Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, by banning ammunition one could implement stricter gun control without violating/changing the constitution. Let people have their guns, but without ammunition
The Swiss have such a law...
That isn't true. There is a concept in US law that has to do with adhering to the spirit of any law. Its an important concept that helps our system function well. A direct play to explicitly skirt the second amendment through ammunition restrictions would absolutely be seen as not adhering to the spirit of the right conferred by the constitution. If you can not be legally successful in banning the gun, then you will not be ultimately legally successful in banning its standard ammunition.
Assuming criminals would 'obey' your above ban, they could simply use a SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful cartridge (30-06 or 308 ) in SA rifles like M1 Garand and AR10.
However, even if you did ban, Please site for me 1 example where a criminal has EVER obeyed ALL laws.
I'm waiting . . . .
They don't understand that the majority of standard commercial ammo is more powerful than anything NATO approves.
Let it happen.
Home reloading would never meet demand, and black market ammunition is never as safe or reliable as the good factory-made stuff.
Let the shooters who want to take a chance using either take it if they want it. Anyone has the right to blow his gun up if he wants.
The gun owners can either wait and buy domestic new good ammunition, or they can pay a ton of money more for the good ammo the black market imports illegally, when and if it is available.
Or they can always go out and buy themselves a sporting arm and use any ammunition they want. Those guns are better, safer to use, and more versatile anyway.
A 100-year old 30-30 in good condition is still more reliable and safer than a new AR-15. And it's still good for killing an elk, not just a person. The ammo is cheaper, too.
Outside of military combat, the AR-15 is nothing but a very lethal toy that isn't well suited for anything but killing humans.
Bolt action rifles use the .223 AR round. Fail.
I reload my own with a Dillon progressive reloaded that weighs the powder consistently. In all the years I have reloaded I have never had a failure of a firearm due to my reloads.
Bullets are mostly factory manufactured. This would make it easier and more effective to regulate. Remington, for example, can be ordered to stop making commercial .223 REM bullets for domestic market. Bullets are even harder for small cottage workshop to make than guns. In warring region such as Pakistan-Afghanistan Khyber pass, where guns are illegally made by small shops but bullets can not be made by these shops.
Wrong. I cast my own bullets using lead, antimony in my crucible. Very easy.
Yup because that way it'll be much harder to get your hands on them. And if they're in the black market, do you think they'll be sold for cheap?
Okay. Let's ignore whatever impossible net positive you mistakenly think making it harder for law abiding citizensto buy ammunition would have.
Let's say that I dont myself or I don't know many, many other people with thousands of rounds each, or many others that reload and have the supplies to continue doing so for some time.
In that situation, it would be easier than a weekend project to rechamber most any given rifle in a readily available cartridge. It's been done throughout the ages during any type of ammunition shortage and it has never been easier than it is today.
If the firearm does not stand up to a constitutional challenge, neither will an ammo ban. The gov cannot introduce barriers to people exercising their rights. No court is going uphold the rather childish suggestion here.
At that, again, only criminals will have ammo because they do not care about laws. They will import ammo in as they do with banned drugs now.
If the firearm does not stand up to a constitutional challenge, neither will an ammo ban. The gov cannot introduce barriers to people exercising their rights. No court is going uphold the rather childish suggestion here.
At that, again, only criminals will have ammo because they do not care about laws. They will import ammo in as they do with banned drugs now.
Then amend the constitution to repeal the 2nd amendment. Problem solved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
