Starting tomorrow if you want to buy ammunition in the state of California that can be used in a handgun the state will require your thumbprint and ID. Or so we thought. The Tehama County Sheriff and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation and the NRA filed a lawsuit in Fresno and the court overturned the law stating that it was unconstitutional due to being too vague. You see the law didn't really specify which type of ammunition. You can use .22 in a little Beretta pistol. (That was fun to shoot at my CCW class a couple weeks ago.) But normally .22 is for rifles not pistols. So would you need to be printed and ID'd if you were going to use it in the rifle?
Of course this is going to be appealed. If that doesn't work, then those wanting to restrict guns and ammunition will just go back to the drawing board and write up another bill that will be more clear. Thank goodness this state does have some law enforcement officials with some good sense who oppose these restrictions.
One good thing to come out of this for me was that I've purchased quite a lot of ammunition in the last couple of months. I even purchased 500 rounds of 9mm even though I don't have a gun that uses 9mm yet. I went to the gun store on Sunday and asked about the Glock 26. I used that at CCW class and liked it. They didn't have one in stock but the dealer said that's just used for people with CCWs, you should get this other model instead. I said I am getting the CCW. OK, then he showed me a Smith and Wesson M&P 9c which he said he liked better than the 26. It's a newer model and had a longer grip but still not too big for concealment. It felt good in my hand. He then said the Springfield was another good gun. Not for me. That was the one that I couldn't pull the slide. I need to go back to the range and try out the 9c but from what I've heard from others who've reviewed it on the internet, it will probably be the one to get.
CCW exam, fingerprints, and paying the money on Wednesday!