super late reply:
> I love how they are proposing a $5 fee per ammunition background check because they made the process so excessively resource intensive.
Kind of… but not really? I really wish my dad wasn’t sick during the comment process on that, because I would have wrote a lot more… they submitted such a bare bones regulatory paper with no info. You have to look at the [Budget Change Proposal](https://bcp.dof.ca.gov/2324/FY2324_ORG0820_BCP6874.pdf) they submitted that would become Budget Trailer Bills [SB-135](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB135) / [AB-135](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB135) .
There’s two parts to this: The why it’s complex, and the funding.
1.) The complexity is a result of, well, political dick measuring. We all remember [Prop 63](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_63,_Background_Checks_for_Ammunition_Purchases_and_Large-Capacity_Ammunition_Magazine_Ban_\(2016\)) that resulted in the ammo background check. Prop 63 though didn’t have the backgrond check as we know it today. You can check [the text](https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0098%20%28Firearms%29_0.pdf)… Instead of having a background check on every ammo purchase and paying $1, Prop 63 was going to have a “Purchase Authorization”, like an ammo purchase card. This would be good for 4 years, and would have
> a reasonable fee not to exceed $50 per person for the issuance of an ammunition purchase authorization or the issuance of a renewal authorization, however, the Department shall not set these fees any higher than necessary to recover the reasonable, estimated costs to fund the ammunition authorization program provided for in this section and Section 30352, including the enforcement of this program and maintenance of any data systems associated with this program.
$50 is a lot of money, but the system is much simpler, and the text indicates it would only increase with inflation, and would additionally pay back the start-up loan. Would it have actually cost $50? Don’t know!
The reason Prop 63 came about is because Gavin wanted to run for governor, and so used his Lt. Governor campaign funds to author this and the weed legalization proposition, as well as paying for campaign financing for both of those.
However, Gavin wasn’t the only one who wanted to become governor. As much as we know him as a washed up LA City Council member today, Kevin “Ghost Gun” De Leon also wanted to become governor. He actually called out Gavin for putting the ammo background check on the ballot instead of pushing it through congress (i.e. not kissing De Leon’s ring), and thus Kevin pushed forward his own ammo background check bill [SB-1235](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1235). This version of course had the complicated $1 background check for every sale provision, among other things.
After the two bickered, De Leon ultimately changed SB-1235 so that if Prop 63 didn’t pass, then most of SB-1235 would go into effect, but if Prop 63 did pass, then only a small number of sections of SB-1235 would go into effect.
> SEC. 19. (a) Sections 12, 15, and 16 of this act shall only become operative if the Safety for All Act of 2016 is enacted by the voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election and becomes effective, in which case Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 shall not become operative.
Since Prop 63 did pass, this is how we get Prop 63 but with the complex per-purchase ammo background check system from SB-1235.
2.) Funding: Again, we look at the [Budget Change Proposal](https://bcp.dof.ca.gov/2324/FY2324_ORG0820_BCP6874.pdf) , which CA DOJ did not include in the the recent ammo background check fee increase regulation. Go to page 2 and you’ll see the Resource History table. They funded the program’s start-up, per statute, with a $25,000,000 loan (per CA PC 30371 in the prop 63 language) in 2016-17. They then developed and hired for the program through the middle of 2019 when they implemented it on July 1st. You can see after 2018-2019 that the Actual Expenditures go way down since that’s for maintenance. However, as you can note in the Revnue row, the Actual Expenditures exceed Revenues. The program is losing money, and losing money hand over fist.
On top of that, since it was funded with a loan which they’ve blown through, as opposed to a straight allocation from the general fund, they also have to pay back the loan (With interest!). If they don’t get more money, then the program goes bankrupt.
CA DOJ’s solution in the BCP was to raise the fee. So this is the part where in the BCP CA DOJ asks to raise the fee to $5, right? *Oh sweet summer child*. No no… Instead, CA DOJ asked for unilateral authority to raise the fee in perpetuity without having to go to the legislature each time. On top of this, CA DOJ is asking for additional loans in the short term to cover the budget, which it will also have to pay back.
During the passage of SB-135 / AB-135, this fee is challenged by Vince Fong as seen in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHZ5jZ93NFE), which is hilarious. Interestingly the Department of Finance (on behalf of CA DOJ) makes the claim that the program was essentially to be soley funded by the fees from this program, despite the record never clearly stating that. Because y’know, heaven forbid California actually funds its gun control programs from the general fund, being that the program allegedly benefits the whole of California, but only gun owners are supposed to pay for these things.
Anyhow, yeah, that’s how we got the $5 fee. First off I wonder if the up-to-$50 ammo card program would have had the same issues of running out of money; I think it was going to be a lot less complex and with that much of a buy in, it likely would have been self-sustaining.
The final part is…. $5 is not going to fund the program. I did a lot of math and plugged it into a spreadsheet. $5 cannot cover the cost, pay back the original loan and the new loans. The fee is going to be increased again, and likely again. I estimated that the fee actually has to be around $7, assuming that the fee stays flat and that costs and sales are the same going forward. But sales wouldn’t stay stagnant, and the number of ammo background checks would decrease either because of the high costs or people buying more ammo with each purchase, thus resulting in less background checks. So that means to make up for less occurance of fees, you’re probably looking at an $8 or $9 fee. So expect CA DOJ to probably raise the fee again in another 2 years-ish.CAguns420BlazeArk<div class=”md”><p>super late reply:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I love how they are proposing a $5 fee per ammunition background check because they made the process so excessively resource intensive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Kind of… but not really? I really wish my dad wasn't sick during the comment process on that, because I would have wrote a lot more… they submitted such a bare bones regulatory paper with no info. You have to look at the <a href=”https://bcp.dof.ca.gov/2324/FY2324_ORG0820_BCP6874.pdf”>Budget Change Proposal</a> they submitted that would become Budget Trailer Bills <a href=”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB135″>SB-135</a> / <a href=”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB135″>AB-135</a> .</p>
<p>There's two parts to this: The why it's complex, and the funding.</p>
<p>1.) The complexity is a result of, well, political dick measuring. We all remember <a href=”https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_63,_Background_Checks_for_Ammunition_Purchases_and_Large-Capacity_Ammunition_Magazine_Ban_(2016)”>Prop 63</a> that resulted in the ammo background check. Prop 63 though didn't have the backgrond check as we know it today. You can check <a href=”https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0098%20%28Firearms%29_0.pdf”>the text</a>… Instead of having a background check on every ammo purchase and paying $1, Prop 63 was going to have a "Purchase Authorization", like an ammo purchase card. This would be good for 4 years, and would have</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a reasonable fee not to exceed $50 per person for the issuance of an ammunition purchase authorization or the issuance of a renewal authorization, however, the Department shall not set these fees any higher than necessary to recover the reasonable, estimated costs to fund the ammunition authorization program provided for in this section and Section 30352, including the enforcement of this program and maintenance of any data systems associated with this program.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>$50 is a lot of money, but the system is much simpler, and the text indicates it would only increase with inflation, and would additionally pay back the start-up loan. Would it have actually cost $50? Don't know!</p>
<p>The reason Prop 63 came about is because Gavin wanted to run for governor, and so used his Lt. Governor campaign funds to author this and the weed legalization proposition, as well as paying for campaign financing for both of those.</p>
<p>However, Gavin wasn't the only one who wanted to become governor. As much as we know him as a washed up LA City Council member today, Kevin "Ghost Gun" De Leon also wanted to become governor. He actually called out Gavin for putting the ammo background check on the ballot instead of pushing it through congress (i.e. not kissing De Leon's ring), and thus Kevin pushed forward his own ammo background check bill <a href=”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1235″>SB-1235</a>. This version of course had the complicated $1 background check for every sale provision, among other things.</p>
<p>After the two bickered, De Leon ultimately changed SB-1235 so that if Prop 63 didn't pass, then most of SB-1235 would go into effect, but if Prop 63 did pass, then only a small number of sections of SB-1235 would go into effect.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>SEC. 19. (a) Sections 12, 15, and 16 of this act shall only become operative if the Safety for All Act of 2016 is enacted by the voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election and becomes effective, in which case Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 shall not become operative.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since Prop 63 did pass, this is how we get Prop 63 but with the complex per-purchase ammo background check system from SB-1235.</p>
<p>2.) Funding: Again, we look at the <a href=”https://bcp.dof.ca.gov/2324/FY2324_ORG0820_BCP6874.pdf”>Budget Change Proposal</a> , which CA DOJ did not include in the the recent ammo background check fee increase regulation. Go to page 2 and you'll see the Resource History table. They funded the program's start-up, per statute, with a $25,000,000 loan (per CA PC 30371 in the prop 63 language) in 2016-17. They then developed and hired for the program through the middle of 2019 when they implemented it on July 1st. You can see after 2018-2019 that the Actual Expenditures go way down since that's for maintenance. However, as you can note in the Revnue row, the Actual Expenditures exceed Revenues. The program is losing money, and losing money hand over fist.</p>
<p>On top of that, since it was funded with a loan which they've blown through, as opposed to a straight allocation from the general fund, they also have to pay back the loan (With interest!). If they don't get more money, then the program goes bankrupt.</p>
<p>CA DOJ's solution in the BCP was to raise the fee. So this is the part where in the BCP CA DOJ asks to raise the fee to $5, right? <em>Oh sweet summer child</em>. No no… Instead, CA DOJ asked for unilateral authority to raise the fee in perpetuity without having to go to the legislature each time. On top of this, CA DOJ is asking for additional loans in the short term to cover the budget, which it will also have to pay back.</p>
<p>During the passage of SB-135 / AB-135, this fee is challenged by Vince Fong as seen in <a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHZ5jZ93NFE”>this video</a>, which is hilarious. Interestingly the Department of Finance (on behalf of CA DOJ) makes the claim that the program was essentially to be soley funded by the fees from this program, despite the record never clearly stating that. Because y'know, heaven forbid California actually funds its gun control programs from the general fund, being that the program allegedly benefits the whole of California, but only gun owners are supposed to pay for these things.</p>
<p>Anyhow, yeah, that's how we got the $5 fee. First off I wonder if the up-to-$50 ammo card program would have had the same issues of running out of money; I think it was going to be a lot less complex and with that much of a buy in, it likely would have been self-sustaining.</p>
<p>The final part is…. $5 is not going to fund the program. I did a lot of math and plugged it into a spreadsheet. $5 cannot cover the cost, pay back the original loan and the new loans. The fee is going to be increased again, and likely again. I estimated that the fee actually has to be around $7, assuming that the fee stays flat and that costs and sales are the same going forward. But sales wouldn't stay stagnant, and the number of ammo background checks would decrease either because of the high costs or people buying more ammo with each purchase, thus resulting in less background checks. So that means to make up for less occurance of fees, you're probably looking at an $8 or $9 fee. So expect CA DOJ to probably raise the fee again in another 2 years-ish.</p>
</div>mirkalievet1_milrp83
