Right to bear ammunition

[Drudgewire]

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

The manufacturer would not disclose the wholesale price, but Cameron Hopkins, editor of Firearms Industry Magazine in San Diego, said a box of 20 Black Talon cartridges would typically wholesale for about $16, including the 11 percent tax, and retail for about $24.

The 10,000 percent tax would push the price of a box to almost $150,000.

 

[Noztradamus]

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.

The First Amendment does not address the right to buy as much newsprint as you think you need.
You are free to own a press, but the government can regulate how much you print.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

I see no constitutional problems with those proposals. We've just seen that Congress' tax authority is quite broad. I still think they should justify it by weighing the public safety concern against the individual right. (IMO, that analysis would support these proposals. I presume the OP would as well. I just think the OP misidentified the Constitutional issues.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

See the correction at the end of the article.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The First Amendment does not address the right to buy as much newsprint as you think you need.
You are free to own a press, but the government can regulate how much you print.

I prefer to raise Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous statement about the limits of the First Amendment right to free speech. Somehow the fact that it involves a crowded theater seems appropriate.

Again, the 2nd Amendment talks about "arms" which surely covers ammunition as much as it does guns. However, the right it describes is similarly [eta: that is, similar to the First Amendment right to free speech] not unlimited and may be weighed against legitimate public safety interests.

 

[Drudgewire]

See the correction at the end of the article.

As such, the press the evil Black Talon got never ceases to entertain the bejeezus out of me.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Sounds like a very good argument to prohibit or tax the cheapest FMJ.

 

[Drudgewire]

Sounds like a very good argument to prohibit or tax the cheapest FMJ.

Except again, FMJ being cheap is what makes it such good target ammo... and making firearm training cost-prohibitive in a gun culture is the most counterproductive idea ever.

 

[BenBurch]

Sounds like a very good argument to prohibit or tax the cheapest FMJ.

Actually, you know we can and do regulate the materials bullets are made from. If we decided that bullets had to be made of silver (werewolves, you know) that would be perfectly legal.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, you know we can and do regulate the materials bullets are made from. If we decided that bullets had to be made of silver (werewolves, you know) that would be perfectly legal.

But again, there's no reason to do anything so convoluted.

If there's a legitimate public safety interest that outweighs the individual right, Congress does have the authority to regulate. (That's why the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right to own or carry chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, even though those are all surely "arms".)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Except again, FMJ being cheap is what makes it such good target ammo... and making firearm training cost-prohibitive in a gun culture is the most counterproductive idea ever.

So the right to cheap ammo for firearms training outweighs the concern mhaze raised about innocent people being shot through walls? (I don't know that that happens to any great extent, so my statement can be taken to read "If what you say is true, that sounds like a good argument . . . ")

 

[Drudgewire]

So the right to cheap ammo for firearms training outweighs the concern mhaze raised about innocent people being shot through walls? (I don't know that that happens to any great extent, so my statement can be taken to read "If what you say is true, that sounds like a good argument . . . ")

Part of being a responsible gun owner is knowing the difference. My nightstand gun, my carry guns, and my desk gun all have hollow points because those are the optimal self-defense bullets. They cause maximum damage to the target while minimizing risk to anyone behind them or on the other side of a wall. However, a box of 20 costs as much as a box of one of the three 100 round white box FMJ's I take to the range to stay well-practiced.

It's why I laugh at the Black Talon stuff. It was really nothing more than a hollow point bullet that got turned into a monster by the same crowd that thought Glocks could get through metal detectors. While Winchester named the bullet that replaced it the Ranger SXT for "Supreme eXpansion Technology," they probably get just as much of a kick out of the suggestion it really stands for "Same eXact Thing" as the rest of us.

 

[crimresearch]

Part of being a responsible gun owner is knowing the difference. My nightstand gun, my carry guns, and my desk gun all have hollow points because those are the optimal self-defense bullets. They cause maximum damage to the target while minimizing risk to anyone behind them or on the other side of a wall. However, a box of 20 costs as much as a box of one of the three 100 round white box FMJ's I take to the range to stay well-practiced.

It's why I laugh at the Black Talon stuff. It was really nothing more than a hollow point bullet that got turned into a monster by the same crowd that thought Glocks could get through metal detectors. While Winchester named the bullet that replaced it the Ranger SXT for "Supreme eXpansion Technology," they probably get just as much of a kick out of the suggestion it really stands for "Same eXact Thing" as the rest of us.

Not to mention that the Glaser *Safety* round is also the dreaded 'hollow point'.


sarcasm definition
A form of irony in which apparent praise conceals another, scornful meaning.

 

[R.Mackey]

Glasers are frangible ammunition. Not the same thing. Also not terribly effective.

Ammunition IS highly regulated, and highly taxed -- federally, at 11% of its purchase price. There are a wealth of state and local restrictions as well.

However, putting the hurt on ammunition is about the surest way there is to disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners. I go through ~ 15,000 rounds a year. Find me ANY criminal who even approaches that. Many only take a single shot in their entire careers, using a bullet that might have been stolen in the first place.

 

[casebro]

But again, there's no reason to do anything so convoluted.

If there's a legitimate public safety interest that outweighs the individual right, Congress does have the authority to regulate. (That's why the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right to own or carry chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, even though those are all surely "arms".)

Uhh, the restriction of the chem, bio, nucs is that they are area weapons, not direct targeted weapons. Too much collateral damage, so restricted from use by Joe Civilian.

Otherwise, the gist of the current interpretation is that if the military issues it to individual soldiers, it's legal for individual citizens. Up to and including machine guns. Taxed, but legal. (And limited to former production in machine guns. Which limitation drove the price up 10x. )

Anyhow, onerous restrictions on ammo would be considered an 'infringement' on arms.

And the SCOTUS has found that even the EPA can't restrict ammo in the name of public safety, that ammo is the exclusive realm of a different federal agency, by federal law. Pittman-Robertson act of 1937.

 

[Robrob]

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.

Yeah, the old days of a 210 round basic load are pretty much out the window. I carried around 270 of .556 and another 45 of 9mm. Of course I was in an environment where I was expected to use it.

 

[fuelair]

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.

That's why the Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics book and site (Intuitor.com) explained the problem of weight of ammo and magazines and how long you could keep up firing with what you could carry. With the Barret in .50, not many. On the bright side one round could hit 4 or 5 of the bad guys if they mass together.

 

[BStrong]

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.

I liked him, not his nonsense on the excise tax (for those unaware, there is already an 11% federal excise tax on all firearms and ammunition, other than NFA weapons and devices)

 

[tyr_13]

Golden Bear and Black Bear ammo is so cheap though.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Part of being a responsible gun owner is knowing the difference. My nightstand gun, my carry guns, and my desk gun all have hollow points because those are the optimal self-defense bullets. They cause maximum damage to the target while minimizing risk to anyone behind them or on the other side of a wall. However, a box of 20 costs as much as a box of one of the three 100 round white box FMJ's I take to the range to stay well-practiced.

It's why I laugh at the Black Talon stuff. It was really nothing more than a hollow point bullet that got turned into a monster by the same crowd that thought Glocks could get through metal detectors. While Winchester named the bullet that replaced it the Ranger SXT for "Supreme eXpansion Technology," they probably get just as much of a kick out of the suggestion it really stands for "Same eXact Thing" as the rest of us.

But you failed to address my question. Best I can tell, this thread is about the Constitutional arguments surrounding gun (and ammo) regulation.

As I've pointed out, since the 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited, we can (and ought) weigh it against issues of public safety.

It sounds like you're arguing that the risk of people being shot through walls doesn't outweigh the individual right. That might be so (and it might be that people are seldom shot through walls--I dunno). But none of the stuff about training addresses the question.