Before anyone writes letters to the newspaper about firearms, ammunition or the purchase thereof, they should know the law.

If you went to one of the local stores where you could purchase ammunition, such as Big 5, only a couple miles from Joshua Tree, you would easily find out you cannot buy ammunition without a background check.

If you have passed the background check and purchased a firearm since 2014, and had no changes since then, you would fill out forms just like the firearms purchase form with an ammunition purchase instead of a firearms purchase heading. This would be sent by computer to the Department of Justice and supposedly within seconds (took me almost 30 minutes) the store gets back a, “Yes, a good background check exists,” “No, this person has not yet passed a background check,” or, “No, this is a prohibited person who cannot purchase ammunition or a firearm.”

There is a three-page list of crimes that would make a person a “prohibited person.”

If yes, the ammunition is purchased and the buyer goes about his or her business. If the purchaser has yet to pass the background check, forms are filled out and sent to the Department of Justice for the background check, and if the person now passes, after 10 days, he or she may pick up the ammunition.

If a check comes back from the Department of Justic that the person did not pass the background check or is on record as a prohibited person, the purchase is refused and the person placed on a Department of Justice list as having illegally tried to purchase ammunition.

Primary research is what we learned in school as going to the source of the facts rather than just taking someone’s word for something or repeating a rumor.

 

(8) comments

dvg

OR - one can go to a gun show and buy whatever he wants. OR - buy ammo directly from "a friend" who passed the background check. In both cases there are no consequences for the seller if you turn out to be a wacko.

TwoToeJoe

OR be a five -time deported illegal alien convicted felon that "found" a "fully loaded stolen firearm" under a park bench who shoots and kills an innocent bystander walking down a pier in San Francisco. I would think that with all of California's "common sense" firearms laws being dutifully enforced that such a person would have been at least convicted of murder, OR possibly manslaughter, OR the very least a simple conviction of a felon being in possession of a firearm which he himself admitted to in court. But no, no, and no. As a "consequence" this "wacko" walks free from common sense "State" charges and now simply faces "federal" charges. Now all we have to do is determine exactly who the "wackos" truly are!

dvg

He was found innocent in a jury trial which is how this country works. He would have never been in possession of the gun if a "responsible gun owner" - a trained BLM agent no less - didn't decide that keeping a loaded gun under the front seat of his car was a good idea.

TwoToeJoe

I understand now that you have clarified it with sound logic. The "responsible gun owner" is the one who should had been charged with manslaughter and illegally possessing a firearm. The wacko who actually pulled the trigger that resulted in the death of an innocent bystander bears absolutely no responsibility.

booboo77

A lot of owners stocked up before the New Year deadline.

Mike

Thanks Mel!

Mike

For those who don't know, our Morongo Basin's very own Mel Flint is a world famous champion marksman.

Mike

Tell us more dvg!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.