# Could government ban the possession of ammunition? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 9, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787 "2019-07-09T17:22:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/21 "2019-07-10T14:39:08Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > 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: > [@zamboniracer](#): > > … if the Virginia government can’t restrict people from having guns on public property, … ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/22 "2019-07-10T14:44:25Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/23 "2019-07-10T15:26:52Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I believe he’s referring to the bump stock ban. > > In terms of due process, though, I believe he’s wrong. > > Yes, the President did seem to ban them by executive fiat. And that can be a bit concerning to me. But to argue there was no due process is simply wrong. The new rule was issued, the rationale shared and comments were requested. > > At any point in the process those opposed to it could either comment or file suit against the DoJ asking the courts to strike down or hold the regulation. Some did, the courts did not agree that it was unconstitutional. Due process doesn’t mean that one gets the outcome one wants…it just means that the process is followed. The larger idea, though, is one that was recently discussed in a Supreme Court case about delegation of legislative powers being unconstitutional. If I own something, let’s forget about it being a bump stock, but a weeblewarbler. My weeblewarbler is completely legal and I can enjoy it however I want. In order for the government to outlaw my weeblewarbler, it should not be some bureaucratic body who will take my public comment and shitcan it. If I am to be deprived of the legal use of my property, it should be through the democratic process whereby my elected representatives, chosen by the people and are accountable to the people, make that decision. To delegate this authority is only different in degree but not in kind from saying that “The President shall by decree enact all laws he believes proper.” ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/24 "2019-07-10T15:46:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/25 "2019-07-10T16:22:02Z")
> [@Anny\_Middon](#): > > 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.:rolleyes: 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. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/26 "2019-07-10T16:23:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Other than a few blackpowder shooters, no one uses "gunpowder’ anymore.:rolleyes: 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. :rolleyes: What do hunters use to make their own bullets if not “gunpowder”? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/27 "2019-07-10T16:24:20Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > 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/politics/bump-stock-ban-takes-effect-tuesday/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/bump-stock-ban-takes-effect-tuesday/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/28 "2019-07-10T16:28:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. [New Gun And Ammo Taxes Sound Like Promising Ways To Reduce Gun Violence. But There Are Problems. | Tax Policy Center](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/new-gun-and-ammo-taxes-sound-promising-ways-reduce-gun-violence-there-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. \* ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/29 "2019-07-10T16:30:15Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/30 "2019-07-10T16:32:53Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/31 "2019-07-10T16:59:40Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/32 "2019-07-10T17:21:10Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/33 "2019-07-10T19:24:23Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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](https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/07/08/virginia-gun-control-legislature-special-session-northam) ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/34 "2019-07-10T20:31:37Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > 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](http://www.slidefire.com/files/BATFE.pdf)) 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. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Guns & ammo already have additional taxes, has been that way for decades if not more. 1. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/35 "2019-07-10T21:06:28Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > …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](https://www.ttb.gov/firearms/reference_guide.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/36 "2019-07-10T21:19:24Z")
> [@Anny\_Middon](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/37 "2019-07-11T17:16:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Guns & ammo already have additional taxes, has been that way for decades if not more. > > [New Gun And Ammo Taxes Sound Like Promising Ways To Reduce Gun Violence. But There Are Problems. | Tax Policy Center](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/new-gun-and-ammo-taxes-sound-promising-ways-reduce-gun-violence-there-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. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/38 "2019-07-11T17:29:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/39 "2019-07-11T17:32:16Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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) . ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787/40 "2019-07-11T17:42:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, since those taxes are fairly reasonable. But put some of the banning level taxes talked about here- and yes, they will be struck down- along with maybe the more reasonable ones. > > Just like Heller- cities kept passing more and more restrictive gun laws until finally SCOTUS reacted and said enough is enough. You can blame Heller directly on Chicago and DC. (and SF if those hadnt happened) . So you would believe that if Alabama passed an 11% excise tax on all abortions performed in the state that the courts would simply say, eh, reasonable enough, nothing to see here? What if a number of legislators said that the purpose of the tax was to discourage abortions? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-ban-the-possession-of-ammunition/836787.md?page=3)