Proposition 63 is being fought tooth and nail by Gun Rights groups in California. 

What is thought to be “helping the community” by anti-gun advocates, is in all actuality a clear violation of the Second Amendment. Never in the history of humanity, have criminals ever cared or worried about following the law. Take a look at the “New Gun Laws” as posted on the California Lt. Governors” page on the California State Governments website and as reportede by multiple news media sources.

1. Criminal Relinquishment of Firearms:
Beginning on January 1, 2018, Proposition 63 introduces and implements a clear, mandatory, and enforceable process for criminal offenders to give up their firearms upon their conviction.

2. Ammunition Sales
Beginning on January 1, 2018, Proposition 63, ammunition sales must be conducted by or processed through licensed vendors. It will serve to prevent certain convicted criminals from purchasing ammunition once the new law for background checks for ammunition sales come online in July 2019.

Sales of ammunition by unlicensed individuals must be processed through a licensed ammunition vendor, in a manner similar to private party firearms transactions, and ammunition obtained over the Internet or from out of state must be initially shipped to a licensed ammunition vendor for physical delivery to the purchaser pursuant to a background check.

3. Restrictions on Magazine Capacities

CA.GOV Posted:

In June, two federal judges in separate District Courts considered request to delay implementation of Proposition 63’s large capacity magazine provisions, which were scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2017. The two judges reached opposite conclusions.

In Duncan v. Becerra, the case in which Lt. Gov. Newsom and Giffords Law Center filed their brief, a federal judge in San Diego ruled in favor of a temporary delay said California could not enforce the large capacity magazine ban until a final decision can be made.

By contrast, in a separate ruling, Judge William Shubb, a George H.W. Bush appointee based in Sacramento, rejected arguments against the magazine ban after thoroughly evaluating each of the gun lobby’s arguments and explaining why they were likely to fail. Judge Shubb specifically noted that the loophole in California law that previously allowed for possession of large capacity magazines meant that “there was no way for law enforcement to determine which magazines were ‘grandfathered’ and which were illegally transferred or modified to accept more than 10 rounds[.]”

Judge Shubb noted that the stated objective of the large capacity magazine ban is to reduce the incidence and harm of mass shootings and observed that “there can be no serious argument that this is not a substantial government interest, especially in light of several recent high-profile mass shootings involving large-capacity magazines,”including the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, the 2011 Arizona shooting involving then-Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.

Similar efforts to overturn large capacity magazine bans have been roundly rejected by federal appellate courts across the US, and the Ninth Circuit (with jurisdiction over California) recently rejected the gun lobby’s efforts to enjoin Sunnyvale’s local large capacity magazine ban.” (CA.GOV)

This Proposition 63 provision is currently subject to litigation. Additional information on the status of this lawsuit can be found at:


Is it me, or does California pride itself on turning it’s citizens into victims?