Prop 63 – California Ammo Law Causing Run on Bullets
Prop 63, a California ammo law passed in 2016, goes into effect on July 1, 2019. Gun store owners have seen a spike in ammunition purchases, some of up to 1000 rounds at a time. Prop 63 contains more than just ammo restrictions.
“People are gearing up for it. They are buying a lot. They don’t like it. It’s just another typical California deterrent to make things tougher for gun owners.” Scott Bodkin, OC GunsFox
“People are starting to stock up. We stocked up on ammunition. Most people know about the deadline. They are running scared. They are pissed off.” Mike Hein, Gun shop ownerFox
Purchasers of ammo in California are required to pass background checks (the universal method of liberals to hassle legal gun owners). Originally the initiative required purchasers of ammunition to obtain a 4 year permit to do so, but they repealed that part and left it at background checks.
Any dealer that wishes to sell ammo must have a one year permit to do so. Every year the permit has to be renewed or face a misdemeanor offense.
The initiative prohibits residents from purchasing ammo out of state unless it is directly sent to a licensed dealer.
California banned large-capacity magazines for most individuals in 2000. Individuals who had large-capacity magazines before 2000 were allowed to keep the magazines. Proposition 63 removed the ownership exemption for pre-2000 owners of large-capacity magazines. The measure provided for charging individuals who do not comply with it with an infraction. The definition in state law and the definition applicable for Proposition 63 says that any magazine that contains more than 10 rounds of ammunition is a large-capacity magazine.
For one week after Judge Benitez’ ruling, California gun owners bought up every large capacity magazine they could find. The court released the injunction temporarily until it could be adjudicated at a higher court level. So it’s still in effect, at least for now.
Prop 63 also put in a court process to keep “prohibited individuals” from possessing firearms. It required courts to send letters to people on the prohibited list to turn in their firearms to local law enforcement, a licensed dealer, or give them to the dealer for “storage.” It also required probation officers to check for guns.
Before you say this kind of law couldn’t be enacted on a national level, remember that earlier this year, Congressional Dems introduced HR 1705 (Jaime’s Law) – a bill requiring background checks for ammunition purchases, and includes verbiage against transferring ammo to “prohibited persons.” It has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, where it currently sits since April. Hopefully it will stay there forever and never be seen again.