How long before this is challenged for violating the intent of Heller?
Not sure that Heller would apply actually.
To me it’s more of a 4th Amendment issue really and tangentially violates the 2nd. There is no overriding or overwhelming public good accomplished by this invasion of our rights.
Particularly disturbing is the precondition applied to a protected right and the fact they revenues will be used to fund even more intrusions on our rights.
I also see a basic violation of civil rights since the law makes it illegal to sell ammunition to someone from out of state as well as a clear violation of The Interstate Commerce Clause".
Yet another reason not to live in the land of fruits, flakes and nuts… come to Texas where we still respect the 2nd.
Enjoy that while it lasts. Your state is being flooded with Californians and illegals.
We’re working on the illegals and the Californians moving here are fleeing CA because it’s become a high tax, burdensome regulation, and anti Conservative shit hole overrun with illegals and poverty they invite instead of trying to get rid of.
We’ll be OK.
Gun stores in Nevada are going to make a killing (no pun intended) on this one.
They will but I believe at great risk as I think CA also bans bringing ammo into the state bought from out of state retailers under the same statute making it a felony to do so.
If not, it won’t be long.
This exactly why the Commerce Clause was written.
Except so far it’s never been applied to such purchases.
It would only apply as per most rulings/interpretations really to wholesale shipments of lawful items to be possessed in each of the states.
That needs to change for sure and just maybe it could be one of the things that will change in the next six years given enough opportunities for Trump court appointments but it’s going to be a long road trying to claw back from a hundred plus years of decisions to the contrary dating all the way back to WWI and before.
Unless they plan to set up border checkpoints and stop and search all incoming vehicles, it’s unenforceable. There is no way to tell the difference between ammunition that was stockpiled before the law went into effect and ammo purchased out of state later.
And the law against importing marijuana from out of state has been about as effective as the laws against bringing in cocane and heroin. Unless the build a wall around California (which I support, if it is meant to keep them in) and guard the gates heavily, whatever there is a demand for there, will come in.
They’re trying but they’ve got a long way to go. Beto outspent Cruz almost 2 to 1 and still lost. Normally that’s a game changer in a mid-term election. Not sure who the hell voted for that moron either… what a dipshit.
This is CA, where roadside DUI checks began and has the most onerous DOT reg’s in the nation along with the largest enforcement capabilities.
Count on it.
They’ll also have spotters at border area gun/ammo retailers just like they did when they first started their draconian gun laws.
Over 2:1 considerably from the figures I’ve seen. Cruz was just below 34m while Beto was around 75m if I remember right. Blew the doors off of any prior Senate race in the state by more than double.
Think it ended up $47 to $78 or something… but all of the out of state money was the issue. Should be disallowed. Don’t live in the district or state? Keep your damn money out of our race.
Law abiding citizens will have no trouble purchasing ammo. Only people who can’t pass a background check need be concerned, while the rest can be glad that there’s another way to limit the ability of criminals and those of shady character to easily commit firearms crimes.
So you’re ok to put rights on hold so you can prove you deserve them? So how about voting? Can we require a background check to prove you’re eligible to vote? How about the freedom of speech? How about going to church?
What an absolutely pathetic argument. I can make my own ammo, I don’t need a damn store. I can drive across the border to buy rounds. This crap that if you have nothing to hide you should be fine with a violation of your 4th Amendment needs to quit. It was nonsense when Republicans tried it after 9/11 and it’s nonsense today.
Here’s the deal. You PROVE to me that I have done something to lose my rights or you respect those rights. That’s the law of the land and there is no negotiation to be had. I and millions like me will bypass whatever nonsense regulations you put on us regarding our rights. If you require a registry, I’ll refuse to comply. If you ban the AR, I’ll still own at least three. If you require background checks for ammo purchases, I’ll just reload my own and/or buy out of state.
None of those issues can lead to mass shootings and dead innocent Americans. So yes, background checks for both fire arms and ammunition is prudent. Again, unless you’re an individual of shady/criminal character, you have no worries.
Well, that’s the intent of a background check after all, isn’t it.
Heck, liberals don’t even want to be required to show an ID in order to vote.
The free speech and the ballot are far more dangerous than the bullet.