Ammunition Accountability Act

[Cyberhwk]

@Bobotheoptimist

“Shoulder thing that goes up”

LOL. I forgot about that.

Here’s the part that bothers me:

No later than January 1, 2011, all non-coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this chapter, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, must be disposed.

I realize ammo goes bad, but I don’t think you can underestimate how many people likely have guns for self defense that likely just sit there. I would be concerned about how many otherwise law abiding gun owners would be made criminals by not “disposing” of non-coded ammunition.

[Kalhoun]

@Sam_Stone

Really? So you’d have no problem if the government made it illegal to spout anti-gun opinions on the internet? Hey, they’re not taking away your right to free speech, they’re just keeping it off the internet, right? That’s just a ‘thing’.

And how about if the government refuses to let opposition supporters buy printing presses or laser printers? The constitution doesn’t say anything about a right to a printing press. I think only government-approved news outlets should have them.

And how about if we make it illegal to speak openly against the government in the park? We’re not infringing on your right to free speech, just your right to do it in a park, another ‘thing’. You’ve got no problem taking away ‘things’, right?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Of course I’d have a problem with it but I don’t NEED those things in order to speak. You cannot bear arms without arms. I can speak without a press or the internet. There’s a difference between not being able to afford a press and being forbidden to use one in the pursuit of free speech. Get it? No one is taking away the right to shoot a gun simply by raising the price of ammo a little. There is no minimim cost dictated by the constitution that will ensure every citizen can afford a gun or ammo. You’re way off track here and are attributing opinions to me that I don’t hold.

[Scumpup]

That may well be the most fatuously disingenuous post I’ve ever seen.

What you are talking about is enacting a tax specifically to keep people from exercising a right. This was exactly how poll taxes were used to deny blacks their civil rights in the south. Would you say no one was taking away their right to vote simply by raising the price a little?

[catsix]

Scumpup said:
What you are talking about is enacting a tax specifically to keep people from exercising a right. This was exactly how poll taxes were used to deny blacks their civil rights in the south. Would you say no one was taking away their right to vote simply by raising the price a little?

Doesn’t the NRA like to say that gun control was originally created make sure that the KKK had nice, unarmed black people to persecute?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@ExTank

I’m not diagreeing with you.

The Supreme Court of The United States is.

Perhaps the recent Heller decision has changed it somewhat but apparently the SCOTUS agreed with me for the past 60 or so years. If nothing else this proves that A) It is entirely appropriate to read the “well regulated” and “militia” parts as meaningful in the 2nd Amendment and B) Gun advocates are lucky to have a current court that is favorable to them and things can change:

The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned Miller in only six subsequent cases: Heller (2008); Prinz (1997); Lewis (1980); Adams (1972); Atlanta Motel (1961); and Konigsberg (1961).

Below is a complete list of the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the 1939 Miller opinion:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”

Printz v. United States (1997) (opinion by Scalia) (Thomas, concurring)

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court’s invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense.” Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8

(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).

Adams v. Williams (1972); (opinion by Rehnquist)

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”

“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179. Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.

Atlanta Motel v. Unites States (1961); Footnote 11

… cases in which the commerce power has been used to advance other ends not entirely commercial: e. g., … United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act);

Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961); Footnote 10

That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . .” But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: “[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth.” Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.

SOURCE: United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

[Kalhoun]

@Scumpup

That may well be the most fatuously disingenuous post I’ve ever seen.

What you are talking about is enacting a tax specifically to keep people from exercising a right. This was exactly how poll taxes were used to deny blacks their civil rights in the south. Would you say no one was taking away their right to vote simply by raising the price a little?

Please clarify where I said I wanted anyone’s 2nd amendment rights to be infringed. Let’s forget for a minute my statement about taxing ammunition. Let’s set aside the real viability of the plan to mark each bullet and assume that it IS possible. Let’s say that ammo ID really will help solve crimes (and I think it will, in some cases, do-able or not). So now the standard set forth by the government is going to actually raise the cost of making ammunition by .5 cents per cartridge. Just as the government’s decision to make airbags mandatory raised the cost of making an automobile by $xx.xx.

At this point in this discussion, we aren’t talking about taxes. We’re talking about the cost to own and operate firearms. Are you saying you feel the government should buy guns and ammo for every citizen who wants them? Are you saying that manufacturers can’t raise their prices for any reason? Are you saying that useful regulation should be illegal and that in all cases, your hobby should be affordable to you?

Your “freedom to bear arms” depends on your ability to afford it. The additional cost that might be added – for whatever reason, or whatever bill, or whatever manufacturing cost increase in the future – might make it impossible for you to buy as many cartridges as you did last year. Not a 2nd amendment issue. Not even a little bit. You are suggesting that there be a guarantee that every person can afford to operate a gun, and that is not what the constitution offers.

[haymarketmartyr]

The NRA is significantly losing its political power.

Untold Story of Election 2008: The Death of the NRA
A stellar article in AlterNet by Alexander Zaitchik, on Dec. 4th says that: “Among the big losers in November were the NRA and the myth of the once-feared ‘NRA Voter.’ Reform of our gun laws is on the way.”

Last month, voters across the country took a cue from the late Charlton Heston and pried the assault weapon from the NRA’s cold, dead hands.

Although the gun group unleashed everything in its arsenal to defeat Barack Obama and dozens of down ticket gun-control candidates, it lost by a margin as historic as the war chest it opened in an attempt to convince voters that Democrats were mortal enemies of the Second Amendment.

**Despite expending nearly $7 million in a national fear campaign, NRA-endorsed candidates lost 80 percent of their races against gun-control candidates. **
**More than 90 percent of candidates endorsed by the NRA’s nemesis, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, won their races. **

If 2008 was, in the NRA’s own words, “arguably the most important year in its history,” then the election results suggest that the gun group is arguably the most overhyped and impotent special-interest lobby in the country.

The NRA even got its chamber cleaned in its home state of Virginia.

The sweeping victory for gun control has been one of the most underreported stories of the election. This is largely because it was immediately overshadowed by the trendy postelection narrative of spiking gun sales and runs on assault weapons.

In recent weeks, it seems as if every TV news program and newspaper in the country has featured some variation on the following story: Anxious Americans are cleaning out their local gun stores in anticipation of a.) Barack Obama’s radical anti-gun agenda; b.) social chaos engendered by economic collapse; or c.) both.

No doubt thousands of paranoid gun owners have purchased Glocks and AR-15 assault rifles out of such fears. And it is true that the economic crisis has fueled an interest in personal protection and even Northern Idaho-style survivalism.

But sensational stories about booming holiday-season gun sales obscure a more profound phenomenon: the coalescence of a new consensus, joined by the majority of the nation’s gun owners, in favor of what gun controllers call “commonsense reform.”

A subtext of this phenomenon is the evaporation, first witnessed in 2006 and reinforced last month, of the idea that guns are a sure thing conservative wedge issue.

Nobody can accuse Obama of campaigning dishonestly on the issue of gun control. The nation’s first modern urban president repeatedly explained that his understanding of the Second Amendment included the need for restrictions aimed at reducing gun violence, especially in the cities.

In a sign that he intended to win on the issue by shooting straight with voters, he even mentioned his gun-control agenda during his Denver acceptance speech, challenging the idea that gun control was a third rail that guaranteed defeat in states like Ohio and Virginia.

As codified in his urban policy platform, Obama consistently advocated for increasing law enforcement’s ability to trace guns by reinstituting tracking legislation repealed by the Bush administration; closing the famous “gun show loophole” that allows gun buyers to avoid background checks; mandating additional safety features on U.S.-manufactured guns; and resurrecting the expired ban on assault weapons and making it permanent.

Needless to say, every plank of this agenda is vigorously opposed by the NRA (spokespersons for whom did not return repeated requests for comment).

[JXJohns]

@haymarketmartyr

The NRA is significantly losing its political power.

No, the people voted AGAINST the Republicans and the way they have been doing business for the last eight years. Unless you or whomever wrote that article can point to candidates who ran on a brazenly anti gun platform and won with overwhelming majorities, this thought that the NRA lost any power is ridiculous. Remember, every lefty and anti gunner here and in the rest of the country “knows” that guns are a losing issue. So conveniently, they were not the third rail of most “D’s” campaigns this year.

Instead, their anti gun rhetoric was toned down to “common sense” regulations, closing "loop holes’ and banning “assault weapons”. These statements were hidden deep in party planks and on page 8 of candidates websites.

Anyone who thinks that the NRA lost these elections is a fool. The Republicans lost not the NRA. Watch their membership swell over the next few years.

ETA: Isn’t it bad form to reprint an entire article here as well as not throw out a link for a cite?

[Scumpup]

Your “freedom to bear arms” depends on your ability to afford it. The additional cost that might be added – for whatever reason, or whatever bill, or whatever manufacturing cost increase in the future – might make it impossible for you to buy as many cartridges as you did last year. Not a 2nd amendment issue. Not even a little bit. You are suggesting that there be a guarantee that every person can afford to operate a gun, and that is not what the constitution offers.

…and you keep talking about a government-imposed increase in that cost. That’s the key. Government-imposed for political reasons. Not a cost increase due to market forces.

And no, I won’t forget why you really want to do this or why the legislators pushing it or the company that stands to reap massive profits from it wants to do it.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Scumpup

…and you keep talking about a government-imposed increase in that cost. That’s the key. Government-imposed for political reasons. Not a cost increase due to market forces.

I presume there are government regulations on minimum safety requirements for guns and ammunition. At least most productssold in the US do. Are those then unconstitutional since they raise the cost of the gun and ammunition?

[Una_Persson]

@Whack-a-Mole

Perhaps the recent Heller decision has changed it somewhat but apparently the SCOTUS agreed with me for the past 60 or so years.

That’s like saying “perhaps Roe v. Wade might have potentially made abortion slightly more accessible to a limited few…” There’s no “perhaps” or “somewhat” about it - Heller affirmed a very broad right to self-defense, affirmed that guns - especially handguns - have a specific purpose for said lawful self-defense, and affirmed that the guns have to be allowed to be kept in working order with available ammunition. 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.

If nothing else this proves that A) It is entirely appropriate to read the “well regulated” and “militia” parts as meaningful in the 2nd Amendment and B) Gun advocates are lucky to have a current court that is favorable to them and things can change:

Translation: you don’t care what the Supreme Court says and you’re skipping over all the Majority arguments and all discussion in the amicus briefs about how Miller was a flawed decision (IMO right up there with Dred Scott, something you might consider as well when thinking of the weight of precedent in the Supreme Court) you’re right. :dubious: I don’t blame you in some respects; I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss the Miller tar baby again, as I’ve done that for 9 years on this message board and am tired of people sticking their fingers in their ears and going “la la la la I can’t hear you!”

And I guess we can read the “lucky to have a current court” to invalidate a whole lot of other Crown Jewels of the Left as well, since that facetious argument can be used for pretty much any decision which does not have a strong supermajority. After all, we don’t want to be hypocrites. Maybe we should list a few hundred or so decisions which would also have been “lucky” to be made. :dubious:

[Kalhoun]

@Scumpup

…and you keep talking about a government-imposed increase in that cost. That’s the key. Government-imposed for political reasons. Not a cost increase due to market forces.

And no, I won’t forget why you really want to do this or why the legislators pushing it or the company that stands to reap massive profits from it wants to do it.

Relax…you should be directing your ire toward someone who actually wants you to lose your 2nd amendment rights. All I want is for some of you to apply a realistic definition of those rights. That’s all. I’m not looking to repeal anything. 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.

[Scumpup]

@Whack-a-Mole

I presume there are government regulations on minimum safety requirements for guns and ammunition. At least most productssold in the US do. Are those then unconstitutional since they raise the cost of the gun and ammunition?

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.

[Scumpup]

@Kalhoun

Relax…you should be directing your ire toward someone who actually wants you to lose your 2nd amendment rights. All I want is for some of you to apply a realistic definition of those rights. That’s all. I’m not looking to repeal anything. 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.

Classic. Anybody who disagrees with you is “unreasonable.”
Also classic how you contradict what you say in the first part of your post with what you say in the last sentence. Give up the pretense, which nobody is buying, that you are anything but an anti; then perhaps the debate can continue honestly.

[haymarketmartyr]

JXJohns

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?

You seem to feel - rather strongly - that the NRA did not lose despite the fact that most of the candidates the backed lost against gun control candidates.

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.

When the Republicans were winning, the mantra of God, Guns and Gays seemed to a key part to their winning strategy. Prop 8 passed California so I guess the gays element is still in place, I don’t see much animosity against God in the various campaigns, so what happened with the support for Guns?

[JXJohns]

@Kalhoun

Relax…you should be directing your ire toward someone who actually wants you to lose your 2nd amendment rights. All I want is for some of you to apply a realistic definition of those rights. That’s all. I’m not looking to repeal anything. 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.

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?

No thanks.

[villa]

@Kalhoun

Your “freedom to bear arms” depends on your ability to afford it. The additional cost that might be added – for whatever reason, or whatever bill, or whatever manufacturing cost increase in the future – might make it impossible for you to buy as many cartridges as you did last year. Not a 2nd amendment issue. Not even a little bit. You are suggesting that there be a guarantee that every person can afford to operate a gun, and that is not what the constitution offers.

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?

It isn’t as simple as you seem to think it is. I’d think you would agree with me that placing a tax on Church attendance would be unconstitutional, regardless of the level of the tax.

[haymarketmartyr]

It isn’t as simple as you seem to think it is. I’d think you would agree with me that placing a tax on Church attendance would be unconstitutional, regardless of the level of the tax.

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.

[Scumpup]

Attendance in a church can be taxed exactly as attendance at a concert or any public event can be taxed. If admission is free, then we need only tax at a flat fee. Easy-peasey.

[Kalhoun]

@Scumpup

Classic. Anybody who disagrees with you is “unreasonable.”
Also classic how you contradict what you say in the first part of your post with what you say in the last sentence. Give up the pretense, which nobody is buying, that you are anything but an anti; then perhaps the debate can continue honestly.

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.