|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: Deadline to Provide Comments on the Proposed Ammunition Regulations is January 31
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Tomorrow, January 31 is the deadline to provide comments on the proposed ammunition regulations submitted by the California Department of Justice (DOJ). The proposed regulations are a direct result of the enactment of both Proposition 63 and Senate Bill No. 1235 in 2016. The proposed regulations were released on December 14, 2018 and are the first in what is expected to be a series of regulatory proposals regarding the mandatory background check process when purchasing ammunition, scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2019. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/31/2019)
|
| Sounds like just another way to bleed the law abiding folks of just a little bit more of their hard earned and taxed money. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
