Ammo Background Checks in CA

[JDBerg]

The law requiring ammo background checks here in CA went into effect July 1st. Since I’m still waiting for my BOF 4019A form to be approved which is the New Resident Report of Firearm Ownership, I went & had a Basic Ammo Background Check done for $19 which is good for one ammo purchase within 30 days. If you have a gun that has been registered within the last 5 yrs. with the CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms you only need have a Standard Ammo Background Check completed which costs $1. The place I was at ran a standard check for a customer which took about 5 minutes. My basic check took about 20 minutes.

I was wondering what the experiences with the new law have been among the forum members from Cali?

 

[littlebikerider]

How does this new law apply to reloading components?

 

[mehavey]

a Basic Ammo Background Check done for $19 which is good for one ammo purchase within 30 days.

Someone's gonna have to `splain to me the Basic vs Std.

$19 good for one (1) ammunition purchase ??? and only within 30 days ?

 

[DaleA]

This is just...absurd.
How did we get to such a point?

And when this fails to solve the "gun violence" problem I am quite certain the cry will come forth that it is because EVERY state must have these (ammo) laws for them to work.

This is just...absurd.

 

[JDBerg]

$19 good for one (1) ammunition purchase ??? and only within 30 days ?

I couldn’t make up anything as ridiculous as this

This is just...absurd.How did we get to such a point? And when this fails to solve the "gun violence" problem I am quite certain the cry will come forth that it is because EVERY state must have these (ammo) laws for them to work. This is just...absurd.

This is what happens when Californians are duped into voting away their constitutional rights under Prop 63, In the interest of promoting public safety. Of course this can’t work, the CA Bureau of Firearms gets more new resident gun owners who brought guns in from other states to register their firearms so the next time the gun laws change and the guns you registered are no longer legal, you have big brother banging on your front door to confiscate your now “illegal” property.

 

[JDBerg]

There just has to be a lawsuit raised against this back-door firearms ban law!

 

[44 AMP]

There just has to be a lawsuit raised against this back-door firearms ban law!

I'm sure there are. However I don't hold any great hope, considering the State of California's historical record of obeying even their own courts, when they don't like what the court rules.

Even if in the end, the law is struck down, during the YEARS that will pass before that happens you will most likely be stuck with the current laws as status quo until the courts make their FINAL ruling.

 

[Hal]

There just has to be a lawsuit raised against this back-door firearms ban law!

There was - remember Prop 63 was passed in 2016 & went into effect long before July 1st of this year.
It (Prop63) also banned the possession of magazines holding over 10 rounds.

It was struck down as being unconstitutional - shows how much good that ruling did huh?

It took some looking but - I found all the dirty details.

Here's the full text:
http://downloads.capta.org/leg/BallotMeasures/Prop63_FullText.pdf

Pretty ugly....

 

[jpx2rk]

There is a thread on the accurate shooter forum discussing the CA law as well. IIRC, loaded ammo is covered by the law, but reloading components are not.

 

[Metal god]

This is just...absurd.
How did we get to such a point?

Allowing people to vote .

There just has to be a lawsuit raised against this back-door firearms ban law!

There is , a good friend of mine is a party to it . It's Rhode v. Becerra
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...q=Rhode+v.+Becerra&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1443673

The filing of Rhode marks the fourth lawsuit filed challenging the provisions of Proposition 63 and the other “Gunmageddon” gun control bills. Once such lawsuit, titled Duncan v. Becerra, has already succeeded in obtaining an important injunction against Proposition 63’s ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The other two lawsuits, titled Rupp v. Becerra and Villanueva v. Becerra (both of which challenge California’s “assault weapon” restrictions and registration requirements), are also seeking injunctions while those lawsuits are pending

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was - remember Prop 63 was passed in 2016 & went into effect long before July 1st of this year.
It (Prop63) also banned the possession of magazines holding over 10 rounds.

It was struck down as being unconstitutional - shows how much good that ruling did huh?

That suite was strictly about the magazine ban portion because it forced your legally owned property to be turned in , destroyed or sold out of state .

The problem logically with this law is the purpose of it . On the lead up to the vote they claimed it only makes sense because if you're not supposed to have firearms ( convicted felon , spousal abuse etc ) you should have no need to buy ammo . It's almost a reasonable way of thinking about it until you think about how long this ammo background check takes . They say just minutes ??? Wait a second , the state can check for prohibited persons in just minutes ????????????????? then why do we need a ten day waiting period to buy a gun . oops they screwed up by passing this law and letting it go into effect . Either there ammo background check is good enough for people buying guns or there's no reason for it . If prohibited persons can get through there ammo back ground check then what exactly is it there for . If it catches prohibited persons and it only takes minutes to do so then we no longer need the 10 day waiting period . Pretty simple math to me .

I'm not a lawyer by any stretch but that will have to be hard for the state to explain . I sure hope they brought that up in there briefs and oral arguments .

 

[44 AMP]

Basic Ammo Background Check done for $19 which is good for one ammo purchase within 30 days.

Is this good to buy any kind / amount of ammo within that 30 days??

If you have a gun that has been registered within the last 5 yrs. with the CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms you only need have a Standard Ammo Background Check completed which costs $1.

If you have a gun registered with them,. and pass the $1 check, can you buy any kind of ammo? Or are you restricted to the caliber of the gun you have registered???

Is there also a 30 day (or other) time window on the $1 check??

Do you have to go cap in hand, bow, and touch your forelock when you apply? or is full prostration the approved form?

Would that help???

 

[Tom Servo]

Is this good to buy any kind / amount of ammo within that 30 days?

There's a FAQ here. It looks like the check has to be run for each transaction, but there's no limit on how much can be bought in that transaction.

 

[Metal god]

I went to lunch with my buddy today who is a part of that law suite . He recently needed to buy ammo and did so at a local gun store . He was lucky enough to have registered a firearm recently so he only needed to pay the $1 and get the quick background check . It took 20+min from start to finish not including the time he waited in line to get helped .

He needed two forms of ID and proof of residency and the store keeps that on file . Not sure if you need it again if you buy from the same store later .

The $19 background check is if you haven't registered a firearm in the last 5 years and or not in the system . Unknown if this $19 check puts you in the system for 5 years as if you registered a firearm or only the 30days . Meaning I'm not sure is you first do the $19 background check because you're not in the system .Then once you've done that , you only need to pay $1 each time after that for the next 5 years .

Regardless of that if you are not in the system for what ever reason and have to do the $19 check ,There IS a waiting period which is an unknown amount of time . Meaning they take your info at the store and submit it to the state and it's your responsibility to check a state website daily to see when and or if you passed your background check . Only then can you go back to the store and buy ammo . I'm unclear if there is a minimum or maximum time line for them to complete your background check . I was just at my local gun store and the employee there said it usually takes a few days to be approved .

My buddy was asked to come in and give a deposition about his recent ammo purchase experience . He said they are planning on filing some sort of injunction soon .

anyways that's as much as I know about it right now .

EDIT : The Q&A link tom provided above answers most of the questions I was unclear on .

 

[44 AMP]

Just out of curiosity, if your state issued driver's license or ID with your address on it isn't proof of residency, what is?

 

[Metal god]

You need another like utility bill or car registration . I always use my car registration because it's always in my cars so I don't have to remember to bring the second proof

He needed two forms of ID and proof of residency

I should have said two forms of ID with both showing your current address and if it's a monthly bill of some type it can't be more then 30 days old .

There is a interesting bit in the link Tom posted . It's actually not called a background check but rather an eligibility check . The reason seems to be CA and maybe no state is allowed to use the Federal background check system for non firearms related checks .

Interesting wording ? Not sure if that hurts or helps are argument against this . I mean it's clearly just a play on words because isn't a background check simply an eligibility check in it self . However legally who knows what the difference is .

 

[Tom Servo]

The reason seems to be CA and maybe no state is allowed to use the Federal background check system for non firearms related checks .

That's one of the reasons. The other is, if they want to do so later on, the state can add additional prohibiting criteria to the "eligibility" check with a minimum of fuss.

 

[44 AMP]

All background checks have always been eligibility checks. They check your background to see if you are eligible for what you are applying for, in this case, to purchase the gun / ammo.

They aren't checking to see if you have a background, they are checking to see if anything in your files makes you ineligible. "Background check" is just a shorthand phrase, used for convenience.

 

[Metal god]

I have a new AR-10 type/style rifle that has some issues I've been working through and needed to go buy ammo for a range test on Friday . I decided to go back to the same store ( Walmart ) I bought the last ammo to maybe get the same lot ammo as the first test . I was at my parents house this evening and my mom asked me to check out something going on with her car so I took her car to by ammo .

I always use my car registration because it's always in my cars so I don't have to remember to bring the second proof

yep , waisted trip because I did not have two forms of ID

This law and or CA really sucks sometimes .

 

[44 AMP]

How did we get to such a point?

Allowing people to vote .

Of course this is the base answer, but it's not so much allowing the vote, as the way people vote on things that brought us to where we are now.

Far, far too many people (and this includes our elected representatives) base their vote on the often deliberately misleading TITLE of a proposed law, and/or a short "sound byte" description a paragraph or two in length, stating the intent of the law, NOT what it will actually do, or how it will actually TRY to do it.

Then, once passed it devolves down to civil servants (aka unelected bureaucrats) to devise a system and process, forms and regulations, to allow compliance and enforcement.

WHATEVER they come up with, good or bad, gets rubberstamp approval and is put into practice. Only then do we discover the tricks, traps, costs and inconveniences of what they have imposed on us, "with our consent".

3 wolves and a sheep can vote on what to have for dinner, and its still technically democracy. But, its not so good for the sheep...

Likewise, 3000 sheep can bleat and pass a law saying the wolf cannot have teeth. The wolf doesn't listen, and bites, anyway.

 

[Metal god]

I still contend it’s elected officials and the public in general not understanding what laws are for . Maybe it’s been since the beginning of are republic I’m not sure . It seems to me more and more people think passing a law prevents something from happening . Laws were never designed to prevent anything . Look no futher then speed limits . Until the people understand laws are only there to allow the government to legally punish the citizens . We will continue to get these types of laws that people think prevent something from happening .

Ok I guess I’m wrong , because the law prevented me from buying ammo last night . However I’m a law abiding citizen that it prevented and the very reason I was prevented . Can’t see how it stops a bad guy intent on getting there hands on some ammo .