Here in CA, AB 962 is up for a vote soon. It's already passed in the CA house, now just needs to run in the CA senate. I sent an email to my senator, and am in the process of hand-writing a letter.

Basically, AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require that purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be kept in dealers' records and subject to inspection by the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

Here's what I wrote to my senator:



Have any of you ever written to a politician? I've written only once before. I wrote and called my local rep about another stupid issue that was coming up. I received no reply nor indication that my statement had been considered or even received. The rep voted opposite of what I wanted.

Maybe you should shoot him.

I think that would be a good idea.

I think Steven should announce his intention to shoot his senator on this forum.

Mabey people should stop being cheap and buy their own damn ammo. >.> <.<

I mean, most ammo cant be THAT expensive can it?

This bill includes sales made at retail stores.

And some ammo can be very expensive.

Well. I don't see the problem.

Well, you aren't known for being very smart.

I wrote to my representatives and senators from Washington once. Got some canned responses back.

Hey, it's California. No surprise that they are doing everything they can to circumvent your country's constitutionally protected rights! Move to Montana.

Hurr, rather then explain why I'm against something I'll just insult the asker.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with limiting the amount of ammo you can trade without a license?

Did you even read his OP?

Everyone else understands.

Why isn't all target shooting done with nonlethal ammunition, by the way?

Because there is no risk that the target will die from lethal rounds?

To 50 rounds??

Edit: I just understood what you meant... (I originally misunderstood you so I posted a picture of a rifle target and asked how you were going to kill one of those)

You're right, the target won't die. But something that's alive that gets shot with lethal ammo might, and if you're using your gun for "recreational target shooting" then why not just eliminate any risk and use nonlethal ammo?

Um, yeah, that's my point. Why would you use non lethal rounds to shoot a target?

It covers non-lethal rounds too? Well maybe that's a bit too far.

Recreational target shooting, as I understand it, consists of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/10m_Air_Rifle_Target.svg/550px-10m_Air_Rifle_Target.svg.png and such. Nonlethal rounds pierce these targets just as well. Nonlethal rounds, however, lack the risk of killing living beings. Therefore, nonlethal rounds should in my opinion be used for recreational target shooting.

Edit: on the other hand:

<+Commander_598> I think it should be noted that there's no such thing as "non-lethal" rounds that behave anything even remotely like real rounds.
<+Commander_598> At best you'd have a really expensive paintball gun.

If this is true, then forget I said anything.

Geez, I'm not even a gun owner but this certainly shows how many non gun owners are patently unqualified to constructively participate in a debate that actually results in laws being written. "Non-lethal" rounds really only have one purpose. To be shot at people or target shooting to become proficient at shooting people, generally, by law enforcement. Heck, if there is an ammunition type worthy of regulating it is "non-lethal" rounds.

it's okay I don't think Kroko has anything to do with Californian laws

My argument was not against shooting people when it is required (such as by law enforcement, or the armed forces) but rather when it comes to the sport of target shooting where it is not the intent to shoot at, nor practice shooting at actual people.

I acknowledge your follow on qualifier to this but I just wanted to clarify, the only reason to use "non-lethal" ammo is to mitigate the risk of death or serious injury to the target[ted individual]. There is no risk to a target and therefore no reason to use less lethal ammo for any type of target shooting other than training to engage real world targets with less lethal ammo.

To be fair to Kroko, because I had no idea where he was going with that at that moment, it was more directed to TE. Of course neither of these two have anything to do with the laws being crafted in California but the idiot representatives in California do and they have very similar misconceptions.

This is assuming that all gun owners will be responsible with their weapon at all times, and that a gun with live rounds won't fall into the wrong hands somehow. This is my (possibly flawed) reasoning behind why I think it would be a good idea for those who practice target shooting as a sport to be using some sort of less lethal ammo.

I think Wookie has a point, possibly the most important. Using "non-lethal" ammunition for target shooting would be just silly and pointless.



The capabilities of a firearm are independent from the capabilities of it's ammunition and it's not the ammunition that anyone's concerned about in this situation.

Here's the problem with shooting targets with "nonlethal" ammunition. A rifle is designed to shoot something at incredibly high speeds. That's always going to be dangerous, no matter what is being shot out of it. If you modify it to shoot something NOT at incredibly high speeds, then you're just lobbing something, and it's not going to go very far, and you might as well go play catch with a baseball. Or, as mentioned, use a paintball or airsoft gun to lob stuff a few yards. It just kind of undermines the actual point of shooting, even if it is just at targets on a stand. Kind of like having a racecar that's governed out at 30mph. Sure, it's safer, but it defeats the purpose.

Fair enough.

I've never even fired a real gun to be honest.

Beside, hunting game (let's say... deer) is a perfectly legal and acceptable sport. In order to get a deer, I need to be a good shot, otherwise if I shoot, I miss and scare the deer away for good. So, I go to the range and practice. If I have to practice with sub standard, less than lethal ammo, or with a minimal amount, when I actually get to the woods and find the deer, I am going to miss because I've been shooting using completely different ammo. You wouldn't limit how many times a cricket bowler can throw? Or how many times a baseball pitcher can pitch? One cannot improve at one's sport without practice, and this law would severely limit that activity.

Anyway, they already control who can and cannot buy a gun, and which guns one can and cannot buy, why the need to control the ammo?

As to the quantity argument, one can easily shoot 50 rounds of ammo in under 2 minutes. I went shooting last Saturday, and between a Ruger .223, a Browning .22LR, and two 12ga shotguns, we shot around 600 rounds in two hours. If this law passes, I would have to buy my monthly allotment in ammo every month for a year in order to go shoot for two hours. That's unacceptable and unconstitutional.

If a gun were to fall in to the wrong hands with non-lethal ammunition, there's nothing stopping the person from unloading that ammunition and putting lethal ammunition in it, thus completely negating the whole reason behind this. And non-lethal rounds are both more expensive, and available in only a few calibers.

And I hardly want to believe the stupidity of the government of California. There are boxes of ammunition that have more then 50 rounds, so now what, I wouldn't be allowed to give one of those boxes to a friend or family member because it exceeds my monthly limit? I knew a lot of California legislators were stupid, but they continue to surprise me. Don't they have better things to do? Like take care of that 40 billion something budget shortfall they have because they constantly waste time and money on stupid laws like this?

well, i just e-mailed, wrote an actual letter to, and called both the local office and Sacramento office of my state senator asking how he intends to vote on the bill and voicing my opposition to it. i doubt i will get a response, but who knows.

This bill will pass with flying colors in California. It won't even be debated. In fact, I see this passing in record time.

This state pisses me off more and more and more. I hate it with a passion. It is filled with knee-jerk politians without clearly thinking the matter through. I hope with all my heart this state utterly collapses fiscally, goverment, and maybe even socially and the United States kicks us out (if that is possible).

But then what about all your Padres gear??!!

If I could secede San Diego from CA, I would in a heartbeat.

The State of San Diego.

Ninja edit: I think Southern California should secede from CA actually. Those yokels up north have no f'n clue about what's going on down here. But we'll still take your water!

Screw writing your local politicians. Write to the NRA.

Ok, so instead of purchasing ammo, a criminal will now steal it.

maybe the ammo is needed by the government? for a war or something

The government already has first claim to ammo manufactured. Factories produce their orders for military ammunition, then produce for retail sales. That's part of why there has been a shortage lately.

Better yet, join the NRA. I've never owned a firearm but I belonged to them for a number of years because I fully support their endeavor to protect our right specifically, and quite clearly, protected by the second ammendment.