Ammunition Bill Details

Can be found at NJ Today, in what sounds more like a joint press release from the gun control groups than actual reporting:

  1. It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer.
  2. It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.
  3. It requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.
  4. It requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days.

My answer to our opponents on this bill is hell no. We will fight this tooth and nail. We must ensure this bill goes absolutely nowhere.

21 thoughts on “Ammunition Bill Details”

  1. I do have to credit them with their creativity. It’s almost like they figured that if they pile on with more paperwork and regulations on top of everything they already to have to keep as firearms dealers and small business owners, they can just drive them out of business with compliance costs.

    However, in that article, the NJ Million Moms declared that no one should oppose this just because they like it. Clearly, having a dissenting opinion is just not acceptable.

      1. There’s a woman who claims to represent a million moms of Jersey. Whether it exists beyond her is left to question, but she claims a title.

  2. “It requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days.”

    So if I stop by wallyworld and grab a couple bricks of Fed Bulk .22lr, I end up on some list?

    What’s stopping me from buying 1 brick there and another at chain store or gun shop?

    For that to work, it would be a gargantuan sized database of immeasurable expense. Not to burden the public with this, I expect a new ammo tax will be proposed to cover it.

    1. We’ll have to see the actual bill to know how it would supposedly “work.” Based on what they said in the release, it sounds like there’s nothing wrong with you buying bricks from different stores and that you wouldn’t go into a database if you did it at different stores. However, a licensed dealer would have to comb through their records of the last week to make sure you hadn’t already bought some at their store and put yourself over the limit. To me, it sounds like self-reporting sales which would only apply to what is sold within the store. It’s not clear what would happen with a store like Wal-Mart or even the sporting goods stores – if they have to combine all the records from all the stores and have someone filter them or if it would just apply to each individual location.

      Or, it could be that it creates a massive new database with some government bureaucrat assigned to pull in reports from different stores and see if you go over the limit. Afterall, then they can call it a “jobs” bill that the GOP refuses to pass. :)

      1. If you’ve read some of the debate over the Arms Trade Treaty and the official US position, it certainly was at odds with Lautenberg’s bill. The US opposed including ammunition in the ATT because the record keeping would be so cumbersome and unwieldy. Did I mention expensive? Someone ought to remind Lautenberg, McCarthy, and the rest of this.

  3. This should be fought against, tooth and nail.

    –But if they get it rammed through? NEVER buy less than 1500 rounds at a time. Let’s all get on the list, and swamp it in names. “We’re here, we’re armed, get used to it.”

  4. Folks tend to forget that we had to fill out Federal paperwork for nearly all ammunition purchased between 1968 and 1986. At the beginning, this even included rimfire ammunition, but this requirement was quickly ammended.

  5. Not. Gonna. Happen.

    At worst, this fuels our side to push the legislative and maybe-future executive to secure what we can every chance we get.

    It’s like gun sales going up 40% after Aurora, just because people figure they won’t be able to buy again later. It’s a complete reverse-feedback loop for the anti-gun crowd.

  6. My guess is that the record keeping requirement would be something like the feds did with the OTC pseudoephedrine law – scan your ID in a machine, and it’s uploaded to a database so they can instantly know if you try to buy more ammo at another location.

  7. This isn’t going anywhere, since it could be seen as a defacto gun registry and therefore politically a sure fire way to not get re-elected.

    1. Hyperbole aside, that’s a valid point. The people who are most likely to be disparately impacted by voter ID laws are also likely to be those living places where they’ll be most susceptible to violent crime. How is it okay to make it possible for them to arm themselves?

  8. I think the more immediate threat is Lautenberg’s amendment (SA 2575) to the Cybersecurity (SB 3414) that prohibits large capacity magazines. Doesn’t look like Reid has introduced it for consideration yet…

Comments are closed.