Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners: We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun. We are fine with reasonable restrictions. We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
that 99% is nowhere near indicitive of the percentage of folks on this website that believe the democrats are vying for your guns. unless this fanclub is a massively gross exaggeration of that perception, I'd say that figure is quite high.
the rest of what you say I can get down with.
Poll time! Lol. Who here believes that US Citizens should not be allowed to privately own firearms? Raise your hands now. Oh wait, people don't give a shit and don't answer surveys anymore! I think we witnessed that in the previous election...
Post edited by PJPOWER on
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners: We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun. We are fine with reasonable restrictions. We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
that 99% is nowhere near indicitive of the percentage of folks on this website that believe the democrats are vying for your guns. unless this fanclub is a massively gross exaggeration of that perception, I'd say that figure is quite high.
the rest of what you say I can get down with.
I'd say that the 99% is too high in general, at least on some of those conditions.
Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners: We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun. We are fine with reasonable restrictions. We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
that 99% is nowhere near indicitive of the percentage of folks on this website that believe the democrats are vying for your guns. unless this fanclub is a massively gross exaggeration of that perception, I'd say that figure is quite high.
the rest of what you say I can get down with.
The 1% of any group is always the loudest. If I went by what people post on AMT as a baseline for anything we'd be screwed. Just like with anything else, people who aren't afraid of losing their guns don't go posting about it. You only hear from that 1%.
Maybe it's an exaggeration, but easily a large majority if not 99%. Ignoring the sample on AMT, but talking to real people it's easily over 90% would agree with everything I said.
Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners: We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun. We are fine with reasonable restrictions. We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
that 99% is nowhere near indicitive of the percentage of folks on this website that believe the democrats are vying for your guns. unless this fanclub is a massively gross exaggeration of that perception, I'd say that figure is quite high.
the rest of what you say I can get down with.
The 1% of any group is always the loudest. If I went by what people post on AMT as a baseline for anything we'd be screwed. Just like with anything else, people who aren't afraid of losing their guns don't go posting about it. You only hear from that 1%.
Maybe it's an exaggeration, but easily a large majority if not 99%. Ignoring the sample on AMT, but talking to real people it's easily over 90% would agree with everything I said.
I certainly hope so. some of the "don't take my fucking guns" people here sound like moronic paranoids.
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
never considered owning a gun until now. probably still wont do it. the way things are looking, it might be wise to be able to protect oneself. let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
Most avid competition shooters do this, not only because of the cost efficiency, but you can create very accurate loads. There is virtually no way of stopping people from doing this.
never considered owning a gun until now. probably still wont do it. the way things are looking, it might be wise to be able to protect oneself. let's hope it doesn't come to that.
What are you afraid of?
civil war
Funny, I thought that only the right wing "gun nuts" feared having to protect themselves from a domestic threat with a firearm...? You are going to need more than a rubber band gun if you are prepping for a civil war, just FYI.
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
Most avid competition shooters do this, not only because of the cost efficiency, but you can create very accurate loads. There is virtually no way of stopping people from doing this.
Easy to stop people. Make it illegal to buy and sell the reloading parts. Restrict the sale of powder and primers. If stores cant sell powder and primers, and if they can't be shipped to CA, it will make it very difficult. And if you're caught I'm not sure what the penalty would be, but I'm sure for many it won't be worth the risk and confinscation.
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
In short make your own ammo by recycling the used casing. Has become more popular with the rising cost of ammo. Many calibers of decent ammo that wont damage your gun run $0.50 - $1 a round now. A lot of the cheap ammo is corrosize, and is still pretty expensive anyway. It could cost you $100 or more just to target shoot for an hour.
I never bothered reloading. But I've been shooting I think twice in the last 5 years because of the cost of ammo, when I used to go 3 or 4 time a year. Now it will get even more expensive. I used to buy factory reloads, meaning the factory recycled the casing to make to ammo and that was at a discounted price. That will also be illegal from what I have heard. Who wants to recycle, right?
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
Most avid competition shooters do this, not only because of the cost efficiency, but you can create very accurate loads. There is virtually no way of stopping people from doing this.
Easy to stop people. Make it illegal to buy and sell the reloading parts. Restrict the sale of powder and primers. If stores cant sell powder and primers, and if they can't be shipped to CA, it will make it very difficult. And if you're caught I'm not sure what the penalty would be, but I'm sure for many it won't be worth the risk and confinscation.
Yeah, that may make it a little more difficult, but people have ways of engineering around these laws. Powder is just a mixture of basic elements and primers are pretty basic as far as engineering goes. Look at all of the ways manufacturers have skirted New York's gun laws by designing firearms that meet the technical standards. Look at all of the 80% lower receivers and 3D printed parts being created. Attempts on banning things have only resulted in new kinds of guns and technologies. Clinton's magazines capacity limits resulted in smaller guns that can fit into pockets. There are so many new and old parts available for making bullets that were created over the past 150 years or so. It may slow down the process a bit, but definitely would not take it to a grinding halt. I doubt that the people reloading their own are ones people should be worrying about, honestly. The people causing problems are not the kind that take the time to research and understand the complexities of reloading their own ammo.
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
In short make your own ammo by recycling the used casing. Has become more popular with the rising cost of ammo. Many calibers of decent ammo that wont damage your gun run $0.50 - $1 a round now. A lot of the cheap ammo is corrosize, and is still pretty expensive anyway. It could cost you $100 or more just to target shoot for an hour.
I never bothered reloading. But I've been shooting I think twice in the last 5 years because of the cost of ammo, when I used to go 3 or 4 time a year. Now it will get even more expensive. I used to buy factory reloads, meaning the factory recycled the casing to make to ammo and that was at a discounted price. That will also be illegal from what I have heard. Who wants to recycle, right?
If you don't want your rights taken away, don't move to California. That's pretty much the mentality of most gun owners I know. Making recycled brass illegal? I have not heard of that one yet, sounds like they are purposely creating laws that cannot be enforced...
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
In short make your own ammo by recycling the used casing. Has become more popular with the rising cost of ammo. Many calibers of decent ammo that wont damage your gun run $0.50 - $1 a round now. A lot of the cheap ammo is corrosize, and is still pretty expensive anyway. It could cost you $100 or more just to target shoot for an hour.
I never bothered reloading. But I've been shooting I think twice in the last 5 years because of the cost of ammo, when I used to go 3 or 4 time a year. Now it will get even more expensive. I used to buy factory reloads, meaning the factory recycled the casing to make to ammo and that was at a discounted price. That will also be illegal from what I have heard. Who wants to recycle, right?
If you don't want your rights taken away, don't move to California. That's pretty much the mentality of most gun owners I know. Making recycled brass illegal? I have not heard of that one yet, sounds like they are purposely creating laws that cannot be enforced...
Not really. Big ammo manufactures that sell factory reloads wont be able to. Sure, the guy in his garage can find ways around it, but its going to be a much larger hassle and more expensive when it becomes illegal. At some point more and more gun hobbyist are going to find the hassle not worth it when everything is illegal. Factory reloads though, no way around that when reloading becomes illegal. That's why some gun manufactures don't even sell to CA because they don't want to deal with their laws. And another reason why many believe these gun laws are designed to inhibit gun manufactures rather than actually implement safety issues. And there's a push to have each bullet is supposed to be stamped to it can be traced back to its purchase, not sure if this has passed yet but it has at least been up as a new gun bill. So even the guy making his own ammo in the garage would face stiff penalties if he is caught with illegal ammo on him-just by reloading in his home.
Make it impossible to buy reasonably priced ammo and you solve the gun problem (not really, but that's the direction CA seems to be going).
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
In short make your own ammo by recycling the used casing. Has become more popular with the rising cost of ammo. Many calibers of decent ammo that wont damage your gun run $0.50 - $1 a round now. A lot of the cheap ammo is corrosize, and is still pretty expensive anyway. It could cost you $100 or more just to target shoot for an hour.
I never bothered reloading. But I've been shooting I think twice in the last 5 years because of the cost of ammo, when I used to go 3 or 4 time a year. Now it will get even more expensive. I used to buy factory reloads, meaning the factory recycled the casing to make to ammo and that was at a discounted price. That will also be illegal from what I have heard. Who wants to recycle, right?
If you don't want your rights taken away, don't move to California. That's pretty much the mentality of most gun owners I know. Making recycled brass illegal? I have not heard of that one yet, sounds like they are purposely creating laws that cannot be enforced...
Make it impossible to buy reasonably priced ammo and you solve the gun problem (not really, but that's the direction CA seems to be going).
Sounds like it would just create a black market ammo problem. Isn't California overdue to drop off into the ocean? Lol
Looks like I was wrong about the reload and a few other things. Best I can tell is it was in an early version of the bill, but not when it was passed. And there was a little cloudy since it states you cannot buy ammo from a dealer who does not have a special ammo license now, so how does reloading fit into that? You need to be a licensed dealer to sell ammo, you need to pass a background check to buy ammo. Any private party sales of ammo need to go through a dealer. You can give ammo to an immediate family member (father/son), but cannot give ammo to friends. All this requires more paperwork and fees, and complication on the seller and licensing on the fees which costs more money, and if you pass a background check for the gun, seems a little redundant. Online sales have been banned for a while too, which had been the cheapest way. Proposals that did not make the final bill were restrictions on reloading and stamping each round with a unique serial number, but were not on the final version passed. Seems to be only a matter of time though.
Looks like I was wrong about the reload and a few other things. Best I can tell is it was in an early version of the bill, but not when it was passed. And there was a little cloudy since it states you cannot buy ammo from a dealer who does not have a special ammo license now, so how does reloading fit into that? You need to be a licensed dealer to sell ammo, you need to pass a background check to buy ammo. Any private party sales of ammo need to go through a dealer. You can give ammo to an immediate family member (father/son), but cannot give ammo to friends. All this requires more paperwork and fees, and complication on the seller and licensing on the fees which costs more money, and if you pass a background check for the gun, seems a little redundant. Online sales have been banned for a while too, which had been the cheapest way. Proposals that did not make the final bill were restrictions on reloading and stamping each round with a unique serial number, but were not on the final version passed. Seems to be only a matter of time though.
All gun owners should boycott buying California produced goods just like they boycotted voting for Hildabeast.
Looks like I was wrong about the reload and a few other things. Best I can tell is it was in an early version of the bill, but not when it was passed. And there was a little cloudy since it states you cannot buy ammo from a dealer who does not have a special ammo license now, so how does reloading fit into that? You need to be a licensed dealer to sell ammo, you need to pass a background check to buy ammo. Any private party sales of ammo need to go through a dealer. You can give ammo to an immediate family member (father/son), but cannot give ammo to friends. All this requires more paperwork and fees, and complication on the seller and licensing on the fees which costs more money, and if you pass a background check for the gun, seems a little redundant. Online sales have been banned for a while too, which had been the cheapest way. Proposals that did not make the final bill were restrictions on reloading and stamping each round with a unique serial number, but were not on the final version passed. Seems to be only a matter of time though.
All gun owners should boycott buying California produced goods just like they boycotted voting for Hildabeast.
Looks like I was wrong about the reload and a few other things. Best I can tell is it was in an early version of the bill, but not when it was passed. And there was a little cloudy since it states you cannot buy ammo from a dealer who does not have a special ammo license now, so how does reloading fit into that? You need to be a licensed dealer to sell ammo, you need to pass a background check to buy ammo. Any private party sales of ammo need to go through a dealer. You can give ammo to an immediate family member (father/son), but cannot give ammo to friends. All this requires more paperwork and fees, and complication on the seller and licensing on the fees which costs more money, and if you pass a background check for the gun, seems a little redundant. Online sales have been banned for a while too, which had been the cheapest way. Proposals that did not make the final bill were restrictions on reloading and stamping each round with a unique serial number, but were not on the final version passed. Seems to be only a matter of time though.
All gun owners should boycott buying California produced goods just like they boycotted voting for Hildabeast.
Did you type this on your iPhone or your Android?
Good point, should probably check into that before buying a new one.
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
In short make your own ammo by recycling the used casing. Has become more popular with the rising cost of ammo. Many calibers of decent ammo that wont damage your gun run $0.50 - $1 a round now. A lot of the cheap ammo is corrosize, and is still pretty expensive anyway. It could cost you $100 or more just to target shoot for an hour.
I never bothered reloading. But I've been shooting I think twice in the last 5 years because of the cost of ammo, when I used to go 3 or 4 time a year. Now it will get even more expensive. I used to buy factory reloads, meaning the factory recycled the casing to make to ammo and that was at a discounted price. That will also be illegal from what I have heard. Who wants to recycle, right?
If you don't want your rights taken away, don't move to California. That's pretty much the mentality of most gun owners I know. Making recycled brass illegal? I have not heard of that one yet, sounds like they are purposely creating laws that cannot be enforced...
Not really. Big ammo manufactures that sell factory reloads wont be able to. Sure, the guy in his garage can find ways around it, but its going to be a much larger hassle and more expensive when it becomes illegal. At some point more and more gun hobbyist are going to find the hassle not worth it when everything is illegal. Factory reloads though, no way around that when reloading becomes illegal. That's why some gun manufactures don't even sell to CA because they don't want to deal with their laws. And another reason why many believe these gun laws are designed to inhibit gun manufactures rather than actually implement safety issues. And there's a push to have each bullet is supposed to be stamped to it can be traced back to its purchase, not sure if this has passed yet but it has at least been up as a new gun bill. So even the guy making his own ammo in the garage would face stiff penalties if he is caught with illegal ammo on him-just by reloading in his home.
Make it impossible to buy reasonably priced ammo and you solve the gun problem (not really, but that's the direction CA seems to be going).
you can't buy ammo online in cali? christ that's some bs.
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
In short make your own ammo by recycling the used casing. Has become more popular with the rising cost of ammo. Many calibers of decent ammo that wont damage your gun run $0.50 - $1 a round now. A lot of the cheap ammo is corrosize, and is still pretty expensive anyway. It could cost you $100 or more just to target shoot for an hour.
I never bothered reloading. But I've been shooting I think twice in the last 5 years because of the cost of ammo, when I used to go 3 or 4 time a year. Now it will get even more expensive. I used to buy factory reloads, meaning the factory recycled the casing to make to ammo and that was at a discounted price. That will also be illegal from what I have heard. Who wants to recycle, right?
If you don't want your rights taken away, don't move to California. That's pretty much the mentality of most gun owners I know. Making recycled brass illegal? I have not heard of that one yet, sounds like they are purposely creating laws that cannot be enforced...
Not really. Big ammo manufactures that sell factory reloads wont be able to. Sure, the guy in his garage can find ways around it, but its going to be a much larger hassle and more expensive when it becomes illegal. At some point more and more gun hobbyist are going to find the hassle not worth it when everything is illegal. Factory reloads though, no way around that when reloading becomes illegal. That's why some gun manufactures don't even sell to CA because they don't want to deal with their laws. And another reason why many believe these gun laws are designed to inhibit gun manufactures rather than actually implement safety issues. And there's a push to have each bullet is supposed to be stamped to it can be traced back to its purchase, not sure if this has passed yet but it has at least been up as a new gun bill. So even the guy making his own ammo in the garage would face stiff penalties if he is caught with illegal ammo on him-just by reloading in his home.
Make it impossible to buy reasonably priced ammo and you solve the gun problem (not really, but that's the direction CA seems to be going).
you can't buy ammo online in cali? christ that's some bs.
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that. Otherwise great post.
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings. The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?
In short make your own ammo by recycling the used casing. Has become more popular with the rising cost of ammo. Many calibers of decent ammo that wont damage your gun run $0.50 - $1 a round now. A lot of the cheap ammo is corrosize, and is still pretty expensive anyway. It could cost you $100 or more just to target shoot for an hour.
I never bothered reloading. But I've been shooting I think twice in the last 5 years because of the cost of ammo, when I used to go 3 or 4 time a year. Now it will get even more expensive. I used to buy factory reloads, meaning the factory recycled the casing to make to ammo and that was at a discounted price. That will also be illegal from what I have heard. Who wants to recycle, right?
If you don't want your rights taken away, don't move to California. That's pretty much the mentality of most gun owners I know. Making recycled brass illegal? I have not heard of that one yet, sounds like they are purposely creating laws that cannot be enforced...
Not really. Big ammo manufactures that sell factory reloads wont be able to. Sure, the guy in his garage can find ways around it, but its going to be a much larger hassle and more expensive when it becomes illegal. At some point more and more gun hobbyist are going to find the hassle not worth it when everything is illegal. Factory reloads though, no way around that when reloading becomes illegal. That's why some gun manufactures don't even sell to CA because they don't want to deal with their laws. And another reason why many believe these gun laws are designed to inhibit gun manufactures rather than actually implement safety issues. And there's a push to have each bullet is supposed to be stamped to it can be traced back to its purchase, not sure if this has passed yet but it has at least been up as a new gun bill. So even the guy making his own ammo in the garage would face stiff penalties if he is caught with illegal ammo on him-just by reloading in his home.
Make it impossible to buy reasonably priced ammo and you solve the gun problem (not really, but that's the direction CA seems to be going).
you can't buy ammo online in cali? christ that's some bs.
Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners: We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun. We are fine with reasonable restrictions. We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners: We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun. We are fine with reasonable restrictions. We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners: We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun. We are fine with reasonable restrictions. We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
Example?
Here's a list of banned features in California. Taken from different descriptions of what could make a gun banned in California.
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock.
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(B) A second handgrip (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
As cool as it looks in Hollywood, no one who actually knows anything about a gun would use a pistol grip and shoot from the hip.
Threaded barrels that can accept a grenade launcher sound bad, but many vintage military rifles have these and people just want to collece them. Besidse, where do you even get the grenade launcher and grenades?
There seems to be a big hatred for pistol grips, even though they have no real practical function. I think it was Fienstien who even said some guns "look mean."
The one that gets me is the shroud to prevent the barrel from burning you. Banning a safety feature? Good one California.
Comments
Just like with anything else, people who aren't afraid of losing their guns don't go posting about it. You only hear from that 1%.
Maybe it's an exaggeration, but easily a large majority if not 99%. Ignoring the sample on AMT, but talking to real people it's easily over 90% would agree with everything I said.
www.headstonesband.com
The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
www.headstonesband.com
Most avid competition shooters do this, not only because of the cost efficiency, but you can create very accurate loads. There is virtually no way of stopping people from doing this.
I never bothered reloading. But I've been shooting I think twice in the last 5 years because of the cost of ammo, when I used to go 3 or 4 time a year. Now it will get even more expensive. I used to buy factory reloads, meaning the factory recycled the casing to make to ammo and that was at a discounted price. That will also be illegal from what I have heard. Who wants to recycle, right?
There are so many new and old parts available for making bullets that were created over the past 150 years or so. It may slow down the process a bit, but definitely would not take it to a grinding halt. I doubt that the people reloading their own are ones people should be worrying about, honestly. The people causing problems are not the kind that take the time to research and understand the complexities of reloading their own ammo.
And there's a push to have each bullet is supposed to be stamped to it can be traced back to its purchase, not sure if this has passed yet but it has at least been up as a new gun bill. So even the guy making his own ammo in the garage would face stiff penalties if he is caught with illegal ammo on him-just by reloading in his home.
Make it impossible to buy reasonably priced ammo and you solve the gun problem (not really, but that's the direction CA seems to be going).
And there was a little cloudy since it states you cannot buy ammo from a dealer who does not have a special ammo license now, so how does reloading fit into that?
You need to be a licensed dealer to sell ammo, you need to pass a background check to buy ammo. Any private party sales of ammo need to go through a dealer. You can give ammo to an immediate family member (father/son), but cannot give ammo to friends. All this requires more paperwork and fees, and complication on the seller and licensing on the fees which costs more money, and if you pass a background check for the gun, seems a little redundant. Online sales have been banned for a while too, which had been the cheapest way.
Proposals that did not make the final bill were restrictions on reloading and stamping each round with a unique serial number, but were not on the final version passed. Seems to be only a matter of time though.
http://www.theamericanmarksman.com/State-Restrictions_ep_42.html
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(B) A second handgrip
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
As cool as it looks in Hollywood, no one who actually knows anything about a gun would use a pistol grip and shoot from the hip.
Threaded barrels that can accept a grenade launcher sound bad, but many vintage military rifles have these and people just want to collece them. Besidse, where do you even get the grenade launcher and grenades?
There seems to be a big hatred for pistol grips, even though they have no real practical function. I think it was Fienstien who even said some guns "look mean."
The one that gets me is the shroud to prevent the barrel from burning you. Banning a safety feature? Good one California.