White House gives cool welcome to bill restricting online ammo sales

news.yahoo.com...

The White House gave a cool welcome on Monday to Democratic legislation that would effectively ban online or mail-order purchases of ammunition in the aftermath of the mass shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater

The new legislation, dubbed the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, rests on four pillars, according to Lautenberg's office:

It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer.

It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.

It requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.

It requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days.

It seems that the White House at the moment is somewhat okay with this proposed legislation. To me, this proposed legislation dosent really seem too constricting on gun rights (compared to something like an assault weapon ban), but I wouldnt be suprised if more stuff is added to this bill.

Im guessing this bill would pass the Senate pretty easily, but Im not sure how the House would go. I would expect some of the Republicans in the house would fight against this bill hard.

The only part in that whole mess that would make any sense at all, and I still call it a violation of my rights as affirmed under DC vs. Heller, is the required photo ID for purchase. Ephedrine sales through online outlets are an excellent example of how this is already done and minimal for being an obstruction. If ID is the point, then obstructions being minimal should be the goal. Ephedrine requires a photo-copy of your drivers license sent with a hard copy order form for the products being ordered. My mail or Internet? THAT sounds reasonable.

The rest? Well, the 1,000 round limit is totally absurd and so is the license to SELL ammunition. I got over 10,000 rounds of various calibers in factory produced ammunition alone as part of my late Father's estate. Under this, I couldn't sell it? Oh that's a crock. 1,000 rounds? I've literally fired more than that in just screwing around on the range for a single weapon, on a single visit. 8 hours of defensive pistol training, where most was spent talking and lecture, still expended 500 rounds for the day. The limits are being picked by people who have NO CLUE what the shooting sports are about or how real people actually pursue their sport.

Washington can get their own house in order before dictating to me how I can or cannot defend mine and what I am permitted to own or use to achieve it.

So now they are saying over 1000 rounds....

This really isnt very much in terms of ammo. Is it going to be reporting me if I buy 1050 rounds of .22 shells. That would be 2 boxes about $50 worth of ammo. Or will it be the higher cal. rifle size. .223/5.56 .308/7.62 that will be watched more closely. I really disagree with this as its just one more step in the wrong direction.

And the requirement that dealers keep records of all sales; isn't that lovely?

Presumeably, that information will be used as the basis for "no-knock" warrants. "Your honor, the suspect has purchased over 3000 rounds of ammo." They just won't tell the judge that you buy 1000 rounds every 3 years.

But the database will be used to flag "patriot" elements in every jurisdiction......

reply to post by buni11687


Is nothing but bullcrap propaganda due to elections to gain votes from the anti gun crowd, as usual it will only affect law abiding citizens as crocks will get what they need regardless.

I wonder if they will slip in something about the loading and re-loading of ammo in the bill. Most people who load their own buy the components in bulk either over the net or by Mail. I buy all my ammo online because it is cheaper. I really hope this bill will never pass. It's just another piece of our 2nd amendment slipping away.

It seems so silly to me, the guy (Holmes) never had the chance to fire more than a fraction of that ammo. In fact if someone went out with a few hundred round drums worth of ammo and their AR 15 intent on shooting a place up, the weapon will overheat and fail before a thousand rounds gets fired, assuming they're fast in firing and reloading.

And think about how much weight that would be - to carry more than a few hundred rounds...

The amount of ammo he bought was redundant, and it really wasn't a factor in the incident that night in the theater, am I wrong here? It seems to me that putting together a bill like this will be a waste of everyone's time, and have little consequence outside of adding yet more laws we have to abide by.

I will just continue reloading as I do now. As I assume this only is applicable to pre-manufactured ammunition. As it does not state any information about powder, casings or bullets. I can crank out more than a 1000 rounds a day hand loading.

Once again this would just be a feel good law, that would give authority's illegal warrants to infringe on our rights as stated above . In the end what does it do? Nothing.

IF plenty of Americans contact their Representatives and Senators affirming their dismay for such tactics, this Bill will crumble before it ever gets to Committee.

but of course, most ppl will complain and do nothing else.
if this makes it to Committee, then the public has become too lame to assert any rights.

reply to post by buni11687

It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.

So if I have a scanned copy of my drivers license saved, uploaded, and included with the online purchasing paper work, how does that not meet the requirement? Maybe I don't understand the provision.

Ah yes...its gun control...just different. Can't ban all the guns sooooooo throw some awesome legislation that bans ammo sales. Schwartenager tried that in Cali but it got repealed. Now it looks like it's gonna be federal. How come this seems so perfectly timed? Thanks Obama, love what you've done with the place

No way in hell this will be passed. It really seems like they are just trying to provoke people into losing it with all these ridiculous talking points and crap legislation. Never let a good crisis go to waste eh...

Mr. Lautenberg has a history of voting against American interests. He loves to give money to the IMF and foreign countries, one in particular that he places above America. Look it up. This man is a traitor and even if his health finally gives out, the damage is done. I believe that those who hold any Government office should not have loyalties that lie in other countries.

reply to post by buni11687


I couldn't help but think of this. It's too hard to control the guns that have been around for generations, and the constitution says the right to bear arms. So sure, let them have their guns, but you ain't getting any bullets...





Hmmm doesn't seem to be embedding, so I'm trying this angle. www.youtube.com...

in the end of the war on our 2nd amendment rights...it won't be guns that will be hard to get...it will be the ammo needed for the guns that is hard to get...

A gun without bullets is nothing but an oddly shaped club...

There are often price breaks for quantity sales and the best prices are usually in 1,000 round lots. Buying per thousand doesn't make you a terrorist, it makes you thrifty.

Most if not all online stores already require you to send in copy of your drivers license for age verification so what they are really doing is making a big show for something that is already being done.

Oh come on now people, as a person who is pro gun control, I can see the other sides point of view of wanting to own a gun or two. But ammunition? Seriously? How can you justify needing to buy ammunition in bulk online? Also, if the ammo is just for hunting or going to the gun range, why do you care if records are kept?

reply to post by Cosmic911

They would not be able to see your face and verify that it is your license.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
How can you justify needing to buy ammunition in bulk online? Also, if the ammo is just for hunting or going to the gun range, why do you care if records are kept?

If its more convenient and cheaper than driving to a retail location, why not? The buying process is essentially the same either way. This won't have any effect except to hurt a few online businesses and to make ammunition prices a few cents higher.

And I'll take it from your second question that you have no problems with the government monitoring your internet activity. After all, If you've done nothing wrong, why do you care if records are kept?

For some, the right to privacy only matters when its in regards to something they care about, it seems.

reply to post by buni11687


This is ridiculous. So now it's to be recorded everytime you buy ammo?
This is obviously just so they can bust people for stockpiling.

I mean they are telling you that it's to watch people that buy large amounts, but also if they have licensed dealers recording ammo sales then they will use that info to bust people with lots of sales.

Also it's unfair because the reason people buy large amounts is because the price falls drastically.
You can get around 880 rounds of 7.62 x 54r for 135 bucks, if you buy it in stores in 20 round boxes it's between 5 and 7 bucks a box. So if you buy the same amount of ammo in smaller boxes you are paying between 220 and 308 (85 -173 dollars more)

So when I want to buy Mosin ammo why would I buy 20 round boxes here and and eventually pay 308 bucks (plus tax) for the same amount of ammo I could get all at once for less than half price (135 bucks) not to mention the ammo will stay good for decades.

This is just a control grab. It wouldn't change a damn thing. The guy that shot people in colorado wouldn't have been looked at any more if he would have bought 20 20 round boxes. He didn't use the large amount of ammo he ordered, he couldn't have used it, and I would venture to say he couldn't even have carried it on him.