Bullet control is the way to go.

Glenn E. Meyer · September 9, 2018, 02:17 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/u...n-bullets.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/i...e=sectionfront

The article proposes that bullet regulations are the way to reduce gun violence by having strict checks on purchases, locations, mail order, etc.

One horrible atrocity is that you can buy rounds at jewelry stores in TX.

Thus, bullet control along with magazine control and the like are the way to go.

I wonder if Judge Kavanaugh become Justice Kavanaugh will SCOTUS have paradigm changing epiphany and take a state case and comes up with a ruling that voids state bans (and clarify the Heller/Scalia muddle that is problem now).

I'd bet against it.

Ben Dover · September 9, 2018, 03:12 PM

As long as the requirements are record keeping only, and anyone can still buy ammo, I think you would have a tough time making a constitutional case.

IMHO, the best way to attack this is on the basis of right to privacy.

**Aguila Blanca** · September 9, 2018, 06:44 PM

IMHO the best way to attack this is to stock up on reloading components, and do our best to not let the gun grabbers know how many of us roll our own.

L2R · September 9, 2018, 06:59 PM

I view Kavanaugh as a buffer against further erosion of the 2A, not a fixer of the past.

No expert here but I wonder if we will have 3 for the 2A, 3 on the fence and 3 against-depending on the exact scope of the case.

If so, no one is picking up a case in fear of losing ground.

It could be that other, lower court appointments do more to curb the changes than this one.

**44 AMP** · September 9, 2018, 09:05 PM

I have heard of various restrictive proposals and taxes being struck down/failing to pass because there is (somewhere) some court rulings that ammunition is part and parcel of the arms in "keep and bear arms", and the most that logic can (at a huge stretch) support is the same regulation on ammunition as on the arm itself.

So, if you have a right to the arm, you have the right to its ammunition.

I think there's some kind of equal treatment under the law issue involved, but I'm not in any way trained in the law, so I can't say with any certainty.

Colorado Redneck · September 9, 2018, 09:29 PM

In the 1970's purchasing ammunition required the buyer to sign in a log book. My memory is pretty vague but I was shooting 22 LR at the time. I remember thinking the whole deal was a monumental snafu. Then somewhere along the line that requirement went away. I wonder where all that paperwork ended up.....maybe landfills?

DaleA · September 10, 2018, 01:34 AM

Could somebody help me out with the NY Times links?

I like to read the comments to the articles but it seems the NY Times has no comment section for these articles.

HOWEVER...I often miss stuff, like a link to the comment section.

Is there a comment section for the NY Times articles listed in post #1?

**Tom Servo** · September 10, 2018, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I have heard of various restrictive proposals and taxes being struck down/failing to pass because there is (somewhere) some court rulings that ammunition is part and parcel of the arms in "keep and bear arms", and the most that logic can (at a huge stretch) support is the same regulation on ammunition as on the arm itself.

We may already have a precedent in Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner, in which a tax on ink used by newspapers was ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Glenn E. Meyer · September 10, 2018, 08:53 AM

The Times doesn't always have comments on its articles. It depends. It might want you to go the Facebook. I don't.

DaleA · September 10, 2018, 12:46 PM

Quote:

The Times doesn't always have comments on its articles.

Thanks. Our local (Twin Cities) newspapers do the same thing, i.e. sometimes comments are allowed and sometimes not. And like you, if I have to go to Facebook to see comments, I guess I won't see comments.

Bartholomew Roberts · September 10, 2018, 07:07 PM

From 1968 to 1986, the feds required a Form 4473 be filled out to purchase handgun ammunition. It was next to meaningless.

**44 AMP** · September 11, 2018, 12:40 AM

Quote:

From 1968 to 1986, the feds required a Form 4473 be filled out to purchase handgun ammunition. It was next to meaningless.

I don't think it was a Form 4473.

The GCA 68 had a requirement that ammo sales had to have records kept, but I've never heard of, or seen it being a 4473. I do recall seeing my father buying .22 ammo at a dept store shortly after the law passed, and the clerk recorded it in a ledger type bound book.

I'm not certain exactly when, but a few years after the 68 act the requirement (and enforcement) of logging ammo sales was quietly dropped. I've bought ammo in the mid 70s, (in NEW YORK state) and NEVER had any of the sale logged. Did have to show ID as proof of age, but that was all.

Bartholomew Roberts · September 11, 2018, 08:59 AM

Sales of handgun ammo were legally required to be registered until 1986. I may be incorrect on the exact form used to register it. How well those logs were kept I can’t say. I know when I would buy .22 from Gibson’s they’d ask me if it was for a rifle or a handgun. If you said “handgun”, they logged it (or refused to sell if you were underage). If you said “rifle”, they didn’t do either.

I’d be curious to know how many FFLs got into any kind of trouble for failing to maintain those records? I’d bet if you had a dollar for every case, you still couldn’t buy a box of .22 today.

BBarn · September 11, 2018, 09:07 AM

I remember filling out the log where I worked. The logging was not required for rifle or shotshell ammo. 22LR was a grey area, but we generally logged it unless we were convinced it was for a rifle.

Name, address, driver's license number, and ammo purchased were noted on the form as I recall. The logging requirement ended with the 1986 FOPA. I seem to recall President Reagan saying something along the lines that the logging failed to lead to the conviction of anyone over it's course of use.

September 9, 2018, 03:12 PM	#2
Ben Dover Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 2013 Location: High up in the Rocky Moun Posts: 665	As long as the requirements are record keeping only, and anyone can still buy ammo, I think you would have a tough time making a constitutional case. IMHO, the best way to attack this is on the basis of right to privacy. __________________ The soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as the prisoner's chains. Dwight Eisenhower It is very important what a man stands for. But it is far more important what a man refuses to stand for.

September 9, 2018, 06:59 PM	#4
L2R Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2010 Location: North Carolina Posts: 358	I view Kavanaugh as a buffer against further erosion of the 2A, not a fixer of the past. No expert here but I wonder if we will have 3 for the 2A, 3 on the fence and 3 against-depending on the exact scope of the case. If so, no one is picking up a case in fear of losing ground. It could be that other, lower court appointments do more to curb the changes than this one. __________________ L2R

September 9, 2018, 09:05 PM	#5
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,804	I have heard of various restrictive proposals and taxes being struck down/failing to pass because there is (somewhere) some court rulings that ammunition is part and parcel of the arms in "keep and bear arms", and the most that logic can (at a huge stretch) support is the same regulation on ammunition as on the arm itself. So, if you have a right to the arm, you have the right to its ammunition. I think there's some kind of equal treatment under the law issue involved, but I'm not in any way trained in the law, so I can't say with any certainty. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

September 10, 2018, 08:53 AM	#9
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	The Times doesn't always have comments on its articles. It depends. It might want you to go the Facebook. I don't. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

September 9, 2018, 02:17 PM	#1
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Bullet control is the way to go. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/u...n-bullets.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/i...e=sectionfront The article proposes that bullet regulations are the way to reduce gun violence by having strict checks on purchases, locations, mail order, etc. One horrible atrocity is that you can buy rounds at jewelry stores in TX. Thus, bullet control along with magazine control and the like are the way to go. I wonder if Judge Kavanaugh become Justice Kavanaugh will SCOTUS have paradigm changing epiphany and take a state case and comes up with a ruling that voids state bans (and clarify the Heller/Scalia muddle that is problem now). I'd bet against it. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

September 9, 2018, 06:44 PM	#3
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,458	IMHO the best way to attack this is to stock up on reloading components, and do our best to not let the gun grabbers know how many of us roll our own.

September 9, 2018, 09:29 PM	#6
Colorado Redneck Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2008 Location: Northeast Colorado Posts: 1,993	In the 1970's purchasing ammunition required the buyer to sign in a log book. My memory is pretty vague but I was shooting 22 LR at the time. I remember thinking the whole deal was a monumental snafu. Then somewhere along the line that requirement went away. I wonder where all that paperwork ended up.....maybe landfills?

September 10, 2018, 01:34 AM	#7
DaleA Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2002 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 5,312	Could somebody help me out with the NY Times links? I like to read the comments to the articles but it seems the NY Times has no comment section for these articles. HOWEVER...I often miss stuff, like a link to the comment section. Is there a comment section for the NY Times articles listed in post #1?

September 10, 2018, 07:07 PM	#11
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	From 1968 to 1986, the feds required a Form 4473 be filled out to purchase handgun ammunition. It was next to meaningless.

September 11, 2018, 08:59 AM	#13
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Sales of handgun ammo were legally required to be registered until 1986. I may be incorrect on the exact form used to register it. How well those logs were kept I can’t say. I know when I would buy .22 from Gibson’s they’d ask me if it was for a rifle or a handgun. If you said “handgun”, they logged it (or refused to sell if you were underage). If you said “rifle”, they didn’t do either. I’d be curious to know how many FFLs got into any kind of trouble for failing to maintain those records? I’d bet if you had a dollar for every case, you still couldn’t buy a box of .22 today.

September 11, 2018, 09:07 AM	#14
BBarn Senior Member Join Date: December 22, 2015 Posts: 887	I remember filling out the log where I worked. The logging was not required for rifle or shotshell ammo. 22LR was a grey area, but we generally logged it unless we were convinced it was for a rifle. Name, address, driver's license number, and ammo purchased were noted on the form as I recall. The logging requirement ended with the 1986 FOPA. I seem to recall President Reagan saying something along the lines that the logging failed to lead to the conviction of anyone over it's course of use.