California Proposes Annual Fee and Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases

June 3, 2013

California is at it again - looking for ways to further infringe upon the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms". I believe they'd argue it's not so though. Why? Because this attack isn't against firearms directly. It's a common end-around - attacking ammunition purchases. Either way, it attacks the rights of citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

The latest proposal? Democratic Senator Kevin deLeon is proposing a $50 fee and background check required to purchase ammunition. The video embedded in this article says the fee would be annual but doesn't say whether the background check would accompany the annual fee or whether it's transaction based. Let's assume the best case - that the this is an annual fee for an annual background check.

<Insert outrage here.>

Really? So, the person who wants or needs to buy a single 25-round box of ammunition for their home defense pistol has to pay a $50 fee - the same as the person who purchases 10s of thousands of rounds per year. Yes, there are people who shoot that much.

What's wrong with this proposal? After all, it's all in the interest of public safety, right?

1) How many times do we need to say it? Keeping and bearing arms is a right, not a privilege. The right includes the ammunition required to make the bang-stick go bang.
2) You want more background checks for law abiding people? Make them free! Do not keep lumping additional costs - taxes, fees, insurance, etc. - on citizens and their constitutional rights. No other right requires payment to exercise it.
3) Also, in order to expand background checks in any way - fix the system first. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has many known problems. Fix it first. Then consider expansion of its use.
4) How will this prevent people from making their ammo purchases in neighboring states where they can do it less expensively and without government intrusion? Are they going to outlaw "importing" of ammunition from outside California?
5) We've heard a lot about "straw purchasing" of firearms. How will this prevent criminals from using straw purchasers to fulfill their ammunition needs? How will it prevent criminals from purchasing their own ammunition before they're actually caught and convicted of a crime?

Only one this is assured if this bill passes in California - it will cost more for law abiding firearms owners to exercise their constitutional right to "keep and bear arms".

Another probable effect will be erratic ammunition purchases and buying practices. Ammunition is already in very short supply nationwide. As a law, this would only make it worse and longer lasting. If I can pay a $50 fee this year to purchase ammunition, why don't I purchase and stockpile thousands of rounds this year - years worth of supply - and avoid the fee in upcoming years? Then repeat every few years, as needed? Or why don't friends get together and make their purchases together through one person's 'license' - straw purchasing even among law abiding people just to avoid fees and government intrusion.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/05/31/california-state-senator-proposes-fee-background-check-for-bullet-purchases/

===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
California Firearms Blogs