Why don't these bills go after ammo or gunpowder access? Seems as long as you have access to a cylinder, and ammunition, you can make a gun.
Even though I'd bought multiple firearms in California, this background check always rejected me, probably because my name doesn't fit in their databases. Somewhere between 10% and 16% of legal firearm owners in California are denied ammunition due to this faulty system.
1. https://calwaterfowl.org/navigating-californias-new-ammuniti...
carbon, sulphur, and potassium nitrate, in a particular ratio.
potassium nitrate is watched, and reported in large quantities, or particular form, but can be manufactured by most people that can follow a recipe.
regulating the propellant cant stop it from being made.
also someone really didnt think it through by regulating "receivers"
they regulated what is most often the easiest part to manufacture. the core parts [barrel, bolt, chamber] are difficult to build, require tech to build from stock, and are sold off the shelf, while receiver needs 4473 as if it was a fully functional firearm, and that is the part that can be built, from a 2x4 or a billet of material, depending how long you want it to last.
There is also the "felon carry" as its called late 19th century black powder percussion pistols, you can also order off the internet, regardless of criminal history and with no scrutiny of the chain of custody.
The guy who killed Shinzo Abe didn't need any of these things and still shot him.
Good luck banning that in any meaningful form.
its also low gas pressure so if you are manufacturing from tentative material, you really should load with black powder, and use enough that it wont squib.
there are a few videos still around, where people load with smokeless powder in a musket, or muzzle loader, instead of blackpowder.
this will blow your barrel open.
The Sullivan Act was passed in 1911, and it took 111 years to overturn (Bruen). So gun control cases move slowly like everything else.
Happy Patriot's Day this weekend (April 19th)!
theoretically true but having re-sleeved ammunition, the chances of injury is tremendously different. That said, a lot of people in California are having to resort to re-sleeving ammunition, not out of choice but because for all practical purposes, California has made buying ammunition impossible.
While you can crawl and bite your way through getting a horribly castrated gun in California, the real struggle begins buying affordable ammunition.
For regular people to own a gun that you can actually use in California, (not LEOs or certain other people), you either needed to have inherited them or bought them from the cartels. Otherwise you own something of limited use that insanely expensive to operate.
or, you can just break these stupid, unenforceable laws and buy out of state or just "uncastrate" it yourself.
no idea why so many people get their panties in a twist everytime California passes an unenforceable law. they're unenforceable.
pellet guns have low spin per inch, and use drag to add extra stability. and keep velocity below that trans-sonic shock range.
if you went to a reloading shop, and purchased some .177, or .22 projectiles, trimmed them down, or core them to about half wieght, and it will perform like a small rifle.
They are strong enough to embed the pellets into wooden fence boards already though. I think that is plenty enough velocity to blow out your trachea, enter your brain through your eye socket, and probably also penetrate the soft part of the skull.
i have couple of pellet rifles that will penetrate [2] gallon milk jugs full of water at 50 yards and leave pellets on the bottom of the third, 6" grouping with quick reload shooting.
dont get me started on souping up the piston, ive already talked about alternative projectiles, but yes it can be made even more powerfull so it will yeet signifigant grain wt.
you want to be able to KNOW and SEE the difference between a blackpowder, and a smokeless powder, and what not to put it in.
one thing that would add a lot of friction is if the primers are regulated.
thats the funny thing, felons cant possess firearms or ammo, however you can possess reloading materials, and be fine there until you start actually reloading, then you are in possession of ammo.
Could probably create exceptions for bullets used at the gun range, so you can become proficient and safe.
Tricky part would be hunting, but restricting such a tax to ammo used for handguns is probably an 80% solution.
Could probably create exceptions for local elections, so you can still participate in your community.
Tricky part would be general elections, but restricting such a tax to federal races is probably an 80% solution.
You don’t even have to go that far. $10 and a trip to the DMV is apparently an insurmountable barrier.
I can sort of buy the ID argument from places like Vermont but the arguments in many/most states are just complete bullshit where they've worked backwards to rationalize it and that's why there is no consistency for ID gating of rights within even the same state.
Amusing to imagine the red diesel of sport shooting - better hope the tax authority doesn't find any combustion-proof dye on the self-defense shell casings!
Also brass is often ejected forward of the firing line, meaning cease fire must be called frequently for individuals to collect their brass. And if multiple people are shooting at once, how do they determine who shot which casing? Considering the financial incentives, I could see frequent disagreements over brass ownership.
Then there's the issue of implementation. A proposed law and its implementation are often quite different. For example, California requires a background check when purchasing ammunition. Only California residents can buy ammunition in the state (which creates a problem for out-of-state hunters). This system is plagued with false positives. When I lived in California, I purchased multiple firearms but was unable to buy ammunition due to being incorrectly denied. This happens to 10-16% of legal firearm owners in the state. My assumption is that any sort of ammo tax/refund scheme would be similarly fraught with issues.
Honestly, I think such restrictions are a fool's errand. Both smokeless powder and automatic actions have existed for over a century. Given current US culture, effectively restricting such simple technology would require draconian laws & enforcement of those laws. This is actually a more difficult problem than previous failed attempts to restrict alcohol and other drugs, as the government needs a constant supply of firearms and ammunition.
The trick is to just tax murder so people can't afford it anymore.