So it appears as though an end-run attempt at banning normal-capacity magazines is not the only underhanded trick the idiot Democrat congresscritters (but I repeat myself) have up their sleeves; it would appear as though they very much want the ability to ban "anonymous" online ammunition sales as well:
U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY4) and advocates from the gun safety community announced new legislation being introduced this week to make the sale of ammunition safer for law-abiding Americans who are sick and tired of the ease with which criminals can now anonymously stockpile for mass murder.
The bill, called the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, will keep Americans safe by limiting the ability of people planning for mass murder to anonymously purchase unlimited quantities of ammunition through the Internet or other mail-order means. It would also require that ammunition dealers report bulk sales of ammunition to law enforcement.
Once again, where to begin?
Just as before, they lead off with a blatant misappropriation of the English language – Frankie and Carolyn are for "gun safety" in the same way that MADD is for "alcohol safety"; in reality, both groups want the named objects banned beyond all possible recognition.
Second, ammunition sales are about as "safe" as you can possibly make them already. The cartridges are generally packed in cardboard or plastic boxes to keep their primers from impacting anything and unintentionally going off, sometimes the individual cartridges are even partitioned off by themselves, and all shipments have to be labeled ORM-D and transported accordingly. Likewise, federal law already prohibits the possession of ammunition by persons under indictment for a potential felony, convicted felons, controlled substance users/abusers, fugitives from justice, illegal aliens, dishonorable dischargees from the military, anyone subject to a domestic violence restraining order, and unsupervised minors.
In other words, it would appear as though the whole "safety" thing is already covered by existing laws… but you and I both know Lautenberg means "impossible" when he means "safer".
Moving on, how does one "stockpile" anything "anonymously" off the internet? Sure, I suppose you could pay with money orders (which rather defeats the purpose of shopping on the internet to begin with), have the ammunition shipped to one of those "Mailboxes Etc." kind of places where you have a box rented out for cash and a fake ID, and no one would really be the wiser… except most of those stores keep records, most of those stores have cameras, and you would still be leaving a trail of information from the retailer straight back to you. In reality, the Aurora murderer probably used his home address and his own personal credit card for all of his ammunition purchases, making this "anonymous" crap just another idiotic canard.
Fourth, say this bill actually gets signed into law – a hypothetical situation I do not at all find possible given the current political and social climate, but accept it as a postulate for the time being. Now, in theory, you cannot "anonymously purchase unlimited quantities of ammunition through the Internet", all well and good… what about purchasing "unlimited quantities of ammunition" through your local brick-and-mortar sporting goods store, in cash, 100% anonymously? Buy 500 rounds of ammunition every week; within a year, you will have 26,000 rounds of ammunition, and not even Lautenberg’s idiotic bill will be able to tell the police a bloody thing about you. In the end, this bill (the specifics of which we will get to momentarily) is just as stupid as the 10-round magazine amendment – why ten rounds in magazines, why 1000 rounds of ammo from the internet? Why not one and 100?
Finally, every competitive shooter in the country had better get used to being "report[ed] … to law enforcement". The buy ammunition by the gorramed pallet, and for good reason too. And speaking of good reasons, every single recreational shooter I know of purchases ammunition by the thousands-of-rounds – most ammo is packaged in bulk in that fashion, most ammo is cheaper when purchased in bulk, and it simply makes maintaining your inventory easier. Which leads us to the obvious conclusion: should this bill become law, we all must purchase ammunition in lots of at least a thousand rounds. Why? To flood the system with our names, making sorting and data-mining damned near impossible.
Now, let us take a break and think about a few things before we delve into the few "specifics" about this bill I was able to dig up.
The Aurora murderer allegedly purchased somewhere around 6000 rounds of ammunition from the internet. Through the course of the mass shooting, an AR-15 was used until its Betamag jammed (though pictures seem to indicate a mag change may have happened, if the 100-round magazine was used at all), a shotgun was employed, and two Glock .40 handguns were used. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the 100-round drum was emptied, the 30-round magazine pictured was also expended, the shotgun was emptied, and both handguns were depleted, and assume the murderer performed no magazine reloads (under the assumption he was too busy dealing with New York Reloads) – that puts us at a maximum number of expended rounds of 100 + 30 + 7 + 15 + 15 = 167. So if it "only" takes <200 rounds to murder 12 people and wound another 58, why do we care about >1000-round purchases? Seems we should be regulating >100-round purchases.
In reality, it is the guy who buys just the one gun, a few magazines, and enough ammunition to fill them that would arguably concern me the most; just like people who go to the range by themselves, rent a gun, and buy all of one box of ammunition, there is the distinct possibility they only "need" that much material to get done what they want to get done. Does this mean I think all ammunition sales should be regulated? Of course not; I am just pointing out the inconsistency of the "gun control" extremists’ position.
So about those specifics…
The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act works through four components:
· It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer.
And let me guess how much that "licensing" will cost? Or how much of a protcological exam from the BATFE it will entail? In any case, say good-bye to small-time ammo fabricators, custom loaders, experimental shops, and so forth…
· 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.
Well, that is pretty much a straight-up lie to begin with, and a horrible Personally-Identifiable Information problem as well. The lie comes from the notion that you cannot provide photo identification at the time of purchase; multiple online ammunition sellers request that you send them a picture of your driver’s license to prove that you are, in fact, over 18 or 21, or a copy of your C&R FFL to allow you access to the "dealer" side of their house. However, having to send information containing your full name, address, date of birth, driver’s license number, and photograph is a blatant violation of privacy, and represents a hellacious filing problem for ammo retailers, especially should their databases ever be hacked and that information get loose.
For Heaven’s sake, I can purchase legitimately radioactive uranium ore from Amazon (the reviews are hilarious) without even so much as a "by your leave"; requiring ID for ammo sales is just ludicrous.
And, of course, there is tremendous irony in requiring ID for ammunition sales, but not for voting. I can guarantee you the Obama Administration has been responsible for more deaths than every single firearm I have used or bullet I own or have fired (and that counts the milsurp rifles I own that may have whacked the occasional Nazi).
· It requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.
This particular clause amuses the hell out of me; the federal government is prohibited, by federal law, from keeping records or registries of firearm purchases (even though everyone knows the ATF Form 4473s are nothing but a back-door registry). The solution? Track ammunition, and have the sellers do it, not the government. You may not be able to tell exactly what kind of firearm a person owns by their ammo purchasing habits, but you can get a pretty good idea, and if these dealers maintain their records, you can always subpoena them, or make it a requirement of their "license" to turn them in every X years for "safe storage".
· 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.
Why do I see a bright-and-shining future for ammunition packed in 7×7 boxes (rather than the 5×10 that is prevalent now) should this law come to pass? 20 of those into a crate, and you have 980 rounds, and as long as you buy only one a week, no one will ever know, which is why arbitrary numbers like "10" or "1000" or whatever are just completely idiotic.
I have already touched on how flooding the system would be both inevitable and beneficial, but also bear in mind that this is yet another registry, only a quicker version than the previous one…
Thankfully, Our Glorious President’s reaction to this recent, overreaching bill has been less than encouraging… for Lautenberg and his authoritarian buddies:
"I haven’t seen the specific piece of legislation that has been offered up today," spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the daily press briefing. "But as that and other pieces of legislation make their way through the legislative process, we’ll evaluate them."
I would expect a sitting President to "evaluate" any "piece of legislation" that makes it past a certain point in the House or Senate; in other words, Josh basically told Frankie to get in line.
Which brings us to the real point of this post – the surprisingly-appropriately-named Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act still has to make it through both houses of Congress, so contact your duly-elected representatives now and express to them that their opposition to it is strongly recommended. You and I both know Obama would sign this bill if it hit his desk, so it is up to us to ensure it does not.
Oh, and Frankie and Carolyn? In the past two days, I have purchased 4200 rounds of ammunition from three different retailers on the internet. Why? Because f*ck you.





Haven’t read the proposal, does it cover components?
What is stop someone from buying 1K bullets from Fred’s Online Bait and Bullet shop, 1K Casings from Charlene’s Custom Guns, Powder at a brick and mortar store and rolling his or her own?
Oh…maybe the law is meant to get more people into reloading. Just what the government wants; untraceable ammunition being produced in thousands of garages and basements across the country.
Well, folks I know have stockpiled 20 and 30 round AR15 magazines the same way we have stockpiled ammunition. Most shooters have purchased multiple 15 round magazines for their Glocks, Rugers, Sigs, etc.
This is another example of the the Dem-Cong seeking to criminalize an object. Seems to me the focus should be on the criminal. Then again, perhaps they want to make all of us criminals.
In the highly unlikely event this happens, I can see many ammo manufacturers pulling a Ronnie Barrett and saying “You sponsored this bill? Fine, we won’t sell to your state at all. That includes police and military.”
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the Secret Service and D.C. cops had to buy their ammo with their own money?
Are there any caliber exclusions in the ammo sales bill?
Because all it takes is one plinker buying 2×550 round boxes of .22LR to trigger the reporting requirement. Yeah, that’s going to go over REAL well.
@ Merlin:
If this passes, I would expect the “normal” .22LR brick to shrink to 470 rounds (thus allowing the unreported purchase of two shrunken .22LR bricks, plus either one 50-round box of handgun ammo or three 20-round boxes of centerfire rifle ammo), while Winchester’s 333-round mini-brick will gain in popularity. Naturally, the price of the new .22LR brick would not see a proportional decrease in price….
Frankie and Carolyn must have borrowed a page out of the NY Sullivan Act for this one…
See, when I was a citizen of NY, I would argue with the store owners, who would refuse to sell ammo unless you could show your CCL. I would ask them to cite the law, they couldn’t, but would insist that I needed to show my CCL to get ammo.
So eventually I decided to look it up. Went to the NY Lawbooks. NY State Article 265 and 400 deal with firearms.
Nope…nothing there about ammo.
Sent an e-mail to a NY attorney who I met at the Pittsburg NRA meeting (he works closely with SAF) and asked *him* about it.
His response? Its in section 270 “Fireworks and Dangerous Fireworks” which is ANYTHING that contains gunpowder above 50 milligrams. Section 4 states that the prohibition of fireworks does not apply to ammo for firearms, but then section 5 says if its pistol or handgun ammo, then the statute *does* apply, and you need to show your CCL.
Considering how screwed up NY is, if this dreck passes, its going to be a trainwreck.
This is about as smart as banning the purchase of 1000 cans of beer to stop drunk driving.
Nobody needs 1000 cans of beer!
Yeah, reloading and flooding the system are chuckleworthy.
Also the stranglehold on buisnesses is an important angle. As these are folks taht hate guns and independent entrepenureship. Its mighty handy that their regulations hit the smallest of buisnesses the hardest.
For you youngsters, regulations to enforce GCA 1968, which is the foundation of “modern” federal gun control, required that you sign for ammunition. That lasted for several years but they finally gave up on it as it did not contribute to investigation of crime and just added to the paperwork burden of the feds checking up on dealers.
By the time a 5000-round-in-one-week purchase bubbled to the top of the database soup, the massacre would have committed long ago and the perp arrested, tried and sentenced.
Or a 1000-round-in-one-week-from-five-sellers would never get the fed’s attention.
Due to a lack of return fire, [Name Redacted] owned that theater. He stood there and shot people until he got tired, then left to surrender to the cop he met.
No ID required (or permitted by Holder) to vote, but ID required for the 2nd Amendment right to buy ammo.
Seems I remember having to sign for ammunition here in Texas some 40 years ago. Not a requirement now. Obviously a way to register gun owners without violating the 2nd amendment.
@ Bob S.b: Unfortunately, the bill does not appear to be online yet, though I am sure it is only a matter of time.
As to the specifics, I know Massachusetts criminalizes the possession of ammunition components without the appropriate licenses and such; it would not be a significant stretch to think this law does as well. It would amuse the hell out of me if they neglected to consider that small detail, though.
@ MAJ Mike: I am not sure I have reached the “stockpile” status yet, but I certainly have more magazines than I would ever “need” in anything more than a protracted firefight that I am not likely to survive anywise.
But given what magazine prices did back during the last AWB, I figure it is an investment.
And remember what Rand said – you cannot control an innocent man, so make everyone a criminal.
@ Erin Palette: Every ammunition manufacturer that did that would have my business for the rest of the foreseeable future.
@ Merlin: So far as I can tell, no, no caliber exclusions.
@ AuricTech: Yeah, there are so many stupid ways of bypassing the 1000-round limitation they are not even worth counting and inventorying… Except to show the stupidity of hte folks behind the laws.
@ Dragon: I would say that all duly-elected representatives would have to pass a test on the laws they have sworn to uphold and defend before actually taking office, but damned if I can think of anyone I would trust to actually create the test, much less someone I would force that up.
@ Patrick: The sad thing is I knew people in college who might have actually been affected by that ban…
@ The Jack: Just put up a post about that, actually… the financial implications of this bill are chilling.
@ Gunner Cade: Thankfully, I missed out on that entirely. Unfortunately, though, these days Obama would simply write off the new department that would have to be created to track, maintain, and clean up all of the data that would be created from this as yet another collection of “jobs created or saved”. The government has gone past self-perpetuating at this point, and is decidedly a cancerous growth on America’s economy.
@ rickn8or: Yeah… Jackass ordered all of that ammunition in the past month. Do they really think they would have been able to sort him out from the chaff and identify that he was about to go on a spree shooting? Or are they just going to treat all positive hits as potential murderers?
That will be… entertaining.
@ NotClauswitz: Better yet, if you want to require ID for voting, you are racist. I wonder what that makes you if you support ID for firearm transactions?
@ MAJ Mike: Yeah, that might be the GCA stuff Gunner Cade was talking about.