California is rapidly on its way to becoming the worst state in the union for gun owners, with a ballot initiative that could see many residents struggling to exercise their constitutional rights.
With Proposition 63, voters will have the opportunity to impose even more restrictions on legal gun owners.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board encourages its readers to vote for the proposition (not exactly a shocker), which would require people who are stripped of their Second Amendment rights to have their probation officer report to the court whether the person has sold any guns they previously owned, given them away, stored them with a firearms dealer, or turned them over to law enforcement.
It would also require the state attorney general to submit names of newly ineligible people to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which the office currently does voluntarily.
Why all police forces aren’t required to report criminals to the NICS system is a mystery that’s never really explained by those who want more gun laws.
The proposition would also force gun owners to report missing, lost or stolen firearms within five days of noticing its absence, which is intended to crack down on straw purchases.
Finally, Proposition 63 would add even more red tape to ammunition sales (a bill has been signed in California requiring a background check for every single ammunition purchase) by requiring people to obtain a four-year permit verifying that their Second Amendment rights are still intact before they can purchase ammo, putting the burden of proof on the legal, innocent gun owner.
“But while it’s true that the permit could take up to 30 days to process, the initiative would allow current gun owners to apply six months before it goes into effect after July 1, 2019. And new gun owners would be given a 30-day temporary permit to buy ammunition while they wait for their four-year permit to be processed. That’s hardly a burden.”
“Because Proposition 63 is an initiative, it can only be repealed through another initiative. But it allows the legislature, with a 55% majority, to tweak the details as long as the changes are in keeping with the intent of the law, which is a welcome bit of flexibility (and which led to the so-called pre-amendment).”