Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

Why You Should Vote No On California’s Proposition 63

Friday, October 7, 2016

Why You Should Vote No On California’s Proposition 63

by Kimberly Rhode, Six-Time Olympic Shooting Medalist 

California’s Proposition 63, if passed by voters in November, will fundamentally change how law-abiding citizens can purchase and transport ammunition in the state. In my opinion, based on 27 years of shooting nearly every day, this measure will only serve to make California residents less safe. And if you think this sort of effort will end with California, think again. 

Consider these important factors: 

Proposition 63, effective Jan. 1, 2018, will require all ammunition sales (with few exceptions) to be conducted through an “ammunition vendor.” This means you cannot sell any ammunition to your neighbor or sibling unless a licensed ammunition vendor performs the transfer. And if you want to sell more than 500 rounds in a 30-day period, you must become a licensed ammunition vendor. These transactions must also be done face-to-face—no mail order. 

Proposition 63 requires a background check to purchase ammunition. You will have to pay a fee of up to $50 and wait up to 30 days every four years for your application to purchase ammunition to be processed. Then, each time you purchase ammunition, the vendor will have to verify that you are who you say you are, and that you have the proper authorization in the state’s system. 

Proposition 63 requires you to provide the vendor personal information each time you purchase ammunition, and it will be recorded/registered by the California Department of Justice indefinitely. One scary thought: This opens the door for more identify theft and computer hacking. 

Proposition 63 does not allow residents of California to bring ammunition obtained from out of state back into California. So if you drive to a competition in Arizona and order several cases of ammo but don’t shoot it all, you cannot bring the remainder back into the state. Interestingly, it does not apply to nonresidents of California. So nonresidents have no restrictions on bringing ammunition into California, and they can sell to California residents if they go through a licensed vendor. Out-of-state terrorists, drug dealers, gang members and convicted felons can bring ammunition into California all they want. Who’s to oversee how much they bring into the state and how it is used? This tells you how fundamentally twisted this proposition really is. It will cause the police and the state to divert resources to monitor law-abiding citizens that are not causing any problems, but will do nothing to stop criminals. 

As you can see, Prop 63 is a very bad proposal that Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom wants you to believe will keep guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands. The problem is, buried in Proposition 63’s 34 pages of fine print are oppressive restrictions on the purchase and transporting of ammunition by all Californians. Proposition 63 will do nothing to stop violent criminals from having guns and ammunition, and will be very costly to law-abiding citizens who want or need to purchase ammunition for recreation, home defense and competition. 

Only bureaucrats would believe that criminals and terrorists would jump through these hoops to buy ammunition. The enormous expense and time to enforce this proposition will fall on the taxpayers. Fact is, this proposal is nothing more than an anti-gun power grab: Newsom hasn’t gotten us to give up our guns, so he’s trying to take away our ammunition instead. 

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the DNA of our country, and our Second Amendment says that we have the right to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed. That is what secures our freedoms and makes our country special. Politicians like Newsom should not be infringing on those rights. And make no mistake: This proposition is a WHOPPER of an “infringement” on our constitutional rights.

Proposition 63 has two main focuses: First, to initiate background checks before purchasing ammunition, and second, to ban large-capacity magazines. Both of these issues have already been addressed by recent legislation passed and signed into law last month. But Newsom, who has his eye on being elected the next governor, apparently thinks this will help him come election time. 

Read your voter guide on Proposition 63 and you will see that this proposition is opposed by law enforcement, including, “The California State Sheriffs’ Association, Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Fish & Game Wardens’ Association, California Reserve Peace Officers Association, and numerous other law enforcement and civic groups, representing tens of thousands of public safety professionals throughout California …” because it will divert their resources from pursuing real criminals to trying to enforce laws on law-abiding gun owners purchasing ammunition.

This proposition will not make us more “safe,” but it will be a huge burden for competitive shooters and sportsmen. I don’t know of any range in the state that sells the type of shotgun ammunition that an international shotgun shooter like myself would shoot. And if, by chance, someone had the ammo, they do not stock nearly enough for real training purposes. How will the younger generations of competitive shooters be able to train and compete in their sports with these severe limits on resources? 

What I’ve outlined here is just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many questions on what different parts of the 34-page proposition actually mean that even lawyers are struggling to understand. We cannot let Proposition 63 pass on Nov. 8. It is imperative that we defeat it, because once passed, it will be virtually impossible to repeal.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 63! Learn more by clicking here.



TRENDING NOW
Biden Reiterates Call to Ban 9mm Handguns

News  

Monday, July 26, 2021

Biden Reiterates Call to Ban 9mm Handguns

During a July 21 CNN “presidential town hall,” Joe Biden expressed his support for a ban on commonly-owned handguns. Responding to a question about the recent increase in violent crime, the career politician stated,

Great Expectations, Empty Promises: Gun Control in Washington State

News  

Monday, July 26, 2021

Great Expectations, Empty Promises: Gun Control in Washington State

For years, voters in the Evergreen State have been assured that if only they approve certain gun control ballot initiatives, they would “save lives” and reduce crime. The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR), the organization pushing ...

How Anti-Gun Research Works

News  

Monday, July 26, 2021

How Anti-Gun Research Works

The objective world mistrusts most gun policy research because it’s clear the objective is to produce an anti-gun outcome rather than honest analysis. Politicians and professional activists claim the mantle of evidence but will ignore ...

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

St. Louis Prosecutor Kim Gardner Ignores Violent Crime While Playing Politics with Gun Owners

News  

Monday, July 26, 2021

St. Louis Prosecutor Kim Gardner Ignores Violent Crime While Playing Politics with Gun Owners

Similar to many other urban areas of the country, St. Louis saw a dramatic increase in homicide in 2020. The Gateway to the West’s homicide rate per 100 thousand residents exploded from 64.5 in 2019 to 87.2 in 2020. The homicide ...

Louisiana: Betrayal at the Capitol

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Louisiana: Betrayal at the Capitol

Yesterday, SB 118, Constitutional Carry, was defeated due to several Senators reversing their initial vote of support on the bill.  Two of the Senators who flip-flopped were Senators Patrick Connick (SD-8) and Louie Bernard (SD-31). 

Students “School” Antigun Education Officials on Civil Rights, Receive Large Settlements in Court Cases

News  

Monday, July 19, 2021

Students “School” Antigun Education Officials on Civil Rights, Receive Large Settlements in Court Cases

Last September we reported on the saga of Ka'Mauri Harrison, a Louisiana elementary school student who was suspended for having a BB gun that happened to come into view while the fourth grader was participating in online ...

NRA-ILA Applauds Rep. Claudia Tenney and U.S. House of Representatives’ Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

NRA-ILA Applauds Rep. Claudia Tenney and U.S. House of Representatives’ Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided to hear the NRA-ILA backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. NRA-ILA’s opening brief is located here.

Forty-Three Amicus Briefs Filed In Support OF NRA-ILA Backed Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Forty-Three Amicus Briefs Filed In Support OF NRA-ILA Backed Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided to hear the NRA-ILA backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. And just last week, NRA-ILA filed the opening brief in this crucial case, which is located here.

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Monday, June 30, 2014

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.