, people declare something to be completely different just because it uses new technology. And then people argue if it really is different or not. There's never an airtight proof of who is right. A saying that I think I may have first seen on HN is something about quantity having a quality all its own. E.g. maybe at some point from a musket to a rifle to a machine gun to a bazooka to a nuke, there is a line to be drawn.
  - banads 6y ago
    >“though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.” -George Orwell