Give an inch, and they’ll take a mile. A slippery slope. Death by a thousand cuts. By whatever name you call it, Democrats in California have mastered the art of chipping away at constitutional rights. That’s what’s taking place right now in the Golden State where last week, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the state wants to raise the cost of an ammunition background check (that’s right, in California, you have to have a background check just to buy ammunition) from $1 to $5.

Of course, the fee increase is to cover the cost of doing the background checks Bonta says, checks that consumers never asked for and that the government imposed upon them in the guise of safety, but it’s just one of the reasons why such legislation is so egregious in the first place. It’s also a textbook example of why you can’t trust any politician who masks gun restrictions as “gun safety” and acts incredulous when citizens argue against their proposals despite them calling their restrictive policies “common sense” gun rules. But they aren’t common sense. They never are if you are actually aware of the issues and how the laws will later be applied.

The laws certainly won’t stop a person from buying a gun—or ammunition in this case—if they have the intent to wreak harm. Such laws, will however, make it more expensive for Californians to enjoy hunting, recreational shooting, competition shooting and defending themselves. It will make it particularly more costly and difficult for those people in our society who, as Kamala Harris likes to say, have not received “equitable treatment.” Assuming this means “disadvantaged” and in disadvantaged meaning “disadvantaged economically,” then they are some of the people who need to be able to defend themselves the most as by being economically disadvantaged they typically by default live in the most dangerous and crime-ridden neighborhoods. (It makes you wonder how serious Harris and Bonta really are about the welfare of those they proclaim to be the champions for?)

Here is part of Bonta’s pitch to California gun owners since it is the only person it will affect:

Prior to the passage of Proposition 63 of 2016 (The Safety for All Act) and Senate Bill No. 1235 (SB 1235) (Reg. Sess. 2015-2016), the sale or transfer of ammunition was not regulated in California. Although Penal Code section 30305 prohibited an individual from owning or possessing ammunition if they were prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, the Department had no mechanism to regulate the sale of ammunition. Proposition 63 and SB 1235 authorized the Department to complete an ammunition eligibility check or to verify that an individual’s Certificate of Eligibility (COE) is valid when the individual purchases or transfers ammunition from or through an ammunition vendor. 

As authorized by Penal Code section 30370, subdivision (e), the Department’s current regulations established a $1.00 fee for a Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check (SAEC) and $1.00 fee for a COE Verification check. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, §§ 4282, 4285.) This fee has not been sufficient to cover the Department’s operating costs for the ammunition authorization program.

Effective January 1, 2024, the Department may raise the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check to cover the reasonable regulatory and enforcement costs for operating the ammunition authorization program. (Pen. Code, § 30370, subd. (e).) The proposed regulation raises the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check from $1.00 to $5.00.

But this is how anti-gun politicians fulfill their agenda literally at “any cost.” They can’t stop gun ownership legislatively or in the courts because this annoying little legal thing called the Second Amendment, the one our founding fathers believed was important enough to put right behind our freedom of speech, religion, the press or to assemble. So, they pass administrative laws that charge fees. And when they do it, they call it a “nominal” fee, simply to help offset the costs to enforce the restrictive law they passed. But then, that fee virtually always increases, the goal being to price people out of being able to exercise their rights and tax into oblivion what they can’t legislate.

And that my anti-gun friends (OK, as I think about it, I don’t know that I have any serious, like “go out and protest” anti-gun “friends.” That might be kind of hard to deal with on a daily basis. I did meet this chick in college who leaned hard left on the issue, but damn, she was so hot, I could forgive her for one night…but I digress. The truth is, currently, I do know some whiners, and I definitely have some weak-spirited, squeamish on the issue friends and relatives. We can’t all be the rare-breed sheep dogs. The world has to have its sheep…and sadly, wolves, as well.) But anyway, that is why supporting more gun legislation doesn’t work. 

What on the face of an argument might seem like it would be “common sense,” when it comes to politics, is always fraught with deceptive traps beneath the surface.

So far at least in California, Bonta’s price increase isn’t the rule, yet. His proposed change must undergo a 45-day public comment period. The public has until 5 p.m. on Oct. 8, 2024, to submit comments regarding “the proposed regulatory action.” Here’s more details from the Bonta-gram:

This rulemaking is undergoing a 45-day public comment period. Any person or their authorized representative may submit written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The written comment period closes at 5:00 pm on October 8, 2024. All timely comments that specifically pertain to the proposed regulations will be reviewed and responded to by Department staff. Comments may be submitted by mail or email to:

Department of Justice
P.O. Box 160487
Sacramento, CA 95816

The information below relates to recent rulemaking activity, including links to the regulations text and associated documents. Any person who has submitted a comment regarding a proposed action has the right to request a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons. The Final Statement will also be posted to this webpage upon completion of this rulemaking. 

Public Notice and Related Documents

While I assume, the intent is to hear what the “public” in California has to say, since California feels it has the right to impose its rules on other states in a variety of matters, I feel like every gun owner in America has a right to submit comments and their thoughts to the addresses above. Let your voice be heard. 

We know it won’t likely sway the state’s decision to charge more. This is the opportunity that has been in the works all along, but we can still be as much of a pain in their arse in the process. We can’t ever stop the fight.