|
|
|
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: Ammo Could Be Pricier And Harder To Get In California If Pols Have Their Way
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun owners in California may soon be required to undergo background checks before purchasing ammunition — and even more proposed regulations could result in higher ammo prices across the state, Guns.com reports.
Also known as The Safety for All Act of 2016, Proposition 63 is meant to close perceived loopholes in California’s gun control laws. The initiative was approved by California voters by a 63-37 margin in the general election last November.
If implemented in their current form, the regulations would treat ammunition sales like gun sales, put measures in place to strip guns away from convicted felons, and prohibit Californians from possessing magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. |
| Comment by:
AFRet
(7/28/2017)
|
| I predict a boom in ammunition sales in Nevada. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
