New Calif. Bill: Thumbprint required for handgun ammo

Doggieman · April 19, 2007, 01:54 AM

Here's an amended bill, AB 362, that is making its way through the CA legislature. It would:

-Require seller to record the buyer's ID and right thumbprint for any handgun ammo purchase other than .22, plus the brand, type and amount of ammo bought.
-The thumbprint/ID info would be transmitted to the DOJ.
-The thumbprint/ID info would have to be maintained by the seller for 2 years.
-All handgun ammo transaction would have to be in-person (no mail order).
-No sales of more than 50 rounds of ammo per month unless registered by the state as an ammo dealer.

For California residents this is a far more pressing matter than HB 1022 or any other Federal stuff.

Doggieman · April 19, 2007, 01:55 AM

read the text of the bill:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postqu...author=de_leon

SecDef · April 19, 2007, 02:00 AM

Californians already have to provide a thumbprint to get a drivers license..

Why does this matter at all? Well, besides the 50 rounds per month.. "Yes, please don't be at all proficient with that thing"

Guy B. Meredith · April 19, 2007, 02:02 AM

Uh, 50 rounds per month? They obviously don't realize that there are competition shooters that go through 1000 to 2000 rounds per month just for practice.

Looks like Hornady, Dillon, Lee, RCBS, Redding and the rest are in for an increase in business.

Doggieman · April 19, 2007, 02:12 AM

er.. ok.

"Why does this matter at all?" Are you high?

No really, are you guys high tonight?

The 50 rounds per month registration is only for sellers. Consumers don't have to worry about that (other than increases in ammo prices).

SecDef · April 19, 2007, 02:19 AM

Quote:

No really, are you guys high tonight?

I absolutely need you to explain it.

JuanCarlos · April 19, 2007, 02:21 AM

Hmmm.....

I see two main problems...no mail order, which reduces competition as well as cutting off many lower-priced options and the overall cost of these measures which will be passed on to the consumer.

I'm not fond of the rest, but anybody who's ever uttered anything to the effect of "if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about" in relation to wiretaps, the PATRIOT act, no-knock raids, etc. shouldn't have any problem with it.

Doggieman · April 19, 2007, 02:25 AM

tell you what.

If you're a Californian, then you might consider reading the text of the bill itself, as posted above, and spend a little time figuring out why providing your ID and thumbprint and the amount of ammo you buy to a government agency to be kept on-record indefinitely might not be in your best interest. And you might also consider why it may not be in your best interest to never be able to buy ammo over the internet or via mail-order ever again.

And if you're not a Californian, then don't worry about it.

JuanCarlos · April 19, 2007, 02:30 AM

Quote:

And if you're not a Californian, then don't worry about it.

That's horrible advice. Your government's brand of stupid is contagious.

SecDef · April 19, 2007, 02:44 AM

Quote:

spend a little time figuring out why providing your ID and thumbprint and the amount of ammo you buy to a government agency to be kept on-record indefinitely might not be in your best interest.

I have. Apparently you have, too, but are unable to explain it.

I'll agree with you on the mail order part, but you go get a FFL and you're done with that.

I would think you would be more concerned with the provision of not selling ammo to minors. However, you seem a bit alarmist about the fingerprinting thing and I'm asking why.

For clarification, I was referring to the fingerprint part when I was asking about why this matters... Overall, this piece of legislation is just asking for failure.

Caeser23 · April 19, 2007, 07:18 AM

"Uh, 50 rounds per month? They obviously don't realize that there are competition shooters that go through 1000 to 2000 rounds per month just for practice."

and normal folks, too

I usually take about 500 rounds per gun when I go to the range.

roy reali · April 19, 2007, 07:26 AM

I'm going to go out and kiss the Nevada desert!

Doggieman · April 19, 2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

I'll agree with you on the mail order part, but you go get a FFL and you're done with that.

Um, this is CA, you can't just "go get a FFL."

Quote:

I would think you would be more concerned with the provision of not selling ammo to minors

Um, you already can't sell ammo to minors in CA.

Quote:

I have. Apparently you have, too, but are unable to explain it.

Dude, I can explain it.. but why cast pearls? You're obviously not a Californian and have no idea what's going on here. And I have other things to do today.

Let me put it this way: If people here are cool with the government knowing how much and what type of ammo they own, and if they never want to be able to buy ammo over the internet.. then... you go girl. Don't worry about this bill.

But if you're a Californian, and you don't particularly want the government to have a permanent record of the number of rounds of ammo you buy after 2007, and you want to be able to buy ammo over the internet, then I urge you to write your state representative and urge them to can this bill.

That's all I'll say about this. It ain't brain surgery.

April 19, 2007, 01:54 AM	#1
Doggieman Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 2006 Location: San Diego, Calif. Posts: 717	New Calif. Bill: Thumbprint required for handgun ammo Here's an amended bill, AB 362, that is making its way through the CA legislature. It would: -Require seller to record the buyer's ID and right thumbprint for any handgun ammo purchase other than .22, plus the brand, type and amount of ammo bought. -The thumbprint/ID info would be transmitted to the DOJ. -The thumbprint/ID info would have to be maintained by the seller for 2 years. -All handgun ammo transaction would have to be in-person (no mail order). -No sales of more than 50 rounds of ammo per month unless registered by the state as an ammo dealer. For California residents this is a far more pressing matter than HB 1022 or any other Federal stuff.

April 19, 2007, 02:00 AM	#3
SecDef Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2007 Posts: 1,545	Californians already have to provide a thumbprint to get a drivers license.. Why does this matter at all? Well, besides the 50 rounds per month.. "Yes, please don't be at all proficient with that thing" __________________ "America is Great because America is Good; If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be Great!". - Dwight D. Eisenhower

April 19, 2007, 02:02 AM	#4
Guy B. Meredith Senior Member Join Date: August 29, 1999 Location: Salem, Oregon Posts: 1,581	Uh, 50 rounds per month? They obviously don't realize that there are competition shooters that go through 1000 to 2000 rounds per month just for practice. Looks like Hornady, Dillon, Lee, RCBS, Redding and the rest are in for an increase in business. __________________ Smart Gun + 1 Battery + 3 Wires = Dumb Gun PC = Agenda driven groupthink filter on reality. Apostrophes denote ownership or missing letters NOT plurals!

April 19, 2007, 02:25 AM	#8
Doggieman Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 2006 Location: San Diego, Calif. Posts: 717	ok... tell you what. If you're a Californian, then you might consider reading the text of the bill itself, as posted above, and spend a little time figuring out why providing your ID and thumbprint and the amount of ammo you buy to a government agency to be kept on-record indefinitely might not be in your best interest. And you might also consider why it may not be in your best interest to never be able to buy ammo over the internet or via mail-order ever again. And if you're not a Californian, then don't worry about it.

April 19, 2007, 07:26 AM	#12
roy reali Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2005 Posts: 3,248	Oh Well I'm going to go out and kiss the Nevada desert!

April 19, 2007, 01:55 AM	#2
Doggieman Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 2006 Location: San Diego, Calif. Posts: 717	read the text of the bill: http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postqu...author=de_leon

April 19, 2007, 02:12 AM	#5
Doggieman Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 2006 Location: San Diego, Calif. Posts: 717	er.. ok. "Why does this matter at all?" Are you high? No really, are you guys high tonight? The 50 rounds per month registration is only for sellers. Consumers don't have to worry about that (other than increases in ammo prices).

April 19, 2007, 02:21 AM	#7
JuanCarlos Senior Member Join Date: July 22, 2006 Posts: 2,459	Hmmm..... I see two main problems...no mail order, which reduces competition as well as cutting off many lower-priced options and the overall cost of these measures which will be passed on to the consumer. I'm not fond of the rest, but anybody who's ever uttered anything to the effect of "if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about" in relation to wiretaps, the PATRIOT act, no-knock raids, etc. shouldn't have any problem with it.

April 19, 2007, 07:18 AM	#11
Caeser23 Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2006 Posts: 242	"Uh, 50 rounds per month? They obviously don't realize that there are competition shooters that go through 1000 to 2000 rounds per month just for practice." and normal folks, too I usually take about 500 rounds per gun when I go to the range.