Friday, May 29, 2009

You have an individual right to guns, but nobody said anything about ammunition.

The Liberty Belles have a post up reporting that there are bills in both California and New York to require more state scrutiny of ammunition sales. In New York, dealers would be required to take note of the amount and caliber of ammunition purchased. I assume that if a person purchases a caliber for a gun he has not registered, he can expect a knock on the door. In California, quoting the Belles:

In California, AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a "handgun ammunition vendor" in the Department of Justice's database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.
I have been to classes and matches that required at least 100 rounds of ammunition to complete. Classes in advanced technique require much more. Don't these people ever think, or ask questions of those they hope to regulate? But all that is beside the point. The truth is that a criminal will not generally be bound by laws which limit you and me. What is to prevent someone from stealing someone else's identity and buying 50 rounds from several stores, or simply stealing the ammunition? After all, if someone is bent on a crime which may involve murder, what's an additional charge? Clearly this is not about preventing crime, as if the State really cares about the safety and peace of mind of ordinary citizens. Instead, this is about controlling the ordinary citizen, so the State can continue to rape and pillage the property of ordinary citizens. The theory the gun grabbers are now working under is that you may have an individual right to guns, but nobody said anything about ammunition. At the rate the Supremes have moved, it will be another 100 years before they deign to pronounce on the obvious.

No comments:

Post a Comment