New Bill Threatens to effectively ban online sales of ammunition

This afternoon democrat Senators Frank Lautenberg and Carolyn McCarthy unveiled what may possibly be the most sweeping anti-second amendment legislative action in recent memory.Lautenberg says his bill could help to prevent the sale of ammunition “to a terrorist or the next would-be mass murderer.”

“If someone wants to purchase deadly ammunition, they should have to come face-to-face with the seller,” Lautenberg said in a statement. “It’s one thing to buy a pair of shoes online, but it should take more than a click of the mouse to amass thousands of rounds of ammunition.”

thehill.com...
www.shtfplan.com...

The text of the proposed legislation has not yet been made available via the U.S. Senate Congressional records web site.

As soon as the law is availible i will provide a link to it, i knew it would happen like this, dealers and magazines, cant go after the actual guns.

Yes, because it's absolutely ludicrous to require a person to buy their hallow points in a face-to-face transaction. But, hey, I'm a strict constitutionalist when it comes to guns. If it wasn't available when the framers wrote the constitution then how could the framers approve? They couldn't, they had no idea about fully automatic weapons. Hell, their weapons could barely fire once a minute. yes, I know, then only criminals would have guns, but real men don't use guns, they use their fists or a sword.

reply to post by DarkKnight76


Oh yay, another guy with an imposing figure, manly man that likes to do some whopping on others. They said the right to bear arms, which means military grade weapons. Not the right to bear muskets.

Forgive my ignorance here, but I'm Canadian, the whole getting guns thing is weird to me.

Isn't it, insanely easy to get ammo in the united states? Like don't you all sell it at convenience stores and such?

What reason would somebody have to order from an online distributor other than cost savings?

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Cost savings is prettymuch it. As in everything, you can buy in larger bulks, and save a lot, in some cases more than half the price, if you bought by the box at the local shops etc.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


it is very easy to buy ammo in the US, and yes it is sold at convience stores in the US in some locations, but buying online allows a person to buy in large quantitys, some people target shoot all the time and need vast amount of ammo, or some people like to have a lot, which is our right and want a lot for a lot less. Thats why someone would buy online.

reply to post by TKDRL


Yes, it takes a really big man to point and shoot.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
What reason would somebody have to order from an online distributor other than cost savings?

~Tenth

Convenience for one. It's a day trip for me to go buy ammo. I live in the boonies. It's a day trip for me to buy anything.

Online retail is the best thing to happen to people like me. It's cheaper, always in stock and it's delivered right to your door.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Forgive my ignorance here, but I'm Canadian, the whole getting guns thing is weird to me.

Isn't it, insanely easy to get ammo in the united states? Like don't you all sell it at convenience stores and such?

What reason would somebody have to order from an online distributor other than cost savings?

~Tenth

there are some countys that ban sells in convenience stores, like mine, so i buy on-line and have it delivered to my house. Its just easer and cheaper. you save on sales tax and bulk buying. 15% from $300 is alot

Originally posted by camaro68ss

you save on sales tax and bulk buying. 15% from $300 is alot

Maybe that's the real problem.

These anti's didnt see 6,000 rounds of ammo and got all uppity.

These politicians saw 6,000 rounds of ammo sold without sales tax and got all uppity.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

What reason would somebody have to order from an online distributor other than cost savings? ~Tenth

Ive never purchased ammo online, always go into BIG 5 or Turners to buy mine.

I can how ever see situations where I would buy them online, one of which is Price, the other would be availability.

Big 5 is an all around sporting goods store, it does not tend to carry ammo for my SW 500, the ammo is more rare so I have to go to a dedicated gun store for it. Could be something Id reasonably consider buying online for that reason.

I agree fully with this proposed law. I believe that people in our own locality have the right to know if a lot of amunition is being purchased by an individual that does not seem all there so they can notify the proper local authorities. There is no way that someone taking an order from an individual online can tell if that person is insane. What is wrong with supporting your local community anyway. Mail order gun and ammo sales are not a right covered by the right to bear arms. Keeping an eye on individuals in a community for irrational behavior should be done in the community itself since they have to deal with the individual.

If you have to special order ammo than it should be ordered through a gun dealer.

reply to post by rickymouse


That's all well and good but this bill doesnt do any of those things.

I'd have to show ID and buy it in a store.

Nobody is checking anything.

How does the clerk know I'm not crazy?

Besides, all it takes is a single box of 20 to do what Holmes and Loughner did.

Funny how people attach these grand dreams and illusions to legislation that has nothing to do with their dreams and illusions.

Thanks for the answers guys.

So this law really, it's just going to inconvenience people for no reason?

As from what I can gather, criminals dont' get their guns or ammo legally anyway right? So what is the point of all these gun control laws if they do nothing to prevent the problem?

Good old government bureaucrazy at work.

~Tenth

Get ready, here come the full deployment of the Police State. I caught the end of an RT interview with an NSA whistleblower (sorry didn't catch his name) who reports that everything is in place to turn the U.S. into a Police State all that is needed is the authorization to flick the switch.

Originally posted by tothetenthpowerSo this law really, it's just going to inconvenience people for no reason?

As from what I can gather, criminals dont' get their guns or ammo legally anyway right? So what is the point of all these gun control laws if they do nothing to prevent the problem?

It's absolutely going to only be an inconvenience for law-adbiding people and not affect criminals in any way, shape, or form. Most (if not all) of the anti-gun legislation is stupid, but this bill might be the dumbest one yet.

I, like one of the previous posters, live out in the sticks. About the only place around here to find ammo is the local Wal-Mart, which sells 'standard' caliber hunting rounds like .30-06, 7mm Rem mag, .270, .243, and a few others. In the calibers they do carry, they only usually have one or two bullet weights/types, which further limits your options. I hunt elk and deer with a 7mm Rem Mag. I can get some rounds at Wal-Mart, but their selection isn't very good so I've taken to reloading those. Sometimes, I like to use my SKS for deer. The 7.62x39 round is really common if you're in a big city....but then it's usually 100 different kinds of garbage, inaccurate military surplus stuff and maybe one box of Federal soft point 'hunting' rounds. Not much selection. But, I can get pretty decent, brass cased reasonably accurate rounds in bulk online. I have a choice of bullet types, weights, manufacturer, etc.

This is all a knee-jerk response to the Aurora thing. Let's look at how stupid this really is:

1) First objection is that Holmes bought '6000 rounds of ammo through the mail.' His AR15 shoots a 5.56mm round. One of the most common rounds out there. Even if you're going to restrict it to, say, 100 rounds per sale, Holmes could've just as easily spent an hour each day over the course of a week hopping from Gander Mountain to Bass Pro to Sportsman's Warehouse (all in Denver) and had way more than 6000 rounds in his possession without ever hitting the 'flag' limit.

2)Lots and lots of people have more than 6000 rounds in their possession at any given time. People like me who hunt and have goofball caliber rifles, people who sport shoot, and people who just want to stockpile due to prices or whatever. Now we have to create a bureaucracy to keep track of people like me in order to completely fail at preventing anything.

3) If you reload, like I do, you can manufacture a whole lot more than 6000 rounds in virtually no time at all. So now, in addition to the actual complete rounds, they'll also have to restrict the online sale of bullets, primers, and brass. More bureaucracy to prevent nothing.

4) This is a big one: Even if really restrictive laws were in place, it wouldn't have stopped the Aurora thing AT ALL. Holmes is an upper middle-class white kid with disposable income, absolutely no criminal record, and enrolled in an upper tier grad program. He's the last guy that would set off any flags anywhere at any time. Unless, of course, the ATF is going to track every single sale of every single thing even peripherally related to firearms. Furthermore, the kid allegedly knew how to build sophisticated bombs and homemade grenades out of household materials. So now what? Are you going to make gasoline illegal? Mason jars?

5) Holmes didn't shoot 6000 rounds. He shot a couple hundred at most. So, the number of rounds in his possession is entirely irrelevant. If he had shot 6000 rounds and killed 4000 people using forty 100 round drum mags in rapid succession (rifle would've melted before then anyway), then maybe there's a discussion. But that's not what happened.

6) If you're talking about something like the Mexican cartels or even the gangs in the United States, those guys aren't buying Winchester white box ammo at the local Wal-Mart. They're buying mil-surp stuff shipped in under the radar through various illegal arms networks. Again, this legislation would do absolutely nothing to curb that.

Originally posted by rickymouse
I agree fully with this proposed law. I believe that people in our own locality have the right to know if a lot of amunition is being purchased by an individual that does not seem all there so they can notify the proper local authorities. There is no way that someone taking an order from an individual online can tell if that person is insane. What is wrong with supporting your local community anyway. Mail order gun and ammo sales are not a right covered by the right to bear arms. Keeping an eye on individuals in a community for irrational behavior should be done in the community itself since they have to deal with the individual.

If you have to special order ammo than it should be ordered through a gun dealer.

edit on 31-7-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

But what you're actually talking about here has nothing to do with the ammo or the gun....it has to do with mentally unstable people accessing dangerous things. Holmes allegedly built grenades and sophisticated bombs out of gasoline, bottles, mason jars, and some other stuff. Should there be a community announcement every time you go buy a case of jars and stop off for 20 gallons of gas on your way home?

The problem isn't the tool, it's the person. People will find a way to cause all kinds of mayhem if that is their intent. The solution to this is a system that takes much better care of the mentally ill and have a system in place that 'talks' to the ATF/FBI systems used by FFL holders for gun purchasers. I don't think any gun advocate would disagree that a) we need better ways to identify and treat people with mental illness and b) people with mental illnesses shouldn't have access to firearms.

reply to post by samcrow

b) people with mental illnesses shouldn't have access to firearms.

You would have to be way more specific with this one before I could agree to it.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by samcrow

 

b) people with mental illnesses shouldn't have access to firearms.

You would have to be way more specific with this one before I could agree to it.

I agree, and that's part of my previous point that we need a MUCH MUCH better infrastructure in place to identify, diagnose, and treat people with mental illness. Until that happens, the second point, as well as any 'anti-gun legislation,' is pretty much moot.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by DarkKnight76

 

Oh yay, another guy with an imposing figure, manly man that likes to do some whopping on others. They said the right to bear arms, which means military grade weapons. Not the right to bear muskets.

Sounds a lot like him, doesn't it? Hmmm, maybe Wonder Boy has multiple accounts?
On Topic, this will not stop the crazies. They can just stockpile. A law like this will allow them to keep track of who buys what and do nothing to stop criminals.