Ammunition Control
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 9 months ago
A pair of Democratic lawmakers are introducing legislation to require a background check for all firearm ammunition sales.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said on Monday they had introduced the bill, known as the Ammunition Background Check Act of 2018, arguing it would help close a “loophole” in the current law.
“Ammunition sales should be subject to the same legal requirements as firearm sales, and that includes instant background checks. … Closing this ludicrous loophole is a common-sense component of a comprehensive strategy to reduce gun violence,” Blumenthal said.
Wasserman Schultz added that it is “common-sense legislation” that would close an “absurd loophole.”
Understand this is what they would do to you. This doesn’t have much of a chance of passing as things stand now. But give the House to the democrats, and things get a little more dicey. Give the presidency to the democrats, and things go down hill fast. If the republicans thought they could get away with it, they’d do it too.
Don’t look to the supremes to undo this if it ever happens. They won’t even take up cases for New York State where people cannot purchase weapons without CLEO approval, and cannot carry anywhere.
You and I don’t have enough ammunition. Not even nearly.
On March 26, 2018 at 11:19 pm, George said:
” This doesn’t have much of a chance of passing as things stand now.”
You are more optimistic than I regarding this. I am ordering more ammo tomorrow. Don’t forget reloading supplies too. I doubt that controlling sales of primers and powder will be overlooked.
I wish that I could remember exactly where I read this (on the Net) , but a prominent member of one of the gun control NGO’s stated that ‘as soon as the Boomer generation starts to die off, they would be able to push their agenda full steam ahead’ (I am paraphrasing here, of course). Looks like they have decided that now is the time.
On March 26, 2018 at 11:26 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Herschel
Load up on as many politically-incorrect “negatives” as possible. That ought to do the trick as far as having you pop up on some leftist gun-banner’s radar.
Let me suggest a few….
Rural – you know, the folks Obama characterized as “clinging” to their guns and Bibles…
Traditional – Believes in the old ways of this country, the way things used to be done in the “bad old days”… hey, just standing for traditional marriage between one man and one woman ought to be enough to send someone over the edge somewhere!
Republican – Yeah, I know that the GOP are often as bad as the Democrats, but to a certain slice of fevered Democrats, the very mention of the Grand Old Party is enough to trigger them.
Constitutionalist and believer in the Bill of Rights – You know, the kind of reprobate and scoundrel who believes that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights actually say what they mean and mean what they say – and who has temerity to suggest that neither is a “living document.”
Christian – you’re already got this one covered just fine. About the only thing you could do to make ’em even more upset it to be both unapologetic and – for lack of a better term – more militant. The left loves Christians who are milksops and punching bags, so don’t be either one!
White Male – I don’t know your racial/ethnic group, but I’ll assume that you are both. If you aren’t, pretend you are – it’ll make the leftists more upset.
Middle-aged or older – The left hate older people because they are more-likely to see through their ridiculous schemes and tend to have well-developed B.S. detectors that some younger folks lack. Older people, on the balance, are more difficult to brainwash, too (although the astonishing number of over-forty Obama Kool-Aid drinkers tends to counter this generalization!)
Patriot – nothing drives the P.C. “one world” and “diversity uber alles” crowd up the wall faster than an American who loves his country (the Founder’s America) and is proud of its accomplishments. The same applies to pride in the accomplishments of European civilization.
There…. adopt these suggestions, and you should be receiving leftist hate mail in no time!
On March 26, 2018 at 11:55 pm, Archer said:
In Oregon, by law, background checks are run through the State Police, and by law, they may (and do) charge for the “service” for firearm sales/transfers. $10 per check. It’s almost a given that Our Glorious Legislature would allow them to charge for BGCs on ammo purchases, too.
What that does to the price of .22 would be, I’m sure, considered a feature, not a bug.
On March 27, 2018 at 1:39 am, Dan said:
The only time you have too much ammo is if you have to change residences in a hurry or the structural support of your dwelling is
at risk from the weight.
On March 27, 2018 at 7:23 am, Frank Clarke said:
MikeV used to say that when the Constitution no longer protects us from them, it no longer protects them from us. They’ve gotten away with so much for so long that they have come to believe they can get away with anything, anywhere, anytime. I’m quite confident they’re wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/TipgPt2
On March 27, 2018 at 8:08 am, June J said:
So how many infringements is enough?
On March 27, 2018 at 11:03 am, moe mensale said:
“White Male – I don’t know your racial/ethnic group, but I’ll assume that you are both. If you aren’t, pretend you are – it’ll make the leftists more upset.”
Pretending you’re something you’re not worked for Rachel Dolezal for years. But I’m sure Herschel has it covered.
On March 27, 2018 at 11:20 am, Tony said:
Former SCOTUS Justice Stevens and a scrote from the NY Times call for repealing 2nd Amendment. Let the GAMES begin!
On March 27, 2018 at 11:20 am, moe mensale said:
The Hill’s article left out the best part. The proposed law would also apply to the private sale of ammunition between private individuals. Individuals would have to run the sale through an FFL or acquire an FFL themselves.
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-and-wasserman-schultz-introduce-ammunition-background-check-act
I have to undergo a NICS check when I buy a firearm through an FFL. Now I would have to go through another when I want to feed it?
If I’m going to pay for a NICS check every time I want to buy ammo, I can foresee major increases in buying by the case or cases and minimize my overall costs. And that, in turn, will negate their intent of preventing the accumulation of ammo arsenals.
Unintended consequences are a bitch.
On March 27, 2018 at 12:34 pm, Jack Crabb said:
Things are getting more and more squirrelly by the day.
On March 27, 2018 at 1:15 pm, Doug said:
… perhaps they are concerned about the speed with which such infringements can be fixed?
One can never have too much red wine; too many Cuban cigars; or too much ammo!
On March 27, 2018 at 2:55 pm, Bill Robbins said:
California has already done this in-state, and you basically cannot buy out-of-state (given practical limitations), unless you want to play “which law might I be breaking today?”
On March 27, 2018 at 2:58 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Bill,
And the SCOTUS hasn’t struck it down, have they? Infringements … the SCOTUS is okay with a multitude of them. Heller …
On March 28, 2018 at 9:02 am, SGT.BAG said:
BLOAT…….But lots of ammo today !!!
On March 28, 2018 at 11:51 am, revjen45 said:
Anybody who depends on the Sacred Shysters to uphold our Constitutional rights is going to be awfully disappointed.
On March 29, 2018 at 9:22 am, Strick9 said:
Just to clarify – here in NY (outside of the 5 boroughs of NYC) you can, indeed, carry a handgun concealed. You just have to have a concealed carry permit issued by your county judge. It’s not a fun process, but in the upstate (read rural) counties, it’s fairly easy to get one, and if the judge is amenable (many are) you can get an unrestricted permit which allows you to carry pretty much anywhere you want in the state. Still can’t carry in NYC, however. None of us understand how that can be. It’s a whole other country south of the Tappan Zee bridge. I’m not condoning NY’s shall issue permitting scheme at all here – just explaining the situation. It’s not quite as dire yet as you make it out to be. And the NY State Rifle and Pistol Association just filed a suit to try to overturn Kachalsky. The Kachalsky ruling is what upholds the shall issue doctrine in the 2nd circuit which includes NY.
In addition, when NY passed the SAFE Act, it contained a provision that all ammunition sales had to be accompanied by a background check. Guess what happened? They had to drop that part of the law because it was completely unworkable and cost too much money. So we still buy ammunition here in NY without a background check.
On March 29, 2018 at 10:32 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Strick9,
Thanks for the correction. I don’t ever mind correction when I’m factually wrong.
On the other hand, various federal judges for the state of NY have come down with decisions that indicate that no judge in NY believes that this is a right – it’s a privilege for you.
And as if to rub salt in the wound, they always cite Scalia in Heller, who didn’t do us any favors with the decision.
On March 31, 2018 at 9:59 am, Talktome said:
Will not be infringed. Is this not plain English? Do these controlling psychopaths not know what “to bear” means? Of course they do. I guess they’ll keep,pushing until we have had enough? Incrementalism works, until it doesn’t.