Right to bear ammunition

[Oliver]

Okay, so the US is dammed to stick to it's gun laws. Rightly so, given the basic constitutional right. But what about ammunition? The amendment does not specifically address the right to buy as much ammunition you're able to get in the shortest period of time. Thus I don't see a problem in legislation concerning ammo in the same way the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 does, for an offtopic example concerning a different deadly problem. Or would it?

 

[BenBurch]

Yes, it covers Ammunition. Like it would cover arrows for a bow. A gun is not an arm without the ammo.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Okay, so the US is dammed to stick to it's gun laws. Rightly so, given the basic constitutional right. But what about ammunition? The amendment does not specifically address the right to buy as much ammunition you're able to get in the shortest period of time. Thus I don't see a problem in legislation concerning ammo in the same way the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 does, for an offtopic example concerning a different deadly problem. Or would it?

A firearm without ammunition is not "arms", it's just an expensive wall decoration.

Furthermore, many people have legitimate reasons for going through large amounts of ammunition. At my peak in high school, I was shooting over 300 rounds a week. This is a good thing. Society has an interest in owners of firearms being proficient with them.

 

[Drudgewire]

A firearm without ammunition is not "arms", it's just an expensive wall decoration.

Furthermore, many people have legitimate reasons for going through large amounts of ammunition. At my peak in high school, I was shooting over 300 rounds a week. This is a good thing. Society has an interest in owners of firearms being proficient with them.

Yeah, severely limiting the ability of responsible gun owners to practice using them in a safe setting couldn't possibly have a downside.

 

[Bikewer]

Much is made of the "vast supply of ammunition" the lad had accumulated, but as more responsible news outlets have noted, that's hardly an unusual amount for active competitive shooters.
I used to burn through several thousand rounds per week, myself; reloaded most of it.

 

[BenBurch]

The only ammunition that mattered, really, was what he had on him at the theater. You just can't carry many more rounds than he had.

100 rounds of 5.56x45 mm ammunition is around three pounds.

1000 rounds would be 30 pounds unloaded, but figure cartridge weight in and you are around 50 pounds.

That's about all you'll be able to carry around without it getting in the way.

So, beyond that I don't care how much he bought.

Soldiers typically carry around 200 rounds into combat.

 

[Cain]

Listening to Bill Burr's Monday Morning Podcast yesterday afternoon and he argued for a licensing procedure where you'd pass a test, and then you're allowed a crappy gun. But, if you become more proficient, then you level up, and you can get a better gun (higher caliber, easier to massacre people in a movie theater), and so on.

 

[BStrong]

Okay, so the US is dammed to stick to it's gun laws. Rightly so, given the basic constitutional right. But what about ammunition? The amendment does not specifically address the right to buy as much ammunition you're able to get in the shortest period of time. Thus I don't see a problem in legislation concerning ammo in the same way the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 does, for an offtopic example concerning a different deadly problem. Or would it?

Ammunition has been the focus off and on of prohibitionists, and Chris Rock had a bit in his act about charging a $10,000.00 tax for 1 round of ammo.

I can see easily where restrictions of ammo sales can be a wedge that prohibitionists could try to exploit, but here in California they're having a hard time of it:

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Handgun-ammo-law-stuck-in-Calif-court-3729475.php

 

[Drudgewire]

Listening to Bill Burr's Monday Morning Podcast yesterday afternoon and he argued for a licensing procedure where you'd pass a test, and then you're allowed a crappy gun. But, if you become more proficient, then you level up, and you can get a better gun (higher caliber, easier to massacre people in a movie theater), and so on.

I love Bill Burr to death, but someone who can rant for twenty minutes about battling the NWO boogeymen by not using a savings card at grocery stores is probably not the most level-headed guy to dictate policy on anything.

 

[BStrong]

The only ammunition that mattered, really, was what he had on him at the theater. You just can't carry many more rounds than he had.

100 rounds of 5.56x45 mm ammunition is around three pounds.

1000 rounds would be 30 pounds unloaded, but figure cartridge weight in and you are around 50 pounds.

That's about all you'll be able to carry around without it getting in the way.

So, beyond that I don't care how much he bought.

Soldiers typically carry around 200 rounds into combat.

Ben, I don't know where you get your information, but most guys I know (outside MG'ers) carry 14 mags loaded.

SAW gunners usually have a box (200 rounds) on the piece, and if they're lucky enough to get their hands on 'em, four 100 round soft bags of ready ammo.

 

[BenBurch]

Ben, I don't know where you get your information, but most guys I know (outside MG'ers) carry 14 mags loaded.

SAW gunners usually have a box (200 rounds) on the piece, and if they're lucky enough to get their hands on 'em, four 100 round soft bags of ready ammo.

Based on the bandolier GIs pack, carrying six magazines of thirty, and another in the piece.

 

[Cain]

I love Bill Burr to death, but someone who can rant for twenty minutes about battling the NWO boogeymen by not using a savings card at grocery stores is probably not the most level-headed guy to dictate policy on anything.

It's the evil bankerz! They're replacing people with teh machinez!

Still, I like his ideas on guns. And he's generally pro-gun.

 

[BStrong]

Based on the bandolier GIs pack, carrying six magazines of thirty, and another in the piece.

Everybody has a plate carrier now Ben.

The idea is that the carrier holds at a minimum a front and rear plate w/ backer, and the troop configures it as they see for for their individual needs.

There are issue carriers, and there is a whole industry of higher quality private purchase gear authorized for duty use (Blackhawk, London Bridge Trading, High Speed Gear Inc. etc) that guys are purchasing with their own funds.

 

[BenBurch]

Everybody has a plate carrier now Ben.

The idea is that the carrier holds at a minimum a front a rear plate w/ backer, and the troop configures it as they see for for their individual needs.

There are issue carriers, and there is a whole industry of higher quality private purchase gear authorized for duty use (Blackhawk, London Bridge Trading, High Speed Gear Inc. etc) that guys are purchasing with their own funds.

Been years since I knew this stuff, not surprised.

 

[NightStar76]

As with the right to privacy, the right to ammunition is covered in constitutional penumbras; also known as 'you'd have to be crazy not to understand some of this stuff doesn't need to be said outright'.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Okay, so the US is dammed to stick to it's gun laws. Rightly so, given the basic constitutional right. But what about ammunition? The amendment does not specifically address the right to buy as much ammunition you're able to get in the shortest period of time.

As I like to point out, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about guns or firearms at all. It uses the word "arms". We all recognize that Congress has the authority to prohibit individual ownership of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The individual right to own guns that the court recognizes is not an unlimited one. It can be weighed against safety concerns.

I agree that the amendment doesn't prohibit Congress from restricting how much ammo a person can buy (or without a waiting period for some quantities), but not because the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover ammunition (surely it does)--rather because the right laid out in the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right (same as with First Amendment rights).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can see easily where restrictions of ammo sales can be a wedge that prohibitionists could try to exploit, but here in California they're having a hard time of it:

I don't see why it would be any different than the same legal considerations involved in laws restricting ownership of some weapons. Surely ammunition is covered under "arms" as much as guns are. It would be absurd to say that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to own guns but not an individual right to own ammunition.

Again those rights are not unlimited and may be weighed against public safety concerns. I see no reason why proposals to limit one would be any different in kind than proposals to limit the other. The question in both cases is whether or not the public safety concern outweighs the individual right.

 

[BStrong]

I don't see why it would be any different than the same legal considerations involved in laws restricting ownership of some weapons. Surely ammunition is covered under "arms" as much as guns are. It would be absurd to say that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to own guns but not an individual right to own ammunition.

Again those rights are not unlimited and may be weighed against public safety concerns. I see no reason why proposals to limit one would be any different in kind than proposals to limit the other. The question in both cases is whether or not the public safety concern outweighs the individual right.

I liked DPM, and even though he's long dead, here's his take on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/u...ease-on-ammunition.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As with the right to privacy, the right to ammunition is covered in constitutional penumbras; also known as 'you'd have to be crazy not to understand some of this stuff doesn't need to be said outright'.

I don't think it's even like that. I think "arms" explicitly covers ammunition as much as it does guns.

 

[mhaze]

I liked DPM, and even though he's long dead, here's his take on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/u...ease-on-ammunition.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Actually, did you read it all the way through? Looks like arguments from ignorance. Tax some ammo at 50%, but other, "scarier ammo", like black talon and 50 cal, tax at 10000%.

Far too many shootings occur with the cheapest FMJ, which goes through walls to hit innocents.

Of course, I'm certain that the real goal would be to first establish a tax structure on ammo, and then include in the law the ability to change the rates later. So once the tax structure was in place, the control structure would be in place shortly thereafter.