Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Ammunition Ban Struck Down By Court

January 26, 2011 by  

Ammunition Ban Struck Down By Court

Apparently some sanity still exists in the judiciary when it comes to gun rights. And it comes from one of the least likely places: California.

On Jan. 19 a Fresno Superior Court judge ruled that a California law that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so-called “handgun ammunition” to be registered was unconstitutionally vague. The law was set to take effect Feb. 1, and the ruling means the burdensome and ill-conceived restrictions on the sales of ammunition will not be enforced.

The law, which was challenged by Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker, the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), individuals and several ammunition sellers and suppliers, would have required that “handgun” ammunition be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumb-prints from purchasers and conduct transactions face-to-face for all deliveries and transfers of “handgun ammunition.”

Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s claims that the law failed to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition” that is regulated under the law.

According to the CRPA’s Website, “Constitutional vagueness challenges to state laws are extremely difficult to win, particularly in California firearms litigation, so this success is particularly noteworthy.”

An appeal by the State is likely but, for a time, at least, someone in California actually understands what the 2nd Amendment means.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Ammunition Ban Struck Down By Court”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • http://none Mike

    Maby California isnt too insane after all. Most mail order bulk stuff is target and range anyway. The really leathel stuff is stored under lock and key for the most part. About the only rifle ammo bought case lot is .223 or.22 Ball target ammo. So banning mail order is really just hurting the weekend plinkers and compition shooters.Mike L.

    • using reason to attain knowledge

      TRUST ME SIR…I live in Cali,and they will retool this law and make it far worse than it was before.So enjoy the brief victory you have right now. Remember,progressives have all the control in California,and they use it like a weapon against the populace.

      • http://personallibertydigest gunner689

        why do you live in such a place?

      • Charles

        Then WHY does the population keep on re-electing the so-and-so’s? After all, if the TRUE “progressives”… US NRA’ers!… ALL GOT REGISTERED AND VOTED… then these communists in pink couldn’t get elected Dogcatcher! And THAT’S the Truth.

        • James

          Charles, Most voters don’t know the names of their state representatives. They just vote a straight Republican or Democratic ticket.

  • jwg_7781

    I am about to order 1000 rounds of M80 Ball… that is to say 7.62×51 milspec ammo. Very lethal, I used it in Iraq in 2004 and 2005. Having it, ordering it, buying it and shooting it through my remington 700p LTR is well within my 2nd adm rights. Historically speaking I am sure that California will end up banning it. I am not from there but don’t they have to have the Ammo Id card for all ammo purchases??? Of course this is just another round of the long standing debate about guns and ammo. Make schools spend a year teaching the constitution and a year teaching marksmanship. Then you would have 350 million people that would know the constitution and know how to shoot…that would solve a lot of the fear, misuderstandings and political bickering that surround guns.

    • SteveB

      Good point “jwg”……

    • 45caliber

      Some schools still teach shooting, even in high school. One in Tennessee (can’t remember the name) has kids who win national championships. Some people tried to shut it down (they were teaching children to be murderers) but the parents told the school board that it had better stay on the curiculum. There are other states who also have it. I’d like to see all schools have it available to the kids.

      • Al Sieber

        I took the NRA hunter’s safety course in high school in the 60′s, I use to take my rifle on the school bus to school and then go hunting at a friends house after school. try doing that now and you’d be arrested for domestic terrorism.

        • Richard

          I too took the same course during the early 60′s, at a high school with about 300 total enrollment. My best recollection is that about 50 of us had our own cars or pickups. During hunting season most every vehicle in student parking had at least one gun in it. Nobody had to hide the fact and there was no hysteria about having them at school.

          • independant thinker

            My high school chemistry teacher was a gunsmith and collector. He regularly gave presentations to the school concerning firearms. Of course he would not be able to get a teaching job today in most schools. He also believed in carrying knives for he said in class on more than one occasion “I am against the rules forbidding the carrying of a knife in school, you never know when you might have to cut someone. He was also one of the most respected teachers in the school system at that time.

          • 45caliber


            A knife is a tool. It can be used for defense if you have to but it is really a tool, not a weapon. And I’ve carried one since I was five. I even loaned it to my school teachers several times when they needed one. Everyone accepted knives as tools and would have laughed if you suggested they might want to fight with one.

          • 45caliber

            We carried a gun in a window gunrack year around when I was growing up. No one even noticed. And we didn’t worry about locking the vehicles either.

          • JeffH

            45 caliber, we used to refer to the rifle racks as easy rider rifle racks.

          • JUKEBOX

            I have made this same point before in other posts. At my school, we all carried pocket knives, and many had rifles, shotguns, and/or handguns in their cars. Some days we took our unloaded guns into our classrooms for show and tell, or some other non violent, non lethal purpose, which was educational. We never had the first stabbing or shooting at our school, only an occasional fist fight.

        • jwg_7781

          You see…when there was ample education and training no one got arrested for domestic terrorism just for having a gun. I graduated high school in 1995, prior to the school shootings of the time we too took guns to school so that we could get out in the woods as soon as school was out, by my senior yr those days where over.

      • DaveH

        I agree, 45. The surest way to gun safety would be to educate our high school kids on it. The anti-gunners don’t want that because safety isn’t really what they are concerned with.

        • Nancy

          In my opinion, children should be educated on gun safety well before high school. They need to know what to do, and what not to do if they come across a weapon in their own home, or someone else’s. The safety part should be taught very young, especially to teach them the difference between a real gun and a toy.

          • independant thinker

            The NRA Eddie Eagle program does just that and should be mandatory in all grade schools. After the students learn the safty rules then they could be taught firearm handeling and shooting.

          • DaveH

            Speaking of that, Nancy, I saw a propaganda video 10 or 20 years ago which was intended to demonstrate the dangers of guns and kids. They had the kids go into a room unsupervised and surveilled them with hidden cameras. In the room was a real gun (unloaded of course) laying on a table. Their purpose was to demonstrate the curiosity of children around guns and the resulting safety danger. The kids were sent into the room one at a time and didn’t know they were being watched. Well, one of the kids (obviously from a rough neighborhood) spotted the gun, looked around to see if anybody was watching, then proceeded to remove the clip and clear the chamber before sticking the gun in his pants. Obviously that one kid had been taught well, lol.

          • 45caliber


            I agree with you. I started teaching my kids at age 1-1/2 to be safe around guns. By the time they were five they knew how to load and shoot one too. Further, we had a rule (meant to stop them from shooting birds or whatever for fun) that if you shot something – anything! – you had to clean and eat it. I had one son refuse to shoot a snake for my wife until she called and got my permission that he didn’t need to eat it.

        • JeffH

          I can remember taking and passing my Hunters Education class at my elementary school after hours and because it was so much fun i participated again thru the local Rod & Gun club. I had two certificates and the hands on education provided by my dad too.

          • DaveH

            I was 10 when I got my first shotgun. By law I had to take a safety course to hunt. I did a lot of rabbit hunting before I was even twelve. One day, I came back to where my friends father had been parked and it was nowhere to be seen. I thought they had left me, so I waited a while and then finally walked home (about 2 miles). I did have the sense to crack open my shotgun (single shot) so any police might see clearly that it wasn’t loaded. A sheriff did stop me, but after hearing my story, he just told me to hurry straight home and went on his way. Ah, the good old days.

          • 45caliber


            Where I grew up, a boy usually got his first gun (.22) when he was six, a shotgun by 8, and a rifle by 10. And even a 5 year old knew how to load and shoot one.

        • Al Sieber

          Dave, I gave my son a .22 Ruger single 6, .22 pistol when he was 12, he’s 34 now and never abused it. he took a concealed weapons course years ago and has no problems. my father did the same to me, education is the answer.

      • Conservatives United

        When I was in HS back in the early 60′s in a small town in NW WI, My Industrial Arts teacher who was a avid deer hunter would take on day before deer hunting season started (We had off 1 week for thanksgiving vacation/deer hunting season, as 1/2 of the school including the staff wouold have been gone), and gave his yearly talk about hunting and gun safety. I did not hunt, but many of my close friends did. I have always wondered how many lives those hunter safety talks saved. As others have said, students and teachers had guns in their vehicles, and if I remember correct my Industial arts teacher brought rifles into the class. Today, unfortunately that is not allowed.

      • http://none Mike

        45 That is a few of them I could name for you. Scott Co. Union Co. Some in Hamilton Co. As well. I graduated in 86 from a Knox Co. school. We had our guns in gun racks in our trucks. They had made it at that point where we werent allowed to carry them into the building. But if we did all they could do was ask us to take them back out to the truck. By 1990 the truck had to be locked but you could still have them on property. Not sure when it became illeagle to even have them on property but it is now. Mike L.

    • Shane P.

      JWG M80 Ball ammo though very lethal would not be my first choice from
      a good remington 700. I recently purchased a Savage Model 10PC and went through a precision rifle class a my locall club. Ball ammo is not known for it’s long distance accuracy. My most memorable event was
      shooting a 5 shot group a 100 yards that measured 3/8″ accross.
      Wow what a feeling.

    • Tinkertom

      350 million, that would be the 305 million on the census and the 45 million that did not fill it out, illegals and survivalists. The fact that a California judge even uses a word like unconstitutional is encouraging enough.

    • Infidel

      Trouble with teaching the Constitution is getting teachers who know what it means. A retired Professor from a local college, who taught the Constitution argued with me for over a half hour thatthe 2nd Amendment did not give me the right to own a gun, only for the National Guard to have them.

      • James

        Infidel, the Second Amendment’s militia clause (see below), for some time, was construed by federal courts to mean that only militia-type weapons were exempt from the amendment’s “shall not be infringed.” That held sway until District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Supreme Court held that the amendment’s restriction applies to individual-type weapons as well. However, that decision, and the amendment, applies only to federal territories not the States. See below for your State’s constitutional provision.

    • James

      Jwg-7781, The Second Amendment is just a restriction on the federal government, the right to bear arms isn’t dependent on any document for its existence. See below.

      U.S. Constitution, Amendment II:

      A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 28:

      That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

      Alaska Constitution Article I, Section 19:

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

      Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26:

      The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

      Arkansas Constitution Article II, Section 5:

      The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

      Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13:

      The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

      Connecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15:

      Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

      Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20:

      A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

      Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a):

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

      Georgia Constitution Article I, Section 1, Paragraph VIII:

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

      Hawaii Constitution Article I, Section 17:

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      Idaho Constitution Article I, Section 11:

      The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

      Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22:

      Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      Indiana Constitution Article I, Section 32:

      The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the state.

      Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights 4:

      The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security, but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

      Kentucky Constitution Section1:

      All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: … Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

      Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 11:

      The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

      Maine Constitution Article I, Section 16:

      Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

      Massachusetts Constitution Part The First, Article XVII:

      The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

      Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6:

      Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

      Mississippi Constitution Article III, Section 12:

      The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

      Missouri Constitution Article I, Section 23:

      That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned, but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

      Montana Constitution Article II, Section 12:

      The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

      Nebraska Constitution Article I, Section 1:

      All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

      Nevada Constitution Article I, Section 11,[1.]”

      Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

      New Hampshire Constitution Part First, Article 2-a:

      All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

      New Mexico Constitution Article II, Section 6:

      No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

      North Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 30:

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

      North Dakota Constitution Article I, Section 1:

      All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

      Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 4:

      The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

      Oklahoma Constitution Article II, Section 26:

      The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never e prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

      Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 27:

      The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

      Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section 21:

      The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

      Rhode Island Constitution Article I, Section 22:

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      South Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 20:

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the state shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.

      South Dakota Constitution Article VI, Section 24:

      The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

      Tennessee Constitution Article I, Section 26:

      That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

      Texas Constitution Article I, Section 23:

      Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

      Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6:

      The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

      Vermont Constitution Chapter I, Article 16:

      That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

      Virginia Constitution Article I, Section 13:

      That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

      Washington Constitution Article I, Section 24:

      The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

      West Virginia Constitution Article III, Section 22:

      A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

      Wisconsin Constitution Article I, Section 25:

      The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

      Wyoming Constitution Article I, Section 24:

      The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

  • Don Ruane

    If we wish to keep our Independence and our Liberties, we must make sure we keep our guns.

  • daniel g. vanscoik

    Keep our guns !! thank you.dvs

  • rick c

    thank God for the other states that have a little respect for the constitution like fl,tn,etc.etc. !

  • 45caliber

    They aren’t officially allowed to keep a register of all gun owners or ban the guns. So they are attempting to curcumvent the law by registering ammo owners and banning ammo. As one of the anti-gunners said, “We can’t ban guns but if we ban ammo the guns are useless.”

    The new UN treaty that Hillary wants us to sign will require that all ammo be registered and that anyone who might reload has a special license that costs over $2000 a year. That is to register all “ammo suppliers”. And, of course, give them the right to confiscate all your equipment.

    • DaveH

      The 2nd Amendment:
      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      What part of “infringed” do they not understand?

      • wandamurline

        Oh, they understand it well. That is why they are so deceptive in trying to eliminate your right to bear arms. Our forefathers have told us that we need the arms to protect ourselves from even our own tyranical government and that is it our obligation to do so in the event that the government becomes tyranical and no longer serving the people. This administration is trying to take America to its knees, and they are afraid of us owning guns to protect ourselves. When we are afraid of our government, we have communism…when the government is afraid of its people, then we have liberty.

        • eddie47d

          Okay Dave H. What part of “well regulated” don’t you understand? Regulated means laws,rules and common sense to govern those who choose to own weapons. That seems very clear and the majority of gun owners are responsible on those issues. Take away those regulated laws and some of those very good people will start doing as they darn please. That is true for any reasonable law on any subject. If it’s unreasonable then fight it; if reasonable then accept it for the good of the nation or community. I think our Founding Fathers were wise in regulating our Second Amendment and you’re rights are not being infringed upon.

          • JeffH

            eddie, just trying to clarify the meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment.
            The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

          • DallasP

            When the 2nd Amendment was written, “well regulated” had an entirely different meaning that that which is in common usage today. “Well regulated” meant “well trained”, not “controlled”.

          • http://GOGGLE vaksal

            TO;eddie,at the time that the constitution was written,we were fighting for our national rights for basic human liberties,and that one word (regulated) meant well trained armed people,able miltia(ARMED CITIZENS)at that time this nation had no real power structure in place(GOVERNMENT)so your outlook is wrong,and out of time when it comes to defining what (regulated) meant when that was written,but when twisting words is very common place do to the fact,that history has been so white washed by those who wish to revamp the real meanings of those words.and if you think that people like my self are fooled,well than you have best look at a history book more closely,for this nation was founded by armed citizens,not a well regulated citizen population.

          • Vicki

            Well Eddie47d since you ARE part of the militia (unless you are under 17 or over 45 or you are broken) have you been good and learned and practiced proper control of your firearms? You do practice right? How else are you to be “well regulated” as was meant by the people who wrote that amendment.

          • Al Sieber

            Every able bodied person in the US with a firearm, is in the milita.

          • eddie47d

            I think you are correct in that meaning at that time.

          • Vicki

            eddie47d writes:
            “I think you are correct in that meaning at that time.”

            Of course we are. And we are correct in the meaning at THIS time since the meaning hasn’t changed. Or were you talking about the militia? That meaning hasn’t changed either and is even in the law. US CODE Title 10 311.

            The legal definition still keeps women and young and old folk out but it is well understood that the militia is the whole of the people. Except for public officials.

          • independant thinker

            “The legal definition still keeps women and young and old folk out but it is well understood that the militia is the whole of the people.”

            And the equal rights amendment would put them in as well.

        • James

          You’ve all missed the point here. The Second Amendment is a restriction on Congress. For some time the U.S. Supreme Court held (because of the amendment’s militia clause) that the amendment’s “shall not be infringed” applied only militia-type arms, but in D.C. v. Heller, the Court now holds that restriction on Congress applies to individual type-arms as well. It held that the D.C. ordinance that banned possession of handguns in the district had violated the Second Amendment.

      • 45caliber

        They can’t understand why our Founding Fathers “infringed” on their “rights” to rule the rest of us by placing that word in the 2nd Amendment.

    • Michael

      I am 72 years old and have owned a gun since I was 16 years old. I will own a gun when I die. I believe in the Second Amendment and will live by it. Nobody will take my guns and I will not give them up. I believe I have a lot of company.

      • 45caliber

        You do. In fact, my wife surprised me awhile back. She told me that if someone came to get our guns for me to do what I need to do … and she will reload for me.

        • DaveH

          45, buddy, don’t do it that way. That’s exactly what the want. You will be vastly outgunned and under protected when they come. See the video of the man with the golf club. The Storm Troopers would like to see nothing more than for you to resist. Be smarter than they are.

          • 45caliber

            I intend to be smarter. But I also intend to take some of them with me if I do ever get into that situation. And, unlike most, I happen to be one of the 10% who DOES aim and hit during a firefight.

          • Tinman

            Daveh, The difference between a free man and a slave is your gun. So if you take one or two alphabet soup jack boots out before you die, then so be it. Then again I would make a call and have a crew of armed free people to help me out.


      Some fifteen years ago, I had a rural gun dealer tell me the same thing. If you don’t have any ammo, the gun is useless for anything but hitting someone with it.

  • OldNYFirefighter

    NYS is still in the dark ages & with people like Chuck Schumer, will stay there. He is pushing for Micro-stamping of Ammunition which has proven to a false sense of safety. Gang members & bad guys will just get Ammo from other states or from other countries. Even though the FBI has finally agreed that armed Citizens stop more crimes than the Police do, people like Schumer thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He & Bloomberg have been given new names in Upstate NY. They are called the Bell Brothers, Ding & Dong! Judges in a few Counties aren’t much better, as they make up their own laws, favoring their own buddies & limiting everyone else.

    • JeffH

      OldNYFirefighter, your biggest enemy in NYS and in America is Michael Bloomberg and his M.A.I.G organization.


      I remember when old Schmuckey brought an AK-47 to the floor of the Senate, and waved it around like the fool he is, simply to make a point about gun control.

  • SteveB


    It seems as though this judge has a little common sense. And it appears to be a positive ruling on his part…..but, still, in true reality, it sidesteps the issue. A little over two hundred years since our founding, our government has evolved into something our founding fathers knew to be cautious of. Experience had taught them how governments evolve. They knew how power is gained little by little…..and how politicians like to manipulate laws, change the meanings of things and that their interests lie in themselves.
    As a new nation, just having rid themselves of a rogue government, they knew that the greatest threat to their people was from “government”….should it get out of control. Knowing that, they sought to protect us against a government that they knew might even use military force against its own people…..and that “the people” might have to use military force again in the future… they had just done to win their independence. So they knew “the need” for the Second Amendment. They knew “the need” to keep the power in the hands of the people. And they knew “the need” to arm themselves “heavily”, if need be, to protect themselves.
    So they wrote the Second Amendment in “plain language” that anyone with “good sense” could understand. And if any judge is going to stand on Constitutional ground to make a ruling, he should have to say
    “The power rests in the Constitution….of which I am its servant. Neither I, nor any judge….in any court….in any state….in any part of this country has the authority to reinterpret this constitution or change its meaning….or to dissolve the right of the people of this country to protect themselves and their property.
    Therefore….it is my ruling that neither their arms or their ammunition can be restricted,as long as this constitution exists.And it is my hope and prayer that we remain strong….. and this God given right never be taken away from the people of this great nation”.

    • mrapuzzi


    • DaveH

      Can you imagine, Steve, as much as they step on us now, how truly contemptuous they would be if we were disarmed?

      • Vicki

        Don’t have to imagine. Just look at the high population density areas where gun possession outside the home is strictly prohibited. California. For my current favorite example I give you Nancy
        “We have to pass the bill so YOU can find out what is in it” Pelosi.

        How much more evidence of contempt for the people do we need?

    • 45caliber

      There was some discussion before they added the Bill of Rights. The reason it was added was because too many people were afraid that if these rights weren’t spelled out in plain language so everyone could understand that no states would vote to accept the Constitution.

      They made no attempt to insert words that might be able to be twisted to mean something else as so many liberals are trying to do (yes, you too, eddie). Whenever you hear a liberal start something by saying, “What they really meant …” it means exactly what they stated. Nothing else.

      They knew England had tried to deprive them of their rights – even some rights that England never admitted they had in the first place. In fact, NONE of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights was recognized by England at that time for the colonies. Even though some of those rights were recognized in England for their citizens there.

  • DavidL

    Common sense is appropriate here. The law as described in the article does sound vague. As a veteran and now a competitive shooter with the USPSA, I have no problem with the ammo I buy being marked on the bullet with a registration number so law enforcement can track it and perhaps solve crimes better and faster. In that regard, I have no problem with the police contacting me first. I have nothing to hide and the overwhelming number of gun owners don’t either. I also have no problem banning civilians from owning 30+ round handgun magazines. I don’t need them to hunt and I don’t need them to shoot competitively. In fact, part of the skill, and fun, of competitively shooting is the requirement to make magazine changes in the middle of a run. Again, common sense and the 2nd Amendment are not mutually exclusive.

    • jwg_7781

      I am a combat veteran…I have an AR-15 and I like the 30 rd mags that I have. I have never committed a crime let alone a crime committed using the 30 rd mags. Just b/c a crazy person does use a high capacity mag to commit a crime doesn’t give the government reason to take mine or anyone elses away from them. If I want to use this weapon system for home and family protection (because I am highly trained to use it) then that should remain my legal right.

      • DaveH

        Our right to bear arms was not given just for home protection. One reason was to stop an out of control Government in the future:

        • Vicki

          Our right to the best tools for self defense was granted to us by our Creator. It was not granted by the Constitution. It was mentioned as a specific right that the Constitution and those who swore an oath are bound by their oath to DEFEND.

          Thus EVERY member of Congress who votes for or brings up any bill that infringes upon our right to keep and bear arms is guilty of violating that oath. None are ever punished so why should they care.

          Kids learn from adults. Even Congressmen. That is ONE of the reasons there is so little respect for law and order in the young.

          • DaveH

            I agree, Vicki. They are setting a bad example for the citizenry by breaking Constitutional Law and by helping themselves to other peoples’ money.

          • Vicki

            Talk about other peoples money the income tax is a great example. ignoring for the moment the legality or constitutionality of it the tax rate started at 1%-7% in 7 brackets.

            Then government happened. (I.E. got to liking that money)

            It peaked at 94% in 1944-5 and is now 35%.
            It would be 39% or higher if democrats and obama had their way.

            Ah the good old days of 1913.

    • DaveH

      So, David, you have no problem with Governments ignoring the 2nd Amendment, the main law of our land?

      For those who think banning the 30-round magazine would prevent the bad guys from shooting us up:

      • DaveH
        • eddie47d

          Even CATO agrees there are reasonable laws (most gun groups want all laws abolished). CATO also says how easy it is to buy Clips through the mail or black market. So laws are better than no laws and we just have to determine which ones work and which ones are useless or are counter productive.

          • DaveH

            Eddie, as usual you are putting words in peoples’ mouths. Cato said nothing of the kind. Reread the article with your blinders off.

          • Vicki

            I also read the link that DaveH posted and I can see where eddie47d might have become confused as to what the article said. The key part eddie47d missed is this:

            “Strict Limits
            But mild controls don’t always stay mild; more often, they evolve into strict limits on guns, bordering on outright prohibition.”

            Where the article goes on to explain that the problem is not some trifling inconvenience to legal gun owners but the proven fact that gun bans ALWAYS become more strict. Partly because the criminals ignore even the “mild” controls, government will always pass stricter laws.

            The article further discusses that even the “mild” seeming laws can have strongly negative consequences. One of my favorite examples is the Brady 3 day (or whatever it is this week) waiting period. Sounds innocent enough. If a woman discovers that she is being stalked by a lunatic who now says he is going to kill her tomorrow do you really think she will be able to talk him into waiting 3 days while she waits for the state to give this “lowly servant” permission to buy a gun?

            And, of course that law was expanded to cover rifles some time after its enactment. And individual states decided 3 days was not long enough.

          • JUKEBOX

            Yeah Eddie, we have about 15 million reasons to observe how well laws work, it’s called illegal aliens. How’s that for a law working really well?

        • JeffH

          “The majority of peace officers I’ve talked to agree that gun laws only result in armed criminals preying on defenseless citizens. Instead of useless anti-gun owner legislation, what we need and need right now are tough anti-crime measures. Anti-gun bills only cloud the real issue. And those of us who actually battle crime pay the price.” – Lt. Harry Thomas: Cincinnati Police Division

          Cops and Gun Control: The REAL Story

          • eddie47d

            Americans have a right to own a weapon and that isn’t much of an issue. Most citizens who don’t own or carry do it by choice and are not paranoid about that choice. Even open/concealed carry permit owners are never in the right place at the right time. So the more guns or less guns argument never goes anywhere. Even arming everyone would mean that millions would be Forced to carry whether they wanted to or not. The Majority of Americans are “defenseless” and go about their daily business without a second thought about being armed and feel totally safe. Think about all the domestic violence abuse there is with guns so having a gun in your home isn’t a guarantee of safety. So the argument keeps getting flipped flopped back and forth.

          • DaveH

            What we need, Jeff, is a lot less Government wasting our money and creating problems such as with their misguided Drug Wars.
            They are now spending (mostly wasting) 39% of our GDP. So damn near half of our earnings are going to support the Leviathan Government. No wonder some people are drawn to crime to make a living.

          • DaveH

            There are no “guarantees” of safety. None of us claim that. But, I for one, want a fighting chance to survive an attack. Note that Arizona has a steadily dropping rate of murder, even though we progressed from “open carry only” to “shall issue” concealed with a permit to concealed carry with no permit in the last 16 years:

          • DaveH

            And Eddie,
            Outlawing Concealed Carry does little at all to deter criminals. In fact, it makes them pretty certain that their victims will be helpless. Think about it. The Criminal knows exactly when he is going to commit his crime, so he only needs to conceal carry for that short time frame. On the other hand, potential victims, to have their best chance at survival, would need to Conceal Carry most of the time because they have no idea when they might be attacked. So any laws against Concealed Carry have little effect at all against Evil people, but a big effect against Law Abiding citizens.
            I would feel a lot safer knowing that many people around me are armed, as the vast majority of people are good.

          • JeffH

            DaveH, I agree with everything you have said including decriminalizing drugs.

          • DaveH

            Thank you, Jeff.
            Here is an interesting United States map which shows the progression of gun laws amongst the various states:

            Notice that Vermont has had no concealed carry restrictions since the cows have come home, and yet they have the next to lowest rate of murders in the country in 2009 (by far).

          • Vicki

            eddie47d says:
            “Americans have a right to own a weapon and that isn’t much of an issue.”

            If that isn’t much of an issue then why did we have to bother the Supreme Court with the Heller case? Why is it still illegal to own a firearm in many cities and probably some states? Why was it necessary to have ANOTHER case brought to the Supreme Court to make it clear that the individual right in the Heller case DID extend to the states and local governments?

            Eddie47d: “Most citizens who don’t own or carry do it by choice and are not paranoid about that choice.”

            Absent facts (typical Eddie47d and liberals) I can not determine the accuracy of your “most citizens” claim. I do know that in the entire state of California I can not walk or drive around with a loaded handgun, concealed or not. That is an ENTIRE (liberal) state Eddie. And even though there is a theory that we can get concealed carry permits in California there are numerous lawsuits against various counties for failure to give out those “masters permissions” to their slaves.

            Eddie47d: “Even open/concealed carry permit owners are never in the right place at the right time.

            All I have to do is find 1 case of someone in the right place at the right time to invalidate your entire assertion. Trivial exercise.

            Here are just a few from 1 or 2 years:

            Eddie47d: ” So the more guns or less guns argument never goes anywhere.”

            Only any liberal argument trying to invalidate the fact. The more guns less crime is an established peer reviewed fact. Look up the book by John Lot “More guns, less crime” and all the failed attempts by liberals to debunk the work. I already used my one link so you will have to look it up yourself.

      • DaveH

        Tell me who the real bad guys are in this video:

        • eddie47d

          Those weapons didn’t help or save anyone in those videos. It also shows arrogant police brutality and maybe unwarranted search and seizures. Attacking that old lady was uncalled for and not giving a receipt for a confiscated item is extremely poor police work. Those videos should be shown to all news outlets and all police departments and lawsuits should be filed. The police should never be above the law and could have handled all those scenarios differently.Police misconduct should be exposed at every opportunity.

          • DaveH

            But it does clearly show the fact that Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

          • Vicki

            eddie47d says:
            “Americans have a right to own a weapon and that isn’t much of an issue.”

            So why did that video happen Eddie?

            eddie47d: “It also shows arrogant police brutality and maybe unwarranted search and seizures.”

            It shows CRIMINAL misconduct under the color of authority.
            It shows that liberal mayors and governors really do think that they are your masters and that you MUST bow to them and their wishes.

          • eddie47d

            In that one video where the police smacked the old lady around was the day before Katrina and the police were trying to get her out so she wouldn’t drown. The police still overreacted but should have walked out and let her to her own devices.

          • independant thinker

            “In that one video where the police smacked the old lady around was the day before Katrina and the police were trying to get her out so she wouldn’t drown”

            Prove it eddie. Everything I have seen or read on the incident said it occured after the mayor called for the confiscation of firearms which was AFTER Katrina.

          • eddie47d

            That fact came up in another video and the police did not go into her home looking for guns but to “rescue her”. They did a poor job of that.

          • Vicki

            eddie47d says:
            “That fact came up in another video and the police did not go into her home looking for guns but to “rescue her”. They did a poor job of that.”

            I am sure you can provide the link to “another video”? And the subject was how they treated her when they discovered she could actually defend herself.

      • DaveH

        Mexico has very strict gun control. Need I say more?

        • JeffH


          • JeffH

            Dave, the bzzzzzzz wasn’t meant to say you’re boring, it was about the annoying bzzzzzz that likes to folllows you.

    • JeffH

      DavidL, there is no half way with the anti-gun advocates, and there is no “common sense” with them either. Give the ant-gun people an inch and they’ve proven time and time again that they will attempt to deprive you of your right to even own a gun for your USPSA matches.
      If you really are a USPSA participant, you might want to reconsider your position.

      • 45caliber

        The last time the Olypics were in Japan, the government there agreed to allow them to bring their guns for the shooting matches if they kept them locked up securely. The problem was that they wouldn’t allow ammo for those guns. It took days to get that arranged.

        • 45caliber

          Oh, and the shooters in England (and some other European countries) who want to practice usually have to go to Switzerland to do it.

    • 45caliber


      You may not have a problem with micro stamping (if they can ever work out how). But I have a sizable number of rounds since I do like to shoot too. The problem is that when/if they microstamp they want to collect all non-stamped bullets. They want me to sign for a series of stamped bullets so I can track every single one of them. It would cost me a lot of money to get rid of what I have and buy new ones.

      And I do use the long magazines for hunting. I don’t shoot them up at once, but I do like to simply have all bullets in a magazine rather than in my pocket somewhere. I don’t like the various holders you can buy for bullets – the leather ones in particular since they will cause corrosion. It is far easier to carry them that way. Further, if I’m ever in a situation where someone is shooting at me, I don’t want to be forced to continually reload. While I don’t expect someone to shoot at me, you never know when someone might want to “borrow your telephone” in the middle of the night.

      • DaveH

        The micro-stamping, the gun locks, the waiting periods, etc. are really for one purpose only — to make it harder for people to own guns. Many people just don’t want to jump through all the hoops that the Liberals set up, so they forgo the guns. The Liberals know that. They always take baby steps to their real goal — complete gun bans.

  • GenEarly

    DavidL : I DO Have A Problem. You can give away your rights, but you do not have the “right” to give away mine.

    • 45caliber

      Well said.

  • patrick H.T. paine

    “To conquer, first divide.”

    Gee is part of the fun and skill of combat shooting changing magazines? ( not denying the skill part, just the fun part )

    The second article of the Bill of Rights ain’t about hunting,
    it’s about “domestic enemies of the constitution” which if it were
    actually in effect…..wouldn’t have any foreign ones…..

    Finally, not that this will matter to you, but if you are
    ever in the situation where a law enforcement officer, tells
    you that you have the right to remain silent ( there seems to
    be an effort to remove this requirement ) you should respond
    with the following: “I believe you.” and keep your mouth shut.

    The law ain’t about “justice” and solving a crime is about convicting
    someone, not neccesarilly, the perpetrator….so imagine what a little
    DNA and a registration number on a bullet or casing would do for you?

    A guy named Thomas Paine, wrote a “book” called Common Sense…..
    but it doesn’t appear that you would be sharing much of what he
    was alluding to?

  • Tinkertom

    For those that think they will not give up their guns, go to Utube and look up “The NOLA gun grab”. Notice especially the big guy in some security guard looking uniform beating an old lady down to the ground and taking her pistol by force in front of national guardsmen and people standing on the lawn of rich homes while the NG searches the house for guns to confiscate with no court orders and no reciepts. Go to the NRA site and research this a bit and then tell us you won’t let them take your guns. At least initially you are outguned and by the time you organize it will be too late. Just like in every other country.

    • using reason to attain knowledge

      The Part I think you dont get Mr./Ms. Tinkerton,is that you would need a good sized army to take the guns from the citizens forcefully.Do you know anyone that will put their ass on the line to do it? I doubt it. They have enough problems paying people who attempt to detain criminals,without making every gun owning citizen a criminal too. The thing is,they might come and take my neighbors guns forcefully.But then,when the rest of my neighbors see that they are willing to kill us to disarm us,then we may HAVE to be killed in order to disarm us too. Would you think that they could get away with that for very long? If you do then you are truly ignorant. There are over 30,000,000 firearms loose in the American public. How long would it take an army of 100,000 to forcefully confiscate them even if they were willing to go to war over it? Assuming that they would take casulties from fighting with the citizens,how often would you need to hire more to reinforce the ones who died or were wounded? How could the government get away with doing that,in spite of the Second Amendment to the Constitution?

      • 45caliber

        I agree with you. And no matter how big your army was, if the citizens each shot and killed at least one man, you’d run out of army before you collected all the guns.

      • DaveH

        Let’s just keep winning the war of words (and we are winning) so that hopefully it never comes to that.

        • JeffH

          DaveH, I agree. Facts are hard to deny and only seem to garner ridicule as a response. Isn’t it a great feeling>

      • Vicki

        I would love to believe you about your neighbors but this video shows a different story.

      • JUKEBOX

        Look at what Janet Reno and company did to Randy Weaver and David Koresh while enforcing “GUN LAWS”.

    • 45caliber


      Are you saying that we should be willing to give up our guns because someone comes up and demands them in situations like this? Or that we should simply get rid of them before they show up?

      I know the instance you are talking about. The police (I forgot where they were actually from – LA?) told the woman she couldn’t remain in her home because it was unsafe. She said that she wasn’t afraid because she had a gun – and she held it out on the flat of her palm to show it. The cop then ran over her to take it.

      In the first place, I don’t show my guns. In the second place, I don’t trust ANYONE who shows up during a crisis. If I had been charged I suspect he would have been shot. Deservedly so.

      • independant thinker

        The “old lady incident” happened in New Orleans LA after Katrina. Being an elderly lady I am sure she trusted the police to act in a civilized and respectful manner when she showed them the pistol in a non threatning way. From what I understand there are people in NO whose guns were confiscated that have still not gotten them back despite court orders to return them. Shows just how trustworthy politicians and some police are.

        • 45caliber

          The police refused to issue tickets to the owners when they took the guns. They are now willing to return the guns … but ONLY if you show up with a bill of sale from some shop identifying the gun by serial number. To be honest, you wouldn’t want that gun back. It seems that most were loaded into barrels which somehow got water into them. So the ones they have are simply too rusted to ever be put back into service.

        • DaveH

          It’s right here:

          • JeffH

            DaveH, another revealing video for all those that think guns can’t be illegaly confiscated by government. Like one guy said, “we felt like we were in a third world country”.

  • JeffH

    As a Californian who fought vehemently against DeLeon’s AB962 I will mention that it was the NRA, though not mentioned here, in partnership with the CRPA that fought this case and won, not just for California gun owners but Americas gun owners.
    The lawsuit, Parker v. California was funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation.
    You can read about it here.
    BREAKING NEWS: California Court Rules Ammunition Ban AB962 Unconstitutional

    • JeffH

      As a sidenote, the 1000 rds. of .223 55gr FMJBT I had to rush order and is back ordered will NOW get delivered when shipped.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    I find myself disagreeing with Mr. Livingston. On matters of gun control I am certainly for ensuring people the right to keep and bear arms. However it seems like a comparitivly vague amendment when it comes to defining the limitations of gun ownership. While I certainly know people need to have a sense of security I don’t always feel the length to which some seem to go in terms of guns for protection is necessary. In terms of ammunition I think regulation and restriction on how easy it is to obtain and who may obtain ammunition seems reasonable. Afterall we don’t want just anyone to be able to order and get some bullets. I know we have laws to prevent such things but I worry if such laws are allowed to weaken or not be strengthend at times. Perhaps my only concern is when I hear people speak of wanting gun control or even talking about it as being a good idea being accused of violating the second amendment.

    • using reason to attain knowledge

      Yes but who decides who is restricted from buying ammunition?If you leave it up to legislators,do you think it will be done fairly?After all some people took over some planes and crashed them into buildings,and now everyone who flies has to be madatorially searched in the guise of protection.What I am saying is that the lawmakers often punish everyone in the guise of fairness because of the acts of a few….so who decides who is restricted from buying ammo?

      • DaveH

        That is one of my pet peeves, Using. The authorities seem to focus more on harassing the good people than meeting out justice to the bad people.
        Cases in Point:
        Charles Manson, still alive in prison. Why?
        David Berkowitz, still alive in prison. Why?
        The Shoe Bomber, still alive in prison. Why?
        The authorities won’t even let the Richard Reid kill himself:

        I think I know the Why. These people are making the Government tons of money. The prisons benefit, the courts benefit, the news media benefits. Do you really think Big Government wants law and order in our nation?

        • http://GOGGLE vaksal

          agreed,you hit the ball out of the park,with what you posted,i bet the left wing bunch wont try to counter what you said,for the thruth is very apparent to law bidding citizens all over this nation.

        • JUKEBOX

          Another case is Mark Reich, who stole over $50 million from the American taxpayers, and is enjoying life in Europe, thanks to Attorney General Eric Holder. The Golden Rule applies again.

    • JeffH

      Jeremy, read my response to RHSchumann below. I spent a great deal of time and effort fighting this “ruse” called AB-962, known as the Anti-Gang Neighborhood Protection Act of 2009. I exchanged many e-mails with Assy. DeLeons chief of staff argueing the real intent of AB-962 and I forwarded every email exchanged to the NRA/ILA for their records.
      In the end, my accusations and arguements were genuine because DeLeon did attempt to include all types of ammunition, despite their denial, under the “Anti-Gang Neighborhood Protection Act of 2009″.

      This is a huge victory for California gun owners, retailers and suppliers…but not the end of the anti-gun groups efforts to “take our guns away”.

      • DaveH

        It won’t end until the vast majority of the citizens have educated themselves to the reality of Big Government.

    • 45caliber

      The reason it is vague about restrictions on ownership was because they had no intention of ANY restrictions ever being placed on it. it is only now that people are saying we need restrictions.

      They wanted everyone to own a gun. The criminals who were caught who had committed a violent crime weren’t sent to prison and then released later. They were hanged. So they didn’t have to worry about keeping guns away from them. And they didn’t want guns kept away from anyone else.

      Then, if someone wasn’t mentally fit to have a gun he generally wasn’t mentally fit to survive. If he did go rogue (i.e., he turned against his own kind) he was hunted down and killed like you would a rabid dog. If they couldn’t catch him right away, they would put a reward up for him – dead or alive. The reason for the choice is because they intended to kill him as soon as they got their hands on him so if you killed him first, you saved them time and trouble.

      No “mentally challenged” or violent criminals got second chances.

      • Vicki

        The 2nd amendment is not at all vague about defining the limitations of gun ownership. “The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

        There is absolutely nothing vague in that statement. In fact the 2nd is one of the easiest to read of all the amendments and even the constitution itself.

    • DaveH

      May I ask your age?

      • http://?? Joe H.

        I guess he didn’t want to answer that one!!! Awful lot of crickets chirpin out there!!

  • RHSchumann

    That California law made an awful,lot of sense. Selling handgun ammunition by mail order. What a joke. That means anybody, from a ten-year old computer savy kid to a convicted killer to a psychopath could order as much ammunition as he wishes. And of course ammunition, just like weapons, should be kept in a safe place be that in a store or at home.
    These are all no-brainers.
    The court struck down the law because it was too vague. So they have to redraft it and make it more specific.
    Concerning the 2nd amendment – that should apply only to single shot muzzle loaders – the only weapons available at the time.
    Before anybody accuses me of being anti-gun, I am a hunter and own several weapons. But my weapons and ammunition are locked up unless I go hunting. That’s common sense.

    • JeffH

      RHSchumann, unfortunately you are not a friend of gun owners and you just made an arguement that has been presented by every anti-gun advocate that may have ever existed. Hiding behind “common sense” and your gun safe doesn’t change the facts. Do you even know why the law was considered vague? Why shouldn’t ammo be allowed to be purchased online or through mail order? Every online company I’ve delt with I’ve had to provide a copy of my ID and acknowledge that I’m legal to purchase ammo, which I don’t have to do with the retailers I make face to face purchase from.

      This legislation was just a ruse, promoted as “common sense” legislation to stop the sale of “handgun” ammunition to gang members, violent parolees, second and third strikers, and even people previously serving time in state prison for murder.

      That wasn’t the real reason though. AB-962 was designed to put a burden on law abiding citizens, retailers and manufacturers. It was clearly meant to put further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, nothing more than a backdoor effort.

      The biggest reason that it was overturned was that DeLeon could not clearly identify “handgun ammuition” as most ammunition can be used in both rifles and handguns as well as some shotgun ammunition. How do you seperate one from the other? They tried but to introduce an additional bill to clearly define “handgun” ammo and it was dismissed because of the “dual purpose” of ammunition. In other words, all ammunition would fit the definition of “handgun ammo” and “rifle ammo”. Thus the “vague” ruling.

      • eddie47d

        Good response Schumann for weapons can be a useful tool or a dangerous tool. A seller of weapons or ammo do an important service for Americans but need to be 100% regulated. Even if most gun owner are honest and law abiding and yes that is common sense.

      • JeffH

        …ah, that famous verbiage, well “regulated” and even a new one, 100% regulated. It just seems the same people who support Big Government like to support the restrictions known as “regulated” or better yet, lets call it “over regulated”. Don’t a lot of people already have a problem with the government “over regulating”.

        Gun control is a perfect example of government regulating what has always been an iinalienable right.

      • independant thinker

        You can purchase a TC Contender handgun in all popular handgun and rifle calibers and special order them in just about anything below 50 BMG. As a result all ammunition both rifle and handgun would be subject to that law if the state chose to enforce it that way. Even if the state enforced the law on what is commonly accepted as handgun rounds when it went into effect we know it would not take long for them to start expanding the ammunition covered until it to include everything.

        • JeffH

          independant thinker, that was my point exactly.

          • independant thinker

            Kinda thought it was JeffH, I was trying to spell it out in simple enough words that even someone like Schuman might accidently understand it.

    • using reason to attain knowledge

      For gosh sakes you can buy it at WalMart…..that is a fallacial argument that you are making.

      • JeffH

        Can I assume you comment was directed at my response? If so, you should attempt to obtain a little more knowledge on the subject before you simply say “you can buy it at WalMart.

        • JeffH

          …if it wasn’t, I apologise.

    • 45caliber


      You are wrong about what guns they specified as being exempt. They didn’t exempt muzzle loaders; they exempt weapons that were BETTER than those the military and police were using.

      They were exempting rifles and all lesser weapons. (The military used muskets.) If we did the same today, all citizens could own the fanciest machine guns on the market BEFORE the military could use them.

    • DaveH

      Did the Second Amendment say that it only applied to single-shot guns? Absolutely not. There were no qualifications. Only Liberals in their fanatical desire to disarm the citizens would argue that there are.
      Keeping your guns locked up is not common sense at all, RHSchumann. It would only insure that you would not be able to get to them in time to prevent yourself from being a victim.
      The common sense thing to do is inform your loved ones that your weapons are often (if not always) loaded and they better make damn sure they check them thoroughly first before they handle them. It is the “unloaded” gun that results in most accidental shootings.

      • Vicki

        DaveH says:
        “Did the Second Amendment say that it only applied to single-shot guns? Absolutely not. There were no qualifications. Only Liberals in their fanatical desire to disarm the citizens would argue that there are.”

        And the liberal state has been trying to ban a lot of different tools for self defense. Not just firearms. Knives that are too scary. Knives that are very accurate (shurikens). The liberal state that does this is of course California.

        Of amusement if you look at the actual definition of shuriken in the California penal code you would find that hardware stores have been selling them for years in direct violation of the law.
        “(11)As used in this section, a “shuriken” means any instrument, without handles, consisting of a metal plate having three or more radiating points with one or more sharp edges and designed in the shape of a polygon, trefoil, cross, star, diamond, or other geometric shape for use as a weapon for throwing.”

        My 2 favorite examples of this are:
        The 3 pointed (triangular shaped) tool that is the replacement blade for several kinds of scraping tools.
        The circular saw blade.

        Study a hardware store and you can probably find more examples.

        Note the weasel words in the law “….for use as a weapon for throwing.”

        Thus the liberal would claim that the above examples only count when I am using them as a weapon for throwing.

    • DaveH

      So now what the Liberals advocate is “common sense”?
      Is that the kind of Sense that ignores all past and present experience? Such as Vermont having no restrictions on concealed carry and yet having the next to lowest murder rate in the country?
      Such as the Socialistic countries being the poorest in the world?
      Such as the Most Regulated countries having the worst economies in the world?
      If that’s your idea of “common sense”, Liberals, thank goodness that mine is better than “common”.

      • JeffH

        DaveH, years ago I realized that the term “common sense” used by liberal politicians meant just the opposite. To borrow your words, “double speak”.

  • http://GOGGLE vaksal

    TO;BOB livingston,great article excellent reporting,wish to add to your information,that also in that law,it would have reqiured that all sales of any ammuntion in the state of california would have would have those sales records would have been sent to local law enforcement agencys as permanet records where that person lived,question? what better way than back door gun registation,via ammuntion,then the gun grabbing left wing communist bunch would know who has arms,all the better for them to infringe on more of our constitutional rights,but finally it looks like we still have at least one judge that respects the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,an honest man,which is good to see,thanks again bob,for having this site,a worthy place to get a wide range of veiwpoints,from the american people.

  • Bob from Calif.

    The ban of ammunition is just another form of gun control. Without ammunition guns are useless. The statists need to seize our weapons in order to control the population of the United States. This has nothing to do with our safety, its all about control.

    • 45caliber

      Bob: True

      Further, the UN treaty that Hillary wants the US to sign basically bans anyone from reloading their own bullets. The whole idea is to limit what a person can get. Nothing less.

    • RHSchumann

      Nobody is banning ammunition. California attempted to keep nuts like what’s his name from buying ammunition on-line.

      • 45caliber

        Not YET. But they are trying.

        • JeffH

          …and trying, and trying, and trying…just like the Energizing Bunny…they won’t stop trying.

      • independant thinker

        Out right bans have been proposed. Limits on the amount that can be purchased or kept on hand have been proposed as well as the afore mentioned registration of purchasers. Another proposal that has been put forth is a $100.00 or more tax on each box of ammunition. All of these taken together is effectively a ban on ammunition even though they are not an outright ban.

      • DaveH

        How do they stop them from stealing it from somebody else? Or buying it on the Black Market? Or buying it from a gun store?
        These are simply incremental steps towards the ultimate Liberal goal of disarming the citizens so they can complete our journey to Slavery.

      • DaveH
    • Vicki

      Bob from Calif writes:
      “Without ammunition guns are useless. ”

      Not exactly. Without ammunition they become clubs. Since possession of a club is illegal (in California) eliminating ammunition also eliminates guns. They would probably identify it as a metal knuckles like device :)

      “(7) As used in this section, “metal knuckles” means any device or instrument made wholly or partially of metal which is worn for purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and which either protects the wearer’s hand while striking a blow or increases the force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving the blow. The metal contained in the device may help support the hand or fist, provide a shield to protect it, or consist of projections or studs which would contact the individual receiving a blow. ”

      • Vicki

        Notice not weasel words in that definition. “For the purpose of offense OR DEFENSE” and “or increases the force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving the blow.”

        That covers the gun and also a roll of quarters. So defense with some tools is obviously illegal in California. But we knew that :)

  • Brad

    When I was a student in a California high school in the sixties I took a metal working and machineshop class. In it we forged hunting knives from old car springs. I still own it today and use it hunting every year hand made by me Ishow it off with pride. Next project in the class was building a blackpowder rifle or pistolincluding the machine work and finnishing. I still have them and they look great and work as well the day they were made by me.Over fifty years later they have fed my family and provided me with skill and pride that lasts a lifetime. Noone was killed or wounded we got a great lesson in working metal and the pride it takes to make something that lasts and still works. MADE IN AMERICA Brad in Fresno California Patriot who fought for our constitutional rights and always will to my death. Be proud to be AMERICAN.

    • JeffH

      Brad from Fresno, JeffH from Fresno, N Chestnut & Clinton.

  • Mark in LA

    I don’t see how this law would withstand an interstate commerce clause challenge. The problem is somebody from out of state has to sue since they are the harmed party and would likely be considered to have standing.

  • Fl Scott

    We are losing this country to the criminal “government”. Someday WE will have to take it back!

  • RichP

    There are approximately 90 million gun owners in the U.S. but only 4 million NRA members. My stats may be a little off, but if that 90 million gun owners were NRA members do you think the anti-gunners would be able to enact all the ineffective (in reducing crime) gun laws?

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Actually Rich, They probably would. The real problem here is uninformed people! they don’t look into the people they vote for! I wonder how many of the people here voted for the very anti-gun people they complain about??? I wonder if any of them contacted their reps BEFORE they were voted in to see what they stood for? I’m sure most of them do NOW after the fool is in office, but what about BEFORE??

      • Vicki

        JoeH writes:
        “I wonder if any of them contacted their reps BEFORE they were voted in to see what they stood for?”

        Don’t bother. They lie. Look at their voting record and especially inconsistent voting which implies they voted based on what their leadership thought they could get away with.

        If it is someone new look at their past writings and actions.

  • Herb1949

    The problem is that this was not struck down on 2nd amendment grounds. It was struck down because it was too “vague”. That leaves the door open to the state to list specific ammunition and get the law through.

    We need to win a challenge on 2nd amendment grounds.

    • Vicki

      When they pass a law then we can try and get it struck down on 2nd A grounds. Till then we lobby our representatives and demand they honor their oath.

    • James

      Herb1949, No state law has ever been held violative of the Second Amendment.
      In the original Constitution (1789), the powers that were delegated to Congress (Article I, Section 8) made no mention of rights, and about half of the Founders believed that would suffice to prevent the new federal government from legislating over rights. However, others thought future congresses might misconstrue those powers, to include rights, and insisted upon adding a Bill of Rights (in 1791). Thus the Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads (bold added):

      THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
      The stated purpose for the Bill of Rights was “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” by adding “restrictive clauses” with respect to rights. They start with “Congress shall make no law respecting…or prohibiting…or abridging” the five rights mentioned therein, then the Second Amendment reads:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Contrary to a popular understanding, it does not say ‘the people shall have the right,’ it just says: “the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” Viewing that amendment separately has enticed many to misconstrue its “shall not be infringed” as applying to state legislatures as well as Congress. However, when viewed within the Bill of Rights’ context, the “shall not be infringed,” just as the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law,” clearly applies only to the national government.

      In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said: “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.” After meticulous analysis of every word and clause in the amendment, the Heller Court stated: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” (This is the first, and only, time the High Court has ever held any law in violation of the 2nd Amendment.)
      Just remember that the decision involved an ordinance of a territory that fell under federal jurisdiction. The precedents the Court relied on are as follows:

      In Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247 (1833), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said: “The [U.S.] constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states…the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.” (Bold added.)
      In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), a mob of whites had disarmed two blacks (in Louisiana) and the issue was whether that action had violated the right of blacks to bear arms, and thus violated the Second Amendment. Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” (Bold added.)
      In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), Mr. Presser claimed that an Illinois Military Code provision (requiring state permits for parades, which he had ignored) was a violation of the U.S. Constitution and his Second Amendment right. As to the latter, the High Court said: “A conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.” (The Court cited Cruikshank as authority.) (Bold added.)
      In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 537-8 (1894), Mr. Miller was indicted and convicted for murder in Dallas County, Texas, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had affirmed the conviction. At the U.S. Supreme Court, the issue was whether Miller’s Writ of Error was valid – not his guilt or innocence. The Court said: “We think there is no federal question properly presented by the record in this case, and that the writ of error must be dismissed upon that ground.” Then concerning Miller’s contention that a Texas gun-law had violated the Second and Fourth Amendments, the Court said: “We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of these provisions, and even if it were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.” (Bold added) (The Court cited Cruikshank, and 5 other federal cases as authority.)

      Then, 114 years later, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008), the Court cited and quoted Cruikshank, and reaffirmed all the above (in footnote 23):

      With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. (Bold added.)

      This unbroken series of High Court decisions clearly state that the Bill of Rights’ restrictions (which certainly include the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed”) apply exclusively to the federal government. (The Court’s ‘incorporation’ comment has confused many. However it just said that up to that time the 2nd Amendment had not been incorporated, via the 14th Amendment, into any state.)

      Then in the federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals area, we have Bach v. Pataki (2005), where Mr. Bach had argued that a New York state law violated the Second Amendment, and the Court said: “We hold that the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ does not apply against the States and affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Bach’s Second Amendment claim” [this was before Heller].
      And Maloney v. Cuomo, (2009), where whether nunchaku sticks were protected by the Second Amendment was considered, and the Court said: “It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on the right” [bold added, and the Court cited Presser, Bach and Heller as authority]. That agrees with the Supreme Court’s position Maloney followed those High Court precedents, including Heller, precisely.

      As to incorporating the Second Amendment into a state through the Fourteenth Amendment, most Americans have assumed that ‘incorporation’ means the amendment’s “shall not be infringed” would then apply to a state’s legislature, in the same manner it applies to Congress. However, as the recent case in the Ninth Circuit demonstrated, that isn’t true, nor is it even possible.

      In Nordyke v. King, (2009) the 9th Circuit, through its own initiative, incorporated the Second Amendment therein. In California, an Alameda County ordinance had prohibited any further gun-shows at their fairground. Mr. And Mrs. Nordyke had organized and sponsored these shows at that fairground (and other fairgrounds in the west) for years. They filed suit in federal District Court, claiming this ordinance violated their civil rights, lost there, and lost again when the 9th Circuit affirmed.
      When considering how the Second Amendment might be incorporated, the Court said: “There are three doctrinal ways the Second Amendment might apply to the states: (1) direct application, (2) incorporation by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or (3) incorporation by the Due Process Clause of the same Amendment.”
      As to ‘direct application’ the Court said: “Supreme Court precedent forecloses the first option. The Bill of Rights directly applies only to the federal government Barron v. Mayor of Balt….(1833)…the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled Barron. [Then]…Therefore, the Second Amendment does not directly apply to the states. See United States v. Cruikshank (1875); see also Presser v. Illinois (1886)…”

      Then: “We are similarly barred from considering incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Clause provides that ‘[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ …This language protects only those rights that derive from United States citizenship, but not those general civil rights independent of the Republic’s existence…The former include only rights the Federal Constitution grants or the national government enables, but not those preexisting rights the Bill of Rights merely protects from federal invasion…The Second Amendment protects a right that predates the Constitution; therefore, the Constitution did not grant it. See e.g., Heller, …(‘[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment… codified a pre-existing right.’).”

      The Ninth Circuit was thus left with only the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, which reads: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The 9th Circuit reasoned that since the right to bear arms existed before the federal government and was thus inalienable it was certainly a part of one’s ‘liberty.’ But since the Alameda County ordinance was a valid law, and since the Nordykes had not been deprived of their personal right to arms, they affirmed the District Court and held that the Nordykes had not been deprived of their ‘liberty’ without due process of law. (“Without due process of law” there-means state law.)
      Thus we see that ‘incorporation’ does not mean what many Americans assumed.

      The Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the Second Amendment may not be “directly” incorporated in the States (i.e., the ‘shall not be infringed’ cannot be directly applied to a state’s law) is because of the above-quoted High Court precedents (including Heller), which all held the amendment applies exclusively to the national government.
      The mistake many are making, is viewing the Second Amendment as the source of the right itself, rather than the simple restriction it is. This came about over time by various gun groups continually referring to the right as a ‘Second Amendment’ or ‘constitutional’ right, rather than as an inherent fundamental inalienable right.

      (The Heller Court, contrary to what some are saying, did not discover a new individual right in the amendment it simply rediscovered that its restrictive clause applies to individual type weapons as well as militia type.)
      For now, the Heller decision may only affect federal territories, but quite likely future federal laws that infringe (by Congress skirting the Second Amendment restriction through their taxing and commerce powers) could be challenged. The Heller Court’s reestablishment of the amendment’s intent, as only a restrictive clause designed “to prevent [federal] misconstruction or abuse of its powers” is again the law of the land.

      The Bill of Rights does not confer rights. Judge Sotomayor knows that and so ruled in her decisions. When the Maloney court said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, it was just saying the amendment’s restriction “shall not be infringed” does not apply to states – the right is fundamental every American has it.

      And finally, however-many misinformed-Americans have claimed otherwise, from the Bill of Rights’ beginning to the present, 218 years, no state law has ever been held violative of the Second Amendment! That fact alone should convince all, that the amendment does not apply to the states.

  • independant thinker

    Think I will order another thousand rounds each of 7.62 and 45 ACP later.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.