Increase in ammunition fees in California: violation of the Second Amendment

The ongoing assault on Second Amendment rights in California reached a new peak when Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a stunning 400% increase in the fee for background checks in the ammunition sector.

The proposed increase from $1 to $5 per transaction is a stark example of how California lawmakers are supporting law-abiding gun owners while failing to take action against the real criminals who fuel gun violence.

In a state that already has strict gun laws, this increase is just another step in a broader agenda to make the exercise of those rights financially burdensome.

Legal gun owners must undergo a cumbersome process that requires them to undergo a background check on every single purchase.

Not only does this place an undue financial burden on responsible citizens, it also creates an environment that encourages false denials and can prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining the ammunition they need for self-defense or sport shooting.

The irony that Bonta's request for a raise just coincides with a federal court ruling declaring the state's background check law unconstitutional is hard to ignore.

Despite the judge's decision, Bonta seems unfazed and continues to push his anti-gun agenda under the guise of public safety.

Critics argue that instead of targeting lawful gun owners, Bonta should focus his resources on pursuing criminals who exploit loopholes to illegally obtain firearms and ammunition.

Bonta's proposal has been sharply criticized by organizations such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which see it as a thinly veiled attack on the Second Amendment.

Gun owners in various California jurisdictions already face the exorbitant costs of obtaining a gun permit, which can exceed $1,000.

With the proposed fee increase, government officials are now creating further hurdles that will hinder responsible gun ownership and prevent citizens from exercising their rights.

As California continues to be at the center of the national gun rights debate, this development suggests difficult times lie ahead for gun owners.

The question remains: When will lawmakers prioritize the needs and rights of their constituents over enshrining financial penalties?

The situation regarding gun rights in the Golden State is changing, and one can only hope that the voices of law-abiding citizens will not go unheard in this complex battle for personal freedoms.

Sources:
www.slaynews.com
Lagerarms.com
www.justthenews.com