State bills regulating ammo unconstitutional

I am opposed to every one of the ammunition-control bills because all are an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as upheld by the Supreme Court, because the criminals will continue to obtain ammunition by illegal means, and because the bills are intended to punish law-abiding citizens who are gun owners for the actions of criminals.

The most iniquitous of these bills is SB 53, which would require anyone wishing to purchase any type of ammunition to obtain an annual permit from the California Department of Justice with a fee of $50 or more.

This would be an intolerable burden on law-abiding citizens wishing to purchase ammunition and would create another enormous bureaucracy that California cannot afford.

Every one of these bills should be voted down in the Legislature or vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The liberal Democrat legislators in California should stop their constant step-by-step attacks on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

David R. Russell

Berkeley

Must allow votes on gun-related measures

I support the ammunition-control bills currently moving through the Legislature. This legislation allows for background checks on those recipients purchasing ammunition.

Why should an unstable individual in need of psychiatric care be able to purchase munitions without any kind of background check? I believe any ammunition should be sold by licensed entities so these checks can be followed-up immediately.

Along with the elimination of high-capacity clips and military weaponry, we should be able to maintain the Second Amendment, as well as slow down this insanity of killing. Please allow a vote on these issues.

John Soulis

Fremont

The state shouldn't make me a criminal

East Bay Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner has introduced AB 48 for review. This bill would make it legal only for gun dealerships to transfer ammunition to a private party. This would make it illegal for me to share my ammunition with my son, my father or my friend when at the target range or out hunting.

AB48 would make it mandatory that only dealerships that sell firearms be able to sell ammunition. Many gun ownership groups that encourage safe and responsible gun ownership will be in jeopardy.

Groups such as target-shooting ranges, duck and pheasant hunting clubs and marksman clubs depend heavily on revenues from ammunition sales to help fund their businesses. These businesses promote safe and responsible gun ownership. They have a variety of classes on the handling and safe use of firearms.

They are actively involved in responsible gun ownership and are an asset to the community. Under AB 48, these businesses would not be able to sell ammunition, because they don't sell firearms.

Make me responsible, but don't make me a criminal.

Randy Martinez

Martinez

No support for any ammuntion-control bill

I do not in any way or form support any type of ammunition-control bill. For what reason are these bills being proposed? It can't possibly be due to the dastardly shootings by some nuts.

No elitist politician, newspaper or columnist mentions the cause of all these shootings. Those responsible for the shootings appear to be mentally disturbed or unstable individuals. How many times has anyone heard or read the focus being placed on the mentally ill and solutions?

Rudolph M. Jimenez

Newark

Anything that limits firearm use is needed

Any limits placed on how lethal guns are in this society is sorely needed. It is the easy availability of loaded guns that is the problem, and Americans are sick of it. We have a gun for every man, woman and child in this country. Anything wrong with that picture?

Gun aficionados like to say that guns are not the problem, people are. Really? How many heated arguments today lead to pulling an available loaded gun? These aren't criminals.

Young, tough guys rumbled in my day, too, only they used fists and knives with less lethal consequences -- and babies were not killed in their strollers nearby.

We need to scale down the availability of lethal weapons that are increasingly used like toys or to settle scores. Curbing bullets is a good start.

Anne Spanier

Alameda

Entire family shoots without problems

I do not support the ammunition-control bill.

I am a man of senior years and have had the privilege of owning guns all of my adult life. So have my four children and their children, and none of us has ever killed babies or burglars. No burglars, yet.

I see the ammunition-control bills as another avenue for revenue for the state and government, drawn up by a bunch of bunny-hugging Berkeleyites and Feinsteiners.

I buy bullets for game hunting and recreation (target practice) and for those who would do harm to me or my family.

Alton R. Pierce

San Lorenzo

Plan to track ammo is expensive, useless

I do not support the ammunition-control bills in the Legislature.

Every bullet I buy will be reported to the Department of Justice for a new California ammunition database. They do not have a clue as to the massive amount of ammunition sold every day in this state.

If I buy 3,000 bullets a week, my local law enforcement department will be notified. Is that so it can intimidate me? Raid my home? Scare me? Watch me day and night? I couldn't give my wife a box of ammunition that I purchased to go to the shooting range; I would be guilty of a crime.

As to quantity, doesn't everyone buy the giant economy size to save money? Ammunition is expensive.

If a bullet is found lying in the street, there is no possible way you can tell who bought it. Of course, as with any of these new proposals, no criminal is going to buy ammunition where the purchase can be put into the new database.

Useless, and very expensive.

David Pastor

Pleasanton

We need to enact tough bullet regulations

Previously, in a nod to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's assault-weapons bill, I wrote that simply limiting detachable magazines to 10 rounds was the constitutionally superior and least intrusive way to give gun victims a fighting chance to defend themselves against spree-shooters as in Tucson and Newtown. It forces the assailants to pause to reload.

I was recently razzed for that modest proposal by a cross-examiner who said, "What will Ed and Dianne Feinstein do when in just a few short years 3-D printers ... will allow both guns and HCM's (high-capacity magazines) to be printed out at home?"

Well, the writer has convinced me our resolution is now clear: We must enact strong and restrictive bullet regulations.

Bullet regulations are constitutional, because as strict constructionists will confirm, shooters can still make their own musket-balls, bullets and black-powder, as they did when the Constitution was written.

After all, as they say, guns don't kill people -- people firing bullets kill people.

Ed Chainey

Richmond