The political viability of this idea at the present time is virtually nil, so let’s not bother with that and concentrate on whether or not it’s a good idea.
What if there were a national shall-issue firearms license and you had to present one in order to purchase ammunition, but not firearms. Licensees are required to have control over the ammunition they purchase and can be civilly and criminally liable if ammunition they purchased is used in a crime or a negligent act, such as leaving firearms and ammo accessible to young children.
This may require the use of taggants for boxes of ammo. I don’t know about the technical feasibility of that.
1] How does this square with the other constitutional rights? It seems preposterous to require a license to use certain words in one’s speech, or a license to use a pen to sign a petition for the redress of grievances. These examples all limit an otherwise law-abiding citizen’s constitutional rights, and that’s unconstitutional.
2] Would such licensing serve the purpose it’s intended to serve? Empty brass casings can be reloaded. It’s not so common these days but some still do make their own bullets and gunpowder. We would have to present a firearms license to buy sulfur, charcoal or fishing weights.
3] The OP specifies a National licensing process. I think we should start with allowing individual States to try this, see how it works. It is through the variety of experimentation that we’ll find some methodology that works, and as the States incorporate such more universally then the Federal government can make in national. (c.f. Wikipedia article on Gun laws in California)
I don’t think this idea does what the OP wants it to do, of course someone lawfully owning a gun will be able to buy ammo lawfully. It’s the peoples who unlawfully own a gun who are the problem, and they aren’t going to follow the laws regarding buying ammo.
Why should my freedoms be infringed upon because of the actions of criminals?
The problem isn’t with availability to guns & ammo, it’s the failure of our state and federal governments to do their duty to quickly and severely punish violators.
Rather than suggest all this kinds of bullshit that will have no effect rather than curtail liberty, instead violent felons should be swiftly executed and cremated.
One, I don’t think this idea will totally prevent gun crime in the US. I also don’t think it will have any effect on the spectacular mass shootings we have. While undeniably tragic, it is the day-to-day homicides which are a much bigger problem. It also wouldn’t do much about suicide, the biggest portion of gun-related deaths. That said, do you believe it would have no effect on gun-related violence? True, it would take a while before criminals’ stocks of ammunition was expended and foreign black market channels would exist, but unlawfully getting ammunition would get harder and harder. The idea that some handloader or some guy making black powder in his basement is going to supply anything other than a tiny fraction of the illicit market is laughable.
As far as being licensed to use your constitutional rights, in my state, Texas, it is required that I have a photo ID to vote. I also need a license to carry a pistol. The Second Amendment and the Heller and MacDonald decisions do not preclude registration, licensing, etc. of firearm. They say that you can’t ban guns or de facto or de jure.
As far as making this merely a state law, I would point out to you that state borders are porous. When I was a kid, I remember being stopped at the California border to be checked to see if we were carrying any fresh fruit or vegetables, and I suppose that it would be possible for a state to attempt to prevent smuggling of ammunition across it’s borders, but states like Maryland, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey don’t do anything like that now. I don’t know if that is for legal, political or practical reasons or some combination.
Do you oppose background checks for firearm purchases?
How is this infringing on your rights? If you say that the licensing requirements are too strict, I would point out that we have not even discussed what they would be yet. If you are opposed to a specific requirement, we can discuss that.
I agree that in places like Chicago, a lot of the violence is due to a combination of a criminal power vacuum and fewer officers due to budget cuts. I am generally in favor of federally funding local polities who are unable to provide sufficient emergency services.
Yes. If an adult cannot be trusted to exercise his/her constitutional rights then why are they free?
I’m tired of being inconvenienced, even if it’s just a little, due to the actions of the criminal element. I shouldn’t have to have a license to buy bullets any more than I should have to show ID to buy freaking cold medicine. None of these things reduces crime or makes any of us any safer. Our governments fail to competently perform one of their most basic duties and then uses that failure to infringe upon our right to be free of government intrusion.
I see what you’re saying now, I don’t need a license to buy a gun here, I can just walk into a gun shop, pass a background check and walk out with my new baby. Seemed strange to need a license just to buy bullets. What your saying is that where a license is required to own a gun, then make the buyer of ammo present that license. Good idea, run it by your State Legislator and see if they can slip that in someplace.
Texas borders are porous because they don’t spend enough money guarding them, like California does. It’s not for Texas or California to impose their laws on other States, ever. For that you’ll need half of each house of Congress and the President to agree. I certainly couldn’t sue, none of your suggestions stop me from buying a fully automatic AR-15, my rights aren’t usurped the least little bit.
The existing black market for guns is more than capable of dealing in ammo as well. Honestly I’d be surprised if illegal gun dealers don’t already keep ammo in stock.
pkbites has the right of it, we need to punish the criminals and enforce the laws we do have.
Criminal liability for the criminal acts of another is a horrible idea. I can’t think of another situation where we do something like that outside of something like felony murder.
We require lobbyists to register to engage in their constitutional right to lobby congress if they are doing it for pay. Licensing requirements are almost certainly constitutional.
It would also increase ammunition costs significantly. And what do we do about all the gazillions of rounds of ammunition that people have squirreled away? I probably have a few thousand rounds of various types. I could murder more people with those rounds than occur in my state in a year.
Because that’s how things work? This is just a bizarre argument.
You can drive well at 120 mph, we still limit you to 60. You can handle alcohol fine at 12, we still limit you to 21. You can use heroin like a fucking champ, but we still say you can’t buy it. Shit, I’d be perfectly responsible with a nuclear weapon, but I can’t have one because some assholes would nuke the Piggly Wiggly. :rolleyes:
Ammo doesn’t last forever. I know it lasts a long time, but it would get used up eventually. As for the cost, a few cents a round is reasonable, imho.
And 99% of people aren’t going to reload themselves. People are lazy. And the tags could be in the powder that you buy. And 99.999% of people aren’t going to formulate their own smokeless powder.
I don’t have a constitutional right to speed or use drugs.
There has been dozens of major gun control laws over the past 80 years. All of them a panacea that would reduce gun related crime. None of them did anything except infringe upon the non-criminal populace. Why does the OP think another will do anything?
I was referring to criminal liability for the criminal act of knowingly transferring to someone without a license. For things like someone broke into my unlocked car and took a bunch of ammo that I had left lying in plain view, civil liability would do.
BTW, I failed to mention this, but what I had in mind was that this new law would be in lieu of other gun laws.
So you also oppose things like voter ID laws? That’s not snark, btw. I want your opinion.
Also, do you think that anyone over 18 should be able to purchase firearms and ammunition at will, with no regard to whether or not they have, for example, a violent felony record?
When I still had my CHL, IIRC, I didn’t even have to submit to a background check, since it covered that case even more thoroughly than a NCIS check does. Surely having a badge confers similar rights?
Governments are under more and more stress to perform their duties because of a widespread and deep-seated resistance among the public to paying taxes. If you want better service, you gotta pay for it, like anything else.
Even if there were more resources for policing, there are so many guns out there that going after every infraction would eat up whatever there is. So, pardon the pun, but that argument is a cop-out.
No, because it doesn’t show who fired the weapon. Bob buys a gun, jumps through all the hoops. Year later Bob’s gun is stolen in a burglary and used in a homicide. All tracking would do is show Bob’s stolen gun was used, not who committed the crime. Duh.
Why don’t you ask the state of Maryland how useful this stupid idea is.
Nonsense. We’re not talking about “infractions”. For example, in my state armed robbery has a penalty of 40 years. Violators rarely get more than 3. This has nothing to do with not wanting to spending tax dollars and everything to do with the will to punish actual horrible people.