"Ammunition Control" proposed


#1

Look for the Obama administration takes up “ammunition control” as part of their varied gun control schemes being rolled out.

The former head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission has raised the issue in the Washington Post op-ed piece. She laments that Congress specifically prohibited CPSC from regulating lead in ammunition under various pretenses, and outlines several approaches that could be taken to restrict sales or purchase or possession of ammunition. Congress prohibited that, but never underestimate Obama’s eagerness to use his pen and phone to do what he wants anyway.

Yes, it all sounds silly and impossible to pass. But, she points out several other issues (gay marriage, etc) which seemed silly and impossible but within about 10 years became law.

Take these people seriously when they come up with these idiotic schemes. And, never underestimate the eagerness of the news media to trumpet misinformation and outright lies, or the stupidity of American politicians or voters to fall for these things as “common sense solutions” and be passed.

They will include cartridge collectors just as if they are potential mass-murders with whatever schemes they devise, probably incrementally tightening restrictions when initial efforts have no effect. (And, CDC studies have shown that none of the various gun control schemes have ever actually reduced gun violence.)

Read it and ponder. She is talking about you and your hobby!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-should-regulate-bullets/2016/01/06/62de9322-b3dc-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html


#2

The woman’s claims are absurd of course, and the article full of lies & exaggeration - but I would simply add that the mandate of the CPSC does not allow it to regulate things which are already specifically regulated by other government agencies - such as drugs are regulated by the FDA, and firearms are the BATFE. Not that this would stop them, and I’m sure Ann Brown would argue that ammunition is not “firearms”, but then the ATF claims uncontested pervue over various other non firearms such as auto-sears, silencers, and destructive device components. This is important since under an anti-gun administration, the ATF head (Treasury Secretary) would surely not make an issue out of anything like this, but if a pro-gun administration took office next January, then the Treasury head could be replaced that day and make a huge stink & delay for any ammunition action taken by the 5 CPSC commissioners whose terms are 7 years long, and staggered - which will expire gradually from 2017 to 2021 (all Obama appointees). So needless to say, we need a strong pro-gun person as our next Treasury Secretary to prevent ammunition restrictions hitting collectors via the wildly unchecked & unaccountable CPSC.


#3

As usual I am not the one to comment and sorry for interfering in a duscussion about foreign (perspective/proposed) legislation.
But what is the average number of rounds fired at mass shootings on US soil? Like 50? And in the worst scenario maybe 100?
What will a possible restriction then be about? In any case a resticted qty. will be above the figures known from mass shootings.
Right, it seems the people proposing such things are not acting on the basis of any knowledge or even kommon sense. And as usual also not in the sense of the polulation.
The question is not how many rounds an individual can own but who that individual is. Even a single bullet owned is too much when it has my name on it but the problem is not the bullet but the one who wrote my name on it.
Just my 2 unqualified cent.


#4

Alex - the issue with the CPSC is about regulating lead (as a toxin) with regard to ammunition. It is viewed as a roundabout way to restrict guns/ammo by targeting the most common and most superfluous projectiles types, since they are mostly lead containing. This would be for sales of such ammo after a certain date, and not pre-existing ammo which was already owned. Of course however, there are now countless lead-free projectiles in the form of solid copper, bismuth, and frangibles - so the issue is somewhat moot, but still outrageous.


#5

Matt, ok, got it. So they just want to use it as a vehicle (or one of the many)?
I wish you good luck in the US with fighting against such proposals.


#6

On the topic of “bullet control”…

brooklyneagle.com/articles/2 … -statewide

I would just laugh and shake my head if New York had not suffered the recent middle-of-the-night passage of the infamous “SAFE” act.

Note the intent of this would require some level of firearm registration to declare what amount of rationed ammunition you would be allowed and that you can’t buy ammunition for any firearm you can’t legally own.

Dave