Lawmakers in California are ringing in the new year with a war on ammo.
As of January 1st, all ammunition sales in the state of California must be conducted by or processed through licensed vendors. “Sales of ammunition by unlicensed individuals must be processed through a licensed ammunition vendor, in a manner similar to private party firearms transactions,” reads Proposition 63.
For residents who purchase ammo online, that means paying extra fees to have the purchase shipped to a licensed dealer. This change will cause an almost instantaneous increase in the price of ammunition. A second law slated for January 2019 will require a point-of-sale background check and additional fees for ammunition purchases. This will drive prices even higher.
Proposition 63 also requires criminals to surrender their guns when convicted of a serious crime and prohibits Californians from adding a bullet button accessory to an unregistered AR-15.
A bullet button is a small mod used to quickly release exhausted magazines from semiautomatic rifles. This feature keeps AR-15s just within the bounds of California law, which prohibits AR-15s with magazines that can’t be removed without the aid of a tool.
These rules are all part of Proposition 63, which was written by Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The proposition, which was approved last November, will add to California’s already strict gun control laws, which require buyers to obtain a state-issued firearm safety permit and pass a background check before buying. After waiting 10 days to receive the firearm, a buyer then has to register that firearm with the state.
Due to California’s “good cause” requirement, it is nearly impossible to obtain a concealed carry permit in some areas. Take Los Angeles County, for example, where there are just 197 active concealed carry permits amid a population of more than 10 million.
Author’s Note: It seems the state of California is bound and determined to restrict guns, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that such controls are unconstitutional (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008).