Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CA gun control doesn't apply to reloading components does it?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CA gun control doesn't apply to reloading components does it?

    Some guys at the range are saying the ban in 2011 applies to mail order powder and primers as well.

    Of course this is the first I've heard of it, and can't validate it. So I take it they are overly paranoid? Correct?

    If they are right, what new law are they referring too?
    _____________
    "Corruptisima republica plurimae leges."

    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
    - Cornelius Tacitus

  • #2
    I don't know about any new laws, but I just ordered 20,000 primers from a online source that finally had some primers. It did cost me a good chunk of change though. Considering as much as I shoot I bought them guessing I might not see them available for some time.

    Reloading materials are very difficult to find anywhere in the country, and the prices have really gone up for everything....

    I went to my local Walmart yesterday and they had no handgun ammo at all...
    Retired LASD

    Comment


    • #3
      Here is the law:
      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/...ntroduced.html

      I don't see anything about primers, that being said I just read it briefly.
      Originally Posted by Law100
      Note to everyone: notice how respect I am

      Comment


      • #4
        I think I get the idea, I don't see anything about components.

        Thanks

        Actually, follow up question, the above link is the bill. Not the law. I think this is the law:

        http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/...chaptered.html

        The difference I wonder about is the below section taken from the Bill.

        "This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2010, unless
        specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50
        rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless he or she is
        registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined."

        I'm not seeing this 50 round limit in the law that passed.

        Is this correct?

        Can I hand my brother over 100 rounds of ammo without having to be a "vendor"?
        Last edited by SCV-Sop; 04-05-2010, 01:07 AM.
        _____________
        "Corruptisima republica plurimae leges."

        "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
        - Cornelius Tacitus

        Comment


        • #5
          I hate CA. So I can't buy bulk ammo online anymore? Fuggin tards
          Originally Posted by VegasMetro
          maybe it’s me but I think a six pack and midget porn makes for good times?????

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SCV-Sop View Post
            I think I get the idea, I don't see anything about components.

            Thanks

            Actually, follow up question, the above link is the bill. Not the law. I think this is the law:

            http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/...chaptered.html

            The difference I wonder about is the below section taken from the Bill.

            "This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2010, unless
            specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50
            rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless he or she is
            registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined."

            I'm not seeing this 50 round limit in the law that passed.

            Is this correct?

            Can I hand my brother over 100 rounds of ammo without having to be a "vendor"?
            I do believe you are correct. I think that was one of the concessions that was made to get it through. The "purpose" of the bill was that the state believes that felons were purchasing ammunition for guns they owned illegally. Since a felon cannot own a gun, they therefore shouldn't be able to purchase ammunition. If they could only come up with a way around it, like having their non-felon friends purchase ammo for them. I don't think that you can transfer ammunition (once the law goes into effect next year) between two parties without one of them being licensed to do so.
            Originally Posted by Law100
            Note to everyone: notice how respect I am

            Comment


            • #7
              OK, basically I’m feeling uncertain now, and I’m going to basically back out making reloads for a friend of a friend. I haven’t started yet since I don’t have components for him.

              There’s nothing wrong with the guy, he just wants cost effective ammo and finding it is impossible, and I happen to be in a position to make all the ammo I want.

              Sooooo, what I’ll do for him is set the dies on a secondary press for him, and he can supply his own components and pull the lever himself. Then it’s not my problem.

              I know it’s of absolutely no consequence in the real world but I’ve got agency applications out there, and when faced with the question:

              “After July 1, 2010 have you ever supplied anyone with ammunition?

              I want to be in a position to say NO!!!!!!!!

              A lot of regular Joes are seriously being impacted by this ammo [email protected], and it’s scary how close I was to potentially messing things up in regards to LEO applications for something like this.

              Not everyone knows the laws, not even gun shops and LEO’s. So I guess the best I can do is, when in doubt, don’t.

              Just because I don’t’ find it in one law doesn’t mean it isn’t explicitly laid out in another law. That's my fear.
              _____________
              "Corruptisima republica plurimae leges."

              "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
              - Cornelius Tacitus

              Comment


              • #8
                Banning/limiting ammunition yet legalizing marijuana. This state is out of its mind.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SCV-Sop View Post
                  OK, basically I’m feeling uncertain now, and I’m going to basically back out making reloads for a friend of a friend. I haven’t started yet since I don’t have components for him.

                  There’s nothing wrong with the guy, he just wants cost effective ammo and finding it is impossible, and I happen to be in a position to make all the ammo I want.

                  Sooooo, what I’ll do for him is set the dies on a secondary press for him, and he can supply his own components and pull the lever himself. Then it’s not my problem.

                  I know it’s of absolutely no consequence in the real world but I’ve got agency applications out there, and when faced with the question:

                  “After July 1, 2010 have you ever supplied anyone with ammunition?

                  I want to be in a position to say NO!!!!!!!!

                  A lot of regular Joes are seriously being impacted by this ammo [email protected], and it’s scary how close I was to potentially messing things up in regards to LEO applications for something like this.

                  Not everyone knows the laws, not even gun shops and LEO’s. So I guess the best I can do is, when in doubt, don’t.

                  Just because I don’t’ find it in one law doesn’t mean it isn’t explicitly laid out in another law. That's my fear.
                  I thought that most of the provisions in this law don't go into effect until Feb 2011. As for having a clear conscious as to if you are or are not breaking the law when it comes to applications for LE, I can't say I blame you there. I asked a friend of mine for a tylenol or something for a headache, and he offered me a 800mg Motrin, it is a prescription. I know it is just Motrin, but the question comes up too often "Have you ever used a prescription drug that did not belong to you?" He couldn't understand why I wouldn't take it.
                  Originally Posted by Law100
                  Note to everyone: notice how respect I am

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pappabacon View Post
                    I thought that most of the provisions in this law don't go into effect until Feb 2011.
                    You are right. I'm mixing up dates that were in the bill verses the law.
                    _____________
                    "Corruptisima republica plurimae leges."

                    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
                    - Cornelius Tacitus

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Post has been edited.
                      Last edited by MarioS; 02-18-2011, 05:57 AM.

                      Comment

                      MR300x250 Tablet

                      Collapse

                      What's Going On

                      Collapse

                      There are currently 10384 users online. 384 members and 10000 guests.

                      Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                      Welcome Ad

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X