L.A. Council Tightens Gun, Ammunition Laws

The Los Angeles Times ^ | December 18, 2008 | Maeve Reston

[dbz77]

L.A. council tightens gun, ammunition laws The move is intended to help reduce the city's gun and gang violence, but an NRA lawyer says a lawsuit is likely. By Maeve Reston December 18, 2008 The Los Angeles City Council approved a package of gun control laws Wednesday, placing new requirements on ammunition sellers and banning the sale of military-style ammunition in the hopes of further reducing the city's gun and gang violence.

The measures ban the sale of .50-caliber ammunition, capable of penetrating a car's engine, and would require the city's ammunition vendors to be licensed, to sell ammunition face-to-face instead of over the Internet and require gun dealers to report a full accounting of their inventory twice a year to the Police Department.

The council passed laws prohibiting the installation of secret compartments for guns in cars and allowing the city to permanently seize vehicles used by certain gang members during a crime, which was proposed by City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo.

[dbz77]

"We use this to stop a vehicle," Bratton said, holding up a .50-caliber bullet longer and thicker than a finger. "Unless you are out trying to kill Godzilla, and I think the last time we saw Godzilla was in the 1950s, there is no need for this type of weapon" unless it is in the hands of the military or law enforcement, he said.

The police use .50 caliber ammunition to stop vehicles.

Whom do criminals attack more, police or non-police?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Question: When was the last time you saw a gang-banger walking into a legitimate gunshop and buy ammunition?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

"We use this to stop a vehicle," Bratton said, holding up a .50-caliber bullet longer and thicker than a finger. "Unless you are out trying to kill Godzilla, and I think the last time we saw Godzilla was in the 1950s, there is no need for this type of weapon" unless it is in the hands of the military or law enforcement, he said.

No bubba, that's for US to decide, not you.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I own a .50 rifle. Don’t know if it would crack and engine block tho...

[CodeToad]

The second amendment is to kill them, not Bambi. When the cops are no longer afraid of us they will attack us. That is the history of all governments.

[gc4nra]

When was the last time you saw a gang-banger use a .50cal to rob a liquor store?

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

Lemme know when you find out.....

;-)

[piytar]

Yes, it would. So would a .44mag, and maybe even a .357mag. As would a deer slug or a 30-06.

[RandyGH]

And when is a compartment in a car “secret?” Do the words “unconstitutionally vague” mean anything?

[WayneS]

The move is intended to help reduce the city's gun and gang violence...

Let's "break out" THAT broken record again!

NO. The new law IS intended to make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the criminal element, and thus to become more dependent on the State and the police. There IS no other explanation. The lawmakers HAVE the data, they HAVE the statistics, and they STILL keep "tightening" gun laws. Their disingenuousness becomes more obvious (I hope) to everyone with every new statute.

[dbz77]

Question: When was the last time you saw a gang-banger walking into a legitimate gunshop and buy ammunition?

Around the time I saw a gangbanger walk into Walgreens to buy a a few grams of cocaine.

[pabianice]

This POS rag is already dead. What a "formidable force in journalism!" LOL!

[WayneS]

Muzzle-loader?

[Try_Freedom]

"unless it is in the hands of the military or law enforcement, he said."

That just makes my blood boil.

"The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America” – but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now." --Ron Paul

[JamesP81]

The second amendment is to kill them, not Bambi.

This is the gigantic politically incorrect elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. We don't have the 2A so we can hunt to feed ourselves. The Founding Fathers put the 2A in the Constitution so that we can shoot cops and soldiers if they follow government orders to deprive the people of their liberties.

And yes, I know how that sounds. But that really is the reason the 2A was drafted.

[TonyStark]

The second amendment is to kill them, not Bambi. When the cops are no longer afraid of us they will attack us. That is the history of all governments.

Bingo.

This has nothing to do with "controlling crime". It has everything to do with reducing availability to long-range civilian anti-personnel capability (ie sniper tools) which might come into play during "civil insurrection" (rebellion against corrupt and/or invalid government agencies).

[Eye of Unk]

There may be a ban on the 50BMG but you can get "elephant" guns at any high end sporting goods store. Those these may lack the long range of a military round they most definitely will penetrate engine blocks. Sorry if the image is too big, I use a widescreen monitor.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

www.quackenbushairguns.com
its .495 ball in a rifled bbl., 850 fps @ 3000psi.

[Jaxter]

I can only speak for myself but I wouldn’t want to be killed by anything larger than a .308.

[Las Vegas Ron]

....make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the criminal element...

Police and government is more like it.