Democrats Propose Law To Limit On-line Ammunition Purchases
While I think it might be a worthy goal to stop crazies like James Holmes from being able to make such a huge purchase, it also effectively hamstrings honest citizens.
(CNN) Two Democratic lawmakers took on the hot-button political issue of gun control Monday, introducing legislation that would effectively ban online ammunition sales.
Longtime gun control advocates Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, introduced the bill that they said would prevent buyers from purchasing unlimited quantities of ammunition through the Internet or through the mail. The bill would also require ammunition dealers to report bulk ammo sales to law enforcement.
“It’s time to close the loophole that’s allowing killers — deranged, insane — and even terrorists to buy ammunition online,” Lautenberg said Monday at a news conference on the steps of Manhattan’s City Hall. “You don’t have to be a scientist to understand how wrong this is.”
These same Democrats have already submitted an amendment to the Cybersecurity bill on gun restrictions, which we can’t read because it hasn’t been voted on yet. This, though, is not necessarily a bad idea. It’d be best if people with murder in their hearts and terrorists not have easy access. But, what does the legislation actually propose? It’s called the Stop Online Ammunition Act, and it means to virtually stop online purchases
….An eagle-eyed, ever-vigilant reader send us a link. Here’s the skinny:
The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act works through four components:
:· It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer.
:· It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.
:· It requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.
:· It requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days.
Interesting. Democrats do not want ID to be required in order to vote, but do want ID in order to buy ammunition. To use their own words, that negatively effects minorities and the young, who apparently do not have ID.
That second bullet point, with the ID, is the most important one, as it means that most people will not be able to purchase ammunition on-line, because they won’t be able to show ID. Since there is no actual legislation to read, we don’t know if there will be any sort of “loophole” which would allow citizens to fax, email, or text their photo ID to on-line stores.
I really don’t have a problem with the 3rd and 4th bullet points, but, interestingly, they do little to nothing to actually stop large on-line purchases. Of course, it could possibly mean a visit from some level of law enforcement, inquiring as to why someone is purchasing that much ammunition. Based on how fast the government works, that visit could come long after the shooting.
But, again, the 2nd would penalize law abiding citizens who just want to save a few bucks. I myself have purchased bullets on-line. My little Walther P-22 is a touchy gun, and so I stick with Winchester ammo, which doesn’t jam. It’s tough to get. So, I purchased …….wait for it…..1,000 rounds at one time. I shot most of them off in 6 visits to the shooting range (I still have the rest, 20 loaded in 2 mags, which are not in the gun, but near). Yes, I shot 150 rounds off in each visit. That’s how one practices. So, under this legislation, I’d have been reported to… someone…. for what was a completely legal purchase.
After his 20-year old son overdosed on drugs, Mike Stollings decided to post a photo of his body at the funeral home on Facebook out of grief and guilt. The...Read More
That’s the conclusion of the Washington Post’s Dan Baltz As the midnight Friday deadline loomed for a possible government shutdown,
Obama is now claiming that pulling our forces out of Iraq wasn’t his idea, even though he spent nearly every
One of the main discussions in this ginned up, fact-free anti-gun debate coming from the Democrats and their fellow extreme