|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: California Department of Justice Releases First Set of Proposed Ammunition Sales Regulations
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Today, the California Department of Justice released the first in a series of regulatory proposals regarding the mandatory background check process when purchasing ammunition, which is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2019. A direct result of the enactment of both Proposition 63 and Senate Bill No. 1235, the proposed regulations address basic regulatory definitions and the required information to be submitted when purchasing ammunition in California. Additional regulations are expected to be proposed in the coming months.
NRA and CRPA attorneys are currently reviewing the proposal and will be providing additional information to our members shortly. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(12/15/2018)
|
OPENING SOON! The Ammo Can Store, just outside of the California Border.
.
Buy one of our VERY expensive Ammo Cans and we'll give you 500 rounds of ammo, ABSOLUTELY FREE!
.
Certainly, the Liberal Pukes in the California General Assembly don't think that they have the Power to tax sales in other states, or to regulate interstate commerce... right? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
