California gun owners are facing another in a long line of threats. NRA-ILA warns us of Assembly Bill 962. Among other things:

This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2010, unless specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless he or she is registered as a handgun ammunition vendor...

Yes, gun owners--anti-gun politicians really do hate you, plus this distracts attention from their utter incompetence at anything other than causing problems instead of providing solutions.  It's not like a sane person would present this as an effective crime-fighting measure. The name of the game is political opportunism.

But I'm not here to talk about AB 962. My colleague John Longenecker has done a great job explaining that to us. No, I want to talk about another more local incursion against the rights of California gun owners, perpetrated by people intent on harassing them every bit as much as their Sacramento counterparts. I do so because there is a lesson to be learned.

From The Daily Breeze:

Carson has become the latest city to pass an ordinance restricting the sale of ammunition...

The story tells us it "passed unanimously and with little debate."

Here's why:

[Chuck] Michel, the gun-rights attorney, said that if he had known about it, he would have protested.

The question now becomes: Why did he not know about it?

Part of that is because of deceptive maneuvering by the Council. They sprung it with little fanfare and dispensed with the normal practice of doing a second reading in a subsequent council meeting. That would have allowed activists to muster supporters, attend the meeting, fill out the public comment cards and exercise their right to petition--and to give the pompous tyrant wannabes an earful.

Here's the new edict:

Now here's the thing--despite the shifty maneuvering, "our side" dropped the ball.

I'm not faulting Mr. Michel. California is a huge state and he can't be everywhere. He needs eyes and ears open from the people on the front lines, and the South Bay has an NRA Members Council operating in, among other cities, Carson. And I'm not faulting them, either. I know from being part of the Members Councils for years how tough it is to recruit apathetic gun owners to even come to a meeting, let alone help with the burden.

This same MC has been effective at stopping city actions in the past. I relate one of those stories in which I was personally involved here.

Here's the thing: It's not like the City of Carson hasn't waived further reading of an ammunition restriction action before (see Item Number 8). So we know they're hostile.

And in spite of the expedited way they pushed this through to discourage public debate and catch gun owners asleep at the switch, the city followed the letter of the laws and posted the agenda on July 3, clearly stating their plans:

ITEM NO. (23) CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING AMMUNITION SELLERS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF AMMUNITION, TO REQUIRE FACE-TO-FACE SALES OF AMMUNITION, AND TO REQUIRE SELLERS OF AMMUNITION TO OBTAIN A THUMBPRINT (CITY MANAGER)

The lesson to be learned here? We can't wait for someone to notify us of actions happening in our own back yard. We need to be informed of what our local representatives are up to.

At a bare minimum, a serious activist for the right to keep and bear arms needs to know who their council members are, to know which ones are friends and which ones are enemies, and to monitor the activities of those who pose a danger. This can be as simple and non-demanding as bookmarking your council's website and knowing how to access notices of upcoming meeting agendas. And a serious activist has to know who in his area shares his convictions, so they can join forces and respond when needed.

The battles aren't all fought at the state and national level. Ironically, the ones most of us ignore are the ones we have the most control over.

Back to The Daily Breeze story:

Councilman Mike Gipson introduced the ordinance...

Would you like to see the behavior of this character who does not trust you to behave like a responsible citizen capable of owning ammunition without his interference?

This guy--and the rest of the "unanimous" council--think they need to control you.  Feel free to explain to them how you feel about that.