AB 2062: Permit required to purchase handgun ammo in California coming

[Howzit]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2062_bill_20080219_introduced.html



"This bill would require the department to maintain additional
information relating to ammunition transfers, handgun ammunition
permittees, and licensed handgun ammunition vendors, as specified.

Existing law establishes the Prohibited Armed Persons File, which
lists persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms, as
specified.

This bill would expand those provisions to include persons
prohibited from possessing ammunition.

Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.
This bill would establish a program administered by the Department
of Justice for licensing handgun ammunition vendors, as specified.
The bill would also authorize the issuance of a handgun ammunition
permit, to be used by purchasers of handgun ammunition, as specified."


I guess this is a case of when gun laws fail, regulate ammunition... When will they realize that ammo is easier to smuggle than guns?

[bluestateguy]

1. How about requiring a permission slip from your mother too?

:eyes:

[Mountainman]

2. Again, law abiding peoplle will get a permit and criminals won't.

Another feel good law with no effect on the problem. Oh well, some people will feel better knowing they made it harder for others.

[sharesunited]

3. Curious to know which fireworks are legal in CA without a permit.

[slackmaster]

11. Sparklers and snakes are the extent of it

Nothing that flies, shoots flames, or explodes without a very expensive permit.

[sharesunited]

14. Bullets fly. Make those permits as expensive.

[L1A1Rocker]

32. Baseballs fly and guns don't make much noise with suppressors.

[sharesunited]

44. Baseballs don't use explosives to launch.

[L1A1Rocker]

54. Ha Ha Ha, Neither do firearms.

[sharesunited]

55. I have you now Rocker.

Tell me how a gun makes a bullet shoot.

Powder in a cartridge hit by a gun hammer, yes?

What does the gunpowder do when it is hit in this way? It explodes. The explosion expands gas which is directed behind the slug, so that the expanding gas propels the bullet out the barrel.

Firearms and fireworks are linked at the hip, and should be regulated in the same careful manner.

I am the conservative one on the subject of guns.

[L1A1Rocker]

56. Sorry to burst you bubble, Here ya go

Modern smokeless powder (unlike to old "black powder" is NOT an explosive. Smokeless powder is a propellant as it does not explode, it burns rapidly at a controlled rate - hence the numbers of different powders for different applications. (rifle powder does not do so good in pistols)

Now if you want to do a little empirical research on you own to see what the difference is: Get about 5 grains (measure of weight) of any smokeless powder and place it in an ashtray. Light it with a match and watch the burn rate. Now do the same with only one or two grains of black powder but use a very long extension on the match. You get a POOF.

There is the deference. Gun powder is not an explosive.


NOTE: Gasoline is more volatile than smokeless powder and is classified as an explosive.

[beevul]

60. "Your all clear kid now lets blow this thing and go home."

Sorry, couldn't resist after the "I have you now" comment above.

[L1A1Rocker]

61. LOL! Funny Post!

[slackmaster]

40. The reason for California's strict fireworks laws is fire prevention

There are exceptions for useful tools like signal flares and bird-scare bomb shotgun loads.

Tracer and incendiary ammunition is illegal.

:hi:

[ManBearPig]

4. This part of the new Ammunition Act fad.

This new fad of trying to pass the ridiculous Ammunition Act is sweeping through the nation. Some states, like California, will pass it and further harm the law-abbiding. States like my state, Missouri, are burying the bill and any like it. We won't put up with this kind of backdoor registration crap. Not to mention all it's other faults, like increased (very increased) ammunition costs, the ease of which it is bypassed by criminals, the way it makes reloading illegal, and then of course how easily an innocent person could be framed for crime. You have to admit though, the self-defense haters sure are crafty.

[liberal4truth]

6. Whats great is this will keep .22 caliber handgun ammo out of childrens hands.

Hooray for California!!

[bossy22]

8. why .22

why did you chose to say .22? So i guess its okay to allow kids to possess 9mm?

i think your firearm knowledge is starting to show

[liberal4truth]

13. .22 are considered to be both rifle and pistol ammo. Now it will be handgun only, keeping

these deadly little pieces of lead from killing more people, as one will have to be 21 years old to but it, assuming they are not already on the banned list for purchases.

One more step in the right direction!

[bossy22]

17. actually i think .22 will be an exception

.22 is the most widely sold ammo in the country- i doubt that it would be classified as pistol only.....for example here in NY we have the same sort of thing- to buy pistol ammo you need a pistol permit- the exceptions are anything in the .22 calibre and pistol ammo that is to be fired out of a pistol calibre long gun

it won't happen in this form because it would be amended

You are trying to get a reaction out of us and it seems to be working- but let me say i see right through most of your crap

you call yourself liberal4truth so let me give you some truth- This will not happen.

[liberal4truth]

62. Then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. .22 is both a handgun and rifle caliber and to

ignore that fact makes the law quite ineffective.

[bossy22]

68. the law would be inneffective to start

because there are many pistol calibre rifles out there that are lawfully sold in california- thats why this shit won't ever pass- as i said they tried this in NY and pulled it back because they realized that they couldn't really enforce it.

[bossy22]

20. yes

cause the power of a .22 is unmatched by the power of lets say....a .308

[liberal4truth]

63. .22 is a both a rifle and pistol bullet. A .308 is a high-powered rifle bullet.

Apples and oranges. This is a new law concerning handguns, not rifles.

Oh, and lots of people have been killed and murdered with .22 caliber firearms, so that blows that idea, that somehow a small caliber isn't that deadly, right out of the water.

[sergeiAK]

65. There are .308 handguns.

Like the Thompson Center Contender. So is .308 now a handgun round?

There's no set line between rifle and handgun ammunition. For example, a friend of mine has a .44 Magnum rifle. He also has a .30-30 pistol.

How do you define handgun ammunition? Anything that can be chambered in any handgun?

[liberal4truth]

66. Those are not multi-shot handguns. We are talking about revolvers & automatics, not single-shot

weapons.

I hope you have not made the common mistake that I don't know anything about modern firearms, just because I don't own any of them them.

If you do, you are sadly mistaken, my friend.

[sergeiAK]

67. It's still a handgun

You made no differentiation between multi and single shot.

There are semi-automatic .308 handguns too, but I suppose you knew that. There are .223 handguns that take AR-15 mags. But you knew that too.

So where do you draw the line?

[bossy22]

71. rock river arms

makes some good .223 pistols

[liberal4truth]

72. Those are chopped down rifles and quite illegal where I live, thankfully.

Get caught with one of them and you be slammed against the squad car and hauled of to jail in handcuffs with a nice bail to pay, until your trial date. We don't coddle gun-crimes out here, so you may as well save your money because you will be convicted and sent to a state prison for a few years at least.

No, we all no what handguns are and all you goons are doing is obfuscating the real question: will .22 ammo require a permit card, as it has long been used in handguns, both revolver and automatic.

I say that yes, it will be included as there are many of these .22 handguns out there waiting for someone to pull the trigger and kill a human being.

Of course, unless you have something to fear, as many of you do, you shouldn't have any problem obtaining a handgun ammunition card.

[bossy22]

73. uhh no they arent

"Those are chopped down rifles"

uhhh....no...that would make them title II firearms but they are classified at title 1 under handguns- but thanks for playing

btw you have still yet to tell us which state in the union is yours- in my state- NY- they are perfectly legal.

"No, we all no what handguns are and all you goons are doing is obfuscating the real question: will .22 ammo require a permit card, as it has long been used in handguns, both revolver and automatic."
i go by the legal definition- and all the guns that we claimed were handguns- were- including the AR-15 pistol.
and to answer your question- no it will not- NY had something like this going- it says you can't purchase handgun ammunition unless you have a valid pistol license- the exception is for any round in .22 (short, long, long rifle, magnum) and for handgun ammo to be used in a long gun-
so if it does happen in californya i bet it will look the same way.

[bossy22]

70. could have fooled us

but anywhoo- what about the .410 pistol- it is a revolver that holds 5 .410 shotgun shells- does that make .410 a pistol calibre- and what about long guns like the Ruger PC9 and PC4- chambered in 9mm and .40 respectivaly. So you are going to sell a gun without being able to buy the ammo? Makes little sense ...

[bossy22]

69. ahh i never said it isnt deadly

and .22 is still deadly- it is by no stretch of the imagination as deadly as a .308.

[Thepricebreaker]

5. So when they sell a pencil and you get a box of bullets free... thats doesnt count?

[iverglas]

7. how enormously sensible

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheGunControlStory.html

And no, I don't care about anyone's opinion of the secondary source.

April 1994 - A series of shootings in rapid succession heighten concern about gun control.
Nicholas Battersby is shot in a drive-by shooting in Ottawa by teenagers with
stolen rifles and legally acquired ammunition.

A group of teenagers broke into a home and stole a rifle that was stored insecurely and illegally by its owner.

They headed to the local Canadian Tire (think Home Depot without the lumber and with sporting goods) and bought ammunition for the rifle.

They then drove down the main shopping street of the capital of Canada, shooting out the window. They killed an engineer from the UK working temporarily in Canada.

(Do I blame the owner of the rifle FOR FAILING TO SECURE IT AGAINST THEFT, and creating the conditions in which this event became possible? You bet I do. And I never understood why he wasn't charged.)

Largely as a result of that incident, legislation was enacted requiring that a firearms permit be presented in order to buy ammunition.

Hundreds of thousands of firearms are stolen from homes in the US every year.

Sure makes sense for it to be possible for the people who have those stolen firearms to buy ammunition for them legally, eh?

[bossy22]

9. you forgot

about reloading

[iverglas]

10. ya think?

Somehow, I don't think the punks who shot Battersby had ever heard the word.

I'm not aware of a thriving trade in reloaded ammunition developing in the gang subculture in Canada in the decade plus since that law went into effect ...

Mind you, ammunition is undoubtedly so easily purchased in the US and trafficked into Canada that there's probably not much need for that.

[bossy22]

18. it was a big thing in NY in the 1980's

the Italian mob would make ammo and sell it to the gangs...

[iverglas]

24. interesting

Our "mob" is the Hell's Angels, most significantly. And they're a force to be reckoned with, and police services figure they always will be, the question is just one of the degree to which they can be suppressed. We have relatively new anti-gang/organized crime legislation that is being used against them now, but it isn't going to put them out of business.

I'm sure they're capable of whatever the NYC mob could do. Vertical integration and all that. Although smuggling would still be a lot easier, I'm sure. ;)

That's not "reloading" though, right? -- it's a tertiary manufacturing industry on its own! That, I don't see happening here, really. Economies of scale.

[bossy22]

26. i wouldnt put

the NYC mafia in the 1980's in the same group as the "hells angels"

I doubt the hells angels controlled the waste disposal, public works, private construction industries in a large city

[iverglas]

29. no, I agree

The Hell's Angels don't have the economic base that the NYC Mafia had, definitely. That's a main reason why I don't see them going into manufacturing, and relying instead on trade to meet their needs.

The Hell's Angels economy isn't quite as developed as the Mafia economy. ;)

They mimic the Canada-US trading relationship. We/they, being the vastly smaller economy with significant internal constraints on development (smaller market, lower population to territory ratio and climate being the main ones), supply the natural resources via export, and import the finished goods!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

15. reasoning by analogy,

willingness to learn, taking an interest in the world around, openness to ideas, honest discourse ...

the things mature adults and, er, "liberals" hold so dear ...

[liberal4truth]

16. We need to pass laws that make the owners of these stolen guns respoonsible for allowing them..

to be unlocked and easily stolen when people break into their cars and homes, IMO.

[bossy22]

19. will those laws also apply to police?

everytime i see a law like that it has an exception for off-duty/retired police officers- cause ofcourse- their guns never get stolen

[gorfle]

22. Should we then...

We need to pass laws that make the owners of these stolen guns respoonsible for allowing them..to be unlocked and easily stolen when people break into their cars and homes, IMO.

Should we then hold the owners of stolen cars responsible for the actions committed by criminals who breakin into and steal locked cars?

I store my firearms inside a locked building. That should be sufficient due diligence.

[bossy22]

25. if a criminal

breaks into a garage and steals my baseball bat- then 2 weeks later uses it to beat an old lady- should i be held accountable for not storing my baseball more safely?

[iverglas]

27. did you think you were making sense?

Person A:
We need to pass laws that make the owners of these stolen guns respoonsible for allowing them..to be unlocked and easily stolen when people break into their cars and homes, IMO.

Person B:
Should we then hold the owners of stolen cars responsible for the actions committed by criminals who breakin into and steal locked cars?


Is Person B's question related to something Person A said?

Not so's I can see.

I don't see Person A saying anything about holding people responsible for anything other than what they do.

I see Person B asking whether people should be held responsible for what someone else does.

I see no connection.


I store my firearms inside a locked building. That should be sufficient due diligence.

"Due diligence" isn't in issue here, I don't think. Are you a corporate lawyer or something?

Storing your firearms inside a locked building might satisfy your insurance company should they be stolen and you make a claim.

If there is more you can reasonably do to avoid the theft, why should the public be satisfied if you decide not to bother doing it? Your economic welfare isn't the public's concern; the public's concern is public safety, and whether you are taking reasonable measures to avoid foreseeable risks to the public.

[gorfle]

34. Replies.

Is Person B's question related to something Person A said?

Not so's I can see.

Show of hands of everyone who didn't see the relationship? Ah, only Iverglas I see. Oh well. You'll have to study harder to keep up with the rest of the class, I guess.

If there is more you can reasonably do to avoid the theft, why should the public be satisfied if you decide not to bother doing it? Your economic welfare isn't the public's concern; the public's concern is public safety, and whether you are taking reasonable measures to avoid foreseeable risks to the public.

Note I never mentioned anyone's economic welfare.

Remember it is not just the public's safety that must be balanced here, Iverglas, there is my safety as well. I submit to you that locking something inside a building is sufficient to satisfy all reasonable concerns for public safety without compromising my safety by restricting the ability to speedily access the firearm for self defense. It is certainly enough to clear myself of any claim of negligence or otherwise hold me responsible for someone stealing my property and misusing it.

I know that you would prefer "reasonable" measures such as disassembling the gun into all its component pieces, storing them in separate locked boxes inside separate locked vaults at the four corners of the house, buried underground under six inches of cement with a pickax nearby with a sign that says, "Dig only in case of emergency", along with whatever other hurdles you could construct to make firearm ownership as difficult as possible so as to get people to abandon it altogether.

Storing firearms inside a locked building should be all the measures a firearm owner should have to undertake to reasonably secure them against theft.

[iverglas]

39. so listen

If you want to pretend that people say things they don't say, or you read things to mean something they plainly don't mean, that's your choice, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, so there's really just not much point in you persisting in doing it.


Note I never mentioned anyone's economic welfare.

That's nice. I note that you don't appear to be concerned about public safety, so I guess there must be a door number three.

I find it hugely entertaining that so many people are so deeply worried about their homes being broken into, and yet so unconcerned about thieves making off with their firearms if it happens. Hugely entertaining.

If locking your door is all you need to do in order to secure your firearms against theft, then why the hell would you be needing firearms to defend yourselves against someone breaking in??????

[gorfle]

45. Likewise

If you want to pretend that people say things they don't say, or you read things to mean something they plainly don't mean, that's your choice, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, so there's really just not much point in you persisting in doing it.

Like I said, Iverglas, everyone else seems to have gotten what I said. I think my meaning was perfectly plain. If you want to haggle over semantics, knock yourself out.

That's nice. I note that you don't appear to be concerned about public safety, so I guess there must be a door number three.

Of course I'm concerned about public safety. Of course my own personal safety comes first, and so I want a solution that balances the two. Storing my firearms inside my locked house satisfies both to my satisfaction.

I find it hugely entertaining that so many people are so deeply worried about their homes being broken into, and yet so unconcerned about thieves making off with their firearms if it happens. Hugely entertaining.

And I find it equally entertaining that people are deeply worried about people breaking into peoples homes to steal things but unconcerned about my ability to defend myself from such people if it happens.

If locking your door is all you need to do in order to secure your firearms against theft, then why the hell would you be needing firearms to defend yourselves against someone breaking in??????

Because no locked door is impenetrable. While I consider the locks on my doors to be a reasonable safeguard against theft, I wouldn't trust my life to them. And while I can certainly add more locks to the firearm to make it ever-harder to steal even if the first barrier - my home - has been broken, now I have to start weighing the consequences to my personal safety if my home is broken into while I am inside with no means to defend myself readily at hand.

At the extreme, a firearm sufficiently locked up becomes useless for home defense. The question then becomes, how many locks are required to reasonably protect it from theft while simultaneously making it readily accessible for defense. The answer for me is two - the door lock and the deadbolt.

[iverglas]

48. failing to compute

Of course my own personal safety comes first, and so I want a solution that balances the two. Storing my firearms inside my locked house satisfies both to my satisfaction.

And how your firearms are stored WHEN YOU ARE NOT PRESENT has ... what to do with your personal safety, now?


And I find it equally entertaining that people are deeply worried about people breaking into peoples homes to steal things but unconcerned about my ability to defend myself from such people if it happens.

Since the issue I am addressing is storage of firearms WHEN THE OCCUPANTS OF THE PREMISES ARE NOT PRESENT, your remarks about anyone's concern for your ability to do anything when you are present have ... what to do with the subject, now?


Because no locked door is impenetrable.

Fuckin' duh, eh?

So a locked door IS NOT sufficient to protect you from harm.

But a locked door IS sufficient to secure your firearms against theft.

Quite the logic thing you have going there.


now I have to start weighing the consequences to my personal safety if my home is broken into while I am inside with no means to defend myself readily at hand.

Let's pretend you didn't think I was talking about secure storage when the occupant is not present, and try again.

Obviously, I prefer secure storage when the occupant is present as well. But I'm particularly curious about how someone who insists on the need to be able to defend him/herself against evildoers when s/he IS present just doesn't think there's any need to secure his/her firearms against theft by evildoers when s/he IS NOT present.


If you want to haggle over semantics, knock yourself out.

Yada yada ding ding ding.

If you want to look up the meaning of the word "semantics" -- well hey, you'll find that you made sense despite yourself.

Yes, I am telling you that what I said has never meant what you are pretending it means.

[gorfle]

49. I concede

I concede the debate.

The general public deserves as much protection from my firearms as I do. Like I said, with rights come responsibilities. I have a responsibility to make sure that my firearms are not a danger to the general public.

[liberal4truth]

64. Thank you. At least someone is willing to admit that there is a serious responsibility to keep

guns out of the hands of criminals and others who do not have any legitimate or legal
access to your own *legally-owned* firearms.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Criminals don't just break in to steal.

I don't know about Canada but lots of bad things happen here during home invasions, rape, murder and torture all come to mind in cases within the last year. Hope that answers your question.

David

[DonP]

33. Same should hold true for cars as well, dammit!

If your car is stolen, and it was not locked in your garage at the time, you should be held legally and financially responsible for anything the thief does with it, drunk driving, getaway car at a bank job, etc. ... after all you were careless and made it easier for him to take it.

Jail time for you if they steal your car and run down a pedestrian with it.

[iverglas]

36. so where's the "same"?

What drives so many people to pretend they have read things they never read?

Jail time for you if they steal your car and run down a pedestrian with it.

Dunno about that, I'm sure. But penalty for you if you leave your vehicle unattended with the keys in the ignition. Where I'm at, and anywhere with sensible laws.

[gorfle]

47. Locked?

What drives so many people to pretend they have read things they never read?

It's called inference, Iverglas. Lately everyone seems to be able to do it but you.

Dunno about that, I'm sure. But penalty for you if you leave your vehicle unattended with the keys in the ignition. Where I'm at, and anywhere with sensible laws.

But what if it's locked, and the keys are in your pocket?

Oh wait, let's spend another half a day arguing the semantics of the analogy...

[gorfle]

21. Hah, insecure?

A group of teenagers broke into a home and stole a rifle that was stored insecurely and illegally by its owner.

You break into my house and you say my rifle wasn't stored securely? It's locked inside a building for Pete's sake!

(Do I blame the owner of the rifle FOR FAILING TO SECURE IT AGAINST THEFT, and creating the conditions in which this event became possible? You bet I do. And I never understood why he wasn't charged.)

Maybe because he stored them inside a locked building and the criminals illegally broke in and stole his property?

I don't understand why a trigger lock is somehow superior to the lock on my front door.

[bossy22]

23. trigger locks are quite easy

to get off, all you need is a hack saw and about 5 minutes

[sergeiAK]

28. That long? -nt

[bossy22]

30. thats how long it took me to take a lock off a guys

remington 700 when i worked at the store over the summer....butchered this trigger guard in the process

[DonP]

35. Only 3 seconds according to Dellinger

The attorney for DC told the Supreme Court that he could get the trigger lock off a gun, load it and have it ready for use in 3 seconds. Obviously we must all be doing something wrong.

[bossy22]

37. he said in the daytime

[iverglas]

38. gosh

I wonder whether he meant he would be using the key/combination or whatever one needs in order to unlock the lock, rather than destroy it ...

I wonder, I wonder, I wonder.

[iverglas]

31. no, I don't think so

(Do I blame the owner of the rifle FOR FAILING TO SECURE IT AGAINST THEFT, and creating the conditions in which this event became possible? You bet I do. And I never understood why he wasn't charged.)
Maybe because he stored them inside a locked building and the criminals illegally broke in and stole his property?

No, that wouldn't be it. Storing firearms inside a locked building without further security measures doesn't comply with the law of the jurisdiction where the firearms were, i.e. Canadian criminal (federal) law.

So that wouldn't be the explanation. Prosecutorial discretion was obviously exercised, but on what basis, I've never heard.


I don't understand why a trigger lock is somehow superior to the lock on my front door.

Me either. That might be why I didn't say anything about trigger locks. Unfortunately, it seems that a trigger lock might satisfy Canadian law when it comes to non-restricted firearms (which the firearm in the Battersby case presumably was).

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-209/whole.html

STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS

5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

Apparently the owner of the firearm in the Battersby incident had failed in even that minimum requirement. And in the case of a bunch of punk teenagers, a trigger lock might actually have interfered in their plans for that day, anyway.

The rules for restricted firearms (which include handguns) are a little stricter:

STORAGE OF RESTRICTED FIREARMS

6. An individual may store a restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in

(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked.

[gorfle]

46. Not so bad.

That's not so bad. I'd get one of these:

http://www.gunvault.com/

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. What is the law in Canada about gun storage?

I just wondered what made the storage of the firearm illegal?
Thanks in advance. Hooray George St. Pierre, Boooo Matt Sera still pulling for the Canadian in this one.

David

[iverglas]

52. post 31

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=165178&mesg_id=165250

[slackmaster]

41. Governator is sure to veto this for fiscal reasons

We can't afford the luxury of experimenting with systems that are are not likely to return what they cost to implement and operate.

[jody]

42. BILL NUMBER: AB 2062 references CA law section 12323 for handgun ammunition, see below.

12060. As used in this article, the following terms apply:
(a) "Department" means the Department of Justice.
(b)
(b) "Handgun ammunition" means handgun ammunition as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 12323, but excluding ammunition designed
and intended to be used in an "antique firearm" as defined in Section
921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code.

12323. As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply:
(a) "Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles.

(b) "Handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or
armor" means any ammunition, except a shotgun shell or ammunition
primarily designed for use in rifles, that is designed primarily to
penetrate a body vest or body shield, and has either of the following
characteristics:
(1) Has projectile or projectile core constructed entirely,
excluding the presence of traces of other substances, from one or a
combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, beryllium copper,
or depleted uranium, or any equivalent material of similar density
or hardness.
(2) Is primarily manufactured or designed, by virtue of its shape,
cross-sectional density, or any coating applied thereto, including,
but not limited to, ammunition commonly known as "KTW ammunition," to
breach or penetrate a body vest or body shield when fired from a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person.

It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret "ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, . . . notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles."

[Howzit]

43. When is California's ban on solid copper handgun bullets going to meet its lead ammo ban?

Handgun bullets made from single metals such as copper are banned because they are deemed "armor piercing". Lead bullets (copper jacketed or solid) are illegal to possess anywhere on Californian hunting grounds because if you fired them, condors may eat them. When will there be no metals left to make legal handgun bullets for California?

[L1A1Rocker]

57. Wonder what the police will use then?

[Howzit]

59. Whatever is appropriate for a given job - restrictions don't apply to them while on duty. n/t

[bossy22]

74. or off duty

in most cases

[SteveM]

53. Sounds like "melting point" laws of Jim Crow era.

[sergeiAK]

58. CA still has those on the books, IIRC -nt