New process to buy ammo in California vs the rest of us
- Thread starter Racer88
- Start date
Yes and no. 2A is like an insurance plan.
It's for when things reach a certain point. The empire is careful not to reach that point too hastily as to trigger anything major before they have a chance to disarm enough of us. Sort of like frogs in a pot on the stove raising the temp gradually.
Having the tools and actually having the ability to impliment change are 2 different things. There is no 1 head of a snake to cut off. It's like standing up against the Roman empire or Hitler's Nazi germany.
Last edited:
In Bama you better research a ballot referendum will, as the wording on the ballot leads you to believe one way but that wording is all B/S to get a "fuck the people & allow the FSA to prosper", measure passed.
lol , sorry just happy i don't live in ca to have to put up with that crap . I would say should have read the fine print but , its already too late .
A vote YES is to repeal the initiative you don't want. (Against it)
A vote NO is actually in favor of the initiative. (Against the repeal)
Most people just think to vote NO against the initiative they don't want. But your actually voting yes/no to get rid if it.
A vote NO is actually in favor of the initiative. (Against the repeal)
Most people just think to vote NO against the initiative they don't want. But your actually voting yes/no to get rid if it.
WTF??? Are you fucking retarded, a botched abortion or a product of a brother and sister incest relationship? It has to be one of those things to make such an asinine comment like that.
I filled up yesterday and paid $2.22 p/gal for regular:
https://news.yahoo.com/california-gas-tax-rises-another-153850877.html
If I'm not mistaken Ronnie Barrett did something like that when CA passed their .50BMG ban, kind of said a giant FU to any state types or LE types that wanted to have guns of his that they wouldn't allow the local citizens to have....
Then made similar guns that had different cartridge names that the Civilians could own....
You would think Mexico would open ammo factories to add another product line to their drug division. Drug users need drugs Gun users need ammo, seems like a win win for everyone.
"....shall not be infringed."
Making me pay superfluous fees and making me wait it infringing.
Utter bullshit.
I hope they send mules up north with ammo stuffed in their asses so I can shoot my rifles, wonder what shit and gunpowder smells likes ?
You are delusional if you think another law will stop the lawless.
It was inconvenient with a bullet button.
It was inconvenient with more than 10 rounds.
It was inconvenient if it had a pistol grip.
It was inconvenient if it looked scary and they called it assault.
I'm seeing a pattern.
R
Oh I dont endorse any CA policy in the least because I know this is just a foot in the door to more infringing regs.
However, I do think making it harder for the nefarious to get their hands on ammo is genuinely a good thing so the question remains how would one accomplish this without infringement on the law abiding?
You are past that point slav.e
QUOTE="2aBaCa, post: 7816398, member: 133191"]
Yes and no. 2A is like an insurance plan.
It's for when things reach a certain point. The empire is careful not to reach that point too hastily as to trigger anything major before they have a chance to disarm enough of us. Sort of like frogs in a pot on the stove raising the temp gradually.
Having the tools and actually having the ability to impliment change are 2 different things. There is no 1 head of a snake to cut off. It's like standing up against the Roman empire or Hitler's Nazi germany.
[/QUOTE]
QUOTE="2aBaCa, post: 7816398, member: 133191"]
Yes and no. 2A is like an insurance plan.
It's for when things reach a certain point. The empire is careful not to reach that point too hastily as to trigger anything major before they have a chance to disarm enough of us. Sort of like frogs in a pot on the stove raising the temp gradually.
Having the tools and actually having the ability to impliment change are 2 different things. There is no 1 head of a snake to cut off. It's like standing up against the Roman empire or Hitler's Nazi germany.
[/QUOTE]
What's with the slave name calling?
And what would you do besides run to another state?
An elitist on a gun site that thinks only some people should have guns. Shocker
Shall not be infringed.
You probably support NFA laws too.
Bet the Ca cops that can't find time for property crimes or solving rapes/assaults/murders have plenty of time to enforce this BS
You guys need friends over the border to ship to. I would be careful buying at a gun shop and bringing back. They have been known to catch people doing that with stuff like fireworks etc IIRC
Like eating a elephant.
Or like nice/rats/cockroaches infestation. You might never eradicate them but killing (voting out) everyone you see is a good start.
They haven't really accomplished much in disarmament in the U.S. as a whole. More fudds/ non serious shooters have ARs than at any time I can remember. Silencer sales are soaring. So are 80s. People are stockpiling mags and rifles and "buying more ammo". A lot of us cut our teeth on the AWB and won't be falling for that shit again.
The one thing they are doing is turning everything into a prohibiting offense. The people that have some fire in their belly and might stand up to tyranny are turned into prohibited persons for petty BS stuff. And you have hordes of people on gun boards supporting those laws and looking down on the victims of tyrants.
You've drank the kool aid for to long to realize your "enlightened" stance is part of the problem.
Who gets to decide who is "nefarious".
This is a clue^^^.
The basis of the above idea is how we've lost so much under the guise of "public safety".
Guilty until proven innocent is required to enact these ideas.
Seeing that you willing participate shows they have much more than a foot in the door...
R
The same way you get ne'erdowells like KKK members (or other undesirable elements) to stop spewing their shit without infringing the Free Speech Rights of the good people.... YOU DON'T, and you CAN'T. And, you shouldn't try.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Jump to conclusions? Yeah right. You want to decide who should and should not have guns. Fuck people like that. Elitist freedom killers.
Do forget to donate to CRPA
The California 1989 Assault Weapon ban became the 1994 Clinton AWB
Cancer spreads....
The California 1989 Assault Weapon ban became the 1994 Clinton AWB
Cancer spreads....
let me get this right...
Californians are slaves.
Not wanting convicted criminals, gang members, and such to have unrestricted access to guns and ammo is elitist?
IIRC there are more gun owners in Cali than voted in the last election. Which means that all the FUDD's in Cali need to get off their ass and vote.
I guess I missed where the NRA is taking action on this?
I guess I missed where the NRA is taking action on this?
people impacted the most, as far as i can see, are the ones not already in the system (have not purchased a firearm in the last five years).
unfortunately, this will help the gestapo collect more names of lawful gun owners that they'll use when or if they decide to take them.
#moronlabia
unfortunately, this will help the gestapo collect more names of lawful gun owners that they'll use when or if they decide to take them.
#moronlabia
What's happening in Commiefornia, is the model that is going to happen nation wide, you can count on it. So pay close attention to those ballot boxes and read the fine print. Mac
What's happening in Commiefornia, is the model that is going to happen nation wide, you can count on it. So pay close attention to those ballot boxes and read the fine print. Mac
Exactly... Remember when Oregon was "Orygun", and now 9 of 12 Republican senators have returned, from their protest walkout to the floor, so the Government can conduct business ? Remember when Texas was solid & reliably "red", and then in 2018 the giant douche O'Rourke lost to incumbent Cruz by a mere 2.5%? The Nevada legislature recently voted to join the national popular vote movement, effectively abdictating their sovereign electors to NY and CA, and this was stopped only because the (Democrat) Governor vetoed the bill. Think this cancer that is eating California isn't coming to your state, isn't already there, metastasizing?
Last edited:
There are laws already on the books prohibiting guns from them.
What is ammo going to do if they can't get any guns? Lol
Like Chicago ineffectual to the non law abiding.
R
One of the scary items in a long list of scary items about the CA ammo background check, this background check is NOT the same background check you go through when purchasing a firearm (its not a standard NICS check)
This check is done off some database that California owns/operates and maintains. Good luck getting any due process if the list finds you in violation.
Holy Sheet that is some scary anti freedom actions going on on the left coast, even a bit much for CA
This check is done off some database that California owns/operates and maintains. Good luck getting any due process if the list finds you in violation.
Holy Sheet that is some scary anti freedom actions going on on the left coast, even a bit much for CA
“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry”
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs Arizona, 384, US 436 p. 491.
“Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809.
“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” – Thomas Jefferson
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. – Thomas Jefferson
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.” (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)
Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to local, state, or federal law enforcement or military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens. Every state has a similar law.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs Arizona, 384, US 436 p. 491.
“Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809.
“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” – Thomas Jefferson
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. – Thomas Jefferson
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.” (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)
Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to local, state, or federal law enforcement or military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens. Every state has a similar law.
I agree! Write the GOA and the SAF, get them to help raise money and fight this in the courts, all the way to the USSC. This is flat out contradictive to the 2A!
No offense, but are really you naive enough to think that criminals won’t still be able to get Ammo? I mean even if every state in the union agreed to similar laws, the only people that wouldn’t have Ammo would be the law abiding citizens. Criminals going to do criminal shit and will get it from Mexico or the Canadian side, with ease and make a fortune doing it. If that doesn’t work they can get it through the ports. Stuff is brought in all of the time. Simply put, drugs are illegal, period, end of story, yet people still get them. Hmmmmm...make it harder lol. This is just s small bump in the road for someone really wanting access to something. Not to mention any criminal with half a brain could concoct shit much much worse than anything Ammo could do simply by using materials widely available at any hardware store. You know why they separate pool chemicals an fertilizer?
Not really, unless naivety is the new elitists group!
So are you saying there should be ZERO laws or regulation regarding guns and amunition? ANY PERSONS regardless of criminal history, citizenship, or mental capacity should be free to purchase either without question?
And I'm called a naive elitist for simply asking a question? Who are the real elitists.
yup, if they aint citizens or green card holders they need to be flaming catapult fodder, they dont get rights. But every American and real immigrant does. A right is a right, if you have to ask permission you have lost your rights and need to take action to regain them.
Sure. Why not? If they truly are criminal and want them, they will find a way to acquire them anyways. Again, how long have drugs been illegal? I half want to agree with you and say we should, but no amount of laws is going to deter someone with resolve to carry out their nefarious ways. Or, like I said, they could find something that could potentially be much worse and perfectly legal. Should we do background checks and charge fees and have alphabet agencies involved and waiting periods for everyone that wants to buy some chemicals for their pool and fertilizer for their lawns? I don’t like it, and in a perfect world, it might be a great idea, but we don’t live in a perfect world. If we did, we wouldn’t have criminals.
Let me put it to you another way, I don’t like this scenario either but I’m going to use an example. Let’s take the movie theatre shooting in CO a few years back. I don’t remember all of the specifics but let’s just say in theory, dude comes in exit door and starts shooting up the place. Some patron has the means to fight back but then remembers he only has 2 rounds left in his pistol because of draconian laws, had to wait to get his approval to replace his Ammo he used training two days earlier. Why put him at an even greater risk than he already is? He is already at a disadvantage because of said chaos, location and being outgunned. Now you’ve taken someone that could have made the difference and saved a ton of people but instead, due to stupid laws, made it much more probable that he wind up a statistic.
No, I don’t like the idea of anyone and everyone having access to everything but in the world we live in, I know that no laws are going to change reality. I’d rather the guy have a fighting chance than restrict his ability to change the outcome.
Last edited:
And that's why we can't have nice things.
There is going to be some regulation and since you're stuck at zero you leave it up to someone else to come up with them.
Where do you draw the line? Tanks? Armed fighter jets? Military hardware? Nukes? Anybody can have anything? Street gangs would love you.
Curious, What is your interpretation of "A well regulated militia"?
Do you think they care where we draw the line? And because of that we should just continue to let them chip away until there is nothing left to preserve? Come on man. Ever heard this before? Those that give up a little liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security? Why does everyone that starts down this road of reasoning that you are on go directly to what your exact argument is? It’s almost like it’s in a playbook somewhere. It gets exhausting. I’m going to bed. I’m sure someone else will explain it to you tomorrow.
Oh and before I come back tomorrow, I’m going to go ahead and point out that yes, I’m familiar with the US vs. Miller and DC vs. Heller and so on.
What does “A well regulated militia” mean to you? I can tell you what I think the interpretation of the intent was when the founders put pen to paper based on other works of the authors but I’m guessing your idea of the meaning is different. Good nite.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Training Courses
Fritz Precision Training Course Review
