This is going to be the next battle.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/opinion-forget-gun-control-its-time-for-ammunition-control/ar-AAY5zQw?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBnb7Kz

I'm of the opinion that if you know how much ammo you have,
You don't have enough.

 

This is going to be the next battle.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/opinion-forget-gun-control-its-time-for-ammunition-control/ar-AAY5zQw?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBnb7Kz

I'm of the opinion that if you know how much ammo you have,
You don't have enough.

 

I know right, I'm always finding ammo in between my seat cushions 

What is a reasonable figure for individual possession of ammunition at any time? That would need to
be determined in a national debate. My own view is that 10-12 rounds per gun are sufficient for self-defense.

I'm sure anyone in power seeking to move the government more toward tyranny would agree: the fewer rounds per individual, the better.

They're afraid of us.  The law-abiding citizens who own firearms.  The other people they're not afraid of.  They already control them.

Oh, and the opening statement of that article has got to be the stupidest statement I have read in a long time.

And I have yet to see one firearm or one round of ammunition that has a trigger finger.

I'm of the opinion that if you know how much ammo you have,
You don't have enough.

 

I know how much ammo I have.  Too much.  That's why I been selling hundreds of rounds to the less fortunate.   

SNIP

I'm of the opinion that if you know how much ammo you have,
You don't have enough.

 

Dunno how much I have, mostly because I’ve been shooting a lot more lately. I would say I have more than a little, and less than too much. 😝

A few YTers have talked about this and it is very unlikely anything will be done with this.  This type of bill or discussion comes around in waves.  Another is the 1,000% tax on "assault rifles".  And this tax bypasses the house and senate, so it can be implemented in a flash.  So a $500 Anderson AR will cost $5,000.

A few YTers have talked about this and it is very unlikely anything will be done with this.  This type of bill or discussion comes around in waves.  Another is the 1,000% tax on "assault rifles".  And this tax bypasses the house and senate, so it can be implemented in a flash.  So a $500 Anderson AR will cost $5,000.

I'd have to confirm with buddies who are the SMEs on this, but believe there's already past precedence on the issue of backdoor banning, where implementation of taxation or fees make exercising a right not realistically affordable. 

That's not to say that it won't be tried or pushed, but it's been tried before. 

I'd have to confirm with buddies who are the SMEs on this, but believe there's already past precedence on the issue of backdoor banning, where implementation of taxation or fees make exercising a right not realistically affordable. 

That's not to say that it won't be tried or pushed, but it's been tried before.

Defacto ban is the word.  But the issue is it will cost $ to take to trial.

I'd have to confirm with buddies who are the SMEs on this, but believe there's already past precedence on the issue of backdoor banning, where implementation of taxation or fees make exercising a right not realistically affordable. 

That's not to say that it won't be tried or pushed, but it's been tried before.

You may be referring to CA passing a law to require background checks on ammunition purchases -- Proposition 63 in 2016. 

Or maybe the one that CA passed restricting "handgun ammunition sales" by requiring face-to-face sales, thumb prints, registration of buyers, etc -- AB962 in 2011.

Or perhaps the tax on guns and ammo -- AB 1223 in 2021.

CA keeps proposing and passing bills and propositions that are unconstitutional, yet they persist in doing so over and over.

At some point, these elected activists need to be held accountable when they violate the constitutional rights of gun owners -- especially when the same schemes have been ruled unconstitutional over and over.  Unfortunately, any monetary awards to the plaintiffs would come from the pockets of tax payers, not the individuals passing these illegal laws.

You may be referring to CA passing a law to require background checks on ammunition purchases -- Proposition 63 in 2016. 

Or maybe the one that CA passed restricting "handgun ammunition sales" by requiring face-to-face sales, thumb prints, registration of buyers, etc -- AB962 in 2011.

Or perhaps the tax on guns and ammo -- AB 1223 in 2021.

CA keeps proposing and passing bills and propositions that are unconstitutional, yet they persist in doing so over and over.

At some point, these elected activists need to be held accountable when they violate the constitutional rights of gun owners -- especially when the same schemes have been ruled unconstitutional over and over.  Unfortunately, any monetary awards to the plaintiffs would come from the pockets of tax payers, not the individuals passing these illegal laws.

All good examples, but the precedence (at least I think) was on taxation as means to ban in general.  Or at least was before the 2011 date, since I recall discussion when I first moved back home in early 2000s.  I was into guns since early 90s, but not the 2a aspect of it.   

Held accountable?  Bwahahahaha.  Nah, I agree. . . throw $hit on the wall and see what sticks. . . Yes, also what Capt CMObvious stated above as well.  Wish there could be counter-suits on lawmakers for introducing dumba$$ bills. . . especially Scott Saiki.