Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales

[Hilljackoutlaw]

This is right out of the playbook. I dont like it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Hunting laws aren’t made to appease PETA....and shouldn’t be

Exactly.

Though when I say solutions I don’t necessarily mean more firearm regulations. There are clearly broken laws that need to be reworked, and likely some thing that have nothing to do with firearms.
My point is these threads and conversations always end the same way.

 

[MO Betta]

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents, if it is worth that.

We already have systems in place for checks on commercial sale of firearms (NICS), and we've seen that fail. We've also seen how ridiculous further government regulations have become where allowed ("featureless" laws on scary black semi-auto rifles, pinning magazines, magazine capacity restrictions on pistols and rifles, restrictions on purchased ammunition quantity,"red flag" confiscation, etc.) We also have an agency that comes up with convoluted rules that can earn you time in prison if an agent determines that you didn't follow how they interpret their own rules, or interjects further burdens (stock on a rifle with a barrel length shorter than 16 inches, deciding a brace should actually be considered a stock, having a vertical grip on said rifle, the whole suppressor nonsense, etc.).

Ammunition is a consumable good, that requires a firearm to use. If you possess a firearm you're supposed to be an upstanding citizen who has already had a background check to ascertain if you're allowed to exercise that right (as long as the background check worked as it should have). Imposing background checks on ammunition introduces additional FFL fees, further hindering those who possess less wealth from exercising their rights. We have arguments that requiring a government issued photo ID to exercise the right to vote is an unjust expense to the lower class, but then turn around with a straight face and propose excessive fees on exercising another constitutional right? Banning the sale of ammunition online also hinders access for those looking to exercise their rights.

 

[shoots-straight]

I disagree with the premise of your question.

There are rules and limitations to the 1st amendment.
There are rules and limitations to the 2nd amendment

There are also responsibilities to go with both.

 

[MTGomer]

You mean like Ruby Ridge and Waco? I would say the Feds are 2-0 on this one.

Since news traveled slower and the news pretty much only had the government line fed to them on RR and Waco, didn’t the vast majority of the general public think that the Dividians at Waco and the Weavers were domestic terrorists/white supremacists, deserving of what happened and it wasn’t until afterwards that more was learned?

That is a question, not a statement. I was a toddler/child and remember none of it.

 

[LaSportsman]

Back to topic - I hate the extra government regulation this would entail and don't believe it would add anything to "gun safety". But it would not be the end of the world if you can have shipped to nearby FFL and if you are exempt if you live more than 25 miles from an FFL. But both 2A and Roe opponents have decided this is how the game is played - death by a hundred tiny restrictive regulatory papercuts until you can get the big SCOTUS win (if that ever comes).

At what FFL fee? I just paid $30 to my FFL to receive a rifle bought online. I would have gladly bought from our Sportsman but they didn't have it in stock and I didn't want to wait a few months when everyone's stock is going lower, not being replenished.

I have friends in CA and it's clear the goal is to run shops out of business and end all access to ammo. A CA resident can't legally drive to AZ and bring ammo home either (maybe two boxes?) Yuma will benefit come dove season because the CA hunters will buy ammo once they get here.

I'm lucky that our local Sportsman has a pretty wide selection of ammo but I've been to all of the Sportsmans, Bass Pro, and Cabellas in the Phoenix/Tucson area and we actually have a better variety of ammo, although not necessarily as deep of stock. Many Americans have no local source other than Walmart and who knows when they'll cave to pressure to remove guns and ammo.

EDIT: I have no problem with the $30 FFL fee on a rifle but a fee on top of ammo would get pricey in a hurry.

 

[MTGomer]

I don’t really believe in federal government control at any level.
I can’t think of any laws regarding guns that should exist in exactly the same way in downtown Manhattan, as they do on a ranch 27 miles down a dirt road outside of an eastern Montana town at 120 people.
I think repealing the NFA, abolishing the ATF, and being able to purchase belt fed machine guns behind Walmart from strangers from the Internet, for cash, sounds like the goddamnest American thing you could do and you should be able to do it.
Going on the offensive for
that sounds way better than playing defense hoping we can still buy some elk cartridges from Midway. Where’s the NRA? Oh, that’s right. They are blowing my membership on a $600 tie for LaPierre.

 

[LuketheDog]

I too shy away from political debates but wholeheartedly agree. The candidates we have today are certainly far from the best that this country has to offer. Unfortunately, they way things are now, every candidate's entire life is put under a microscope and even the slightest impropriety is put out for all the world to see and used as leverage and/or shame. I can't imagine going through that level of scrutiny and putting my friends and family through it too.

Exactly. Even if you're the nicest, most upstanding person in the country, there is a party on the national stage that will work tirelessly to turn you into the scum of the earth. I don't like Trump as a person, but I'd love to play a round of golf with the guy just to ask him why on earth he decided to subject himself to that. I can understand career politicians like Biden or Hillary aiming for nothing short of the top office, but I just can't comprehend why a person with a career outside of politics would bother with the drama.

 

[geetar]

I don’t really believe in federal government control at any level.
I can’t think of any laws regarding guns that should exist in exactly the same way in downtown Manhattan, as they do on a ranch 27 miles down a dirt road outside of an eastern Montana town at 120 people.
I think repealing the NFA, abolishing the ATF, and being able to purchase belt fed machine guns behind Walmart from strangers from the Internet, for cash, sounds like the goddamnest American thing you could do and you should be able to do it.
Going on the offensive for
that sounds way better than playing defense hoping we can still buy some elk cartridges from Midway. Where’s the NRA? Oh, that’s right. They are blowing my membership on a $600 tie for LaPierre.

I let my membership run out because I got tired of recorded fundraising calls for his tie fund. My money is better spent in other organizations these days. I agree on the offensive take though. I think it’s too passive to sit around and see what happens to our rights.

 

[Nick87]

I let my membership run out because I got tired of recorded fundraising calls for his tie fund. My money is better spent in other organizations these days. I agree on the offensive take though. I think it’s too passive to sit around and see what happens to our rights.

This

 

[VikingsGuy]

Before you give the feds the victory on Ruby Ridge, you should watch this well done documentary.

Ruby Ridge | American Experience | PBS

A riveting account of the event that helped give rise to the modern American militia movement.

www.pbs.org

Settlement award to the family, was not a "win" either.

Ruby Ridge: 20 years later, Randy Weaver's daughter lives in peace

Sara Weaver said she is devastated each time someone commits a violent act in the name of Ruby Ridge. "It killed me inside," she said of the Oklahoma City bombing. "I knew what it was like to lose a family member in violence. I wouldn't wish that on anyone."

www.pennlive.com

Let me know if this changes some of your concieved bias about this event, or not.

I have No position on the the event itself - its causes or resolution. I was referring to the odds of individuals throwing lead at at militarized police force. And with that lens the feds “won”.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I let my membership run out because I got tired of recorded fundraising calls for his tie fund. My money is better spent in other organizations these days. I agree on the offensive take though. I think it’s too passive to sit around and see what happens to our rights.

Any suggestion for a better 2A group to donate to? The NRA leadership has jumped the shark.

 

[Lyfter1013]

To the guys here who think we should “compromise” or give a little so they don’t take a lot mentality that simply does not work... the individuals who want to push gun control do not stop! I really wish everyone would look at what has happened in California and understand this. They started out with calling for “common sense” gun laws, and added to that then they added some more.. now it is to the point Where most handguns cannot be purchased in California because they aren’t on the approved list! Most people believe that only handguns with magazine capacity over 10 are on this list but that is not the case. Seriously take 10 mins out of your day to look into this. You will then understand why there should be no ground given and we should stand our ground on gun control.
Anyone who thinks anti gun groups will stop if you give a little should look at what’s happened in California and understand what they want.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Every person I know that obtained their concealed carry permit absolutely loves it. Obviously they are allowed to carry in public, but it also makes the process of buying a new firearm WAY quicker. Is a CCP not a form of "gun control," limiting those who want a concealed carry in non-carry states? In my opinion it works great, and could see the same thing with AR's, if anything it validates your stance in the public eye.

 

[Nick87]

Every person I know that obtained their concealed carry permit absolutely loves it. Obviously they are allowed to carry in public, but it also makes the process of buying a new firearm WAY quicker. Is a CCP not a form of "gun control," limiting those who want a concealed carry in non-carry states? In my opinion it works great, and could see the same thing with AR's, if anything it validates your stance in the public eye.

I wish it sped up the process here. 36 hour waiting period regardless if its handgun/rifle/shotgun.

 

[Nick87]

Not being able to order online would be bs. I try to spend my money local whenever possible but there isnt always the option depending on what your looking for or you make the 40 minute drive only to find they've sold the last two boxes you were coming for.

 

[Doublegunner]

I generally don't post on political issues but will on this one as I think we are near a crossroads regarding the second amendment. I am really looking at the US Supreme Court when I say we are at a crossroads. The current makeup of the court is 4 justices, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appear to support the 2nd Amendment and want the court to take cases to define it for the lower courts. 4 justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg hold a view that the 2nd amendment is a right held to the government and not the individual. Chief Justice Roberts appears to be in the middle on this issue. He did side with the majority in Heller and McDonald but hasn't seemed to want to take any other cases that have come before the court except the New York case that was recently shot down because the city successfully mooted the issue.

Some of you may know that the Supreme Court regularly reviews cases to determine whether they will issue Certiorari to actually hear a case. Recently the court had about 10 second amendment cases on their consideration list held over from past conferences that they considered recently. All of them were denied Cert. I found that disappointing as the court has given us very few opinions regarding the Second Amendment over the years and several of the cases had real merit and issues that needed to be decided, The New Jersey case was one of the best of the bunch. It's really surprising given how contentious this topic is in society and the fact that the lower courts are all over the place on this issue. We had Heller about 10 years ago that asserted the Second Amendment was a individual right and McDonald that applied that assertion to the States. Prior to that I believe it was the Miller case in the 20's or 30's. That's about it. It only takes four justices to take a case so either side could pull any of those cases for a hearing. It appears that neither will because they don't know how Roberts will land on the issue and I suspect that neither wants to risk it.

if you look at the current makeup of the court Breyer and Ginsburg are in their 80's. Ginsburg has had a rash of health problems in the last couple of years and I don't see her staying on the bench that much longer given her health issues. It's a little less clear with Breyer. Whether you like Trump or not he has been a friend to gun owners in a bigger way than many realize given his choices for judicial appointments to the bench. That includes the US Supreme Court and lower courts. I think that the courts are where we will see the tide turn related to the unfettered gun regulation playing out in many areas of the country. If Trump gets a second term I think you will see possibly two more Supreme Court justices appointed and a solid 2nd amendment majority that will take some of these cases and start defining that right for the lower courts to apply. I think you will also see many lower court judges that are pro Second Amendment appointed that can hit the issue at the ground level. This is all true if the Republicans can keep the Senate and Mitch McConnell keeps on running those appointments through. If Biden gets elected I think we will maintain this stalemate for at least another 10-15 years or so as he will appoint judges and justices that don't support the second amendment. So whether you like Trump or not you should vote for him if you value your second amendment rights.

 

[asdew1880]

I generally don't post on political issues but will on this one as I think we are near a crossroads regarding the second amendment. I am really looking at the US Supreme Court when I say we are at a crossroads. The current makeup of the court is 4 justices, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appear to support the 2nd Amendment and want the court to take cases to define it for the lower courts. 4 justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg hold a view that the 2nd amendment is a right held to the government and not the individual. Chief Justice Roberts appears to be in the middle on this issue. He did side with the majority in Heller and McDonald but hasn't seemed to want to take any other cases that have come before the court except the New York case that was recently shot down because the city successfully mooted the issue.

Some of you may know that the Supreme Court regularly reviews cases to determine whether they will issue Certiorari to actually hear a case. Recently the court had about 10 second amendment cases on their consideration list held over from past conferences that they considered recently. All of them were denied Cert. I found that disappointing as the court has given us very few opinions regarding the Second Amendment over the years and several of the cases had real merit and issues that needed to be decided, The New Jersey case was one of the best of the bunch. It's really surprising given how contentious this topic is in society and the fact that the lower courts are all over the place on this issue. We had Heller about 10 years ago that asserted the Second Amendment was a individual right and McDonald that applied that assertion to the States. Prior to that I believe it was the Miller case in the 20's or 30's. That's about it. It only takes four justices to take a case so either side could pull any of those cases for a hearing. It appears that neither will because they don't know how Roberts will land on the issue and I suspect that neither wants to risk it.

if you look at the current makeup of the court Breyer and Ginsburg are in their 80's. Ginsburg has had a rash of health problems in the last couple of years and I don't see her staying on the bench that much longer given her health issues. It's a little less clear with Breyer. Whether you like Trump or not he has been a friend to gun owners in a bigger way than many realize given his choices for judicial appointments to the bench. That includes the US Supreme Court and lower courts. I think that the courts are where we will see the tide turn related to the unfettered gun regulation playing out in many areas of the country. If Trump gets a second term I think you will see possibly two more Supreme Court justices appointed and a solid 2nd amendment majority that will take some of these cases and start defining that right for the lower courts to apply. I think you will also see many lower court judges that are pro Second Amendment appointed that can hit the issue at the ground level. This is all true if the Republicans can keep the Senate and Mitch McConnell keeps on running those appointments through. If Biden gets elected I think we will maintain this stalemate for at least another 10-15 years or so as he will appoint judges and justices that don't support the second amendment. So whether you like Trump or not you should vote for him if you value your second amendment rights.

That's really interesting, thanks for the post.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I generally don't post on political issues but will on this one as I think we are near a crossroads regarding the second amendment. I am really looking at the US Supreme Court when I say we are at a crossroads. The current makeup of the court is 4 justices, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appear to support the 2nd Amendment and want the court to take cases to define it for the lower courts. 4 justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg hold a view that the 2nd amendment is a right held to the government and not the individual. Chief Justice Roberts appears to be in the middle on this issue. He did side with the majority in Heller and McDonald but hasn't seemed to want to take any other cases that have come before the court except the New York case that was recently shot down because the city successfully mooted the issue.

Some of you may know that the Supreme Court regularly reviews cases to determine whether they will issue Certiorari to actually hear a case. Recently the court had about 10 second amendment cases on their consideration list held over from past conferences that they considered recently. All of them were denied Cert. I found that disappointing as the court has given us very few opinions regarding the Second Amendment over the years and several of the cases had real merit and issues that needed to be decided, The New Jersey case was one of the best of the bunch. It's really surprising given how contentious this topic is in society and the fact that the lower courts are all over the place on this issue. We had Heller about 10 years ago that asserted the Second Amendment was a individual right and McDonald that applied that assertion to the States. Prior to that I believe it was the Miller case in the 20's or 30's. That's about it. It only takes four justices to take a case so either side could pull any of those cases for a hearing. It appears that neither will because they don't know how Roberts will land on the issue and I suspect that neither wants to risk it.

if you look at the current makeup of the court Breyer and Ginsburg are in their 80's. Ginsburg has had a rash of health problems in the last couple of years and I don't see her staying on the bench that much longer given her health issues. It's a little less clear with Breyer. Whether you like Trump or not he has been a friend to gun owners in a bigger way than many realize given his choices for judicial appointments to the bench. That includes the US Supreme Court and lower courts. I think that the courts are where we will see the tide turn related to the unfettered gun regulation playing out in many areas of the country. If Trump gets a second term I think you will see possibly two more Supreme Court justices appointed and a solid 2nd amendment majority that will take some of these cases and start defining that right for the lower courts to apply. I think you will also see many lower court judges that are pro Second Amendment appointed that can hit the issue at the ground level. This is all true if the Republicans can keep the Senate and Mitch McConnell keeps on running those appointments through. If Biden gets elected I think we will maintain this stalemate for at least another 10-15 years or so as he will appoint judges and justices that don't support the second amendment.

A good summary. No doubt Heller is one vote from disappearing.

 

[Sytes]

If Biden gets elected I think we will maintain this stalemate for at least another 10-15 years or so as he will appoint judges and justices that don't support the second amendment. So whether you like Trump or not you should vote for him if you value your second amendment rights.

Enjoyed your post.
One portion I differ with our opinions, I like the make-up of our SCOTUS.
I like Chief Justice Roberts at the helm. I like the 4 4 division.
I'm not a fan of Biden, though I wouldn't mind seeing the SCOTUS maintain the current setting. I would be a bit concerned to see our SCOTUS heavily slant one way or the other... That kinda spooks me.

I would rather Republicans hold the executive branch come 2020. Would love to see Trump step off the train. He's a joke though rather see him over Biden. That may flip SCOTUS... Ugh!

Sick...