Yes on 63: Stricter ammunition restrictions

63
Kristine Wong/Staff

Yes, yes, yes on Proposition 63 — greater gun control, greater background checks, greater limitations on ammunition. Should Proposition 63 pass, and it should, purchasing ammunition would require a permit, and sharing ammunition with people who don’t have permits would be against the law.

No longer could gun owners order ammunition online and have it delivered to their homes, nor could they order it without first going through a background check.

These are common-sense practices that will further prevent lethal weapons from falling into the hands of the wrong people.

Moreover, previous laws already made it illegal in this state to carry large-capacity magazines, but those who already had them were grandfathered in. Proposition 63 would overturn this exception  and require owners to sell theirs to gun stores, turn them over to the government or remove them from the state.

While hunting or using guns for sport, high-capacity magazines are unnecessary and ridiculous. But they’re popularly used in mass shootings, such as in San Bernadino, California, and Orlando, Florida. Making guns and munitions more difficult to obtain would serve to reduce the prevalence of shootings — whether they be mass shootings or day-to-day violence.

Proposition 63 also ups the ante for those who elect to steal guns. In the state of California, if somebody steals an item that costs less than $950, it counts as a misdemeanor. This proposition would create an exception stipulating that stealing a gun that cost less than $950 counts as a felony.

And because people who steal guns generally don’t do so for their next big game hunt, this law would disincentivize and criminalize people ready to use their guns for evil.

A spate of past shootings and a heightened drive to limit guns makes Proposition 63 particularly important, as it closes many of the loopholes in existing gun laws.

Approving common-sense gun laws is, well, common sense.

Endorsements represent the majority opinion of the Senior Editorial Board as written by the opinion editor.