Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-09-2019, 12:22 PM
zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,963

Could government ban the possession of ammunition?


Comedian Chris Rock has said that we don't need to regulate guns, what we need to do is regulate bullets. NPR had a story yesterday (7/8/19) concerning Virginia's efforts to restrict guns at government public meetings and on government property in response to the Virginia Beach mass killings. That being the case, if the Virginia government can't restrict people from having guns on public property, can they at least prevent people from having live ammo there? Does requiring gun-toting 2nd Amendment types to check their bullets at the door violate the 2nd Amendment? What do you smart people say?
  #2  
Old 07-09-2019, 12:38 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 103
I think that if passed it would be quickly overturned as a de facto ban on arms, ammunition being a necessary component of their operation.
  #3  
Old 07-09-2019, 02:48 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Certain things are coextensive rights with the 2nd amendment. The right to purchase, practice, train, etc. See Ezell v. Chicago:
Quote:
The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn't mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. Several passages in Heller support this understanding.
Ammunition is a necessary component to exercise the fundamental right of self defense with arms.

From a practical matter, I'm sure an enterprising municipality could pass a law effecting such a ban. If this were to happen, it would be litigated and then it's up to the folks in black robes to decide. I would expect them to strike down ammunition ban type laws.
  #4  
Old 07-09-2019, 03:07 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,484
The legal principle is "penumbras and emanations" - the idea is that a right that is explicitly written in the text also covers a number of related implied rights that support it. So an explicit right to keep and bear arms also implies a right to purchase arms, a right to keep a gun in operable condition, a right to own ammunition, a right to load a gun, and the right to shoot the gun in some circumstances because without these related implied rights the explicit right would be meaningless.
  #5  
Old 07-09-2019, 03:19 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,443
So it's pretty well established that buying/owning ammunition couldn't be prohibited outright, or probably even much legally restricted.

But could it be taxed along the lines of cigarettes/alcohol? Like say... a 30% sales tax?
  #6  
Old 07-09-2019, 03:37 PM
Anny Middon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
So it's pretty well established that buying/owning ammunition couldn't be prohibited outright, or probably even much legally restricted.

But could it be taxed along the lines of cigarettes/alcohol? Like say... a 30% sales tax?
I was thinking ammunition tax, but a lot higher than 30%. Plus an equally high tax on gunpowder so that making your own bullets would also be expensive. I suspect that mass shootings would become, if not less common, then perhaps less deadly. The Las Vegas shooter is estimated to have fired 1100 rounds. I f each bullet cost him $5, how many rounds would he have shot?
  #7  
Old 07-09-2019, 04:12 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,982
Let’s face it, “the government” can ban anything it wants and if the courts don’t accept or won’t Hear your arguments wtf are you going to do about it?

For decades the government proclaimed, in writing, that a simple plastic stock was perfectly legally to produce, own, and use. Then, just on the whim of the President, with no vote by Congress, such pieces of plastic were declared illegal and it’s possession a serious federal felony. No congressional vote, no due process, no reimbursement for seized private property.

The important thing here is that the courts rejected or refused to hear any arguments regarding the legality of how such a ban was implemented. Even though those arguments were very sound and based in Constitutional law.

If the government can do that for pieces of plastic it certainly could get away with doing it with ammunition, specific kinds of firearms, or widgets for that matter.

Last edited by pkbites; 07-09-2019 at 04:14 PM.
  #8  
Old 07-09-2019, 04:16 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,443
The trick would be to make it onerous, but not necessarily a stealth ban. Set the taxes too high, and you run afoul of two ideas- namely that this is a right, not a privilege, and second, people are going to claim that taxing it too high is restricting the right to the rich.

The idea would be to make ammunition something you'd have to think about buying as much or more as the gun itself. To that end, I also think that there isn't any reason NOT to enforce the same background checks on ammunition as on guns. And prohibit the purchase of guns and ammo on the same day.

This way, the serious recreational shooters wouldn't be put out *too* much- they'd presumably pass all the background checks, and their hobby would just go up in price. Similarly, home defense/militia types would just have to spend more and/or accumulate their ammo stockpile over longer time.

But your garden-variety loon might not be able to go buy ammo easily due to background check OR lack of cash in the pocket. I mean, these guys shooting 500-1000 rounds in their sprees would have to have say... 1000-2000 dollars to spend on ammo, and have to premeditate it a lot more- if nothing else, they'd have to sit tight for an extra day before they could go get the ammo.
  #9  
Old 07-09-2019, 04:26 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
I was thinking ammunition tax, but a lot higher than 30%. Plus an equally high tax on gunpowder so that making your own bullets would also be expensive. I suspect that mass shootings would become, if not less common, then perhaps less deadly. The Las Vegas shooter is estimated to have fired 1100 rounds. I f each bullet cost him $5, how many rounds would he have shot?
A court would need to make a determination on how much any restriction impacted the right, and how closely the restriction was to a valid purpose. Any restriction would need to satisfy intermediate scrutiny at a minimum.

When faced with a $1000 excise tax on handguns, a federal court ruled in MURPHY v. GUERRERO :

Quote:
The Court agrees with Murphy that the tax places an excessive burden on the exercise of the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns for self-defense without a corresponding important government interest. Accordingly, the law cannot stand.

...

The principle that a court must protect constitutional rights from extinction by means both direct and indirect has a significant pedigree with the Supreme Court. In Carey v. Population Services, International, for instance, the Supreme Court noted that "[l]imiting the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives to licensed pharmacists clearly imposes a significant burden on the right of the individuals to use contraceptives if they choose to do so." 431 U.S. 678, 689 (1977). Had the Supreme Court upheld the New York statute in question, which required non-medical contraceptives to be distributed by a licensed pharmacist, the right to contraceptives established in Griswald v. Connecticut would have been, if not lost, severely impeded. See 381 U.S. 479, 485-86 (1965). The same was true in Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, where the Supreme Court struck down a tax on newspaper ink and paper because it burdened the First Amendment freedom of the press. 460 U.S. 575, 585 (1983); see Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936) (striking down a similar Louisiana tax on larger newspapers).

Last edited by Bone; 07-09-2019 at 04:26 PM.
  #10  
Old 07-09-2019, 04:28 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
What these things should tell us is to always be suspicious of any restriction on arms as the rational for such are often simple pretense to implement further restrictions or bans.
  #11  
Old 07-09-2019, 04:38 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
So it's pretty well established that buying/owning ammunition couldn't be prohibited outright, or probably even much legally restricted.

But could it be taxed along the lines of cigarettes/alcohol? Like say... a 30% sales tax?
IANASCJ but, in my opinion, no. I think it's acceptable to place the same sales tax on firearms and ammunition that you place on general goods. But I feel that any tax you place on them above the general rate would be a violation on the Second Amendment.

I would make the same argument against any special tax on printed material based on the First Amendment.

Cigarettes and alcohol? Tax away; they have no constitutional protection.
  #12  
Old 07-09-2019, 04:44 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,494
California recently passed a law not banning ammo but putting in place the process and infrastructure to do background checks on ammo purchases.

California has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. Now, a far-reaching new initiative to curb violence will require background checks for every ammunition purchase.

The law goes into effect Monday. [July 1, 2019]

California's requirement follows similar laws in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Gun violence declined in those states after they required licenses to buy ammunition, though they also tightened other gun laws,...
  #13  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:18 PM
thirdname is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Coast of USA
Posts: 3,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
I was thinking ammunition tax, but a lot higher than 30%. Plus an equally high tax on gunpowder so that making your own bullets would also be expensive. I suspect that mass shootings would become, if not less common, then perhaps less deadly. The Las Vegas shooter is estimated to have fired 1100 rounds. I f each bullet cost him $5, how many rounds would he have shot?
He had a large collection of firearms, many thousands of dollars worth, so spending $5500 on ammunition would not have been a great burden. And it's extremely rare for a shooting to involve that much ammo.

Restricting ammunition quantities is completely backwards. Recreational shooters use large quantities of ammo, thousands to tens of thousands of rounds a year.* Murderers use anywhere from one round, to a magazine full, or possibly a few hundred rounds in the rare case of a mass shooting. Restricting ammo purchases or taxing them would burden recreational shooters the most while not significantly burdening gun murderers. That is, unless you restrict ammo quantity to zero, in which case you may as well ban guns altogether.

(News reporters and non-shooters often sensationalize ammunition quantities of criminal suspects and others. "The suspect was caught with thousands of rounds of ammo in his home!" There are reasons people keep large amounts of ammo. Regular shooters shoot thousands of rounds a year at the range. Ammo, like most things, is often cheaper in bulk. And it lasts for many years if it's stored properly. I've personally shot WWII-era pistol ammo in the 90's and it worked perfectly. So it's natural for regular shooters to have a lot of ammo. Plus there's the additional factor of people stockpiling it in case it gets banned in the future.)
  #14  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:43 PM
thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
I was thinking ammunition tax, but a lot higher than 30%. Plus an equally high tax on gunpowder so that making your own bullets would also be expensive. I suspect that mass shootings would become, if not less common, then perhaps less deadly. The Las Vegas shooter is estimated to have fired 1100 rounds. I f each bullet cost him $5, how many rounds would he have shot?
There is already an 11% excise tax on ammunition plus whatever sales tax. That sales tax compounds the excise tax.

The Las Vegas guy was a millionaire, and likely didn't expect to need money where ever he is going. I don't understand making training, a fundamental component of safety and accident prevention, difficult.

Alcohol taxes are based on the volume sold, and sometimes the percentage. Not the dollar value of the alcohol. Same with cigarettes I think, a flat amount per pack.
  #15  
Old 07-09-2019, 06:12 PM
zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniracer View Post
Comedian Chris Rock has said that we don't need to regulate guns, what we need to do is regulate bullets. NPR had a story yesterday (7/8/19) concerning Virginia's efforts to restrict guns at government public meetings and on government property in response to the Virginia Beach mass killings. That being the case, if the Virginia government can't restrict people from having guns on public property, can they at least prevent people from having live ammo there? Does requiring gun-toting 2nd Amendment types to check their bullets at the door violate the 2nd Amendment? What do you smart people say?
The NPR story I referred to talked about public officials such as city council members wanting to ban gun-wielding citizens from bringing their AK-47s to city council meetings as a show of force to attempt to intimidate people. In that situation, I think banning ammo, and having people have to unload their weapons at the door, get a receipt for their ammo, and pick them up after the meeting would be entirely appropriate. Needing their weapons for self protection would be superfluous as their safety would be in the hands of policemen and guards at the meeting place. I think such a restriction would be entirely reasonable, not burdensome or costly, and would withstand judicial scrutiny. IMHO YMMV,
  #16  
Old 07-09-2019, 06:24 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniracer View Post
The NPR story I referred to talked about public officials such as city council members wanting to ban gun-wielding citizens from bringing their AK-47s to city council meetings as a show of force to attempt to intimidate people. In that situation, I think banning ammo, and having people have to unload their weapons at the door, get a receipt for their ammo, and pick them up after the meeting would be entirely appropriate. Needing their weapons for self protection would be superfluous as their safety would be in the hands of policemen and guards at the meeting place. I think such a restriction would be entirely reasonable, not burdensome or costly, and would withstand judicial scrutiny. IMHO YMMV,
That's an odd path to take. A city could easily restrict weapon possession in government buildings. This is done in court houses across the nation - no need for the obvious pretense. There may be other nuances depending on the location.
  #17  
Old 07-09-2019, 11:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniracer View Post
The NPR story I referred to talked about public officials such as city council members wanting to ban gun-wielding citizens from bringing their AK-47s to city council meetings as a show of force to attempt to intimidate people. In that situation, I think banning ammo, and having people have to unload their weapons at the door, get a receipt for their ammo, and pick them up after the meeting would be entirely appropriate. Needing their weapons for self protection would be superfluous as their safety would be in the hands of policemen and guards at the meeting place. I think such a restriction would be entirely reasonable, not burdensome or costly, and would withstand judicial scrutiny. IMHO YMMV,
This is the sort of idea that probably doesn't seem obviously bad to many non-gun-folks, but trust me, it's not a great idea to have a bunch of gun owners unloading their guns in the lobby of City Hall before the city council meeting (and reloading them afterwards). Not to mention that I can't imagine any city risk assessment personnel would be too keen on all the liability they'd be piling up in this situation.
  #18  
Old 07-10-2019, 08:46 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
For decades the government proclaimed, in writing, that a simple plastic stock was perfectly legally to produce, own, and use. Then, just on the whim of the President, with no vote by Congress, such pieces of plastic were declared illegal and itís possession a serious federal felony. No congressional vote, no due process, no reimbursement for seized private property.
What law is this?
  #19  
Old 07-10-2019, 09:22 AM
zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is the sort of idea that probably doesn't seem obviously bad to many non-gun-folks, but trust me, it's not a great idea to have a bunch of gun owners unloading their guns in the lobby of City Hall before the city council meeting (and reloading them afterwards). Not to mention that I can't imagine any city risk assessment personnel would be too keen on all the liability they'd be piling up in this situation.
OK Then have all weapons confiscated at the door, so the gun-toters will get the message to leave them at home or in their cars.
  #20  
Old 07-10-2019, 09:31 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniracer View Post
OK Then have all weapons confiscated at the door, so the gun-toters will get the message to leave them at home or in their cars.
I'm curious what locality you are talking about. Likely this is already the case. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of existing law?
  #21  
Old 07-10-2019, 09:39 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniracer View Post
OK Then have all weapons confiscated at the door, so the gun-toters will get the message to leave them at home or in their cars.
I suppose that's something you could try to do. Your OP said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniracer View Post
... if the Virginia government can't restrict people from having guns on public property, ...
  #22  
Old 07-10-2019, 09:44 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What law is this?
I believe he's referring to the bump stock ban.

In terms of due process, though, I believe he's wrong.

Yes, the President did seem to ban them by executive fiat. And that can be a bit concerning to me. But to argue there was no due process is simply wrong. The new rule was issued, the rationale shared and comments were requested.

At any point in the process those opposed to it could either comment or file suit against the DoJ asking the courts to strike down or hold the regulation. Some did, the courts did not agree that it was unconstitutional. Due process doesn't mean that one gets the outcome one wants...it just means that the process is followed.
  #23  
Old 07-10-2019, 10:26 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
I believe he's referring to the bump stock ban.

In terms of due process, though, I believe he's wrong.

Yes, the President did seem to ban them by executive fiat. And that can be a bit concerning to me. But to argue there was no due process is simply wrong. The new rule was issued, the rationale shared and comments were requested.

At any point in the process those opposed to it could either comment or file suit against the DoJ asking the courts to strike down or hold the regulation. Some did, the courts did not agree that it was unconstitutional. Due process doesn't mean that one gets the outcome one wants...it just means that the process is followed.
The larger idea, though, is one that was recently discussed in a Supreme Court case about delegation of legislative powers being unconstitutional. If I own something, let's forget about it being a bump stock, but a weeblewarbler. My weeblewarbler is completely legal and I can enjoy it however I want.

In order for the government to outlaw my weeblewarbler, it should not be some bureaucratic body who will take my public comment and shitcan it. If I am to be deprived of the legal use of my property, it should be through the democratic process whereby my elected representatives, chosen by the people and are accountable to the people, make that decision.

To delegate this authority is only different in degree but not in kind from saying that "The President shall by decree enact all laws he believes proper."
  #24  
Old 07-10-2019, 10:46 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,799
I believe some types of ammunition have been banned for civilian use, e.g., "dumdum" bullets, but no total ban against any and every type of ammunition.
  #25  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:22 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
I was thinking ammunition tax, but a lot higher than 30%. Plus an equally high tax on gunpowder so that making your own bullets would also be expensive. I suspect that mass shootings would become, if not less common, then perhaps less deadly. The Las Vegas shooter is estimated to have fired 1100 rounds. I f each bullet cost him $5, how many rounds would he have shot?
Other than a few blackpowder shooters, no one uses "gunpowder' anymore. And can you find a mass shooting where the person either was a reloader and used his own or used a blackpowder firearm?

This is practical ban on hunting and shooting.
  #26  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:23 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Other than a few blackpowder shooters, no one uses "gunpowder' anymore. And can you find a mass shooting where the person either was a reloader and used his own or used a blackpowder firearm?

This is practical ban on hunting and shooting.
What do hunters use to make their own bullets if not "gunpowder"?
  #27  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:24 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Letís face it, ďthe governmentĒ can ban anything it wants and if the courts donít accept or wonít Hear your arguments wtf are you going to do about it?

For decades the government proclaimed, in writing, that a simple plastic stock was perfectly legally to produce, own, and use. Then, just on the whim of the President, with no vote by Congress, such pieces of plastic were declared illegal and itís possession a serious federal felony. No congressional vote, no due process, no reimbursement for seized private property....
Cite? Because you are not talking about the bump-stock ban, of course.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/polit...day/index.html
  #28  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:28 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
IANASCJ but, in my opinion, no. I think it's acceptable to place the same sales tax on firearms and ammunition that you place on general goods. But I feel that any tax you place on them above the general rate would be a violation on the Second Amendment.
...n.

Guns & ammo already have additional taxes, has been that way for decades if not more.



https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxv...e-are-problems
The federal government already imposes about $750 million in excise taxes on the import and retail sale of guns and ammunition. Handguns are taxed at 10 percent, and other guns and ammunition are taxed at 11 percent

and here's what they think about the effectiveness of more taxes:
Would taxing ammunition reduce gun violence? It might dissuade a few people who are ambivalent about purchasing a gun. And since some of them might misuse the weapon, it could reduce gun violence slightly. But the tax would fall most heavily on high-volume users such as target shooters rather than those who purchase a gun and a small number of cartridges. Ammunition excise taxes would have no effect on existing gun owners who intend to commit suicide via firearm. According to the CDC about 60 percent of gun deaths in 2016 were suicides.

A gun and ammunition excise tax may sound attractive to those who want to limit gun ownership. And the idea of using taxes to correct externalities (including the medical and other societal costs of gun violence) is appealing to economists. But such taxes need to be effective. And, unfortunately, proposals to raise gun-and-ammo taxes may fail that test.
  #29  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:30 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniracer View Post
The NPR story I referred to talked about public officials such as city council members wanting to ban gun-wielding citizens from bringing their AK-47s to city council meetings as a show of force to attempt to intimidate people. In that situation, I think banning ammo, and having people have to unload their weapons at the door, get a receipt for their ammo, and pick them up after the meeting would be entirely appropriate. Needing their weapons for self protection would be superfluous as their safety would be in the hands of policemen and guards at the meeting place. I think such a restriction would be entirely reasonable, not burdensome or costly, and would withstand judicial scrutiny. IMHO YMMV,
The Supreme Court has already said that banning gun in certain buildings and areas is totally within the 2nd Ad, and such bans are common. There's no need to go to such silly measures.
  #30  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:32 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
I believe some types of ammunition have been banned for civilian use, e.g., "dumdum" bullets, but no total ban against any and every type of ammunition.
Umm, no. Dum-dum's are hollow points and are very common for police and civilian use. Armor piercing ammo has some restrictions.
  #31  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:59 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,443
I want to point out that mass shootings are something of a red herring for this thread, at least as conceived by your average person. They're vanishingly small in number and in casualties- enough such that they're basically statistical noise when compared to more mundane, but far more common gun violence.

THAT is what any ammo tax/ban should target, not what amounts to random actions by lunatics.
  #32  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:21 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Guns & ammo already have additional taxes, has been that way for decades if not more.
Seeing I was expressing my opinion, this is a case where my post is my cite.
  #33  
Old 07-10-2019, 02:24 PM
zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'm curious what locality you are talking about. Likely this is already the case. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of existing law?
As I said in the OP, I was referring to Virginia discussions to ban firearms at public meetings where gun-owners were brandishing weapons in order to intimidate city council members. Listen to the NPR program discussing the matter here
  #34  
Old 07-10-2019, 03:31 PM
thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What law is this?
I don't think they've been around for that long, but the mechanism of bump stocks is simple physics - a belt loop will work fine. Then in 2010, the ATF clarified (PDF warning) that they are not illegal under laws like the 1934 NFA. Then in late 2018, Trump directed them to change their minds. So no legal framework exists, expect at some state levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Guns & ammo already have additional taxes, has been that way for decades if not more.
1937.
  #35  
Old 07-10-2019, 04:06 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
...1937.
Actually the FAET (Firearms Ammunition Excise Tax) was first implemented in 1919. The Pitmann-Robertson Act of 1937 mandated that all revenue from FAET and related excise taxes be earmarked for hunting related activities.

https://www.ttb.gov/firearms/reference_guide.shtml
  #36  
Old 07-10-2019, 04:19 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
I was thinking ammunition tax, but a lot higher than 30%. Plus an equally high tax on gunpowder so that making your own bullets would also be expensive. I suspect that mass shootings would become, if not less common, then perhaps less deadly. The Las Vegas shooter is estimated to have fired 1100 rounds. I f each bullet cost him $5, how many rounds would he have shot?
That particular guy was gambling and winning/losing much greater sums, up to millions so might not have affected him at all.

In general it might, but I think the simple answer is that regulating ammunition rather than guns is not a clever get-around to the 2nd amendment. If whatever you do is intended to, and does, accomplish the goal of making it much more onerous to have guns, then it will be viewed by courts the same as laws with do that directly. And, it will be viewed that way by legislatures. Some states legislatures have strong anti-gun majorities so no need for clever get arounds. Others have strong pro-gun majorities and either tight ammo or gun restrictions are not gonna happen. In theory at the federal level the Democratic party is for more gun control, but in practice that's significantly limited by needing to hold onto pro-gun swing districts and states in order to have majorities in Congress. And the Republicans are generally against more federal gun control. That basic situation is not much affected by whether it's guns or ammo one seeks to restrict.

Say in a state where gun control is popular, I could see a marginal benefit perhaps to ammo taxes or controls over magazine capacity limits because it's hard to pass and enforce *retroactive* magazine capacity limits (a few states have passed them, hard to say how really enforceable). A point of sale restriction on new ammunition (or primers/propellant/bullets for DIY ammo makers) is arguably more effective because ammunition is meant to be expended then replaced. However while properly stored ammo doesn't last totally indefinitely like a properly cared for gun or magazine, it still lasts for decades if stockpiled and properly stored.
  #37  
Old 07-11-2019, 12:16 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Guns & ammo already have additional taxes, has been that way for decades if not more.



https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxv...e-are-problems
The federal government already imposes about $750 million in excise taxes on the import and retail sale of guns and ammunition. Handguns are taxed at 10 percent, and other guns and ammunition are taxed at 11 percent

and here's what they think about the effectiveness of more taxes:
Would taxing ammunition reduce gun violence? It might dissuade a few people who are ambivalent about purchasing a gun. And since some of them might misuse the weapon, it could reduce gun violence slightly. But the tax would fall most heavily on high-volume users such as target shooters rather than those who purchase a gun and a small number of cartridges. Ammunition excise taxes would have no effect on existing gun owners who intend to commit suicide via firearm. According to the CDC about 60 percent of gun deaths in 2016 were suicides.

A gun and ammunition excise tax may sound attractive to those who want to limit gun ownership. And the idea of using taxes to correct externalities (including the medical and other societal costs of gun violence) is appealing to economists. But such taxes need to be effective. And, unfortunately, proposals to raise gun-and-ammo taxes may fail that test.
But those have not been challenged in court since Heller found an individual right. I agree with others: a tax above the general tax level on an item that is a protected right for the admitted purpose to discourage an exercise of that right is pretty unconstitutional.

Imagine an excise tax on abortions or religious books, for example, and see how long those taxes last.
  #38  
Old 07-11-2019, 12:29 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Seeing I was expressing my opinion, this is a case where my post is my cite.
Your opinion is always yours, but facts are still facts.
  #39  
Old 07-11-2019, 12:32 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But those have not been challenged in court since Heller found an individual right. I agree with others: a tax above the general tax level on an item that is a protected right for the admitted purpose to discourage an exercise of that right is pretty unconstitutional.

Imagine an excise tax on abortions or religious books, for example, and see how long those taxes last.
No, since those taxes are fairly reasonable. But put some of the banning level taxes talked about here- and yes, they will be struck down- along with maybe the more reasonable ones.

Just like Heller- cities kept passing more and more restrictive gun laws until finally SCOTUS reacted and said enough is enough. You can blame Heller directly on Chicago and DC. (and SF if those hadnt happened) .
  #40  
Old 07-11-2019, 12:42 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, since those taxes are fairly reasonable. But put some of the banning level taxes talked about here- and yes, they will be struck down- along with maybe the more reasonable ones.

Just like Heller- cities kept passing more and more restrictive gun laws until finally SCOTUS reacted and said enough is enough. You can blame Heller directly on Chicago and DC. (and SF if those hadnt happened) .
So you would believe that if Alabama passed an 11% excise tax on all abortions performed in the state that the courts would simply say, eh, reasonable enough, nothing to see here? What if a number of legislators said that the purpose of the tax was to discourage abortions?
  #41  
Old 07-11-2019, 12:47 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So you would believe that if Alabama passed an 11% excise tax on all abortions performed in the state that the courts would simply say, eh, reasonable enough, nothing to see here? What if a number of legislators said that the purpose of the tax was to discourage abortions?
Maybe, in fact SCOTUS has ignored a lot of "nibbling" at Roe.
  #42  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:35 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
I was thinking ammunition tax, but a lot higher than 30%. Plus an equally high tax on gunpowder so that making your own bullets would also be expensive. I suspect that mass shootings would become, if not less common, then perhaps less deadly. The Las Vegas shooter is estimated to have fired 1100 rounds. I f each bullet cost him $5, how many rounds would he have shot?
The Las Vegas asswipe spent far more than $5,500 on his weapons, implying he wasn't poor. I don't think it would have prevented anything.
  #43  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:40 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What do hunters use to make their own bullets if not "gunpowder"?
I think 'gunpowder' in that post refers to black powder. Modern propellant is not black powder.
  #44  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:28 PM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweeping down the plain.
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What do hunters use to make their own bullets if not "gunpowder"?
Someone was being very nit picky.
__________________
I've decided to spend more time criticizing things I don't understand. - Dogbert
  #45  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:50 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What do hunters use to make their own bullets if not "gunpowder"?
If they cast their own bullets, they are cast out of a lead alloy, usually. Many reloader buy their bullets premade, as making a copper-jacketed bullet at home is very difficult. The casing or shell is usually from a round you have fired before.

Once you put the primer in, then the propellant aka the powder is added. It is always smokeless powder, never black powder aka gun powder*. Now, yes, the term "gunpowder" is sometimes used in a colloquial or informal manner. You might hear a reloader call it that sometimes.

The entire thing- primer, casing, bullet and powder make up a round. There are special tools to put the primer in and properly 'crimp" the casing around the bullet. The "bullet" is the thing that comes out of the barrel and hits the target, hopefully.


http://gunbelts.com/blog/anatomy-of-ammunition/


Now you know.

Oh, and they aren't called "boom-boom sticks" either.

* some odd speciality rounds use it for show.

Last edited by DrDeth; 07-11-2019 at 04:51 PM.
  #46  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:45 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
I believe he's referring to the bump stock ban.

In terms of due process, though, I believe he's wrong.

Yes, the President did seem to ban them by executive fiat. And that can be a bit concerning to me. But to argue there was no due process is simply wrong. The new rule was issued, the rationale shared and comments were requested.

At any point in the process those opposed to it could either comment or file suit against the DoJ asking the courts to strike down or hold the regulation. Some did, the courts did not agree that it was unconstitutional. Due process doesn't mean that one gets the outcome one wants...it just means that the process is followed.
This isn't the way such things are supposed to work. An agency (especially one who previously published that such devices were legal) should not simply be able to ban something simply because the POTUS wants it without an act of Congress. After physical and scientific review BATFE published that bump stock equipped firearms were not machine guns, and now suddenly they are because Trump says they are? That's horseshit and you know it. The way this took place should be more than just "a bit concerning" to you. The lack of due process comes from the fact that hundreds of thousands of citizens are denied their lawfully acquired property without just compensation. A clear violation of the 5th Amendment. No grandfather clause, no registration option, no loop holes whtsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
I don't think they've been around for that long
The consumer versions of them have been around for almost 30 years. Prior to them people were making their own using about $4 worth of wood. There were also bump shot triggers dating back to the 70's and 80's. It hasn't been clear if they are included in the bump stock ban. Many of them work on the same principle.

There was an early version that got approved and then unapproved by ATF because it had a spring in it. The versions that are now banned are nothing more than a single piece of plastic. No springs, moving parts or other alterations to the rifle.

It's the manner in which the ban took place that should terrify anyone who cherishes their freedom and the mechanisms of our republic. There are several more lawsuits pending including a class action demanding just compensation. Myself and several of my customers are involved with that one. We stopped selling them last year. In February we had to post a sign instructing folks that we were not accepting returns of bump stocks, and they were not allowed on property after the ban deadline in March.

Several states have banned them, still a violation of the 2nd Amendment IMHO, but at least they created those bans in the legal manner in which law is to be created. While those laws seem redundant I believe they did so because they think the federal ban will be overturned by the courts eventually. Even Dianne Feinstein stated she believes that will happen. I bet that some people did not turn in or destroy their bump stocks. There are literally hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding Americans who are guilty of a serious federal felony because they are keeping a piece of plastic that just happens to be molded in a certain shape hidden in their attic, closet, or garage. A piece of plastic!

Now, if a piece of plastic can be banned so easily, what is to stop a ban on most ammunition? Most rifle ammo will defeat soft body armor. What's to stop them from using that as a reason to ban it? How about a ban on civilian possession of hollow points? Or do what many countries do and ban possession of ammo larger than .380? Or a ban on possessing more than 2 rounds of ammunition on your person. If the courts rejected or refused to hear your arguments, what exactly would you be able to do about it? If BATFE can ban a piece of plastic with no input from congress, what is to stop them from banning many kinds of bullets?
  #47  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:19 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
But to argue there was no due process is simply wrong. The new rule was issued, the rationale shared and comments were requested.
"Issuing a rule, sharing the rationale, and asking for comments" is by no means due process.

By that logic, imagine if Trump issued an EO closing every single abortion clinic in the nation, shared his rationale (whatever it may be,) and said "comments are welcome." That is not due process in the least.
  #48  
Old 07-12-2019, 07:28 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Once you put the primer in, then the propellant aka the powder is added. It is always smokeless powder, never black powder aka gun powder*. Now, yes, the term "gunpowder" is sometimes used in a colloquial or informal manner. You might hear a reloader call it that sometimes.
So, gunpowder then?

Thanks!
  #49  
Old 07-12-2019, 07:30 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
This isn't the way such things are supposed to work. An agency (especially one who previously published that such devices were legal) should not simply be able to ban something simply because the POTUS wants it without an act of Congress. After physical and scientific review BATFE published that bump stock equipped firearms were not machine guns, and now suddenly they are because Trump says they are? That's horseshit and you know it. The way this took place should be more than just "a bit concerning" to you. The lack of due process comes from the fact that hundreds of thousands of citizens are denied their lawfully acquired property without just compensation. A clear violation of the 5th Amendment. No grandfather clause, no registration option, no loop holes whtsoever.
Do you similarly believe that the FDA or the EPA should not be able to ban substances in food or water supplies?
  #50  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:17 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So, gunpowder then?

Thanks!
Remember the fun we have with the difference between assault weapon and assault rifle? There is a also a legit and legal difference between "gunpowder" and smokeless powder. If you load a blackpowder rifle with smokeless powder, you stand a good risk of killing or severely injuring yourself. If you load a modern rifle with gunpowder you will seriously fuck it up.

Words mean things but most folks don't care.

Last edited by JXJohns; 07-12-2019 at 10:19 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017