03.20.2013
California & FED Government Seeks Regulate & Track Ammunition Sales
original article written by Net Advisor™
Sacramento, CA & Washington DC. Democrats are coming out of the woodwork seeking to gain greater control over Americans by further regulating and tracking ammunition sales. The thinking is regulating and tracking ammo sales will somehow make us safer?
[1] Senate Ammo Limitation Bill (2013 S.35)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV) and others introduced Senate Bill 35 (PDF) in January 2013 to ban all on-line ammo sales. They also seek to require reporting of sales of “bulk ammo” of 1,000 rounds or more in a 5-day period to non-licensed persons.
[2] California Ammo Limitation Bill (CA, AB48)
California Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D) (Berkeley-CA) is mirroring much the same U.S. Senate Bill and cites Colorado theater shooter James Holmes allegedly bought 6,000 rounds of ammo preceding his attack. Keep in mind that Homes did not have 6,000 rounds on his person, nor did he fire a near fraction of that amount. Not even Arnold Schwarzenegger could carry that much ammo on him and still wear body armor, carry and use weapons.
According to the Denver Post, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said, “the gunman (Holmes) could have gotten off as many as 60 rounds a minute.”
Notice the words spoken in the aforementioned sentence: could have. That does not mean he actually did, but he could have. In life and especially crime, it doesn’t matter what someone could have done, it matters what they actually did. A lawyer in a court might interject and object to testimony that used such speculation.
What apparently did happen according to Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates, is the Colorado theater shooter Holmes was apprehended very quickly.
“Oates confirmed that the first 911 call came in to authorities at 12:39 a.m., followed by hundreds of others and that police were on the scene and had apprehended Holmes within 60-90 seconds.”
Homes did manage to kill 12 people and wounded 58 others before apprehended and is being charged with 142 counts in his trial.
[3] Colorado Movie Theater Had a Gun Ban
Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert said he could not believe that no one had a weapon to defend against “Dark Knight” shooter James Homes. That particular movie theater had a ban on concealed carry weapons which the state allows under permit.
“…out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned.
In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.”
— Fox News, 09-10-2012
Homes entered the theater though a backdoor emergency exit. As tragic as this incident is, banning, regulating, or limiting ammo will not stop anyone bent on committing a crime.
[4] Logic 101: Liberals Fail to Understand Basic Behavioral Principles
If criminals just followed the laws, then we would not have ANY crime, right? We’ll, of course criminals don’t follow the law, that is why they are called, “criminals.”
Thus banning and restricting firearms or ammunition will not prevent criminals from committing future crimes. The ONLY people who are affected by gun bans or restrictions are law-biding citizens.
California’s Assembly Bill AB48, if passed would:
- Require ammunition sellers to be licensed,
- Require ammunition purchasers to show identification,
- Require ammunition sellers to report all ammunition sales to the Department of Justice,
- Require Department of Justice to create a registry of ammunition purchases, which shall be available to all law enforcement agencies;
- Require the Department of Justice to notify law enforcement of large quantity ammo purchases, and
- Ban the kits that convert ammo feeding devices into high-capacity magazines.
California State Assembly Representative Nancy Skinner makes a false statement about the U.S. Constitution:
“While the Second Amendment gives each of us the right to bear arms it also says clearly that such rights can and should be well regulated.”
— Nancy Skinner (D), (Berkeley-CA) (PDF)
Let’s check the Second Amendment and see what it clearly says:
“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.”
— Second Amendment (1791), United States Constitution (Source: Cornell University Law School)
Skinner attempts to argue that a “well regulated militia” means that government can regulate arms as they see fit. Although we have numerous gun laws that have gone unchallenged, the key part to the second amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Somehow the phrase, “shall not be infringed” is always missing from the Political Left’s argument. AB46 oversteps its boundaries of personal privacy whereas government would be allowed to keep tabs on everyone who purchases ammunition and keep a registry on every purchase. This is a backdoor move to keep a government registry of every firearm owner and what they own.
The way government will be able to identify existing firearm owners, is by the caliber the person is buying, and subsequently has to automatically register. With a few exceptions, most firearms require specific ammo. Knowing what type of ammo people are buying can help identify who has what type of firearm. At this point, the government now has a reasonable account of firearms, and who owns them.
Nowhere in the Constitution says that government can, may, or should be able to register and keep track of who owns what type of firearm arm or ammo, or even how much. As long as the owner has not committed a punishable criminal offense, the transactions are and have always been, private.
[5] History 101: British Gov Feared Resistance. Attempted to Seize Firearms in 1775
If our Forefathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution wanted the government to have total regulation and control over lawful citizen’s personal weapons, they would have explicitly stated such in the Constitution.
Keep in mind that arguably, one of the reasons why this was not done is because our Forefathers sought freedom, liberty and independence from England. The English government got concerned and tried to seize firearms from citizen Colonialists.
In April 1775 British Governor and General Thomas Gage, learned that weapons were being gathered in Concord, Massachusetts, and he sent British troops to seize and destroy them. Local militia confronted the troops and exchanged fire.
— Sources: Wikipedia and British Documents about April 19, 1775
The British did not want any resistance to what was becoming more like an English tyrannical government, much like Charles the First. Their move was to order the military to take weapons away from those who could potentially oppose them.
The “Father of the United States Bill of Rights” George Mason IV put it this way:
“To Disarm the People (is) the Best and Most Effectual Way to Enslave Them…”
— George Mason IV (1725-1792) (source)
We are not making an inferences, suggestions or parallels, just citing history. In 2013, over 1,000 U.S. Army Special Forces did however cite their concern about gun control and the Constitution.
[6] California’s Gun Control Law “Unconstitutional” Says State Judge
In 2009, the California legislators introduced AB 962. This bill would have “banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered.” In 2011, Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962 was “unconstitutionally vague” on its face, overturning the (liberal) state legislator’s law.
This hasn’t stopped progressives to keep trying to limited the Second Amendment in California or nationally. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has proposed federal legislation called the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013”. The bill covers far more than just so called “assault weapons.”
[7] Enforcement Lacking? Pass New Gun Laws Instead?
Like Chicago, Obama’s “home town” has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, also has the highest murder rate (report). Instead of increasing enforcement and prosecution, the answer is more gun laws. If 9,000 gun laws in the USA aren’t working to stop criminals, is passing another one will be the magic ticket that will put an end to gun violence?
If you liked this article, please “like us” on Facebook or share on Twitter or through your favorite social network. We are a non-profit education media org.
Short link to this article: https://www.netadvisor.org/?p=17065
Read more of our articles on relating to U.S. Gun Policies, laws, and history here.
Ammo image credit: Wired. Other images credit by their respective owner where noted or if known.
original content copyright © 2013 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
