creates all-around stricter checks on ammunition
✅ It passed, so...
Stricter laws around ammunition will go into effect. If you own large-capacity magazines, you must not own them by July 2017. If you are planning to buy ammo, you will soon have to get a license. Starting in January 2018, ammo ordered online will have to delivered to a licensed seller for in-person pickup.
This proposition is a few different pieces that create more checks during the sale of ammunition. California already has the strictest gun laws in effect (a bunch were passed earlier this year in what critics called "Gunmageddon" – super creative.) so we'll present how it is now, and what would be different should Prop 63 pass. Spoiler alert: it's kinda not much.
  • To buy ammunition right now, you don't need a permit, but the dealers need to check with the DoJ to make sure you're okay to buy it.
  • To sell ammunition, you currently have to get a 1-year license. Hunters selling 50 rounds or less a month are exempt.
  • "Gunmageddon" set into law that if you buy ammunition from out of state, you'll have to have it delivered to a licensed vendor so that you can pick it up in person. This goes into effect in July 2019.
  • Because of another law, if a gun is stolen and worth less than $950, it's currently a misdemeanor.
  • It's been illegal to purchase large-capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds) since the year 2000, but if you owned some, you could keep it.
  • At the moment, it's difficult to enforce the removal of firearms from prohibited people[6]
If Prop 63 passes
  • If you want to buy ammo, you would now have to pass a background check through the DoJ and buy a 4-year permit that could cost $50 max.
  • Selling ammo without a license would now become a misdemeanor. Hunters selling 50 rounds or less a month are still exempt.
  • Prop 63 would still require online purchases to be delivered to a licensed dealer and picked up in person, but it would move up the date it goes into effect to January 2018.
  • If Prop 63 passes, if a gun is stolen and worth less than $950, it would now be a felony.
  • If you happen to still own large-capacity magazines from pre-2000, you would now have to dispose of them.
  • A court process would be set up to enforce the removal of guns from prohibited persons.[3]
Definitely TL;DR.
Gun laws became super strict earlier this year in July. Prop 63 modifies those laws to make them stricter. Most of these laws don't go into effect until later, and it's possible there might be a referendum to block the new laws.

For gun owners, the largest change is the requirement to buy a permit in order to purchase ammo. It could cost up to $50 and will take time to process the request.
The text debate
Prop 63 is lame.
Because you're a gun owner?
Most of the tough laws were passed in July. This is just Gavin Newsome grandstanding.
Don't you think some of these laws make sense though? Like giving the courts more power to enforce the law that convicts shouldn't have guns.
Sure, but short of a legal warrant for search and seizure, it won't make a convict give up his or her guns. A $100 fine? Do you think they care about that?
Just more government overhead.
Every little bit helps. And you don't think reporting when guns are stolen is good?
It won't change anything. Any responsible gun owner knows to report theft. Otherwise, they'll be blamed for a murder.
Okay so might as well make it law. What about owning large-capacity magazines?
If you've held on to your magazines for 16+ years, why would this law make you give it up?
And you're not annoyed by the $50 permit? or the need to have ammo delivered to a store first.
The $50 is particularly annoying because it's just more red tape. Ammo delivered is another inconvenience.
What happens if the seller ships it to my door by accident? I get a misdemeanor?
How would they enforce that?
Now you're thinking...
Sounds like you agree with the intent of the law, but it sounds like you're saying it won't make us much safer. In general though, more restrictions = less guns in bad people's hands.
Let's not get into the more guns vs less guns debate. State laws have been shown to be ineffective at reducing murder rates. Agreed that bad guys shouldn't have guns, but at the expense of what rights?
Another study says that mortality could be decreased with national laws, and strict gun laws in California have lead to less gun violence.
I don't own a gun, so I'll probably vote yes.
And that's why we continue to get shat on, because you think it's not your problem.
We don't want terrorists communicating, but we'll never allow the govt to listen to our conversations. We don't want bad guys to have guns, but at the expense of what freedoms?
More reading
Information last updated: Oct 8, 2016

Mostly impartial information
[1] Full text of the proposition
[2] Ballotpedia details
[3] Legislative Analyst's Office summary
[$] Voter's Edge: where's the money coming from?
[4] Politifact: Prop 63 won't criminalize sharing ammunition
Arguments FOR Prop 63
[5] Sac Bee Editorial Board
[6] SF Chronicle
[7] Mercury News
[8] LA Times
Arguments AGAINST Prop 63
[9] Bakersfield Californian
[10] BU study says state laws are not the answer

Note: we intentionally omit the official arguments/rebuttals found in the official voter guide. We believe they exaggerate claims, mislead through emotions, and use ALL CAPS irresponsibly.