I suppose that’s something you could try to do. Your OP said:
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.”
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.
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”?
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
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
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. *
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.
Umm, no. Dum-dum’s are hollow points and are very common for police and civilian use. Armor piercing ammo has some restrictions.
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.
Seeing I was expressing my opinion, this is a case where my post is my cite.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your opinion is always yours, but facts are still facts.
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?