Gun control

khalid_sl said:

Well, considering the previous ruling, pretty clear no ban on ammunition would stand up in court. Still, not worth going through the legal bullshit to "prove" that.

Click to expand...

I'd agree it's likely just a matter of when that part gets adjusted as well - but doesn't stop POSSIBLY getting in trouble in the interim.

Vaclav_sl said:

I'd agree it's likely just a matter of when that part gets adjusted as well - but doesn't stop POSSIBLY getting in trouble in the interim.

Click to expand...

I don't know I'm no legal expert. However I'm old and remember well the Brady bill, the assault weapon ban, the starting of the background checks and there was huge talk of guns being protected by the 2nd amendment, but lots of talks from legislators saying that didn't apply to ammunition and they were trying to go after that and limit the amount you could buy and restrict sales of components etc...

Well they may or may not do that again in the future. It didn't come to pass but, but the upside is 25 years ago I really started putting the ammo and reloading components away. So while people were going crazy and spending stupid amounts of money for .22 ammo I'm proud to say I have enough on hand for at least myself, my kids, their kids, and my great grandkids plus whatever else.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

Nope nothing about the printed word - that press means bench presses.

Big Phoenix_sl said:

Dont you love how idiotic and fucking stupid law is? Stupid idiots think so highly of themselves yet reduced to childish antics and runaround bullshit.

Theyve already tried the ammo route, the whole lead ammo being an environmental problem.

Click to expand...

Don't laugh. The banning of all lead shotgun ammo is having a big push. Currently it's only mandated for migratory birds in the US. Having a wildlife management degree I saw the data collected to come out with the lead ban and it was pretty much a joke. At the levels used in the study a bird would have to eat 20+ years of the levels they were receiving in the worst case. They also took samples of mud and counted the lead as far down as they could measure the lead and used that as the base for the bottom of the wetland/water area. So even if the lead was 4' down it counted as bottom lead. They also basically took a few camples from Calcaseiu Parish LA which had a mud bottom and used it to model it as the "norm" for the rest of the US. Only problem is Calcaseiu Parish LA has the highest waterfowl harvesting rate of any county/parish in the US and is also the highest in the MS flyaway. It's also home to huge commercial hunting operations where the waterfowl are hunted hard for the entire 60 day season by very large groups commercial groups paying for rights/access etc...There's a reason a duck blind there can cost between $20k and $50k a year and in some extreme cases that's the fee for one person in a blind. So let's take those few samples and use that as a norm for the entire US. Makes sense right?

Anyway there's still a big push for the general outlawing of lead ammo for hunting in general. With the advet of the Barnes solid copper bullet used in big game hunting it's getting a bigger push. I know CA has been complaining about wanting to ban all lead because it kills the condors or whatever.

So apparently AK's got banned from import.

Ignatius_sl said:

So apparently AK's got banned from import.

Click to expand...

In the end it won't really matter. There's a lot of good US manufacturers these days for AK's. Just the government's way of going Russia another middle finger. I am pissed however about the ban of 7N6 import. Hopefully Wolf ups their production of 5.45x39.

Big P: I said it's a matter of time for a reason. No doubt once reviewed it will get fixed. But right now there's a CHANCE that technicality could hurt someone. Hell, I was quoting a gun advocate saying the same.

Hoss_sl said:

The amendment doesn't say the right of the people to keep and bear guns. It says arms, and I'm pretty sure ammunition is included in the classical definition of "Arms". I don't know if the SCOTUS has ever heard an argument about that or ruled on it, but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

Click to expand...

I didn't want to take any chances.

I told several people during the assault weapon ban and several of the recent panics that a lot of people were going to find they were gun rich and ammo poor. At least when it came to .22 ammo I turned out to be correct.