Congress to Look at Limiting Ammo Sales

Posted | By:  
 10 Comments
  Email
  Print

Ten days after the horrible killing spree of orange haired wannabe lunatic James Holmes in Aurora Colorado, the first gun control bill has been thrown into the ring. The subject of the bill: online ammunition sales.

Holmes, the holder of a master's degree and until a few months prior a medical student, legally purchased a number of firearms locally as well as 6000 rounds of ammunition via the internet.

Congress to Look at Limiting Ammo Sales - christophereger - istock-legislation-675.jpg

The sponsors of the bill, Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York today announced what they call the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act. The bill, if approved and signed by the President, will require ammunition sellers to have an FFL, and buyers to present a valid State-issued ID at purchase. This actually is not revolutionary and is often done already voluntarily. However, what would be new is a mandate to track all purchases and report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition by a single buyer in a five-day period. This of course opens the back door to a central gun-database of legal gun owners, something long fought against by Second Amendment advocates since 1775. 

Congress to Look at Limiting Ammo Sales - christophereger - standyourground-674.jpg

Both McCarthy and Lautenberg have a long history of both successful and unsuccessful gun control legislation. The senator is possibly best known for the act that carries his name, the Lautenberg Act, which limits sales and permitting of firearms to those with domestic abuse charges. It is thought that Lautenberg will try to force the bill onto the Senate floor by attaching it to other legislation, but is also seen as unlikely to pass according to unnamed aides mentioned in an MSNBC article. However, if it does according to an article from the Huffington Post President Obama will 'evaluate' the bill. The article goes on to quote a White House staffer as saying ""The president's views that have been relayed quite frequently over the last few days, he said that he believes in the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the right to bear arms," Earnest said. "But he also believes we should take robust steps within existing law to ensure that guns don't fall into the hands of criminals or others who shouldn't have them."

Congress to Look at Limiting Ammo Sales - christophereger - ammo-676.jpg

The act, even if it passes, is likewise unlikely to affect real change other than add another layer of increasing legislation and compliance to the United States legal and healthy Second Amendment community. Many recreational shooters have long turned to the internet to shop for the best ammo deals at popular websites like The Shooters Guide, Lucky Ammo, Cheaper than Dirt, and others. With the bad economy, every penny counts and if you can save a dollar on a box of already expensive .223 or 40S&W with a few clicks of a mouse, it makes sense.  


Of course, if you feel strongly about it, contact your local Congressional delegation and talk to them about it.

Posted in
  Email   Print
WE RECOMMEND
10 COMMENTS
Posted: 
August 2, 2012  •  09:33 AM
I am a staunch proponent of the 2nd amendment. I live in NJ, and I own rifles and handguns and I purchase much off the internet. I am curious to know why I should be opposed to this? I have no problem sending an FFL a copy of my FPID card to verify that I am who I am and that I can legally own and purchase what I am ordering. And I don't mind waiting 5 days every time I want to buy 1,000 rounds of ammo, hell I don't order it that often anyway, maybe 1,000 rounds every few months to split between friends!

but I feel that this will be opposed by the NRA as well as all the 2A advocates around the country. But I am truly at a loss as to understand why. It's not preventing me from buying, or stockpiling, it's not saying what I am or am not allowed to buy. so is this truly a problem?
 
Posted: 
August 3, 2012  •  05:52 AM
The bill, if approved and signed by the President, will require ammunition sellers to have an FFL, and buyers to present a valid State-issued ID at purchase. This actually is not revolutionary and is often done already voluntarily. However, what would be new is a mandate to track all purchases and report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition by a single buyer in a five-day period. This of course opens the back door to a central gun-database of legal gun owners, something long fought against by Second Amendment advocates since 1775
 
Posted: 
August 3, 2012  •  06:18 AM
Just my 2 cents...

This is nothing more that a piece of "feel good" legislation. So, somebody bought 2,000 in 4 days. It still isn't illegal...but somehow because the government knows about it, this makes a difference how, exactly?

It's a tragedy what happened out in Colorado, but no amount of ink on paper will prevent some nutjob from doing harm to someone else.

grunt67
 
Posted: 
August 4, 2012  •  08:41 AM
@drvsafe I don't believe that you are a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment. I think that you are a shill.

What is the point? How is the quantity going to really do anything? I do competitive shooting and shoot thousands of rounds a year - why do I belong on some list that is created using my own tax dollars. And why do I need to wait for it? It is purely a stupid idea.
 
Posted: 
August 6, 2012  •  09:41 PM
Each step like this one is another step along the way to disarming America. Only the very last step will appear to be anything "really serious". The last step will be the forcible (if necessary) confiscation of guns. If you think it can't happen that way, look at England.

This legislation can not possibly have any impact on whether criminals can get guns and ammo. It only impairs (i.e. infringes) the ability of law abiding citizens to acquire the means to form a well regulated militia. By allowing the government to know who has what, an important advantage is given to any future (or present) tyrant.

And the bill sponsors are trying to take advantage of public shock and media bias to make false statements about what the bill will accomplish. This bill could not in any way have affected recent events.

Previous bills to restrict and regulate ammunition sales have been found by government agencies to be totally ineffectual and an unnecessary expense. The Firearms Owners bill was created specifically to overturn the previous ammunition and gun sales restrictions. Why should Americans accept this see-saw of regulation?
 
Posted: 
August 7, 2012  •  02:36 PM
@Balota

I agree with your assessment and personally don't believe it's the governments business to know what I buy.
JMO
 
Posted: 
August 9, 2012  •  11:14 AM
This is just a ploy to get the ole foot in the door . Soon the door will be opened inch by inch untill it will require a DNA sample for a box of BB's !!!!
 
Posted: 
August 13, 2012  •  11:04 AM
I don't like the idea of the 2nd amendment being regulated by the very group of people it was created to be a buffer against. It is called a conflict of interest.
 
Posted: 
August 13, 2012  •  07:08 PM
Just more bureaucratic nonsense that will not stop a criminal. This places a burden on law abiding citizens and more paperwork for people selling ammunition. We have all seen how well criminals obey the law.
 
Posted: 
September 8, 2012  •  05:44 PM
just more bullshit that wont help solve any problems but will put more burden on us, i dont think i have bought online without a copy of a dl.or some state id. but with this there is a bunch of more paperwork and who is gonna pay for that? we are if you go get a freedom of information sheet anywhere now you are charged by the page. how many pages of information will the goverment have. and what will they do with it. most everyone is already on a list.
 
POST A COMMENT