Thumbprint now required to buy Ammunition in California

[dmcowen674]

Earlier, related alert from NRA:
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1102-L

Summary of how California state DOJ illegally confiscated legal firearms
door-to-door earlier this year:
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=961-L

This is a shocking invasion of privacy. I hope the usual privacy groups,
which seem to have been silent so far, will condemn this bill.

-Declan

---

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200405%5CPOL20040526a.html

No Thumbprint to Buy Bullets, Gun Group Says
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
May 26, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The California Senate has passed a bill that would
require ammunition buyers to provide a thumb print when the purchase is
made. But a pro-Second Amendment group is condemning what it calls "an
insidious invasion of privacy."

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said
that keeping records on ammunition sales has proven ineffective in
fighting crime. "Requiring a thumb print moves this idea into the realm
of the ludicrous," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron.

"It's a waste of time and taxpayers' money, but more importantly, this
constitutes a serious privacy issue. If this measure dealt with
something other than a gun control issue, the ACLU would be screaming
about it," Waldron added.

He said if the measure becomes state law, it would be yet another
example of how California lawmakers treat honest gun owners like criminals.

"What comes next?" Waldron asked. "Will citizens be required to submit a
fingerprint to buy a car? Will the next dumb idea force gun owners to
submit their medical records before they can legally buy firearms and
ammunition?"

Senate Bill 1152 passed the California Senate last week by a vote of
22-16 and now has been sent to the Assembly.

The bill requires that "all vendors of ammunition maintain specified
information" on ammunition buyers, including: (1) the date of the
transaction; (2) the name, address, and date of birth of the buyer; (3)
the buyer's driver's license or other identification number and the
state in which it was issued; (4) the brand, type, and amount of
ammunition bought or transferred; (5) the buyer's signature; (6) the
name of the salesperson who processed the transaction; and (7) "the
vendor shall also at the time of purchase or transfer obtain the right
thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee."

[...]
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why I am shocked at your resistence Dave!

Don't you know it's needed to fight the War on Terror? :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Why I am shocked at your resistence Dave!

Don't you know it's needed to fight the War on Terror? :roll:

Show me in the Constititution where it says "The right to Bear Arms means giving blood first".

 

[LTC8K6]

Some stores around here have been using fingerprints for check purchases for a very long time. Well before 9/11. Too many bogus checks, I guess.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Seriously: We need to encourage people to shoot first and ask questions later when the bushstopo comes to take their God-Given right to firearms away.

Who's with me!?

 

[LeadMagnet]

Rifles are for hunting land animals
Shotguns are for hunting flying animals
Spearguns are for hunting swiming animals

So handguns for hunting ..... what?




Make all handguns illegal - an licenses to buy all other guns and ammo.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

More infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Rifles are for hunting land animals
Shotguns are for hunting flying animals
Spearguns are for hunting swiming animals

So handguns for hunting ..... what?




Make all handguns illegal - an licenses to buy all other guns and ammo.

You can hunt with handguns and many people do.

California intends to eventually ban all firearms, period. They can only get so much done at one time so they are doing it in stages.

 

[LeadMagnet]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Rifles are for hunting land animals
Shotguns are for hunting flying animals
Spearguns are for hunting swiming animals

So handguns for hunting ..... what?




Make all handguns illegal - an licenses to buy all other guns and ammo.

You can hunt with handguns and many people do.

California intends to eventually ban all firearms, period. They can only get so much done at one time so they are doing it in stages.

Sounds good to me. Ban them all.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Rifles are for hunting land animals
Shotguns are for hunting flying animals
Spearguns are for hunting swiming animals

So handguns for hunting ..... what?




Make all handguns illegal - an licenses to buy all other guns and ammo.

You can hunt with handguns and many people do.

California intends to eventually ban all firearms, period. They can only get so much done at one time so they are doing it in stages.

Sounds good to me. Ban them all.

It is because of people like you that I am eternally grateful for the 2nd Amendment.

 

[LeadMagnet]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Rifles are for hunting land animals
Shotguns are for hunting flying animals
Spearguns are for hunting swiming animals

So handguns for hunting ..... what?




Make all handguns illegal - an licenses to buy all other guns and ammo.

You can hunt with handguns and many people do.

California intends to eventually ban all firearms, period. They can only get so much done at one time so they are doing it in stages.

Sounds good to me. Ban them all.

It is because of people like you that I am eternally grateful for the 2nd Amendment.

And it's because of people like you that no-one should own a gun.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Rifles are for hunting land animals
Shotguns are for hunting flying animals
Spearguns are for hunting swiming animals

So handguns for hunting ..... what?




Make all handguns illegal - an licenses to buy all other guns and ammo.

You can hunt with handguns and many people do.

California intends to eventually ban all firearms, period. They can only get so much done at one time so they are doing it in stages.

Sounds good to me. Ban them all.

It is because of people like you that I am eternally grateful for the 2nd Amendment.

And it's because of people like you that no-one should own a gun.

Ok :roll:

 

[Hugenstein]

The constitution does not give individuals the right to bear arms. Period. End of sentence.

Find a new argument.

 

[0marTheZealot]

No, the Supreme Court has said that the 2nd Admendment allows individuals to own firearms.

Remember, the Constitution also doesn't say that copying a movie you own to a VHS tape is legal either. I guess we shouldn't do that either! On the account of it being unconstitutional and all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Rifles are for hunting land animals
Shotguns are for hunting flying animals
Spearguns are for hunting swiming animals

So handguns for hunting ..... what?




Make all handguns illegal - an licenses to buy all other guns and ammo.

You can hunt with handguns and many people do.

California intends to eventually ban all firearms, period. They can only get so much done at one time so they are doing it in stages.

Sounds good to me. Ban them all.

It is because of people like you that I am eternally grateful for the 2nd Amendment.

And it's because of people like you that no-one should own a gun.

This is where you lose me and I go for the conservative side of the argument. I have the right in the US to have a firearm. The reason I do is not anyones concern. I do not need to justify a right. I have it. As long as I act responsibly and lawfully, you nor anyone else has an effective say in the matter.

You do have a choice though. You can have one or not. You can insist on laws that are enforced when a crime is committed with a gun. You should have no say if I want to go into my backyard (provided it does not endanger others by being in a populated area) and shoot tin cans.

You don't need to regulate ME, what you ought to be advocating is accountability for irresponsible or criminal acts.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Hugenstein
The constitution does not give individuals the right to bear arms. Period. End of sentence.

Find a new argument.

I agree.

New argument:

The ability of a population to protect itself from those that would tyrannize it in a war-lord fashion is only protected when the vastly-good majority can threaten the warlords with a response.

I'm not talking about keeping the bushstapo or king George out of your face. I'm talking about people who live in the inner city: people who, if they weren?t hindered by 'gun control' could fire back when a drive-by occurred.

Yes, collateral damage would occur; but once the drive-by shooters got the idea that they will probably die in the process the number of occurrences would fall dramatically.

Not only should someone that scores perfectly on a test for hand-gun ownership and safety, but we should be giving them away.

The criminals will break the law, even if you restrict gun owner-ship; It's only in arming the population that we can make sure that in the jungle that is life the law-abiding aren?t simply prey. Convicted felons, atleast non-violent ones, SHOULD be allowed to own guns, as well as vote. Drug laws are intended to create a class of non-voting citizen, who can't defend himself;

Concessions:
Guns shouldn't be allowed to be on someone's person while intoxicated, or while in an establishment that is allowed to intoxicate people.

People with children should not be allowed to buy handguns unless they prove ownership of, or purchase at the time, necessary gun safety equipment. Think of it as the OS software bundle you can get with your Mother board.

Anti-child devices for guns are essential, just as they are for medicine bottles;

I'd love to hear other reasonable limitations... please help me show that some middle ground between: ? it?s my right to own bio-chemical warheads as an American citizen" and "ban all guns so only criminals have them" can be found.

 

[maluckey]

So what's the big deal? Convicted felons cannot possess firearms in most states. Convicted Domestic Abusers cannot possess firearms in any state. Aliens cannot possess, use, sell, cause to be used, sold or transferered, or even hold a firearm in the United States of America or it's territories.

To ensure compliance with these laws meant to protect the general populace, safeguards are in place. I own several firearms, and didn't flinch at all when I had to give name, SSN, address, and copy of my drivers license before buying.

I suppose we should go to the "honor" system, and anyone that says they are able to legally buy a gun must be O.K.? RIIIIGGGHHHT!!!!!!!!!!

Dream on!

These same people against background checks are likely the first to scream foul when a convicted murderer kills their family with the gun he bought after leaving prison, or when a foreign terrorist kills their mom with a handgun he legally bought at "Gun World".

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Hugenstein
The constitution does not give individuals the right to bear arms. Period. End of sentence.

Find a new argument.

As it has already been said, the Supreme Court seems to disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Hugenstein
The constitution does not give individuals the right to bear arms. Period. End of sentence.

Find a new argument.

As it has already been said, the Supreme Court seems to disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution.

As conservatives we need to past it; it's like someone saying 'I support abortion because it is my constitutional right'; sure if you agree with abortion that's all you need, but if you are against it the fact that the lives of many children is cut short is a major issue, even an amendment worthy one.

Accept that the USSC isn't a group of gods from on-high that are infallible and argue the merits and flaws of our system... if nothing else a constitutional amendment for whatever you disagree with the USSC about is an option.

Please, lets all try to find some intellectually honest middle ground on this very important topic... and not turn it into a flame war.

 

[LeadMagnet]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Rifles are for hunting land animals
Shotguns are for hunting flying animals
Spearguns are for hunting swiming animals

So handguns for hunting ..... what?




Make all handguns illegal - an licenses to buy all other guns and ammo.

You can hunt with handguns and many people do.

California intends to eventually ban all firearms, period. They can only get so much done at one time so they are doing it in stages.

Sounds good to me. Ban them all.

It is because of people like you that I am eternally grateful for the 2nd Amendment.

And it's because of people like you that no-one should own a gun.

This is where you lose me and I go for the conservative side of the argument. I have the right in the US to have a firearm. The reason I do is not anyones concern. I do not need to justify a right. I have it. As long as I act responsibly and lawfully, you nor anyone else has an effective say in the matter.

You do have a choice though. You can have one or not. You can insist on laws that are enforced when a crime is committed with a gun. You should have no say if I want to go into my backyard (provided it does not endanger others by being in a populated area) and shoot tin cans.

You don't need to regulate ME, what you ought to be advocating is accountability for irresponsible or criminal acts.

Oh great - it's the old "Guns don't kill people - people kill people argument." Put the criminals away that use guns and everything will be fine.

Then I am suposed to argue that in Japan and England where guns are illegal the muder rate is much lower. And then also state that having a gun in the home dramaticaly increase the chances of someone living in that home getting shot, compared to someone without a gun in thier home.

Same old aruements - with the same stats - I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I didn't grow-up with guns, and see no need for them.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Oh great - it's the old "Guns don't kill people - people kill people argument." Put the criminals away that use guns and everything will be fine.

Then I am suposed to argue that in Japan and England where guns are illegal the muder rate is much lower. And then also state that having a gun in the home dramaticaly increase the chances of someone living in that home getting shot, compared to someone without a gun in thier home.

Same old aruements - with the same stats - I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I didn't grow-up with guns, and see no need for them.

You didn't grow-up in a jungle ware you needed them. Many parts of these united states are just that: jungles. Jungles ware might-makes right, a gun over your shoulder is the only thing keeping you from being shot in a drive-by and the fear that shoppers have guns on them is the only thing that keeps the markets open.

I don't like guns, but if you make them illegal then only criminals will have guns.. no fewer criminals, just fewer guns in the hands of the law-abiding.

 

[LeadMagnet]

You didn't grow-up in a jungle ware you needed them. Many parts of these united states are just that: jungles. Jungles ware might-makes right, a gun over your shoulder is the only thing keeping you from being shot in a drive-by and the fear that shoppers have guns on them is the only thing that keeps the markets open.

I don't like guns, but if you make them illegal then only criminals will have guns.. no fewer criminals, just fewer guns in the hands of the law-abiding.

True I didn't grow up in a jungle.

But some would agrue that it's guns that help make the impoverished areas into a unsafe jungle. Also making all guns & ammo illegal now will eventually lead to the end of all guns usefullnes to all but antique dealers. (maybe in a 100+ years) Just think of the guns used in the majority of crimes - they are Probably (I have no evidence) realatively new ( younger than 20 years). And if all guns were illegal 100 years ago we wouldn't have the gun violance problems we do today.

 

[K1052]

No one has mentioned the logistical nightmare in collecting all the firearms in the country. You could never be assured that the majority were turned in or confiscated.

Also, a new illegal weapons trade would spring up just like drugs. Considering the inability of the government to stop drugs from entering the counrty, I have no doubt that they would be equally ineffective at stopping arms.

 

[biostud]

Funny, some gas stations would like to have a fingerprint database, so they can prevent "tank and drive away". Basically the gas is prevented to flow if your fingerprint is in the database, but it contains no personal information, just the fingerprint.

I can't really see why it would be a problem not selling ammunition to criminals.

 

[halik]

I dont see whats wrong with thumbprints on ammo purchases. I've had to do that when i was cashing checks before. Theres absolutely nothing unconstutional with stricter gun control. I mean right now the owning a firearm is more of a privilege anyway. You have to be 18 for a rifle, 21 for a handgun, gotta have class 3 license for fully automatic weapons etc.

However the house searches are wrong, im sure ACLU is gonna be on em like sh!t on velcro.


Oh yeah i come from a household of 30+ riflers... my 19 year old brother owns a colt ar-15