• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Right to bear ammunition

JoeTheJuggler said:
I don't understand. The legislature and the judiciary create lines all the time. What do you mean by "that weight is determined out of thin air"?

In Holmes' hypothetical, we recognize a right to freedom of expression (even if that expression is mischievous or hateful or completely contrary to the sensibilities of the culture at large) but we see the legitimate public safety concern (an unnecessary panic in a crowded theater is likely to result in injury) as outweighing that right in these circumstances.

This isn't anything new. It is well established jurisprudence.

Why do you think it's OK for Congress to prohibit individual ownership of chemical, biological and nuclear arms?
Click to expand...


I'm with you. My point is you can't just tell Wal-Mart tomorrow that all of a sudden they can't sell two boxes of ammo to the same person because overnight that right was suddenly outweighed by concerns for public safety.

I'm not arguing you COULDN'T restrict ammo sales under the terms you suggest, I'm saying good luck getting from the hypothetical to reality.
 
Drudgewire said:
My point is you can't just tell Wal-Mart tomorrow that all of a sudden they can't sell two boxes of ammo to the same person because overnight that right was suddenly outweighed by concerns for public safety.
Click to expand...

Congress can (assuming the Supreme Court agrees with their argument).

What do you think it meant in the Heller decision when the court said that the 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited?

ETA: There is nothing in the constitutionality issue that is connected to "sudden" or "overnight" changes in the law.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Congress can (assuming the Supreme Court agrees with their argument).

What do you think it meant in the Heller decision when the court said that the 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited?
Click to expand...


Your first part of that is my answer to the second part. We're saying the same thing.
 
BStrong said:
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)
Click to expand...

Accepted, I just thought I needed to point out the totally nutty ideas therein. I actually wonder whether he wasn't paid off or influenced in the most subtle Karl Rovian manner to enunciate his scare talk about Black Talon.

Bet THEIR sales went through the roof after that talk. For those who are not familiar with the tech stuff, Black Talon and Corban, a couple other rounds are high dollar, and are for a "carry gun" as opposed to "practice ammo".

What's interesting about the scare talk is that the purpose of the bullet is to put a big hole into something that's hopefully going to get very still after that fact. Obviously the worst at that would be FMJ and smaller calibers.

So high tech ammo becomes important for the smaller concealed carry weapons such as 380, and 9mm. All bullets are scary.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
That's about right. I'd just word that last bit slightly differently. I wouldn't make the blanket statement that no types of ammo can be prohibited (or prohibitively taxed). I would argue that it possibly could if the government successfully makes the case that a legitimate state interest (public safety) outweighs the individual right.

I agree with Drugewire that that's a big "if", and note further that the burden is on the government, as it should be, any time we talk about limiting rights laid out in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

I believe I was trying to say the same thing ( actually, I was trying to say that that is what you were saying).

A specific type of ammo could be prohibited -but all types of ammo could not. .357 pistol rounds will probably always be safe, but exploding .357 pistol rounds with a bursting radius of 10 meters probably would not.
 
sarge said:
I believe I was trying to say the same thing ( actually, I was trying to say that that is what you were saying).

A specific type of ammo could be prohibited -but all types of ammo could not. .357 pistol rounds will probably always be safe, but exploding .357 pistol rounds with a bursting radius of 10 meters probably would not.
Click to expand...
Exploding rounds have been illegal for a long time, and the constitutionality of that has not been challenged. Would be kind of cool, though, if your gun was your 4th of July fireworks launcher.

Oh well...
 
sarge said:
I believe he has already posted that he is not arguing whether or not any specific proposal would pass constitutional muster. I believe he is (correctly, in my opinion) arguing only the tests that would be applied to any law that limits the purchase or possession of ammunition. Without presuming to put words in his mouth, I think he is saying that ammo is protected by the constitution in the same manner and to the same degree as guns themselves. in other words, ammo can not be prohibited, but it can be regulated so long as legitimate public safety concerns outweigh the individual right to own or carry any particular ammo in any certain quantity.
Click to expand...


I used to think that bearing arms refers to the weapons itself, not necessarily to the ammunition. But even if, what's the big deal in regulating the ammunition - or put safety measures in place so the executive branch actually learns whenever someone purchases a lot of ammunition. It should not be a problem to have some sort of database that lists all of the purchased ammunition and automatically alerts the authorities whenever someone buys an unusually high amount of ammunition. It's not even a big deal in terms of the second amendment. Just a control mechanism.
 
Oliver said:
I used to think that bearing arms refers to the weapons itself, not necessarily to the ammunition. But even if, what's the big deal in regulating the ammunition - or put safety measures in place so the executive branch actually learns whenever someone purchases a lot of ammunition. It should not be a problem to have some sort of database that lists all of the purchased ammunition and automatically alerts the authorities whenever someone buys an unusually high amount of ammunition. It's not even a big deal in terms of the second amendment. Just a control mechanism.
Click to expand...

Are you asking me what I'd think of such a system, or are you asking me what I believe the USSC would think of such a system?

As ratified by the states and authenticated by TJ himself, the 2nd reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". In my opinion, the framers intended for the right to own and carry arms to be an individual right and for the goverment to have no authority to restrict that right. That's what they wrote, and I believe they meant it. Of course, the courts (and millions of intelligent people) disagree - and I am glad they do. The goverment does infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, and I would favor even more infringing.

I have no problem with your scheme. I wouldn't care to guess how the USSC might rule on it without seeing the actual legislation. The court has not been entirely consistent over time on the 2nd.
 
Oliver, It would also be fairly easy to require taggants in the bullet metal. Then you could know which case-lot the bullets came from, for example.

I had some gun collector try to tell me that taggants would make bullets less safe, but I couldn't get a understandable answer as to why.

Anybody here heard a reason for that?
 
BenBurch said:
Oliver, It would also be fairly easy to require taggants in the bullet metal. Then you could know which case-lot the bullets came from, for example.

I had some gun collector try to tell me that taggants would make bullets less safe, but I couldn't get a understandable answer as to why.

Anybody here heard a reason for that?
Click to expand...

Taggants would be included in the cartridge propellent at the factory, not in the projectile.

Because of the size of taggants and the differing powder types and amounts used in manufacuring in commercial quantities, it's a very possible safety issue in that the presence of taggants in the propellent could either increase pressure to dangerous levels in one example, or cause another cartridge not to fire at all, or fire just enough to push a projectile into the barrel, but not generate enough energy to expell the projectile from the barrel.

There is no manufacturing method known at this time that would only insert a given safe amount of taggants into an individual cartridge during manufacture.

The other issue is even if the use of taggants in ammunition was practical from a safety standpoint, fired taggants could easily be distributed by wind currents to the point that taggant evidence would be useless in court - there would be no certain way to establish that taggants found at a crime scene in the open had not somehow gotten there by the vagaries of simple happenstance.

Some folks believe that a method of microstamping individual fired cases with a unique identifying mark or number by the firearm itself would be possible in the example of semi or fully automatic firearms, but any such mechanical system would be easy to defeat, and a simple "brass catcher" would eliminate fired brass as evidence.
 
BenBurch said:
Actually, there are taggants you can put into molten brass or lead now.
Click to expand...

With billions of rounds of small arms ammunition manufactured each year, any scheme for a unique specific identification system for ammunition has too many difficulties to overcome, at least with currently available technologies.

The current protocol of identifying a specific firearm through ballistic evidence is the most solid method of identification.
 
BStrong said:
With billions of rounds of small arms ammunition manufactured each year, any scheme for a unique specific identification system for ammunition has too many difficulties to overcome, at least with currently available technologies.

The current protocol of identifying a specific firearm through ballistic evidence is the most solid method of identification.
Click to expand...

How would you feel about ballistics exemplars being on file?
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Go for it...my uncle casts his own and is teaching me to do so. Lead is easy to find and pretty simple to melt and recast. He probably has close to 1000lbs of alloy now and is always looking for more.

Then again...ordinary half inch bar stock would work fine if turned down a bit in his Ruger (.454 Casull) and my S&W Model 29 (.44 Magnum). 3/8" would work in my wife's Beretta (9mm).
 
BenBurch said:
Thanks!

It bugs me rather a lot how few murders ever get closed. The death rate on the streets of Chicago is hideous.

ETA: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/only-30-percent-of-last-years-murders-have-been-solved/

30% only!
Click to expand...
Well, Chicago has tried strict control and illegal repression of gun ownership, and it's failed miserably. Leave it to the left to think the solution to the problem they made up is more control and more regulation.

Put concealed carry law in place, reasonable ones, crime of many types will go down.
 
mhaze said:
Exploding rounds have been illegal for a long time, and the constitutionality of that has not been challenged. Would be kind of cool, though, if your gun was your 4th of July fireworks launcher.

Oh well...
Click to expand...

Note (also might fall into the "random trivia" thread): Reagan was shot with an explosive bullet. Hinckley's gun was loaded with exploding-head Devastator rounds. None functioned as designed, except the one that hit a building across the street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom