# Ammunition Accountability Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2008, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513 "2008-12-03T16:09:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/221 "2008-12-05T15:11:10Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Attendance in a church is not the same as purchase of a physical good which clearly can be taxed just as any other physical good can be taxed. And that, grasshopper, is a very important statement, though not for the initial part of it. You can tax gun/ammo purchases “just as any other physical good” without a problem. It is when you start putting special taxes on that you may run into issues. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/222 "2008-12-05T15:16:05Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I’m guessing your quoting of Wikipedia and lack of answer earlier means you have refused to read the decision and its arguments and are not prepared to admit such on this message board. > > You don’t have to like being wrong, but you have to accept that you are wrong. You are guessing wrong and you are wrong. I was not replying to your question. I was replying to **Ex Tank** who was suggesting I do not know the meaning of “militia” and “well regulated”. This stemmed from earlier where I suggested the first half of the 2nd Amendment seems to be conveniently ignored by pro gun advocates. Miller and subsequent interpretations which I quoted (and tough if you do not like Wiki…it is a cite and if you think those Wiki cites of cases are wrong it is up to you to prove it so) have supported the notion that those words DO mean something. It does supports my notion that I do know what those words mean, that they are there for a reason and not rhetorical flourish and no less than the SCOTUS and other courts have suggested the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/223 "2008-12-05T15:22:47Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > All the dishonesty in this exchange is coming from you. You can make all the accusations you want regarding my true intent, but it doesn’t make your accusations true. I don’t need to accuse you. You’ve done a fine job of revealing your true colors right here in this thread: > [@](#): > > The way the gun-owning population on the whole handles their deadly weapons is despicable. They’re begging for more regulation. Or at least some financial hardship. > [@](#): > > It’s not the gun ownership of these assholes that I’m worried about. It’s their inability to keep track of their fucking guns. But then my statement was clear on that point. But if you want to make shit up to make me look like the bad guy here, have at it. You only serve to prove my point that some gun proponents’ sense of reality is skewed. > [@](#): > > A little hardship. Maybe a tax. Like smokers! Or drinkers! I guess hardship is a little strong. I’ll go with “taxation.” > [@](#): > > Taxation to curb gun violence is precisely what the point would be. I don’t imagine it would be cheap, nor would it be swift. But yes, that would be the point. > [@](#): > > If the government decides that it is best for the collective to put a restriction on ammo that results in an increase in cost, it’s not a threat to the 2nd. And I’m for it. So, I’d say we can judge from your own words that you have a low opinion of gun owners and are in favor of punsihing them for being gun owners. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/224 "2008-12-05T15:24:28Z")
Villa - are there any other goods or services which are taxed differently than others? Because many governments levy a special tax on restuarant meals, or drinks, or stays in a hotel or motel, or sports tickets, or lots of other things … does that then mean that we are trying to take away a persons right to stay in a hotel or motel, or buy a restaurant meal, or attend a sporting event? ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/225 "2008-12-05T15:25:44Z")
“Shoulder thing that goes up” I have a cousin that supports the AWB. One of the ‘reasons’ was because some of them have holes in the side of the barrel. 😕 It took some time to finally figure out that she was talking about barrel shrouds. What Rep. Carolyn McCarthy thinks is the “shoulder thing that goes up” I’m a gun owner. I was never that concerned about gun rights until I discovered the out and out ignorance of those that would like to impose more gun laws. It doesn’t need to make sense. As long as it imposes more restrictions, the anti-gun crowd is for it. That’s what it comes down to. As far as I’m concerned, the anti-gun crowd has lost any credibility that they might have had if they would have educated themselves just a little bit about guns. ID each bullet? Data is recoverable? Only half a cent a round? Is there a link to the company and its claims somewhere? Like most shooters, I don’t believe any of those claims. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/226 "2008-12-05T15:30:02Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Villa - are there any other goods or services which are taxed differently than others? > > Because many governments levy a special tax on restuarant meals, or drinks, or stays in a hotel or motel, or sports tickets, or lots of other things … does that then mean that we are trying to take away a persons right to stay in a hotel or motel, or buy a restaurant meal, or attend a sporting event? Yes there are. But there are a few things to consider here. First is whether a constitutionally protected right is involved. Hotel rooms/restaurants get interesting there because of the civil rights cases. However, a non-discriminatory tax probably wouldn’t fall foul, unless there was pretty strong evidence in the legislative record that the intent of the tax was to deliberately burden interstate travel. Second, I never said a special tax is _per se_ unconstitutional (though in some cases, especially religion, it would come very damn close indeed). I said that “\*t is when you start putting special taxes on that you may run into issues.” Which is true. A small increase in the tax on ammunition in order to fund a national database from marking data probably wouldn’t be a constitutional issue. A significant hike in the price with legislative history showing the purpose was to prevent poor people being able to afford ammo would not pass constitutional muster, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/227 "2008-12-05T15:30:06Z")
> [@Cyberhwk](#): > > 😃 LOL. I forgot about that. > > Here’s the part that bothers me: > I realize ammo goes bad, Over a period of 40 years, plus or minus, yes. What this counts as, is basically a seizure of a serious amount of property from citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/228 "2008-12-05T15:31:57Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Don’t presume. Cite the existence of such a law and how much it impacts the cost of an example firearm. I’m not doing your research for you. Oh puh-leeze… You are suggesting that the government does not impose rules on manufacturing? Are you suggesting there are no regulations facing manufacturers in things such as, say, the procurement and storage of explosives in ammunition manufacturing? What planet do you live on because here there are all sorts of regulations affecting industry. Heck…by your way of thinking there should be no minimum wage law applied to ammunition manufacturers since it raises the cost of ammunition which amounts to a tacit restriction of your constitutional rights. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/229 "2008-12-05T15:34:33Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > How is backing the losing candidate not a loss for the organization when it happens 80% of the time? If a sports team lost 80% of the time, that would certainly go down as a losing season on any measurement of success. People who were ordinarily single-issue voters or who would ordinarily have voted Republican due to their platform on guns chose to vote Democrat in large numbers in this election because the Republicans did a horrific job of running the country over the last 8 years. So, by doing what is clearly the right thing to do for the country as a whole you’re saying that people like me essentially gave _carte blanche_ to betray those votes of conscience? The NRA didn’t lose, the Republican Party lost. Barack Obama did a very intelligent thing and left gun control largely off the agenda because it has been a loser issue for the Democrats. That does not mean that it isn’t a policy issue for him- it clearly is. So what we are doing is preparing a defense against something that may or may not happen, but is far more likely to happen than in any of the last 8 years. Frankly, I’m annoyed about the whole thing. I did what I think was right, and for my trouble I am facing the diminution of my rights. I discounted the idea that Obama would trouble himself with this issue because he had more important things to do, but from the push I see here (see the Pit thread for examples) it is clear that there is an expectation that Obama will do something, and soon. Thanks for nothing, Democrats. Me and people like me helped mightily to get Obama elected, and now you’re talking about showing us the back of your hand. Much obliged, it won’t be forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/230 "2008-12-05T15:36:52Z")
Villa - I agree with you. You said it well. > [@](#): > > A small increase in the tax on ammunition in order to fund a national database from marking data probably wouldn’t be a constitutional issue. A significant hike in the price with legislative history showing the purpose was to prevent poor people being able to afford ammo would not pass constitutional muster, IMHO. Like all things, the devil is in the details. In your opinion, how much of a tax on ammunition would be acceptable to fund this data base and at what level does it begin to become punitive? ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/231 "2008-12-05T15:40:40Z")
AirmanDoors I too supported Obama. I am not a gun owner. I do not want to take away anyones legal guns. I saw nothing in either the Democratic platform or statements from Obama that indicated he did either. President-elect Obama has a lot of very serious stuff on his plate. I do not envision any effort being made to take away anyones legal guns, ammunition or exercise of their Second Amendment rights. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/232 "2008-12-05T15:40:52Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Oh puh-leeze… > > You are suggesting that the government does not impose rules on manufacturing? Are you suggesting there are no regulations facing manufacturers in things such as, say, the procurement and storage of explosives in ammunition manufacturing? > > What planet do you live on because here there are all sorts of regulations affecting industry. Heck…by your way of thinking there should be no minimum wage law applied to ammunition manufacturers since it raises the cost of ammunition which amounts to a tacit restriction of your constitutional rights. You’re the guy saying 'tis so. Back it up with the appropriate regulations. You can then show how nominal the increase in cost is and use it to justify your support of the proposed law discussed in this thread. Or not. Your presumptions alone, though, aren’t terribly effective in persuading me to your overall point. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/233 "2008-12-05T15:42:07Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > In your opinion, how much of a tax on ammunition would be acceptable to fund this data base and at what level does it begin to become punitive? I have no idea to be honest. This doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be other issues with the existence of such a database by the way… 0.5 cents per round - probably not going to cause an issue. Putting 9mm rounds up to $5 a piece? Probably going to raise a problem. It is also important (despite what our cute little textualist friends tell us) to look at the legislative history of any tax imposed for this purpose. You would be amazed how STUPID legislators are on this. If you look back at some of the “moment of silence” cases, you have legislators talking the whole time in debates, on the record, about how this is the way to get sponsored prayer back into schools. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/234 "2008-12-05T15:48:11Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > You’re the guy saying 'tis so. Back it up with the appropriate regulations. You can then show how nominal the increase in cost is and use it to justify your support of the proposed law discussed in this thread. Or not. Your presumptions alone, though, aren’t terribly effective in persuading me to your overall point. Such disingenuous crap… Fine, for starters: [OSHA Regulations](http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch.search_form?p_doc_type=STANDARDS&p_toc_level=0&p_keyvalue=) [National Labor Relations Regulations](http://www.nlrb.gov/publications/rules_and_regulations.aspx) [Commerce in Explosives Regulations](http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html) (if you are manufacturing ammo you are handling explosives) Have fun… ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/235 "2008-12-05T15:50:56Z")
Yes I understand that. At some point, there must be an accomation between reasonable people of good will. Non-gun owners like myself must stand up and state without any trickery that they support peoples rights under the Second Amendment and there is not intention to take away peoples guns by hook or by crook. And gun owners must stand up and help clean up the extremists in the gun culture that give legitimate gun owners a bad name. There needs to be a middle ground of reason. I know of very few people who do not want hunters to have their rifles. … or people in their homes to be denied a pistol or shtogun or rifle for home protection … or to deny sportsemnt the opportunity to have a weapon for target shooting or other such normal activity. Its the extremists with loads of automatic weapons and military weapons that people want to see controlled. I am all for hunters keeping their guns and the other stuff I mentioned. I do not anyone to have heavy duty military style automatic weapons. Yes, I understand that the citizenry is the last line of defense. Yes, i understand that if the government is well armed then some citizens who fear the government feel they need an equal response. All I can say to that is if we ever get to either of those two points you might as well bend over backwards and kiss your ass goodbye because our society is finished regardless. So to me, I do not consider those things as real. I am sorry if that offends anyone, but is my position. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/236 "2008-12-05T15:57:10Z")
> [@](#): > > **JXJohns** said: > ETA: Isn’t it bad form to reprint an entire article here as well as not throw out a link for a cite? Yes, and quoting the entire thing is often known as copyright infringement, which isn’t only applicable to this forum. > [@](#): > > **haymarketmartyr** said: > I just joined this board recently — if there is a rule about not printing the article, I am sorry I was not aware of it… thanks for that alert. How much can you print because I see others doing it? I am not a moderator, and this is not official advice. People are generally quoting less than 50% of the article the refer to. It is also a good idea to include a link to your source, if one exists, or a reference to the book, magazine, newspaper that it came from so that we can go and judge it for ourselves. > [@](#): > > **Kalhoun** said: > If the government decides that it is best for the collective to put a restriction on ammo that results in an increase in cost, it’s not a threat to the 2nd. And I’m for it. If the government decides that it is best for the collective to put a restriction on polls that results in an increase in cost, it’s not a threat to the 15th. Are you for that also? > [@](#): > > **JXJohns** said: > Who are you to define that “realistic definition”? So far you have proven yourself willfully ignorant of most things about ammunition and firearms yet you think you have some sort of moral high ground to make demands or requests of gun owners? This is true of a large percentage of anti-gun individuals. At least, that is what my observations over the last 20-odd years have shown me. > [@](#): > > **villa** said: > Kalhoun - do you at least believe me when I tell you (as I have done repeatedly) that raising the price of something that is an integral part of a constitutionally protected right through regulation and/or taxation can raise serious constitutional issues? I can think of no better example than poll taxes. Apparently, it’s such an issue that although my statement above regarding the 15th Amendment neatly fits alongside **Kalhoun’s** argument about the Second, we currently have a 24th Amendment to prevent exactly that. > [@](#): > > **villa** said: > You can tax gun/ammo purchases “just as any other physical good” without a problem. As in sales tax, which I already pay when I purchase ammuntion at the local Gander Mountain. > [@](#): > > **Scumpup** said: > I don’t need to accuse you. You’ve done a fine job of revealing your true colors right here in this thread: And **Kalhoun’s** posts in this thread are perfect evidence of the disingenuous nature of the ‘We only want reasonable restrictions and compromise’ arguments that are currently being put forth in the other gun control thread by **Zeriel** and **EddyTeddyFreddy**. > [@](#): > > **Whack-a-Mole** said: > You are suggesting that the government does not impose rules on manufacturing? Are you suggesting there are no regulations facing manufacturers in things such as, say, the procurement and storage of explosives in ammunition manufacturing? > [@](#): > > Such disingenuous crap… > > Fine, for starters: Find me one that is specific to ammunition manufacturers only, and not anyone else who deals with gunpowder, lead, copper, brass, or other materials that are used in the manufacture of ammunition. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/237 "2008-12-05T15:58:33Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > I saw nothing in either the Democratic platform or statements from Obama that indicated he did either. You just haven’t learned the code words yet. A few prominent examples: From [Obama’s transition website](http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/): > [@](#): > > Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. From his [acceptance speech](http://www.demconvention.com/barack-obama/) in June: > [@](#): > > The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. From a [speech](http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/barack-obama-bitter-pennsylvanians-cling-to-guns-or-religion/) in San Francisco: > [@](#): > > You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. Guns are clearly on his mind, and he is talking like a person that a) doesn’t know the first thing about guns (there are no AK-47s on the streets of Cleveland), b) wants to reaffirm a law that, when it sunsetted, did not cause a measurable increase in crime, c) cares enough about the issue to repeal what is no more or less than privacy (the Tiahrt Amendment), and d) treats gun ownership with contempt. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/238 "2008-12-05T16:02:07Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Frankly, I’m annoyed about the whole thing. I did what I think was right, and for my trouble I am facing the diminution of my rights. I discounted the idea that Obama would trouble himself with this issue because he had more important things to do, but from the push I see here (see the Pit thread for examples) it is clear that there is an expectation that Obama will do something, and soon. > > Thanks for nothing, Democrats. Me and people like me helped mightily to get Obama elected, and now you’re talking about showing us the back of your hand. Much obliged, it won’t be forgotten. First off what is said here is a FAR cry from Obama passing anti-gun laws. Secondly, I am curious why you hold out the 2nd Amendment as the only right worth defending and if it gets restricted you made a mistake electing a Democrat. I posted earlier 23 places where the Bush administration has reduced or ignored our constitutional rights. By getting Obama in those rights may be restored or at least far less likely to continue to be eroded. But this one right trumps all I guess (assuming it even does get restricted which is by no means even remotely clear). :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/239 "2008-12-05T16:05:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > But this one right trumps all I guess (assuming it even does get restricted which is by no means even remotely clear). :rolleyes: Funny, I don’t remember saying that. I voted for Obama precisely because of those other rights being violated. Does that give you cause to ignore, dismiss, or undermine my concerns? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/240 "2008-12-05T16:13:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Such disingenuous crap… > > Fine, for starters: > [OSHA Regulations](http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch.search_form?p_doc_type=STANDARDS&p_toc_level=0&p_keyvalue=) > > [National Labor Relations Regulations](http://www.nlrb.gov/publications/rules_and_regulations.aspx) > > [Commerce in Explosives Regulations](http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html) (if you are manufacturing ammo you are handling explosives) > > Have fun… Not much of an effort on your part. You just link to the OSHA home page. Ditto for the NLRB. Your explosives regulations link is slightly more specific. There’s also nothing from you to show how much impact any regulations have on the cost of a firearm or ammo. IOW, this is basically still just your presumption dressed up with a little anger and three useless links. You’ve done nothing to prove your point which was, as I understood it, that since there are other government regulations in place that may have an impact on the cost of a product it’s okay to put others in place. The thing is that I’m concerned about why people do things as well as with what they do. This whole proposal just absolutely stinks of an anti work-around for both Heller and the Constitution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513.md?page=13)