Could government ban the possession of ammunition?

[UltraVires]

@JRDelirious

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.”

[Corry_El]

@JXJohns

Meh, they’re wrong. What are you going to do? Here is a good video discussing the difference:

I agree they are wrong. Although as elsewhere mentioned ‘propellant’ is a more general term, probably IMO most correct and inclusive in case discussing the govt further regulating and restricting ammunition (propellants including black powder, modern black powder gun-compatible propellants and particularly smokeless powder would be things they’d have to also further restrict so DIY ‘reloaders’ couldn’t very easily get around new restrictions on factory-made ammunition).

The case of the political term ‘assault weapon’ was brought up but that’s a little different from this case. ‘Assault weapon’ though not a technically correct term has established itself as a political term.

With something like calling small arms propellant ‘gun powder’ it’s IMO the more generic debate whether incorrect “layman’s terms” should be corrected of if that’s “elitist”. Similarly with calling tankers “tanker ships” (a truck designed to carry oil is a tanker truck if it needs to be distinguished from a ship designed to carry oil which is a tanker). I think they should be corrected, and “laymen’s term” if it just means “I can find examples of other people making this mistake” is not a counter argument, even if it’s people who you would think knew better, like some hunting tutorial.

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

Yes, sometimes, as i said, the term “gunpowder” is used as a colloquial expression for the layman.

Great, so gunpowder is good then.

Thanks!

[DrDeth]

@Slash1972

Great, so gunpowder is good then.

Thanks!

Not if you were writing a law to ban it. :dubious:

I suppose “boom boom stick” is generally understood also. :rolleyes:

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

Not if you were writing a law to ban it. :dubious:

I suppose “boom boom stick” is generally understood also. :rolleyes:

Maybe. But there are not 100s of cites that describe “boom boom sticks”

There are many, many sites that define, use, and describe “gunpowder”

Plus, at least one State education cite that shows graphically a round containing “gunpowder”

But sure, I guess you, a message board poster, are correct. Thanks!

[Babale]

@pkbites

This isn’t the way such things are supposed to work. An agency (especially one who previously published that such devices were legal) should not simply be able to ban something simply because the POTUS wants it without an act of Congress. After physical and scientific review BATFE published that bump stock equipped firearms were not machine guns, and now suddenly they are because Trump says they are? That’s horseshit and you know it. The way this took place should be more than just “a bit concerning” to you. The lack of due process comes from the fact that hundreds of thousands of citizens are denied their lawfully acquired property without just compensation. A clear violation of the 5th Amendment. No grandfather clause, no registration option, no loop holes whtsoever.

The consumer versions of them have been around for almost 30 years. Prior to them people were making their own using about $4 worth of wood. There were also bump shot triggers dating back to the 70’s and 80’s. It hasn’t been clear if they are included in the bump stock ban. Many of them work on the same principle.

There was an early version that got approved and then unapproved by ATF because it had a spring in it. The versions that are now banned are nothing more than a single piece of plastic. No springs, moving parts or other alterations to the rifle.

It’s the manner in which the ban took place that should terrify anyone who cherishes their freedom and the mechanisms of our republic. There are several more lawsuits pending including a class action demanding just compensation. Myself and several of my customers are involved with that one. We stopped selling them last year. In February we had to post a sign instructing folks that we were not accepting returns of bump stocks, and they were not allowed on property after the ban deadline in March.

Several states have banned them, still a violation of the 2nd Amendment IMHO, but at least they created those bans in the legal manner in which law is to be created. While those laws seem redundant I believe they did so because they think the federal ban will be overturned by the courts eventually. Even Dianne Feinstein stated she believes that will happen. I bet that some people did not turn in or destroy their bump stocks. There are literally hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding Americans who are guilty of a serious federal felony because they are keeping a piece of plastic that just happens to be molded in a certain shape hidden in their attic, closet, or garage. A piece of plastic!

Now, if a piece of plastic can be banned so easily, what is to stop a ban on most ammunition? Most rifle ammo will defeat soft body armor. What’s to stop them from using that as a reason to ban it? How about a ban on civilian possession of hollow points? Or do what many countries do and ban possession of ammo larger than .380? Or a ban on possessing more than 2 rounds of ammunition on your person. If the courts rejected or refused to hear your arguments, what exactly would you be able to do about it? If BATFE can ban a piece of plastic with no input from congress, what is to stop them from banning many kinds of bullets?

A piece of plastic whose only use is to turn your deadly weapon into a fully automatic deadly weapon.

[pkbites]

@Babale

A piece of plastic whose only use is to turn your deadly weapon into a fully automatic deadly weapon.

False. It did not turn a weapon into an automatic weapon and for decades the BATFE certified that.

And even if there was to be a ban, it’s the unconstitutional manner in which the ban was enacted that I protest. I don’t Care if it’s bump stocks or widgets. Having a government agency make possessing something a major felony simply by Presidential decree is tyranny!

[JXJohns]

@pkbites

False. It did not turn a weapon into an automatic weapon and for decades the BATFE certified that.

And even if there was to be a ban, it’s the unconstitutional manner in which the ban was enacted that I protest. I don’t Care if it’s bump stocks or widgets*. Having a government agency make possessing something a major felony simply by Presidential decree is tyranny!

*As I said earlier, if Trump took the same path and had the FCC ban twitter or something, I think we’d see a significantly different attitude here and in other places.

[Nars_Glinley]

@pkbites

False. It did not turn a weapon into an automatic weapon and for decades the BATFE certified that.

And even if there was to be a ban, it’s the unconstitutional manner in which the ban was enacted that I protest. I don’t Care if it’s bump stocks or widgets. Having a government agency make possessing something a major felony simply by Presidential decree is tyranny!

And it’s particularly stupid given that the same thing can be accomplished with a pair of pants with a belt loop.

[pkbites]

@Nars_Glinley

And it’s particularly stupid given that the same thing can be accomplished with a pair of pants with a belt loop.

Or nothing at all. Just a little practice.

But that is irrelevant. The point is how the ban was put in place by Presidential fiat. That some on these boards consider the end to justify the means is frightening.

[Nars_Glinley]

@pkbites

Or nothing at all. Just a little practice.

But that is irrelevant. The point is how the ban was put in place by Presidential fiat. That some on these boards consider the end to justify the means is frightening.

The mere volume of things being done by Presidential fiat is frightening.

[MacTech]

@DrDeth

Yes, sometimes, as i said, the term “gunpowder” is used as a colloquial expression for the layman.

Here’s a video I made with my nephew a few years back showing the different burn speeds of “gunpowder” in open air, there were a few different smokeless powders followed by black powder…

New video by MacTechG4

And this one of a small “fuse” of smokeless leading to a line of black powder…

New video by MacTechG4

As you can see, not only is BP very energetic, but produces a lot of white smoke (which stinks like rotten egg due to the sulfur released)

[kaylasdad99]

@zamboniracer

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.

[Omar_Little]

When did Chris Rock become a constitutional expert?

[MartinLane]

@Anny_Middon

… 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.

[MartinLane]

@JXJohns

… If you load a modern rifle with gunpowder you will seriously fuck it up.

Not really. Load for example a 30-06 with black powder and all you get is a smokey under-powered cartridge. Use it in your 5.56 or 7.62 AR, then in addition to the low power you get a fouled bolt carrier after a few rounds. But the fouling is water soluble and cleans right up; just don;t let it rust first.

[MartinLane]

@Nars_Glinley

And it’s particularly stupid given that the same thing can be accomplished with a pair of pants with a belt loop.

Or holding at the shoulder with the trigger finger locked in place while pushing forward with the supporting arm.