Compare & Contrast

California (according to a notice from Cabelas)

On Friday, Sept. 11, the California Assembly passed Assembly Bill 962, by a 44-31 vote.
Among other regulations, AB 962 would:

  • Ban all mail-order and Internet sales of handgun ammunition.
  • Prohibit the retail sale, the offer for sale or the display of handgun ammunition in a manner that allows ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without assistance of a vendor or employee.
  • Require that the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition occur in a face-to-face transaction, with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity of the purchaser or other transferee.

That evidence of identity, which must be legibly recorded at the time of delivery, includes:

  • The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee.
  • The date of the sale or other transaction.
  • The purchaser’s or transferee’s driver’s license or other identification number and the
  • state in which it was issued.
  • The brand, type and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise transferred.
  • The purchaser’s or transferee’s signature.
  • The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or other transaction.
  • The purchaser’s or transferee’s full residential address and telephone number.
  • The purchaser’s or transferee’s date of birth.

The bill is on the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, where it awaits his consideration. He will have until Oct. 11 to sign or veto the bill. If he does not veto the bill, it will become law.


  • Don’t be a criminal.
  • Pick out the ammo you want, be it local or online.
  • Pay for ammo.
  • Receive ammo.

The other day, I was at the local gun shop perusing their wares. I overheard a conversation between a customer and the employee. Evidently the customer was a visitor from California, was spending a week or two here visiting friends, and wanted to pick up some ammo for the range. He inquired as to what restrictions exist for purchasing ammo, and whether or not he had to be an Arizona resident or show ID to buy ammo here. The employee considered this for a moment and said “Well, so long as you’re not a criminal and can pay for it, you can buy whatever you want.”
He looked rather amazed. After browsing for a bit, he picked up a few boxes of .380 and something else I didn’t see.
Who in their right mind actually thinks that the bills waiting for the governor would have any effect on crime? Prohibiting customers from handling boxes of ammo in the store will accomplish…what, exactly? Makes no sense at all.
For all the flaws that Arizona has (and no state is perfect), it’s still a rather free state, unlike our neighbor to the west.

6 thoughts on “Compare & Contrast”

  1. Being I am from Appalachia, had been standing in that store, I would have not been surprised in the least with a lack of infringement that so surprised the Californian. I would have been amazed that there was a few boxes of .380.

  2. That almost seems like it was written expressly to inconvenience legal gun owners rather than to actually reduce any kind of crime.

  3. It’s not in the least about crime-solving, it’s about Assemblyman Mark Leno’s ego who pushed it forward, and about whatever rewards or advancements he might extract from his playmates in Sacramento as a result.

  4. There aint no “almost” about it Tam. This bill has nothing to do with fighting crime since it, and other laws like it, dont affect criminals at all. The objective of this bill is to harass honest gun owners, PERIOD!

Comments are closed.