Sobriquet
09-11-2009, 12:54 AM
Take action and FORWARD IT ON to anyone and everyone you think will be receptive! This is as serious as it gets and is highly unconstitutional.
Ammunition supplies in California will be severely limited and the ability to purchase self-defense ammo over the Internet (which is the only source now) will be gone. PLEASE take 5 minutes, use the sample letter I have prepared below, and send it to the auto-mailer at the bottom. It will send an email to every member of the California Senate.
BILL DESCRIPTION:
Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.
---
SAMPLE LETTER:
SUBJECT: Vote NO on AB962!
Dear Senator,
I am writing you today over serious concerns I have regarding bill AB962 that is due to come up for vote soon.
As you may or may not be aware this type of bill was passed in 1968 under the name of the Gun Control Act. When it was repealed in 1986, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) testified that ammunition sales logs were not an effective law enforcement tool and accordingly did not oppose removing the onerous record-keeping requirement. Additionally, AB962 is already preempted by Federal Law per the court case of Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association.
So why are we expending precious money and resources into a bill that will:
- Force the State of California to expend funds it does not have to try to enforce this ineffective bill
- Cost taxpayers additional funds when it is inevitably challenged in court under Rowe v. New Hampshire
- Will fail to prevent any firearm-related crime as evidenced by the ATF's position
- Has been rejected in the past when the author has brought this forward for vote
- Will be an unfair burden to many small businesses already having a difficult time being competitive in the marketplace
- Will cause many sportsmen to be unable to enjoy recreational activities and may drive taxpayers out of California
Please vote NO on AB962 Ammo Sales Bill.
Sincerely,
-----
THE AUTO-MAILER:
senate090531@muzzleenergy.com
Ammunition supplies in California will be severely limited and the ability to purchase self-defense ammo over the Internet (which is the only source now) will be gone. PLEASE take 5 minutes, use the sample letter I have prepared below, and send it to the auto-mailer at the bottom. It will send an email to every member of the California Senate.
BILL DESCRIPTION:
Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.
---
SAMPLE LETTER:
SUBJECT: Vote NO on AB962!
Dear Senator,
I am writing you today over serious concerns I have regarding bill AB962 that is due to come up for vote soon.
As you may or may not be aware this type of bill was passed in 1968 under the name of the Gun Control Act. When it was repealed in 1986, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) testified that ammunition sales logs were not an effective law enforcement tool and accordingly did not oppose removing the onerous record-keeping requirement. Additionally, AB962 is already preempted by Federal Law per the court case of Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association.
So why are we expending precious money and resources into a bill that will:
- Force the State of California to expend funds it does not have to try to enforce this ineffective bill
- Cost taxpayers additional funds when it is inevitably challenged in court under Rowe v. New Hampshire
- Will fail to prevent any firearm-related crime as evidenced by the ATF's position
- Has been rejected in the past when the author has brought this forward for vote
- Will be an unfair burden to many small businesses already having a difficult time being competitive in the marketplace
- Will cause many sportsmen to be unable to enjoy recreational activities and may drive taxpayers out of California
Please vote NO on AB962 Ammo Sales Bill.
Sincerely,
-----
THE AUTO-MAILER:
senate090531@muzzleenergy.com