"Democratic legislation in the House aims to ban online ammunition sales and require vendors to report face-to-face purchases of more than 1,000 rounds to the government. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman’s (D-N.J.) Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2015 would do away with online ammunition sales by requiring sellers to verify buyer identification in person. “Today, I stood with faith leaders, community members and elected officials who all agree that we need to take every action available to us to reduce gun violence, and the tragic impact it has on our communities,” Watson Coleman said as she unveiled the legislation. “This bill would take the most basic steps to slow the proliferation of guns and ammunition, helping to prevent events like what we saw in Aurora, Colorado, three years ago. Congress can, and must, do more to keep our families safe. And we’re urging them to do just that.” In addition to stopping online ammo sales, the legislation would require “vendors to report any sales of more than 1,000 rounds within five consecutive days to the U.S. attorney general, if the person purchasing ammunition is not a licensed dealer.” According to the bill’s sponsors, putting Americans who make large ammo purchases on law enforcement’s radar will somehow reduce mass shootings. “Far too many times, we have seen the shocking images of unspeakable gun violence that could have been prevented,” said co-sponsor Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.). “Our bill to limit the online sale of ammunition is a long-overdue common sense reform that I am hopeful will spark Congress to put aside party difference and come together to help prevent such senseless tragedies.” Democratic legislation targets ammo purchasers The continuous march to suppress and strip our rights never ends.........
” said co-sponsor Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.). “Our bill to limit the online sale of ammunition is a long-overdue common sense reform that I am hopeful will spark Congress to put aside party difference and come together to help prevent such senseless tragedies.” I hate the phrase "common sense" when it comes to laws. It is never true, it is just someone telling me what to think, and if I oppose it, I must be stupid.
For a flintlock BP weapon, yes. Been working with homemade BP. While it works, it's not where I want it-yet.
This Bill is a PipeDream of some of the worst CrackPot Politicos of the East Coast.... It has ZERO chance of going ANYWHERE in the Federal House of Representatives, and not much chance of going anywhere in the Senate, as it stands NOW.... For Me, it isn't even an issue, as I am an FFL Licensee, so it doesn't apply to me in the slightest.... and I can make my own BP, for my two Rifles, and two Pistols, if required.....
Yep, the bill won't go anywhere right now..... but they just keep coming at us. And we have to keep a watchfull eye on them & defending our rights!!
...".....and because, a gun without ammo is just a unwieldy club, ammo is also protected under the second amendment " (or words to that effect)
It is SCOTUS PRECEDENT.... Just read the original Hellar Decission..... Ammunition is part of the Weapon System, and therefor part of the Protection afforded by the Second Ammendment. When SCOTUS ruled in McDonald, that made Heller the Law of the Land, for ALL US Territory, Period. Now understand that this Bill, would NOT deprive US Citizens of the Right to possess Ammunition. It would just REQUIRE "Notification" of purchase of more that 1000 Rounds in any 5 Day period, AND REQUIRE "Face to Face" purchase, from a Licensed FFL. These provisions could be challenged in Federal Court, should the Bill be passed, but they just as easily be found Constitutional, in that they are NOT, a Total Ban, just more RED TAPE Hoops to jump threw... Also remember back in the Day, Ammunition, was only sold thru FFLs, which NO ONE, protested, or sued in Federal Court.... It was Congress, that removed that Issue, for us....
"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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." That sure sounds like an infringement, to me.
It would be an infringement, that's the point of the whole discussion. They got slapped down by popular support of the second, not from a court. They will be back, coming from a different angle. The second won't work if the citizen's don't stand and be counted. (Nor will any of the others.)