Buying ammo harder in state
Gun owners, dealers wary as new law takes effect
Few customers who ventured into Imbert & Smithers gun shop in San Carlos were shopping for rounds on Monday, the inaugural day of a law that makes California the first state to require background checks for every ammunition purchase.
That may have been by design. In the weeks leading up to July 1, store owner Jeana RolskyFeige watched her ammunition sales spike 50% to 60%, as customers braced for a law they consider overly intrusive.
“It’s a fear factor,” she said, noting that many customers expressed concern for either their privacy or for widespread confusion at the onset of the landmark law. “It’s totally a bigbrother situation.”
The law is a central provision in a farreaching package of guncontrol measures passed by voters in 2016. Proposition 63 also requires online ammunition sales be mailed to a licensed California ammunition vendor and bans individuals from purchasing bullets in other states and crossing over the California border. The measures have been rolled out separately over the past three years.
The state’ s new background-checking system continues California’s legacy for enacting the most stringent gun laws in the country. Though four other states require ammunition buyers to have a license or permit that is good for a few years, California is the first to force a background check on every point of sale, said Ari Freilich, California legislative affairs director for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Freilich said the provision closes loopholes in existing state law, which allowed prohibited possessors to legally stock up on ammunition.
“I think the most important change we’re going to see is that this is going to save lives,” he said.
The new system, which was pushed by thenLt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, essentially treats purchasing bullets like purchasing a firearm, according to its backers.
Here’s how it works: Most people purchasing ammunition who own a legal firearm on record will present their ID to a licensed vendor and pay $1. Those who aren’t in the system will pay a $19 backgroundcheck fee, which may trigger a waiting period of a few days and will allow them to make a single ammunition purchase within 30 days. The California Department of Justice’s automated system will match the individual with a list of registered gun owners, as well as its Automated Firearms System database, which flags whether the buyer has been banned from possessing guns.
In addition to performing the background check, vendors as of Monday also are required to share their pointofsale information with the state Justice Department, which will store it in a tracking system and crossreference the list with one of prohibited possessors.
It was the datamining factor that was giving gun vendors heartburn on Monday.
The Justice Department “gave us the information over the weekend ... but without having a trial run or any real training to speak of, it’s been kind of a learning curve,” RolskyFeige said.
The one background check she did on Monday took about 15 minutes, she said. She is hoping she can bring that down to 5 minutes.
RolskyFeige said the Justice Department is also asking for information she felt was unnecessary, like the manufacturer and quantity of ammunition purchased.
“It’s more information than most people want to give,” she said, adding that 500 rounds, which sounds like a lot of ammunition to lay people, could be a typical day at the range. “It’s a lot of information that I don’t feel is necessary.”
Mike, a customer who was shopping with his son for a rifle on Monday, said he’s concerned about what security features protect his personal information.
“What scares me the most is all the information we have to give to buy a gun or buy ammo,” said Mike, who declined to give his last name because he did not want to draw attention from his employer.
Mike said he works in security for a large tech company and that it’s almost impossible to fully protect pointofsale information for many retailers.
“That’s what makes me nervous,” he said.
The California Rifle & Pistol Association and other critics of Proposition 63 have filed a federal lawsuit against the state, which is pending in the Southern District of California. Its plaintiffs, including competitive shooter and Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode, argue that the laws are “unprecedented and overreaching,” and overly burdensome for outofstate business.
“I think the most important change we’re going to see is that this is going to save lives.” Ari Freilich, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence