[BadKosh]

Checked out on Snopes.com <http://Snopes.com> and it is true.

Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009
It has already started....

Ammunition Accountability Legislation

Remember how Obama said that he wasn't going to take your guns? Well, it
seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your
ammo!

The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana
requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture a data base of
all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers.
Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is
coded.

Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011.
(Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every
round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!
If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!

This legislation is currently pending in 18 states: Alabama, Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.

Send to your friends in these states AND fight to dissolve this BILL!!

To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this legislation
and the specific legislation for each state, go to:
(http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm)
http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm_
(http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm)

[OreoCookie]

What's the connection between Obama and state legislation?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Checked out on Snopes.com <http://Snopes.com> and it is true.

Liar. It's current status is "undetermined".
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammunition.asp

It is a ridiculous idea, though. Tagging ammunition may have merit, but linking that information to retail sales information is asking for trouble. Law-abiding gun owners will get hassled, while crooks will just use cash or stolen and untraceable credit cards to make their purchases. And there is no connection with Obama that I can see.

[ort888]

Why should we fight this bill? Other then some initial inconvenience, how does it take away any of your gun rights?

[SpaceMonkey]

We should have a proposed state legislation thread. Some of it is hilarious.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What's the connection between Obama and state legislation?

I think a more accurate thread title would have been "BadKosh - 10th Amendment Attack".

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What's the connection between Obama and state legislation?

BO has the "bully pulpit" known as the POTUS and he has a history of being anti 2nd amendment. BO was on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation (1994-2002) that funds several anti 2nd amendment groups, including one that writes a "legal journal" that anti 2nd amendment judges can use to cite when making decisions.

Fortunately for us in Arizona (unfortunately for the country), BO appointed Gov Napalitano Sec. of Homeland Security and Jan Brewer is now Governor and will veto any such legislation.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BO has the "bully pulpit" known as the POTUS and he has a history of being anti 2nd amendment.

Actually according to the "Ammunition Accountability" website, many of the bills in the question appear to be carried over from the 2007 legislative session...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Actually according to the "Ammunition Accountability" website, many of the bills in the question appear to be carried over from the 2007 legislative session...

BO can use his bully pulpit to further promote the legislation.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BO can use his bully pulpit to further promote the legislation.

BO can use his "bully pulpit" to advocate for free ice cream for life for everyone born in January as well. He can do a lot of things with his "bully pulpit". Once he does, come back and post about how he's taking away your rights.

[larrinski]

I hope someone takes away all your guns & ammunition! America is gun crazy...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BO can use his bully pulpit to further promote the legislation.

I don't think he has yet, has he? My point is that networks of anti-gun nuts with coordinated legislation across states have existed before Obama ever appeared on the national stage. The OP's thread title is very misleading.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BO has the "bully pulpit" known as the POTUS and he has a history of being anti 2nd amendment. BO was on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation (1994-2002) that funds several anti 2nd amendment groups, including one that writes a "legal journal" that anti 2nd amendment judges can use to cite when making decisions.

Fortunately for us in Arizona (unfortunately for the country), BO appointed Gov Napalitano Sec. of Homeland Security and Jan Brewer is now Governor and will veto any such legislation.

I still don't get the thread title: it implies an involvement of Obama in the process. While I think you may be correct that Obama thinks this law may be a good idea (I haven't heard his position on it, at least), he's not the least bit involved at the moment. It's misleading to allude that Obama is `the cause' for such a law and responsible for it, as if he's leading the charge. 18 (?) states want to adopt such a law and the federal government is not involved in them. If such laws are adopted, Obama may be happy, but ultimately it's the responsibility of the legislative bodies of these states.

[olePigeon]

I know it's a pain, but won't people just make their own ammo? Seriously. If people want to use their guns, they'll find ways. All it does is make it more difficult for legal owners and doesn't change much for the illegal owners.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every
round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!

They gonna charge me an extra .05¢ to lay each and every mother****er down? Goddamn! [/samuel.l.jackson]

[Shaddim]

I make my own ammo. It's less expensive and it's fun.

Saw all this coming months ago, and I doubt it's going to stop here.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by larrinski 

I hope someone takes away all your guns & ammunition! America is gun crazy...

They can come and get them any time they want, but I can guarantee it won't be in the way they intend.

[besson3c]

I hope Black Jesus uses his bully pulpit to start supplying me with virgins, robots, or virgin robots with ointment dispensers.

[iMOTOR]

Interesting video on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

[Doofy]

If Barry doesn't rail against this then he should be charged with wire fraud. Simple as that. See sig text.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If Barry doesn't rail against this then he should be charged with wire fraud. Simple as that. See sig text.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states, nor was it intended to.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

If it's a really stupid, unworkable, and insanely costly idea, OF COURSE I would expect California to be on board.

[Shaddim]

HAHA! I love the email I got from my Sheriff:

"If something like that passed there's no way I would enforce it."

Not that it matters, the bill is dead in TN.

[flinslave4]

But looking at things in America at the moment, isn't the availability of ammo and guns a great contributer to some of the societal problems? Seems that some regulations on ammo aren't that bad of an idea... I understand that Americans hangs on to their freedoms to do whatever the hell they want and, applaud it... But one can't refuse that weaponry does find it's way into the wrong hands and, even though limitations affect everyone, the limitations should do something to affect this... Lets all take a step back and look at the greater picture eh?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states, nor was it intended to.

So no state has ratified it and thus chosen to be bound by it?

Genuine question. I'm hazy when it comes to the relationship between state and federal.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So no state has ratified it and thus chosen to be bound by it?

That it was ratified by the states doesn't mean they're bound by it, it means the Federal government is bound by it.

A state can bind itself to it by putting it in their own state constitution, but presumably the states considering these ammunition laws haven't done so.

Lastly, the SCOTUS can explicitly bind a state to an amendment under the due process clause in the 14th (incorporation), but as of yet, has not done so with the 2nd.


Back in the day, it was theoretically okay for a state to leave the union, so there wasn't any point in binding the states to the Bill of Rights. This changed after the Civil War, that war being one of the reasons we have a 14th Amendment in the first place.

[Doofy]

Get ya. Thanks for the info.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by flinslave4 

But looking at things in America at the moment, isn't the availability of ammo and guns a great contributer to some of the societal problems? Seems that some regulations on ammo aren't that bad of an idea... I understand that Americans hangs on to their freedoms to do whatever the hell they want and, applaud it... But one can't refuse that weaponry does find it's way into the wrong hands and, even though limitations affect everyone, the limitations should do something to affect this... Lets all take a step back and look at the greater picture eh?

Doing something just for the sake of doing it is not beneficial. Keeping a database for lawful ammo sales does nothing to help the problem, because most criminals will not purchase their ammo lawfully or in a traceable manner. Ammo will find its way into the wrong hands regardless of whether or not States implement this procedure, but I guarantee that if this database ever gets implemented, the only measurable result will be more lawful gun-owners who get harassed unnecessarily whenever a new investigation starts.

I don't even own a gun and I understand this.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by flinslave4 

But looking at things in America at the moment, isn't the availability of ammo and guns a great contributer to some of the societal problems?

Hell no. These laws only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy such items. Criminals have no qualms about purchasing weapons and ammo illegally. If I want, I can get on the phone and coordinate the purchase of an untraceable firearm, and as much armor-piercing ammo as I want, for a very reasonable price... and have it in my possession in a couple hours. I have no desire to do so, but it's pretty easy.

To reiterate, these proposed measures have ZERO impact on crooks, only decent people.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hell no. These laws only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy such items. Criminals have no qualms about purchasing weapons and ammo illegally. If I want, I can get on the phone and coordinate the purchase of an untraceable firearm, and as much armor-piercing ammo as I want, for a very reasonable price... and have it in my possession in a couple hours. I have no desire to do so, but it's pretty easy.

To reiterate, these proposed measures have ZERO impact on crooks, only decent people.

QFT.

Guns are banned here. It'd take me about two hours from cold to lay my hands on a Glock.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Awesome, smart idea. Hope it passes!

[dcmacdaddy]

So let me guess this straight. Registering sales of ammunition will somehow put a dent in gun crime? Bwahahaha!

I am not a gun owner and am definitely a fan of more restrictive access to firearms but this is just ridiculous and won't do what they say it will do. This smacks of "We have to do something so let's do the most innocuous and ineffective thing we can do just to say we did something".

Stupid politicians!


Oh, and to the OP, this has NOTHING to do with President Obama. Stop with all the hating. In time he'll give us all genuine reasons to complain about him.

[Dakar V]

I'm more interested in the secondary part of the bill. Looks like they want to flush out everyone's reserves.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Oh, and to the OP, this has NOTHING to do with President Obama. Stop with all the hating. In time he'll give us all genuine reasons to complain about him.

Like openly rooting for the Stealers?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If Barry doesn't rail against this then he should be charged with wire fraud. Simple as that. See sig text.

The 2nd Amendment applies to actions taken by the federal government, not state governments. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment does NOT grant complete, total, un-restricted access to possession of firearms or ammunition. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government cannot put some restrictions in place on gun ownership. The Supreme Court has even said this in some of its decisions. (Look at their recent decision regarding gun possession in the District of Columbia. The decision specifically stated that an outright ban on gun possession was un-Constitutional but they also explicitly stated that some measures to regulate and control who could buy and own guns was Constitutionally acceptable.)

Not to derail this thread too much, but I think this is one of the main points of contention between the pro-gun and pro-gun-restriction movements. The point of contention between these two groups is on the degree to which the federal government can regulate and/or restrict access to firearms. The pro-gun groups want little or no restrictions; The pro-gun-restriction groups want some, and sometimes a lot, of restrictions.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Like openly rooting for the Stealers?

HA! None of my teams (Buffalo and/or the Giants) were in it this year so I watched all of five minutes of the game. Although, considering you are in/from "Barry Goldwater country" I think it is safe to assume you are a Cardinals fan and unhappy with the outcome of the game.

[Rumor]

The thread title should be changed. Perhaps something like "I hate Obama, therefore, I shall blame anything and everything on him, even if there is no connection."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

The thread title should be changed. Perhaps something like "I hate Obama, therefore, I shall blame anything and everything on him, even if there is no connection."

Replace Obama with Bush in the I hate Bush thread and it'll be good to go!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

HA! None of my teams (Buffalo and/or the Giants) were in it this year so I watched all of five minutes of the game. Although, considering you are in/from "Barry Goldwater country" I think it is safe to assume you are a Cardinals fan and unhappy with the outcome of the game.

Maybe they'll lose five in a row and take the onus off the Bills, like they took it off the Viqueens!

[besson3c]

Chongo: didn't you learn as a kid that two wrongs don't make a right?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

QFT.

Guns are banned here. It'd take me about two hours from cold to lay my hands on a Glock.

An acquaintance of mine lives in London and he has a rather extensive gun collection. He thinks the gun laws are a joke.

[deedar]

Originally Posted by larrinski 

I hope someone takes away all your guns & ammunition! America is gun crazy...

Me too. And I'm an American!

[besson3c]

I think the problem with the whole gun control thing is that pragmatism and principles often clash.

You have people that feel it is important that the right of being able to own a gun of their choice is not taken away from them, and I respect this, but often it seems like this right is important to them in principle more than anything else. It is vital and symbolic that we have and exercise certain rights as granted by the constitution, but these sorts of conversations about ways to curtail the abuse of firearms are non-starters with those that feel the strongest about this because of this clash.

I mean, let's deconstruct this rationally using the most common gun owning justifications other than "it's my right":

1) self defense
2) hunting/sport
3) to overtake an oppressive government

#1 is sort of a slippery slope of a reason, and is often rather circular. I understand the idea that your "enemies" will have deadly hand guns and so therefore you should too, but is there a limit as to what sorts of arms you can or should possess in fear of your enemy? I mean, if you have an enemy that can take you out with a rocket launcher or deadly automatic weapon, you're kind of screwed. Does this mean that everybody should be allowed to own automatic weapons? If so, should they just be able to stroll down to their nearest Walmart to buy one?

Maybe, but most people don't want that "other guy" that they don't trust owning one. The notion of "if somebody really wants an automatic weapon, they'll get one legally or otherwise" sort of makes all of this circular. If this is the case, what is the point in restricting what firearms can legally be owned if your enemies can always one-up you with a bigger and badder weapon? Presented with this logic, again, do we want that weird guy down the street to be able to go to a Walmart and pick up a rocket launcher? This is where all of this gets murky to me... Please don't feel defensive about this... I can honestly see this argument both ways - I'm very much in favor of personal freedoms as well and not being restricted because of the stupidity of others, I just see some issues, such as the above, which I just have difficulty with reconciling with.

#2) hunting/sport: if this is why you own a firearm, I guess this means that all you need is a rifle?

#3) this isn't the 1800s... Again, principles are great, but I highly doubt that we are all going to storm the castle with our guns anytime soon, as it were... We are pretty far off from resorting to these sorts of options (i.e. no matter whether you happen to like the government or not, they are not committing the sorts of acts on their own people that would inspire this sort of massive armed rebellion). The argument is always "well, what if it gets to that point?" I just have a real hard time envisioning our Democracy collapsing to this extent anytime soon given all of the checks and balances in our system. It's kind of ironic that some would be fearful of this really, given that our system of government has more checks and balances than any other that I know of.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

#1 is sort of a slippery slope of a reason, and is often rather circular. I understand the idea that your "enemies" will have deadly hand guns and so therefore you should too, but is there a limit as to what sorts of arms you can or should possess in fear of your enemy? I mean, if you have an enemy that can take you out with a rocket launcher or deadly automatic weapon, you're kind of screwed. Does this mean that everybody should be allowed to own automatic weapons? If so, should they just be able to stroll down to their nearest Walmart to buy one?

Maybe, but most people don't want that "other guy" that they don't trust owning one. The notion of "if somebody really wants an automatic weapon, they'll get one legally or otherwise" sort of makes all of this circular. If this is the case, what is the point in restricting what firearms can legally be owned if your enemies can always one-up you with a bigger and badder weapon? Presented with this logic, again, do we want that weird guy down the street to be able to go to a Walmart and pick up a rocket launcher? This is where all of this gets murky to me... Please don't feel defensive about this... I can honestly see this argument both ways - I'm very much in favor of personal freedoms as well and not being restricted because of the stupidity of others, I just see some issues, such as the above, which I just have difficulty with reconciling with.

The point isn't to have something bigger and badder than your supposed enemy. The point is to have something.

[besson3c]

Right, but then would a rifle do? There is an obvious distinction and set of ramifications that go along with owning a rifle, a hand gun, and an automatic weapon.

[Laminar]

It's hard to conceal-carry a rifle.

[besson3c]

Right, so you mean the point is to have "something", meaning a handgun? How about handguns with silencers?

[ort888]

If we pass this law we can finally get to the bottom of just who or what shot iranfromthezoo's air conditioner.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Right, so you mean the point is to have "something", meaning a handgun? How about handguns with silencers?

I don't see why not.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

but often it seems like this right is important to them in principle more than anything else.

That may be true for certain people, but not for everybody. I honestly think that the world would be a better place (however marginal) without firearms. Obviously that’s not a reality.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

"enemies" will have deadly hand guns

all firearms are potentially “deadly”

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I mean, if you have an enemy that can take you out with a rocket launcher or deadly automatic weapon, you're kind of screwed.

Yes, you would be screwed, without your own rocket launcher.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does this mean that everybody should be allowed to own [rocket launchers]?

Assuming the threat of rocket launchers was not completely hypothetical; then absolutely.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If so, should they just be able to stroll down to their nearest Walmart to buy one?

I don’t think there would be a Walmart as we know it if criminals were operating with rocket launchers.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

given that our system of government has more checks and balances than any other that I know of.

I would argue that the second amendment is part of the checks and balances system.