Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales

No way... the court and the process is already way to partisan.

The president should nominate 5 or so candidates, then the president and both houses of congress should be locked in a room and not allowed to leave until there is an unanimous vote on one person.
Well, the partisan selection process for SC justices is why I asked the question. Maybe it's better that we just elect them ourselves instead of allowing our highly partisan (by necessity) elected "representatives" to do it for us?

Just a question really. Not sure why we elect 2/3 of our gov't and not 3/3rds. Maybe so they don't have to run a campaign? I dunno. I don't study this stuff tho.
 
I like the part of locking them in a room, but do we have to let them out? Some of us just want to be left alone after all.. I’m not a criminal, all my life I’ve felt like there is a group of people enacting laws that directly effect the things I love about this country and rarely if ever solve the problems intended. online ammo purchases is just another one. I was completely apolitical the first half of my life, the California gun control movement is probably the most influential factor in what brought my political beliefs to what they are today.
Thought had crossed my mind ;)
 
Well, the partisan selection process for SC justices is why I asked the question. Maybe it's better that we just elect them ourselves instead of allowing our highly partisan (by necessity) elected "representatives" to do it for us?

Just a question really. Not sure why we elect 2/3 of our gov't and not 3/3rds. Maybe so they don't have to run a campaign? I dunno. I don't study this stuff tho.

Some of the more knowledgeable members may be able to address this better, but I recall reading that prior to the confirmation of Clarence Thomas SCOTUS appointments were mostly noncontroversial.

Confirmation votes often had a powerful majority, instead of the party line stuff we see now. I'm not sure if that is because we're fed so much partisanship these days, or if previous SCOTUS appointments were more moderate/ less controversial though.
 
Well, the partisan selection process for SC justices is why I asked the question. Maybe it's better that we just elect them ourselves instead of allowing our highly partisan (by necessity) elected "representatives" to do it for us?

Just a question really. Not sure why we elect 2/3 of our gov't and not 3/3rds. Maybe so they don't have to run a campaign? I dunno. I don't study this stuff tho.

Careful what we ask for, today the SC is probably the only functioning form of our gov left. If the other two branches did their jobs we wouldn’t even have to worry about who was appointed.
 
but I recall reading that prior to the confirmation of Clarence Thomas SCOTUS appointments were mostly noncontroversial.
It was more respect for the presidential nomination. The divisiveness between the two parties has made it a beer drinking college soiree of horse manure simply to malign an American for the political agendas of an opposing party.

Come to think of it I think Ginsburg only had six no votes or something close to that...
 
Well, the partisan selection process for SC justices is why I asked the question. Maybe it's better that we just elect them ourselves instead of allowing our highly partisan (by necessity) elected "representatives" to do it for us?
Do you really think that "we" are less partisan than those we elect? Our reps are us. We're getting exactly what we're asking for.
 
So things to think about...

1. For some folks the nearest FFL is a long drive away... possibly hours.
2. A lot of states don't differentiate between powder, bullets, primes, brass, and ammo. So you could be paying $20 to buy a $3 product.
3. Most states don't require a background check to buy ammo or supplies. So essentially if you shoot an 06 your paying $20 a box of ammo if your shooting a .264 win mag you pay $50 + $20 FFL fee.

If you can already buy ammo at a store without a background check what does banning online sales actually do?

in CA (my state of residency, I just finished college and am not moving back) If i have legally bought a firearm in the past 5 years or i have had my background check for ammo/firearms, its a $1 fee for them to look up my DL number and then i just pay for the ammo, its not a $20 FFL fee every time, the gun shops typically charge about $0.50/box of ammo as a fee for them, which i am okay paying, it typically comes out to about $3 each time i have ordered, but i am also not ordering in large quantities and I also reload for my wildcat cartridges.
 
in CA (my state of residency, I just finished college and am not moving back) If i have legally bought a firearm in the past 5 years or i have had my background check for ammo/firearms, its a $1 fee for them to look up my DL number and then i just pay for the ammo, its not a $20 FFL fee every time, the gun shops typically charge about $0.50/box of ammo as a fee for them, which i am okay paying, it typically comes out to about $3 each time i have ordered, but i am also not ordering in large quantities and I also reload for my wildcat cartridges.

Do you order ammo that stores don’t carry, ie it’s one thing if a store carries Nosler and you ask them to order some Noslers they don’t carry, but what if I want some woodleigh or hammer bullets? $1 or $20?
 
I think you should rethink your thought on California and how many really “fussed” about it. It is still a big deal that a lot of gun owners are not happy about. You say 10 minutes out of your way, Im Not Sure if you know very much about California but not everyone lives in a city that is 5 mins away from a gun store. Also do you understand that the gun store you go to to order your ammo especially when it’s something they don’t stock will mark it up? They aren’t going to do the transaction for free. Were u also aware of the new background check in California and how it is actually done to keep people from buying ammo? Not trying to be an a** but I don’t think you have all the details about California and the new hoops we have to jump through to buy ammo.
i mean, i am a california resident so there's that........ i grew up in a super liberal town east of Los Angeles, I could drive either 5 miles east or 10 miles west to a gun shop. I am home visiting family right now, and just bought some shotgun ammo this past friday to go shoot with my dad and grandfather on sunday. additionally, the process to become an FFL is not much. my uncle who lives in northern california has his, and it was about 1 hour of paperwork and the $200 fee for 3 years. he says "its a tax i essentially pay so i can buy guns and not have to pay a fee every time i do".

It varies area to area, but in both my hometown and where i live now, there is an ffl within 5 miles.
 
Do you order ammo that stores don’t carry, ie it’s one thing if a store carries Nosler and you ask them to order some Noslers they don’t carry, but what if I want some woodleigh or hammer bullets? $1 or $20?
after you have your initial background check its $1 every time. I have ordered stuff from midway and budsgunshop and had it shipped to an ffl, they just charged me a fee per box, and they told me if i ordered over 20 boxes, the fee would just max out at $10
 
Some of the more knowledgeable members may be able to address this better, but I recall reading that prior to the confirmation of Clarence Thomas SCOTUS appointments were mostly noncontroversial.

Confirmation votes often had a powerful majority, instead of the party line stuff we see now. I'm not sure if that is because we're fed so much partisanship these days, or if previous SCOTUS appointments were more moderate/ less controversial though.
That's how I remember things too, but I was in my 20's when CT was confirmed so I can't recall that many details of those who came before.

The 90's are when politics really became so partisan in this country. I remember Reagan ratcheting up the partisan rhetoric in the 80's, but once Clinton was elected, him and Newt really took it to a whole new level, and off we went down the road we're on now. One can point fingers at who started it (or which side) but it takes two to tango which is why I feel both parties are equally culpable for the mess we have today.
 
Well, the partisan selection process for SC justices is why I asked the question. Maybe it's better that we just elect them ourselves instead of allowing our highly partisan (by necessity) elected "representatives" to do it for us?

Just a question really. Not sure why we elect 2/3 of our gov't and not 3/3rds. Maybe so they don't have to run a campaign? I dunno. I don't study this stuff tho.
While rife with its own problems I am sure, I like the "common sense" of the 15 judge court where the dems get 5 without question, the GOP gets 5 without question and the 10 partisans pick 5 more. (if you like 9 judges, just make it 3:3:3) Add to that a minimum age of 45, mandatory retirement at 75.
 
While rife with its own problems I am sure, I like the "common sense" of the 15 judge court where the dems get 5 without question, the GOP gets 5 without question and the 10 partisans pick 5 more. (if you like 9 judges, just make it 3:3:3) Add to that a minimum age of 45, mandatory retirement at 75.

... effective maybe

Though certainly not as satisfying as Pelosi, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, AOC, Trump, and Mcconnell having to have a sleep over together until they can agree on something.
 
While rife with its own problems I am sure, I like the "common sense" of the 15 judge court where the dems get 5 without question, the GOP gets 5 without question and the 10 partisans pick 5 more. (if you like 9 judges, just make it 3:3:3) Add to that a minimum age of 45, mandatory retirement at 75.

I like that. I love my grandparents, but at their age I wouldn't let them raise my kids, let alone . . . .
 
... effective maybe

Though certainly not as satisfying as Pelosi, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, AOC, Trump, and Mcconnell having to have a sleep over together until they can agree on something.

Throw in a bottle of jack and a revolver with 1 bullet you could live stream that on pay per view..
 
Perhaps. It's really hard to know what they meant from the language. I do wish it was more clear and not so open to interpretation.
It's not so hard to understand the second amendment, what is it about "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? You should save yourself a lot of time and anguish and turn in your guns now and beat the rush.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,682
Messages
2,029,570
Members
36,283
Latest member
dmaymon
Back
Top