Schwarzenegger Delivers Huge Victory for Gun Control Advocates
Last week, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that requires handgun ammunition to be treated by retailers in much the same way that cigarettes, some cold medicines and even spray paint are treated.As already shown in some California cities, this common sense measure will go a long way toward keeping ammunition away from gang members and felons in California, and provide law enforcement crucial leads to track down and apprehend armed criminals.
Getting this bill passed was the top priority of our California Brady Campaign Chapters this year, and was the result of tireless advocacy by our activists and allies alongside the bill’s sponsor, Assembly Member Kevin DeLeon of Los Angeles.
Watch the signing ceremony here:
What does this new California law do? It requires handgun ammunition vendors to record identifying information of ammunition buyers, including their names from a state-issued ID, a thumbprint and a signature. In addition, vendors will also have to record information about the type and amount of ammunition purchased or transferred. These records are to be maintained by the vendor for at least five years and must be made available to law enforcement.
Similar measures have been tested in California cities, and they work.
For example, Sacramento already has a similar law in effect. From January 16, 2008 to August 31, 2009, Sacramento police used their ordinance to find 229 prohibited people – including gang members – who had illegally purchased ammunition. Of those, 173 had previous felony convictions. After police matched ammunition purchase records to the California prohibited persons file, the Sacramento District Attorney was able to charge 181 illegal ammunition purchasers with felonies.
As a result of these investigations, 160 illegal firearms were seized from these prohibited purchasers, as well as cash, drugs, and even explosive devices. Beyond the immediate benefits of catching illegal ammunition buyers, this ordinance actually helped Sacramento law enforcement discover and punish other unlawful behavior.
The Governor cited these local ordinances, and the success they demonstrated, in explaining why he signed the current bill after having vetoed a similar measure a few years back. If other states would show some confidence in letting local communities try different measures like this – instead of pre-empting local efforts to prevent gun violence – maybe we would learn of other successful strategies to make us all safer.
The new law signed by Governor Schwarzenegger had the strong support of law enforcement officials from across California, and the Brady Campaign was proud to join them.
By adopting a common sense policy to give law enforcement powerful tools to disarm felons and gang members in possession of illegal guns and bullets, the state of California has once again set an example for the rest of the country to follow.
Other states should note what California has done here, and consider similar measures.












Schwarzenegger Delivers Huge Victory for Gun Control Advocates
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I wonder
I wonder if Paul Helmke has to give a thumb print to buy his stupid pills. This is a B.S. invasion of privacy.
- LagerHead
October 22, 2009 2:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I disagree
Requiring people to register their bullets and report usage would be an invasion of privacy, this is sound regulation designed to catch those who don't have the right to own firearms , i.e. they don't have 2nd ammendment rights. If you still have your second ammendment rights, then this policy will not harm you.
Your complaint is equivocal to complaining that the security measures at airports are unconstitutional violations of 4th Ammendment rights.
I don't ave to show ID to buy gas, but gas isn't a weapon(usually).
Unfortunately for gun control opponents, gun control laws are the necessary trade-off to allowing gun ownership as a right you're born into, instead of a right you have to earn.
Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people. Until that stops, it's wrong to complain that you have to identify yourself to buy a lethal weapon.
- Rice klowN
October 22, 2009 2:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I too, disagree.
A bullet is not a lethal weapon. And providing thumb prints, as far as I know, has solved almost no crimes. That's why they stopped requiring them for gun purchases in Tennessee.
And for the record, the fact that you have provide that info to buy spray paint, and fill out a form to buy a legal over the counter drug - sudafed - is equally asinine. The Nanny State is not the way I want to go.
- LagerHead
October 22, 2009 2:46PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hurray Nanny State!
Ha, I kid! I agree with your sentiments on the nanny state and filling out forms for over the counter stuff, but this is not even close to the same thing.
"A bullet is not a lethal weapon."
Interesting... Then please enlighten me as to which part of a loaded firearm would you consider to be the "lethal weapon"?
I don't think it would even require much thought to make the case that the bullet is THE lethal weapon. The "gun" is only the device we use to control the bullet and the bullet requires no "gun" to arm it or fire it. I could argue that the cartridges bullet is a self contained lethal weapon requiring nothing more than a swift impact at one end to use it.
My point is that if the bullet is not a lethal weapon, than an unloaded firearm, which is the legal arrangement a "gun" is purchased in, is most definitely not a firearm. Your reasoning would lead to the argument that "lethal weapon" cannot be attributed to anything short of a loaded gun. (leaving all other weapon types out of the argument, like knives and clubs)
Is it the ammunition, the control device, or the combined assembly that should be considered a lethal weapon?
I argue that it is all of the above.
I yield my time to my honorable opponent, Mr(s). Lagerhead
- Rice klowN
October 22, 2009 3:31PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Doh!
"most definitely not a firearm."
is supposed to be:
"most definitely not a lethal weapon."
- Rice klowN
October 22, 2009 3:32PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I sit corrected.
Then we should remove all registration and purchase restrictions for guns and only register when we buy bullets . Of course when that happens, I will start reloading my own.
- LagerHead
October 22, 2009 3:34PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well
I wonder how many Gun Rights Advocates would actually support removing all purchasing restrictions from guns ... I bet the NRA or GOA wouldn't even support that one
- Rice klowN
October 22, 2009 4:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Brass v. steel.
The bullet is the projectile, its casing and the propellant/primer.
Whacking the primer will not make a deadly weapon, but you can get burned/go blind as the unsupported brass splits and expels the hot gases in some random direction.
Without the chamber to support the casing of the bullet, a bullet is not a usable weapon by any stretch of the imagination.
You asked-
"Is it the ammunition, the control device, or the combined assembly that should be considered a lethal weapon?"
I contend that the combined assembly is the lethal weapon.
- SolarSanitizer
October 22, 2009 6:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Terrible Law,
Which undermines the privacy consumers are entitled to. Keep the repeat offenders off the streets, search out violent criminals, and prevent them from obtaining illegal weapons.
If they have a weapon they will always find bullets .
Speaking of illegal weapons, California law is somewhat sketchy with their laws. If they say they've confiscated " drugs , cash, and explosives" with these measures in Sacramento, how many of the firearms were in fact perfectly legal weapons in other States?
As an example: In Florida you can have JHP loaded and chambered in a gun which resides in your glove-box whereas in New Jersey just one JHP, even in your trunk, without a gun, will send you to jail. It doesn't mean that the person who is sent to jail is a criminal, only that they were arrested and convicted by a Nanny State which commands: "Don't play with these, they are bad for you."
It will take some time but Gun Control Advocates will soon realize that the crime won't stop, just that the criminal behavior will adapt. You don't think criminals have relatives or accomplices without records who will buy the ammunition for them? Once a legal, non-felon purchases the ammo, what SYSTEM or DATABASE exists to trace the bullets used in a crime back to the cartridges that were bought by a legal citizen with no record?
Don't think it won't happen? I highly suggest this read about HOW CRIMINALS TRAIN. http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary/comm_cop_killers.asp
- m46607
October 22, 2009 2:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So
Are you saying: Police the criminals, ignore the weapons?
I'm sorry but Gun Rights Advocates are going to have to realize that we aren't taking about aspirin here. I laugh in terror when I read opinions of Gun Rights Advicates that pretend that gun control is more dangerous to our "human rights than criminals owning guns .
Your opinion reads like a pro-pot defense, but converted to support lethal weapons.
- Rice klowN
October 22, 2009 4:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sooo?
I'm pro-pot as well. I'm all for People being treated as adults both in what they are allowed to do responsibly and punished for what they achieve in moments of irresponsibility. How is that not fair?
You don't punish weapons. You punish individuals.
Police and shooters agree that marksmanship is a perishable skill. By making it more difficult to acquire ammunition, law -abiding citizens and LEO's alike will find laws like this one to be a nuisance whereas criminals will find alternative routes to circumvent this new law. I think you've under-estimated how clever criminals can be.
- m46607
October 22, 2009 5:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Too bad
We all know I'm pro-pot, but my point was that you arguments sound like you're defending some benign substance like pot, instead of lethal weapons.
I think you've over-estimated how smart many criminals really are:
"Sacramento police used their ordinance to find 229 prohibited people – including gang members – who had illegally purchased ammunition. Of those, 173 had previous felony convictions."
That's in only one city. A few Americans have kept their lives today because of these laws, so I have no problem supporting this "nuisance"
- Rice klowN
October 23, 2009 5:35AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
THIS LAW IS STUPID
WOW,Sac PD stoped 229 for buy ammo so why about the other 5000 gamg bangers they haven't caught.There is still killing in sac town so there law is not working.As for some one to tell me how much ammo I can buy is just plain bull.The goverment tryed this over 20yrs ago and it did not stop or lower crime .The only thing that becomes of this law is california losing a couple of millions of dollars in tax money .We will be all heading to NV,AZ,OR to give they the extra tax money instead of CA.
- BREAKOUT45
October 23, 2009 11:24AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
See Ya!
Tell me, do aim for a record when you use that many non-sequitors per paragraph?
One law requiring logged IDs for ammunition didn't completely eliminate murder in the city and didn't nab every "gang banger" in the city... So the law is "stupid" and "isn't working"? Even though it just so happened to catch a couple hundred felonies (ya! Felons possessing guns is a serious felony!)? I'd say the law worked quite well in nabbing several hundred serious criminal offenses that would have gone completely unnoticed until the weapons were used in the act of an even worse act of actual violence against another American citizen.
Why is it perfectly ok with you people to demand the ability for anyone to buy guns and ammunition without any ID or permits? Is your desire to do whatever you want worth the cost of thousands of lives? Do you people just ignore the fact that were the most murderous western civilization on the planet because people like you don't want to show ID to buy any kind of firepower you want?!
Geez! We're not talking about losing your privilege to own or use guns! We are talking about taking steps to make it harder for criminals to get the weapons they kill people with and all you care about is what a horrible "nuisance" it is or whether the guv'mnt can find out if you bought a few rounds of ammunition in the last 5 years!
You go ahead to some other state... Or stay right were you are, it doesn't matter. People like you will always be offended at the laws of any state that has even the slightest feeling of "being watched" you can imagine in your head. But that's all it is: just in your head!
The 2nd ammendment isn't going anywhere, but asking for some ID is as "infringing" on your rights as having to register to be a lobbyist!
I'm not saying it isn't important to be vigilant in watching out for a REAL encroachment on your rights, but getting all hyperbolic about an ID check for bullets is actually what is STUPID!
Unless of course you feel felon and those who otherwise lose their 2nd ammendment rights should regain those rights?!
- Rice klowN
October 23, 2009 12:34PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think non-violent felons
Should keep their 2nd amendment rights. They are not known to have a propensity to violence.
I also challenge you suggestion:
"Do you people just ignore the fact that were the most murderous western civilization on the planet because don't want to show ID to buy any kind of firepower you want?!"
Prove that we are the most murderous western civilization because 'people like you don't want to show ID to buy any kind of firepower you want.' I call shenanigans.
- SolarSanitizer
October 23, 2009 1:50PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
THIS LAW IS STUPID
Even the AG and OVER 15 LAW Enforcement is against it , guess they mite be stupid because they are against this law too.If you think this is going to stop felons from getting gun and ammo you been driking to much kool aid that the antigun poeple been handing out.California will lose millions of tax dollars because of this law plus lose a couple of business too.If you think that this law will make a diffenerts in crime in CA your living in a make beleive world.
- BREAKOUT45
October 23, 2009 4:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What part of "shall not infringe" don't you understand?
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Out one side of your mouth you disapprove of criminals, and out the other, you support criminal acts committed by government on your behalf. In my book , that makes you the same kind of low life scofflaw of which you complain. Your view is you should not have to abide by the law if you disagree with it. That is the view of criminals. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. In no uncertain terms, it lays out those acts government is forever and unconditionally prohibited from doing.
infringe: To transgress or trespass on rights or privileges; enchroach on.
My right to keep and bear a dozen eggs is not constitutionally protected, yet it is not infringed. I do not need to obtain a license to keep and bear eggs. I do not have to provide identification to keep and bear eggs. I do not need to be finger printed to keep and bear eggs. I do not have to wait ten days to keep and bear eggs. I do not have to register my egg purchases with the government to keep and bear eggs. I do not have to have my name automatically included as a possible suspect any time there is an egg related crime . I do not risk having my eggs seized while transporting them in my car. I'm probably missing a few other examples as to how my right to keep and bear eggs has not been infringed, but the above should at least hit some of the high points.
You sir, are an aider and abettor of criminals and a supporter of criminal acts. The reason Americans are specifically and unconditionally guaranteed an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is so that we may protect ourselves against criminals exactly of your sort.
- Don Earl
October 22, 2009 7:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Um. suuuure
Bring it on Don! Then cry me a river!
Your "right" to own firearms is not infringed by leaving your name, address, and fingerprint at the gun shop when you buy bullets . I leave that much information cashing a check and it's never stopped me before.
I support Gun Control because guns are deadly weapons YOU HYPOCRITE. You can't even realize that real criminals kill people with those toys you love so much... you're desire not to be nuisanced when buying your toys is actually YOU defending criminals because you want all firearms laws repealed so you can play and criminals have to jump through as fews hoops as possible to obtain weapons. And no, I have no problem making criminals lives more difficult.
As I posted above:
"Sacramento police used their ordinance to find 229 prohibited people – including gang members – who had illegally purchased ammunition. Of those, 173 had previous felony convictions."
I'm convinced of the legality and soundness of this law . I'm not a hypocrite or a supporter of criminals with my support of this law, I am very interested in stopping felons from getting guns.
- Rice klowN
October 23, 2009 5:43AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How will this work?
"Sacramento police used their ordinance to find 229 prohibited people – including gang members – who had illegally purchased ammunition. Of those, 173 had previous felony convictions."
Doesn't the state law only require sellers to take the information and file it for 5 years? If that is true, how does one logically compare it to some Sacramento law that is obviously quite different? If someone in the government is receiving a copy of each sale and then running a background check then where is California getting the money for that huge expansion of government? You're talking possibly millions of individual sales on an annual basis.
I'm curious, since you used the Sacramento quote, if only 173 were felons then what were the other 56 people? It must be significant otherwise why would they be included?
- bandofotters October 23, 2009 10:42AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let see here
"Doesn't the state law only require sellers to take the information and file it for 5 years? If that is true, how does one logically compare it to some Sacramento law that is obviously quite different?"
how are the laws so different?
Some hypothetical reasons for keeping the records that I can think of include:
1) post- crime forensics
2) limited resources and personel may delay felon database comparison checks
3) keeps the irrelevant records out of government offices... You know... So big brother can't just start targeting people to take away their guns !
"If someone in the government is receiving a copy of each sale and then running a background check then where is California getting the money for that huge expansion of government?"
Aaahh, but is that what is happening? Government getting a copy of each reciept? I didn't read that anywhere.
"I'm curious, since you used the Sacramento quote, if only 173 were felons then what were the other 56 people?"
oh I dunno... Dishonorable dischargees can't buy firearms I hear. I'm sure there are other cercumstancea where it might be possible to not own a firearm without a felony. I'm sure the Patriot Act probably added a few ways to the list.
Your questions do have answers, but you have to think deeper than that.
- Rice klowN
October 23, 2009 12:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How Deep?
Time for you to dig deeper as I just did. Did you know (I'm quoting another news source, Tell me if it is a lie):
*******************
The millions of dollars needed to set up the electronic transmission of information to local police departments and the California Department of Justice was cut out of the bill because of budget constraints. Law enforcement officers who would normally be chasing crooks will have to physically visit each dealer and inspect registers to see if they recognize a prohibited person.
The federal government tried a similar national ammo registration scheme under the 1968 U.S. Gun Control Act. After 18 years, millions of registrations and not one crime being solved, Congress dropped the program in 1986 because federal law enforcement officials testified that the program served no crime fighting purpose and only burdened law-abiding vendors and consumers.
*******************
If my questions had answers I would have thought that someone who supports the law would have them, not hypotheticals.
The law was implemented without the means of enforcing its intent? That makes it virtually uninforceable without increases in staffing, laptops, WIFI.
I have yet to find any mention of this law explicitly prohibiting anyone from buying ammunition but it must. It sounds like the only crime committed by the 173 people in Sacramento was in violating their new law.
Thank God that California couldn't afford to waste the time and money of setting up a computer system. The governor got off cheap making people feel good over nothing.
By the way, when I begin a sentence with "If", you do know what that means, correct?
- bandofotters October 23, 2009 2:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your position is easy to recognize
Thomas Jefferson said:
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government ."
Adolf Hitler said:
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
It's also interesting to note Arnold's daddy was a Nazi:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-08-24-arnold-father_x.htm
Hitler loves ya buddy. We all know where you're coming from.
- Don Earl
October 23, 2009 2:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Has Glenn Beck made you stupid?
Let me ask you something, if Hilter said something does that make the idea wrong? (Hint: If you said Yes, you are wrong)
look up Godwins Law, please.
Funny how you have to resort to Hitler comparisons to make my position look bad.
Good Gun Control is common in more civilized societies than ours or Hitlers.
- Rice klowN
October 23, 2009 4:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sorry about the Hitler comment
You're obviously one of his biggest fans and it was not courteous of me to make snide remarks about your hero. I guess those of us who own guns will just have to stay vigilant and do the best we can against the neo Nazi types such as yourself.
- Don Earl
October 23, 2009 6:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One thing.
"I leave that much information cashing a check and it's never stopped me before. "
But nobody ever told you could only cash one check per day, did they? If they had, your "right" to cash a check (which is not a right, but privilege, but that's another point) would be INFRINGED.
Limiting the amount of ammo that can be purchased is just one step in Brady's campaign to completely disarm Americans , period. They have stated in no uncertain terms that they will not stop short of that end goal.
- LagerHead
October 26, 2009 2:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm sorry?
But I'm not aware of this bill including per dorm restrictions. Does it have time limitations? If not, your argument sounds like a straw man, but for you I give the benefit of the doubt. Please explain.
However, you should be smarter than to assume that because I support this effort, that I support the end goals of the Brady Campaign. I don't care if THEY want to completely disarm every American (although you're wrong), I don't want to disarm all Americans , I want to disarm criminals and improve the law enforcement of firearms . I'm more liberal than the NRA, and I think the GOA is an anarchist loony bin, but I'm not joining one extreme position just because I oppose the other extreme position.
- Rice klowN
October 26, 2009 3:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Frackin spell check!
Per dorm = per diem
- Rice klowN
October 26, 2009 3:45PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This guy really gets on my nerves
I can't believe the idiotic things this guy in California does. He's totally incompetent and besides bankrupting an entire state, he treats it's citizens like subjects. Between him and Bloomberg, I feel like we're in a dictatorship instead of a constitutional republic !
- gjdagis
October 22, 2009 10:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hurrah for California
Glad this passed. Now all the liberals in this God forsaken State will feel more safe as their gun related crime deaths soar. The same for Illinois. Before we know it, ALL the bleeding-heart liberals will have been killed by all the criminals who don't pay any attention to any of their worthless gun control laws. All we have to do is sit back and wait. Their worthless ideas will eliminate them from society and we can then go back to following the COnstitution and Bill of Rights the way they are written.
- Otter
October 23, 2009 7:42AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't forget that they also abort
As many of their kids as possible.
- SolarSanitizer
October 23, 2009 1:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.