California Gun Sales & Preemption

California Gun Sales & Preemption

California is the model for new gun laws backed by Bloomberg’s money.

by Greg Brown - March 14, 2019

Private Gun Sales

All private gun sales in California must be processed through a licensed dealer. All sales of firearms whether private or from a shop are recorded by the state and the purchaser must wait 10 days before obtaining the firearm.


Local government authorities are prohibited under California law from enacting regulations to control firearms. As they cannot directly regulate firearms a number of local authorities have regulated ammunition, such as Los Angeles who regulate that a magazine for rifles or handguns not hold more than 10 rounds. Other local authorities have banned the discharge of firearms and setup zoning restrictions on gun shops and firing ranges.

The Next Step for Nevada to follow the CA Blue Print

CA Firearms Registration

The California Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") retains information about the purchaser and seller of all in-state firearm sales and transfers, and requires that any firearms imported into the state be reported to the D.O.J..  Furthermore, the Attorney General is required by law to maintain a registry containing the fingerprints and identifying information of the transferee, and the unique identifying information of every firearm transferred in the state, pursuant to §11106.

All handgun serial numbers and sales are recorded by the state in the Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System, along with those of many long guns. While there is no requirement for California residents to register handguns owned prior to 1991 with law enforcement, §12025 and §12031 enhance several misdemeanor offenses to felonies if the handgun is not on file in the Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System.

New residents must register handguns (purchased outside of California) with D.O.J., within 60 days. As of January 1, 2014, long gun serial numbers are also recorded, whereas previously only the sale was recorded. However, it is not required that owners of long guns purchased prior to 2014 register their firearms and it is not a crime to be in possession of an unregistered firearm.



California Ammunition Regulation As Of 2019

California Ammunition Regulation As Of 2019

Newest Regulations in California

by Greg Brown - March 15, 2019

As of January 2019, ammunition can now be confiscated from people with restraining orders including gun violence.

Ammunition Sales

Starting January 1, 2018, those individuals selling 500 rounds or more of ammunition in any given month must obtain a state-issued business license. Individuals are restricted to conducting ammunition sales at either gun shows or specified business locations.

The Department of Justice (D.O.J.) will issue an ammunition vendor license to those individuals that provide the required documentation along with their certificate of eligibility which is issued after passing a background check. Employees must also verify that they have completed all necessary paperwork and background checks.

Also, beginning January 1, 2018, ammunition sales must be conducted through a licensed vendor. Ammunition purchased online or from another state must be shipped to a licensed vendor for physical delivery to the purchaser who has passed the necessary background checks.

Record Of Ammunition Sales

Starting July 1, 2019, all licensed ammunition vendors are henceforth required to record, keep, and report all ammunition sales to the D.O.J.  These records will remain confidential unless used by or for law enforcement purposes.

Shooting Range Ammunition Sales

Individuals are able to purchase ammunition at a shooting range without having to participate in a background check so long as the ammunition does not leave the facility.

Gun Show Ammunition Sales

Ammunition displayed at all California gun shows but be held in a closed container, unless being viewed by a prospective viewer with the assistance of the vendor or employee.

No one, aside from security personnel or police officer, may be in possession of both a firearm and it’s corresponding ammunition at the same time.

Unreasonably Dangerous Ammunition

The manufacturing, importation, sale, transportation, knowing possessions, or intent to sell handgun ammunition, that is designed to penetrate armor or metal, is banned in California.

Ammunition Vendor License Application

Applicants applying for an ammunition vendor license must submit their application to the D.O.J., accompanied by a fee and copy of the following:

  • A valid State Board of Equalization sellers permit
  • Any business or regulatory license required by the local government
  • Certificate of Eligibility
  • Federal Firearms License (if federally licensed)
  • Processing the sale between two private parties

If two private parties wish to conduct business it must be through a licensed ammunition dealer and the following fees are applicable:

  • Any DOJ fee
  • Ammunition vendor may add an additional fee for processing the sale
  • If the purchaser is present, the fee cannot exceed five dollars
  • If the purchaser is not present for delivery, the ammo vendor is allowed to charge an additional fee for storage that must be agreed upon before the vendor receives the ammunition

Displaying Ammunition

  • Ammunition must be displayed in a locked container
  • Ammunition may not be accessible to the purchaser unless the vendor or an employee is present to assist the purchaser

New Regulations Regarding Firearms As Of 2019

  • Long guns, including shotguns and rifles cannot be purchased by anyone under the age of 21, unless they are military or law enforcement.
  • The manufacturing and selling of “burstrigger” and “bump stock” implements, that are capable of producing a succession of rapid fire in a semiautomatic, has been banned.

Ghost Gun

  • Beginning July 1, 2018, any person that wishes to assemble or manufacture a firearm is required to apply to the D.O.J. for a unique serial number, first.
  • Those who own a firearm that currently does not have a serial number must also apply for a unique serial number by January 1, 2019.

Assault weapon with the bullet button feature

  • As of January 1, 2017, firearms that have the feature known as the “bullet button” will henceforth be classified as an assault weapon and must be registered no later than June 30, 2018

Definition of an assault weapon

New regulations define an ‘assault weapon’ as a semi-automatic pistol or semiautomatic centerfire rifle, without a fixed magazine but has one of these characteristics:

A rifle with one or more of the following:

  • Pistol grip
  • Thumbhole stock
  • Telescoping/folding stock
  • Grenade launcher
  • Forward pistol grip
  • Flash suppressor
  • Also, a pistol that has one or more of the following:
  • Second handgrip
  • Threaded barrel
  • Can accept a magazine outside the pistol grip
  • Shroud attached to the barrel

Exempt from punishment

  • Those in possession of their assault weapon before January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2017
  • Those who have registered their assault weapon with the DOJ no later than June 30, 2018.

Is America Turning Into a Communist Country?

Is America Turning Into a Communist Country?

By Rich M. - February 18, 2019

Communism hit center stage with the Russian revolution, as first Vladimir Lenin and then Joseph Stalin remade Russia into the image created by Karl Marx. This didn’t affect us here in the USA much until World War II, when we were uncomfortable allies with Russia. Even then, there were those who saw communism as being the political savior for all mankind. But it wasn’t until World War II ended and the Cold War began, that we clearly saw the juxtaposition of capitalism versus communism in the world.

Ever since then, there have been those in this county who have been pushing for us to become one more socialist country in the world. They hold up socialism as the shining light, where all people are treated equally. The government exists only to make sure that happens.

But even then, there is an elite in any communist government. Someone has to make the decisions about who gets what and those people always take care of themselves first. While socialism or even communism might be a great theory, it requires perfect people; and the world has always had a shortage of those.

Yet there are those in our political system, who still proclaim socialism as the way to go. They make it sound better by calling it “democratic socialism.” But all it takes is a look at other countries who have gone socialist to see what that means; you can vote it in, but you can’t vote it out.

Nevertheless, they try to make their political ideology look good by promising lots of freebies, not letting people know that they are going to have to pay exorbitant taxes to get those freebies. Rather, they claim that the rich, who don’t pay “their fair share” will pay them. Yet every time politicians talk about raising taxes on the rich, it is the middle class who feels the pinch, not the wealthy.

To the low-information voter, especially the low-income, low-information voter, this all sounds good. They get free health care, free birth control, free education, free phones, free food and free income, and someone else has to pay for it. What could be better?

Interestingly enough, over the last century, every socialist or communist government has gotten into power by proclaiming their concern for the poor. This gave them a large pool of low-information voters they could count on, so that they could get voted into office. They lied to their followers regularly, both about their own intentions and those of the opposing party. All that mattered was that they got into power. We could be seeing the same thing happening here.

So, is the United States on its way to becoming a communist country, as some would like?

As I look back over the last 50 years, I can see where we Americans have lost a lot of our freedoms. Every time the government expands, taking over another part of society, it does so at the cost of individual and state freedom. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about the IRS or the EPA; they get their power by stealing our freedom.

In that sense, you can say that we are already on the road towards communism and have been so for quite some time. A major step towards getting us there was Obama’s signature healthcare law. Never intended to work, the Unaffordable Healthcare Act was merely supposed to be a stepping stone towards a single-payer healthcare system, which would allow the federal government to take full control of 17.9% of our economy.

Basically all that Obamacare has done for the country is raise the cost of health insurance and medical care. Yes, it did give some people who were previously denied health insurance coverage by insurance companies the legal right to buy insurance. Yet that could have been done at a much lower cost and without having to hire 30,000 new IRS agents, further bloating an already oppressive government agency, in the process.

Even regulatory agencies like the Department of Education can be seen to be pushing our country towards socialism and then communism. These agencies do nothing more than take the power to make decisions out of the hands of US citizens and our local governments. One of their main ways of doing this is by controlling tax dollars. Money passed out to state and local governments by these agencies always comes with a price; one of toeing the line on some regulation or other.

Part of the problem here is that once a government agency is established, it is all but impossible to shut it down. Take the EPA for example. It can be fairly argued that there was a need for the EPA, when it was founded by President Nixon in 1970. But since then, the majority of the work that the EPA originally did has been taken over by state governments, leaving the bloated federal bureaucracy in place to spend taxpayer money and create stifling regulations.

The new House of Representatives seems to be making a greater push for the government to take over other parts of our economy as well. Some representatives have even gone so far as to float the idea of taking over major corporations, “for the good of the people.” Should this actually happen, it will be the sign that our country is actively being taken over by a communistic government.

If we keep doing that, we’re going to find ourselves backed into a corner; actually several corners. The first corner will be the elimination of our First Amendment freedom of speech. The “PC Police” are already at work on this, using “political correctness” and “hate speech” to silence those who don’t agree with them.

Totalitarian authority can’t handle disagreement, so they have to criminalize that disagreement in order to silence it. Everyone will be forced to toe the party line, saying what they’re supposed to say, as if they believe it. They won’t be satisfied with us being quiet, but rather insist that we say things their way.

Once they’ve accomplished that, it will be easier for them to take the next big roadblock to communism out of the way, our Second Amendment rights. Totalitarian governments must always disarm the people, so that they can keep control. As Mao Zedong, the first communist leader of China said, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Without guns, what can any of us do to stop anything the government wants to do? The Second Amendment was given to us for this purpose. If those in power are going to get the power that they want, they have to take it out of our hands. That’s why the gun grabbers always attacks the AR-15 rifle, rather than pistols or shotguns. You can’t fight a war with pistols; you need rifles for that. As long as we are armed with rifles, we are a danger to the totalitarian communist government they crave.

The real question boils down to what we are going to do when they come for our freedom of speech and our freedom to bear arms?


Steering the Conservative Movement

Google Discusses ‘Steering’ the Conservative Movement
by Joe Raedle - 7 Mar 2019

Google’s senior director of U.S. public policy, Adam Kovacevich appeared to describe the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as a “sideshow Circus,” in a leaked audio recording in which he also argued that Google should remain a sponsor of the conference to “steer” the conservative movement “away from nationalistic and incendiary comments.”
The comments came to light in leaked audio files allegedly of a company-wide meeting at Google, part of which is now exclusively reported by Breitbart News. Another part of the transcript was released last Friday on Tucker Carlson Tonight, while further snippets revealing Google’s funding of establishment conservative think-tanks were published by the left-leaning tech magazine Wired in December.

The alleged meeting took place in the wake of Google’s sponsorship of CPAC in 2018, which triggered an internal rebellion from left-wing employees of the tech giant. Breitbart News exclusively reported on the revolt at the time, in which radical left-wingers inside Google accused CPAC of “ethno-nationalism” and “hate.”

Google has not denied the authenticity of the leaked material.

In the clips, the transcripts of which posted in full below, Kovacevich portrayed CPAC as a conference with a “dual identity,” one being a “premier gathering” that features a “whole swath of conservatives,” including “national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the Log Cabin Republicans, deficit hawks, small government advocates.”

In the audio clip, the other side of CPAC was described in disparaging terms by Kovacevich as featuring a “sideshow circus-like element” which “CPAC organizers have intentionally cultivated sometimes, inviting outrageous figures that say incendiary and offensive things, I think in order to draw more attention and controversy to the conference.”

“I want to be clear that we don’t agree with those things, right?” continued Kovacevich. “We abhor and rebuke the offensive things that are said at the conference. Those things obviously don’t align with Google’s values and our approach.”
“And I think it’s challenging for us to reconcile those two identities of CPAC.”

In another audio clip of the same conversation provided to Breitbart News, Kovacevich appeared to describe the importance of reaching out to conservatives in order to counter conservative media, including Breitbart News. Kovacevich warned of “growing negative attention from the conservative media which is influential among those same Republicans who control government.” He went on to accuse conservative media of “pushing the storyline that Google is biased against conservatives.”
“And of course we aim to build products for everyone but if that notion becomes accepted among conservative and Republican policymakers, that could be harmful to our mission of building products for everyone.”

The full transcript follows below:
Yeah, it’s a great question Greg. I appreciate the question. I think one of the big themes – I think picking up on your question – that I saw in some internal listservs and one of the Dory questions focused on the question of the other speakers, right? What are we saying in terms of sponsoring a conference where you have sort of incendiary speakers, right, and I think it’s a very valid question, one we’ve talked a lot about here. I think, to be candida, one of the challenges we face with CPAC is that the conference itself has a kind of a dual identity. So on the one hand, it’s really the premier gathering of sort of big-tent conservatives. Especially in non-presidential years it sort of in some ways takes the place of the annual Republican National Convention. You have a whole swath of conservatives: national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the Log Cabin Republicans, deficit hawks, small government advocates who attend the conference. The conference is attended by about 10,000 people. And so one of the other things is that the Republican Party and I think conservatism, in general, is also going through a lot of internal debates about what it should be, right, what should be sort of the position of the party. And I think that’s one that we should be involved in because we, I think, want probably — the majority of Googlers would want to steer conservatives and Republicans more towards a message of liberty and freedom and away from the more sort of nationalistic incendiary comments, nativist comments and things like that. But it has been a very valuable place for us to reach a lot of the people and the big tent of conservatism.

On the other hand, and sort of to get to the point of the dual identity, in recent years with CPAC there has also been this kind of sideshow circus-like element, right, that I think the CPAC organizers have intentionally cultivated sometimes, inviting outrageous figures that say incendiary and offensive things, I think in order to draw more attention and controversy to the conference. I want to be clear that we don’t agree with those things, right? We abhor and rebuke the offensive things that are said at the conference. Those things obviously don’t align with Google’s values and our approach. And I think that it’s challenging for us to reconcile those two identities of CPAC. I think one of the things that — we also face this question in other areas, by the way. So in the realm of sort of politics, there’s always going to — there’s often going to be someone at some event we sponsor who will say something we don’t agree with. Last year, a group that we support, the New America Foundation, had your guys’s, one of your Senators, Elizabeth Warren. She spoke, and she called for the breakup of Google at that [laughter] conference, right? The conference of an organization we support. Obviously we don’t support that position.
In another audio clip provided exclusively to Breitbart News, Kovacevich discusses “growing negative attention” from conservative media, including Breitbart News.

One of the other things we’re dealing with is also growing negative attention from the conservative media which is influential among those same Republicans who control government. We have sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller and Fox News who have been focusing on some of the tensions that we Googlers feel internally around — many of which became public after the Damore memo. And I think some of those media outlets are actively pushing the storyline that Google is biased against conservatives. And of course we aim to build products for everyone but if that notion becomes accepted among conservative and Republican policymakers, that could be harmful to our mission of building products for everyone. So one of the things we say out on our team is, in order to count on an ally in the political realm you have to make an ally. If we want policymakers to help us when we have a bad bill or a regulation pending, we have to build relationships with them ahead of time. I think part of our work in the DC office and across all of our team is building relationships not just with the people in power but also with the people who influence them.

In a followup question, Kovacevich also acknowledged the “pain” and “disappointment” of Google employees who were up in arms at the tech giant’s sponsorship of CPAC in 2018. He went on to openly disparage sites like Breitbart and the Daily Caller as outlets that might be “perpetually” at odds with Google, and state “blatant mistruths.”
Questioner: Okay. Second question is– you mentioned Breitbart and The Daily Caller a couple of times before in the talk. Are we orienting our public image so that we will receive less negative and maybe more positive press from sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller?

Kovacevich: I think it’s a complicated question. I mean, I think at a certain point our values are our values, right? Google stands for inclusiveness, we stand for tolerance, we stand for building products for everyone, and if certain outlets don’t like that, we are probably going to be at odds with them perpetually, right? On the other hand, sometimes some outlets and others just state blatant kind of mistruths, right, or they’ll shade something in sort of the most– you know, that has a legitimate explanation, they’ll shade something in sort of the most negative light possible, and that’s something that we try to avoid, if we can, consistent with our values. I think– and I want to probably wrap up because we’re almost at the hour– look, I appreciate that this is hard and I know that our sponsorship of this has caused pain, disappointment to many of you and we understand that, and I think appreciate those of you who have spoken up about that. I value that Google is the kind of company where people can voice their disappointment and their hopes for how the company can stay true to its ideals going forward in the future. We certainly didn’t mean to cause pain or that kind of disappointment in people. And we really do value the feedback and the input.

Breitbart News has reached out to Google for comment.