Posted on 03/19/2008 9:19:29 PM PDT by Califreak
Next Wednesday, March 25, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will consider legislation that would require gun owners to obtain a “permit-to-purchase” before buying handgun ammunition.
Introduced by State Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), Assembly Bill 2062 puts ammunition sales in the crosshairs. AB2062 would require that law-abiding gun owners obtain a permit to buy handgun ammunition and would impose severe restrictions on the private transfers of handgun ammunition. Applicants for a “permit-to-purchase” would be required to submit to a background check, pay a $35 fee, and wait as long as 30 days to receive the permit.
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org:80 ...
Oh goody! A new CA public employee category. I can't wait to apply. $100k per annum after 20 years plus overtime. Retire with 20 years sick leave and vacation time ($300k cash at retirement) at 95% base. Sign me up.
Besides how hard is it to smile politely and say "nope don't have any".
This is a perfect example of turning law-abiding citizens into 'criminals', while the real criminals keep on using their illegally procured weapons and munitions. The California Assembly is filled with either the most ignorant legislators in the country or they really do have diabolical designs.
“Fear the government that fears its citiens armed.”
And so it begins.
One of my inventions (now patented) involved soldering metal spheres in a specific pattern on the back of a PWB to enhance thermal transfer. While building the prototypes for testing, I called my wife and asked her to pick up some raw materials (BBs) for me on her way home from work.
The clerk at first refused to sell her BBs (copper-plated iron balls) because she didn't have a FID Card. He changed his tune in a hurry when she pulled out her "For All Lawful Purposes" CCW license, and asked, "Will this do?"
LOL!!
Yes, you numb nut politicians, law-abiding citizens are the problem. Just like your personal armed security guards are, and your police escorts, your sheriffs, your FBI agents, and your armed servicemen are.
They will never admit honest law abiding gun owners are not the problem. Law-abiding gun owners are not the ones committing gun crimes. These politicians are insane.
If you and they were in a room and a gun-carrying criminal burst in and threatened to shoot them, and you had your gun, what would they want you to do? Most would say if they were honest, to friggin’ shoot the criminal. A few would say, well I guess It’d be my time to die. They’d rather have you unable to help them than allow you to carry a gun and have a chance to save them.
ping
Haven't been from Reno to Truckee lately, have you? They tore down the original and built a new one last year. All traffic lanes (including autos) on I80 go through it. It's beautiful and larger. My guess is it cost >$15 million.
And will result in the biggest black market in ammo sales ever seen in this country. My guess is those promoting this legislation have ties with the Mexican underground who will be funneling proceeds the candidate's way to further their careers.
Any politico that can be connected to the Mexican Mafia and the money's generated via this legislation should be taken to the front gates of the California Exposition and executed by firing squad- live on TV.
Just like border checks, the ag checks are seldom open.
Even when they were open when was the last time you had one do more than talk through the window at you?
Well, they peple could just start building their own coil guns. Lots of plans out there. Most parts available at Lowes and Radio Shack.
Implicit in this is that all ammo sales are going to be recorded. So when it’s time to confiscate your firearms, all they’ll have to do is see who’s buying ammo.
How many vendors are going to bother with all of that?
Cool! Maybe I can setup a little farm stand on the side of the road that sells ammo and smokes.
I was close:
0670103 Department of Food & Agriculture 13,906,598.00
SPWB Lease Revenue Bonds
Truckee Inspection Station –
Relocate Truckee Inspection Facility
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/pmib-agenda/20070221.pdf
>Implicit in this is that all ammo sales are going to be recorded. So when it’s time to confiscate your firearms, all they’ll have to do is see who’s buying ammo.<
Maybe way more information than they already have with registration and such.
Have I been asleep for a while or is the move to disarm America increasing exponentially?
It’s like they finally know they went too far and are desperate to disarm us before we can enact the armed rebellion they have been begging for.
I’m not inciting a rebellion here, I’m just sayin...
You have a great point, this ammo tax would be a specific squashing of a specific Constitutional right, it would impose taxes upon the base material requirement to exercise a Constitutional right, the law is legislated specifically to censor Constitutional rights. Try this “Differential treatment of the gun powder industry, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the Second Amendment that such treatment cannot be countenanced unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation.” California will have to justify this tax within an extremely narrow compelling interest argument.
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/575/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/575/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm’r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v.
Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue
No. 81-1839
Argued January 12, 1983
Decided March 29, 1983
460 U.S. 575
Syllabus
While exempting periodic publications from its general sales and use tax, Minnesota imposes a “use tax” on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in the production of such a publication, but exempts the first 0,000 worth of paper and ink consumed in any calendar year. Appellant newspaper publisher brought an action seeking a refund of the ink and paper use taxes it had paid during certain years, contending that the tax violates, inter alia, the guarantee of the freedom of the press in the First Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the tax.
Held: The tax in question violates the First Amendment. P P. 579-593.
(a) There is no legislative history, and no indication, apart from the structure of the tax itself, of any impermissible or censorial motive on the part of the Minnesota Legislature in enacting the tax. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, distinguished. Pp. 579-580.
(b) But by creating the special use tax, which is without parallel in the State’s tax scheme, Minnesota has singled out the press for special treatment. When a State so singles out the press, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from imposing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, thus undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government. Moreover, differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such goal is presumptively unconstitutional. Differential treatment of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment that such treatment cannot be countenanced unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation. P P. 581-585.
(c) Minnesota has offered no adequate justification for the special treatment of newspapers. Its interest in raising revenue, standing alone, cannot justify such treatment, for the alternative means of taxing businesses generally is clearly available. And the State has offered no explanation of why it chose to use a substitute for the sales tax, rather
Page 460 U. S. 576
than the sales tax itself. A rule that would automatically allow the State to single out the press for a different method of taxation as long as the effective burden is no different from that on other taxpayers or, as Minnesota asserts here, is lighter than that on other businesses, is to be avoided. The possibility of error inherent in such a rule poses too great a threat to concerns at the heart of the First Amendment. P P. 586-590.
(d) Minnesota’s ink and paper tax violates the First Amendment not only because it singles out the press, but also because it targets a small group of newspapers. The effect of the 0,000 exemption is that only a handful of publishers in the State pay any tax at all, and even fewer pay any significant amount of tax. To recognize a power in the State not only to single out the press, but also to tailor the tax so that it singles out a few members of the press, presents such a potential for abuse that no interest suggested by Minnesota can justify the scheme. P P. 591-592.
314 N.W.2d 201, reversed.
O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, in Part V of which WHITE, J., joined, and in all but footnote 12 of which BLACKMUN, J., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, P. 593. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, P. 596.
They don’t need our help. I’m sure they are all covered.
Even DiFi has a CCW permit!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.