Having to be fingerprinted to sell ammunition, or limits on the amount you can give away.

EDIT: The actual bill differentiates between purchasers (i.e. you) and transferors (i.e. your cartel's gun mule.)

Didn't you see Wanted? You can kill up to 20 people with one bullet if you spin it right!

Cool. I got a canned email response, but someone (an actual human!) with a Sacramento (the CA state capitol) area code left me a voice mail thanking me for my phone call and letting me know my thoughts will be considered when it's time to vote. My letter should arrive on Monday; I hope it's effective.

You wrote a letter to a politician.

It won't be.

No amount of regulation is going to stop real criminals. The only thing you can hope to curb with regulation is crimes of passion or idiocy.

this particular bill does not seem like it is intending to actually curb anything. it seems more like it is just going to give prosecutors one more thing to tack on when someone commits a crime. like ohho! not only did you get busted with drugs but you were also "transferring" more that fifty rounds of ammunition! now we can really stick it to you!...

however it does seem like something that can easily turn into a regulation on how much the average consumer can buy.

What makes someone a real criminal?

BEING POOR? YOU *******

It sounds like a money grabbing ploy from the state. CA legislature will try anything to take $$ from you.

We need to hit the "reset" button on the whole CA state government. It's gotten out of hand.

The one thing that seemingly no one wants to talk about, with regard to the 2nd Amendment, is that privately owned firearms are never, ever going to protect us from serious government oppression. Any American government oppressive enough to deserve armed resistance is almost certainly going to be oppressive enough that it will ignore the Posse Comitatus Act and use the full force of the American military to suppress domestic dissent. Your handguns and hunting weapons aren't going to help you defeat the U.S. Army.

THIS THIS AND SO MUCH THIS.

Not to mention that there is also the issue of the fact that there would be a very great potential for some parts of the military to refuse to take action, and go against the government themselves, and they probably wouldnt want help from the public in their coup attempt, as it means people untrained in military tactics (and more people to deal with if they succeed in taking power).

The law was not written with the existance of weapons that cost more than the net worth of multiple families in mind. It was written back when it was plausible that a private militia could round up enough strength to take on the goverment military.

hell, even by the US civil war (which is a misnomer, as it was actualy an unsuccessful war of independance) it took the armies loyal to the south to put up a fight.

So yeah, any as the guy above me said, any government opressive enough that people would actualy try to stand up against it (well, more than isolationist, racial supremicist types), said government would probably not see anything wrong with using the army against its own people. (and seeing as how you have had many points in your recent history when the military has been called in to deal with protests, this should be quite obvious that there are people who would be more than willing to use the military against civilians)

History is rife with examples of the superior military force suffering defeat. However, I think it is more likely that you would have to defend yourself against domestic quasi-military forces such as "law enforcement" entities. Another reason why it is scary that the government would want to enforce such a disparity in the amount and types of firearms and amunition citizens can have compared to what they employ domestically.

Not that I'm saying this is much of a possibility, but saying that unorganized citizens can't put up a fight against the US military when that is exactly what is going on in Afghanistan is pretty silly.

Also keep in mind that there are literally MILLIONS of people with MILLIONS of guns. That's nothing to scoff at. What are they going to do, drop a laser guided bomb on every family in the country?

Anyway, the point is kind of moot, since that's pretty out there, but I'm just saying.

yes, but I point out that a non-scrupulous government would not care about killing innocent people. An ultra oppressive government going after its own peopl would not worry about trying to make sure the people like them.

Not to mention that the sorts of people who would be most likely to go ultra oppressive and taking out its own people are quite likely to be something that many of the wingnut militias would support, so you would already have a slight issue there. Also, it would be an even bigger problem if said wingnut militias (who, I have to admit, would be the most likely candidates for overthrowing an oppressive regieme), are quite likely NOT the types of people that you would want to be taking power, because if they did overthrow the oppressors, they would almost certainly just become the next lot of oppressors.

This.

If you're coming house-to-house in an urban environment, I don't care if you have a minigun or a hunting rifle. My $175 Remington 870 is just as effective unless you intend on leveling everything without looking first.

There is a reason we were/are in the desert for such a long time. You can't just kill everyone.



...what? The "wingnut militias" don't support banning firearms. Unless there's some ultra-left-wing militia armed with..oh, pitchforks or something..

Oppressive governments will regulate guns out of existence as best as possible.

It should be noted that the Soviets were much less restrained than ISAF in Afghanistan, and they lost.