Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-09-2019, 01:22 PM
zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,972

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, 01:38 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, 03:48 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
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, 04:07 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,113
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, 04:19 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
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, 04:37 PM
Anny Middon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,250
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, 05:12 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,038
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 05:14 PM.
  #8  
Old 07-10-2019, 09:46 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,586
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 it’s possession a serious federal felony. No congressional vote, no due process, no reimbursement for seized private property.
What law is this?
  #9  
Old 07-10-2019, 10:44 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,069
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.
  #10  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
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....
Cite? Because you are not talking about the bump-stock ban, of course.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/polit...day/index.html
  #11  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:26 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
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 05:26 PM.
  #12  
Old 07-09-2019, 06:18 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.)
  #13  
Old 07-09-2019, 06:43 PM
thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,995
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.
  #14  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,677
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.
  #15  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:23 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,586
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"?
  #16  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:40 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 605
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.
  #17  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:28 PM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweeping down the plain.
Posts: 5,859
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
  #18  
Old 07-11-2019, 05:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,677
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 05:51 PM.
  #19  
Old 07-10-2019, 05:19 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,944
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.
  #20  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:35 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 605
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.
  #21  
Old 09-09-2019, 01:12 AM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
.... 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?
Paddock was wealthy, he could afford lots of ammo at $5 each.
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
  #22  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:38 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,113
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.
  #23  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:28 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,677
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.
  #24  
Old 07-10-2019, 01:21 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,113
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.
  #25  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,677
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.
  #26  
Old 07-10-2019, 04:31 PM
thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,995
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.
  #27  
Old 07-10-2019, 05:06 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
  #28  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:16 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.
  #29  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:32 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,677
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) .
  #30  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:16 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
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.
  #31  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:28 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
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.
  #32  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:44 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,546
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,...
  #33  
Old 07-09-2019, 07:12 PM
zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,972
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,
  #34  
Old 07-09-2019, 07:24 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
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.
  #35  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:54 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
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.
  #36  
Old 07-10-2019, 10:22 AM
zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,972
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.
  #37  
Old 07-10-2019, 10:31 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
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?
  #38  
Old 07-10-2019, 03:24 PM
zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,972
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
  #39  
Old 07-10-2019, 10:39 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
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, ...
  #40  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,677
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.
  #41  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:46 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,085
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.
  #42  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:32 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,677
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.
  #43  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:59 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
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.
  #44  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:35 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Do you similarly believe that the FDA or the EPA should not be able to ban substances in food or water supplies?


Right. Regulatory delegation is the legislative saying, “look, people, we are NOT trained experts in ballistics/epidemiology/aquatic chemistry/aircraft control dynamics - we are hereby tasking the executive offices with being the ones who hire or consult with the trained experts and do the micromanaging; we trust they’ll do so in a manner that matches the constitution and law.” When the latter does not happen, or the executive just tries to pull power out of his fundament, then we should go back in and legislate the details.

That we allowed it to get to the point that the executive prefers the out-of-fundament method as their first recourse is the other branches’ fault.
  #45  
Old 07-13-2019, 03:23 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Right. Regulatory delegation is the legislative saying, “look, people, we are NOT trained experts in ballistics/epidemiology/aquatic chemistry/aircraft control dynamics - we are hereby tasking the executive offices with being the ones who hire or consult with the trained experts and do the micromanaging; we trust they’ll do so in a manner that matches the constitution and law.” When the latter does not happen, or the executive just tries to pull power out of his fundament, then we should go back in and legislate the details.

That we allowed it to get to the point that the executive prefers the out-of-fundament method as their first recourse is the other branches’ fault.
It should have legislative approval anyways. Sure, you can say that Congress does not have expertise in pollution but instead of just giving the EPA a blank check, it should be that the EPA studies and recommends regulations which Congress then enacts into law or not. That way we, through the democratic process, can have a say in what laws restrict our freedoms.

Otherwise, your elected representative gets an out. He can claim it is not his fault that an endangered frog is the reason that you cannot build on your property, it is Trump/Clinton/Obama/Bush's liberal/conservative government bureaucrats that are at fault. If Congress has to approve the regulation, then he is on record about how he voted.

These "experts" tend to be politically motivated anyways. If Trump's EPA is packed with people who say that climate change is a hoax, are you satisfied with regulations that come from that and satisfied with your Congress for simply kicking that can?

My plan also conforms with the Constitution in that legislative power is with Congress and not with "experts."
  #46  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:37 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,365
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.
Pat Paulsen made the same joke in his 1968 Presidential campaign, IIRC.
  #47  
Old 07-25-2019, 04:01 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,252
When did Chris Rock become a constitutional expert?
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 02:43 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