TexasCHLforum.com

$50 per purchase.

Lawsuits to be filed in the morning.

I almost don't feel sorry for Cali anymore. They have got what they deserve from voting in these idiots.

did you read the corrections at the bottom of it?
not that it really matters its still just as bad

nightmare69 wrote:I almost don't feel sorry for Cali anymore. They have got what they deserve from voting in these idiots.

I feel the same way with the exception of the word almost. They have it coming...

krieghoff wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:I almost don't feel sorry for Cali anymore. They have got what they deserve from voting in these idiots.

I feel the same way with the exception of the word almost. They have it coming...

I don't know for sure. Part of me says that if the elections are for real, then absolutely everyone in the State deserves everything that happens. But I believe that machine politics exists in LA and San Fran. Maybe it isn't to the extent that I believe it exists in NY and Chicago but I'm not sure that there has been a "one person, one vote" setup for a long time. To the extent that the city populations over-rule the rural masses, I have to feel sorry, at least partially, for the suburbanites.

It would be interesting to understand how many of the people voting in CA are not legally entitled to do so.

I hope someone has the "intestinal fortitude" to sue CA for this tax. If it makes it to SCOTUS, it should be ruled un-Constitutional but then again, you just never know.

baldeagle wrote:$50 per purchase.

Lawsuits to be filed in the morning.

I wish they'd try to get the people who voted for it kicked out of office as part of the settlement.

I don't understand, what lawsuits could be filed? The law has not passed, yet, and still may not, and the article itself is rife with obvious errors of fact, so I would hope that no one is relying on it for any level of reliable information beyond:

"This article on the California ammo permit fee did not state clearly enough that this permit fee legislation (SB 53) has only passed the California Senate, not the whole legislature, and has not been signed into law. The article also gives the impression that this authorization fee is on a per purchase basis when in fact, it is an annual fee. The article erroneously suggests that background checks would be conducted each time an ammunition purchase was made. This background check will be conducted at the time of the application for the ammunition purchase authorization. However, there will be a database constructed with the names of everyone who has applied for an ammunition authorization permit."

A loss of liberty anywhere is something to grieve over. It is easy to say they had it coming or they deserved it but what we're effectively seeing is a tyranny of the majority and a trampling of the rights of all. Sure the majority of Californians may not care about their right to bear arms but it is a right they all should be afforded. It certainly should be for the minority that desires to do so.

There are plenty of conservative parts of California but they simply don't have the numbers that the majority in the metro areas do. The liberal majority in LA, San Francisco and Sacramento run roughshod over the entire state. Heaven help us if we ever end up in that situation. What will we say then, that we deserve to have our rights stripped away too? We as a nation have an interest in not seeing these draconian measures take hold in other states because one day we might be trying to fight them off in our own state.

There is a small minority of gun owners fighting tenaciously to fight back the erosion of their rights and they need all the help they can get.

jimlongley wrote:I don't understand, what lawsuits could be filed? The law has not passed, yet, and still may not, and the article itself is rife with obvious errors of fact, so I would hope that no one is relying on it for any level of reliable information beyond:

"This article on the California ammo permit fee did not state clearly enough that this permit fee legislation (SB 53) has only passed the California Senate, not the whole legislature, and has not been signed into law. The article also gives the impression that this authorization fee is on a per purchase basis when in fact, it is an annual fee. The article erroneously suggests that background checks would be conducted each time an ammunition purchase was made. This background check will be conducted at the time of the application for the ammunition purchase authorization. However, there will be a database constructed with the names of everyone who has applied for an ammunition authorization permit."

The legislation is here. There is nothing in the legislation that specifies an annual period for the authorization. It simply says a person must apply for authorization before purchasing ammunition. It neither specifies every time or any period of time between applications. It could be a one time lifetime application and fee, and annual application and fee or a with-every-purchase application and fee.

baldeagle wrote:

jimlongley wrote:I don't understand, what lawsuits could be filed? The law has not passed, yet, and still may not, and the article itself is rife with obvious errors of fact, so I would hope that no one is relying on it for any level of reliable information beyond:

"This article on the California ammo permit fee did not state clearly enough that this permit fee legislation (SB 53) has only passed the California Senate, not the whole legislature, and has not been signed into law. The article also gives the impression that this authorization fee is on a per purchase basis when in fact, it is an annual fee. The article erroneously suggests that background checks would be conducted each time an ammunition purchase was made. This background check will be conducted at the time of the application for the ammunition purchase authorization. However, there will be a database constructed with the names of everyone who has applied for an ammunition authorization permit."

The legislation is here. There is nothing in the legislation that specifies an annual period for the authorization. It simply says a person must apply for authorization before purchasing ammunition. It neither specifies every time or any period of time between applications. It could be a one time lifetime application and fee, and annual application and fee or a with-every-purchase application and fee.

Interesting... The article to which you linked stated that it was an "every purchase" permit/fee, but then at the bottom it had a correction saying that it was an annual permit/fee (or at least that was the case last night). Assuming you are correct in that the law doesn't say how often one must apply for a permit and pay the fee, I wonder where they got their original info, and what caused them to change their minds?