Humor sure makes the little moderating edits easier to take.

Thanks,

and thanks to M Godwin. I will use that one myself.

Well, let's try to keep this on track. The Constitution is rather deliberately open-ended, and the basic issues here have nothing to do with the "right to buy" anything in particular.

I'd also like to point out that I can come up with a rather long list of things that I buy that require me to provide ID:

1. Homes
2. Automobiles (well, really almost any motor vehicle that I plan to drive on a public road)
3. Certain medications
4. Explosives and certain fireworks
5. Mobile Telephone Service
6. Most Hotels

I'm sure I'm missing a lot.

The real issue here is that there's ample precedent for one state to ban the sale of X, Y or Z where it is legal in another state. Heck, I can't buy "good" fireworks here in PA, but there's a store right on the border - on the PA side - that will sell "good" fireworks to anyone who shows an out-of-state ID.

Severe ammunition restrictions are the nuclear option for those who would prefer to not have an armed populace.

That said - let us consider for a moment some of the more reasoned elements of the law.

First, is restricting physical access to ammo. Yeah, yeah, I know, reconstructing the store and all that. YOU are not a shoplifter. YOU are not likely to have stolen guns. YOU pay hard earned money for your guns and ammo. YOU are not the problem.

However, YOU are affected by the folks who can - and will - attempt to slip a box of ammo into a pocket because they are the kind of people who would do that. YOU are affected by the kinds of people who would shoot into a crowd just trying to hit the one person who did them wrong in a drug deal. YOU are affected by these people who might have gained access to a stolen gun but no ammo. Yes, it's criminalizing all of us, and yes, for people like ToddW, it's a major hardship. However, there has to be some means of managing the irresponsible, the dangerous, the (dare I say) Immoral access to firearms and ammunition by some people. It's an over-reaching law, by a lot, however, I can see the emotions that led to it and why it passed.

I would politely disagree, it's entirely about one of the most basic issues in the constitution. It's not about a "right to buy" it's about the right to bear.

There is a specific constitutional amendment regarding the rights of the people to bear arms, some would argue that that right would include relatively unfettered access to ammunition.

There is no constitutional provision or amendment that addresses the peoples right to buy specific medications, fireworks, automobiles, homes, groceries, toys, etc. I would submit that if there was a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the people the right to own/buy pseudoephidrine and a state took it upon itself to aggressively moderate the people's ability to do so as this bill does with ammunition, that would then become a constitutional issue.

If a store is having it's inventory stolen, shouldn't the steps taken to alleviate that be their responsibility, not the government's?

There is nothing in the written versions of this bill that addresses shoplifting that I've seen. There is nothing in it that addresses the issue of stolen ammunition being a problem in the first place. One might assume that if having ammunition stolen were such a problem that the retailers would take the steps they felt necessary to try and stop it themselves. The fact that a lot of stores have ammunition sitting on shelves accessible to the public leads me to think that having it stolen isn't a major concern. If the bill in question was about helping to stop the theft of ammunition, why then is it limited to ammunition used in pistols? Seems to me that if a person was of a mind to steal ammunition in the first place, they'd steal whatever they can get their hands on. I'd submit that using the theft of ammunition as a reason why this bill is important is an attempt to throw sand in the bulls eyes, as I think Plato said of rhetoric.

Until that argument goes all the way to the Supreme court, you'll have stuff like this going on.



OK, without "sand in the eyes" and all that, let me take you through the thinking of this legislation. I don't like it at all, however, I do have the ability to see more than one side to an argument - it helps you understand why and how to disagree if you fully understand what the other argument is all about.


Let's assume three things.
1) You have a non-law abiding citizen who has a gun. OK, they are a criminal, we know that and they should not have the gun in the first place. See sentence one.

2) Let's also assume that you have a place with a quantity of ammunition suitable for a variety of weapons of many kinds. Let's call this place a gun shop, but it could be a Wal-Mart or a bait shop, depending on where you are in the USA.

3) Let's assume that this non-law abiding person has access to ample quantities of cash, from any number of sources, none legal.

Now, when you or I buy a gun, we fill out the form, we do the background check, and we get our gun. No big deal. I do it all the time.
Every year, there's a list of ding-dongs who have criminal records who get caught with this trivial step. I find the whole process a little silly, but what it does it it keeps those who definitely can't buy a gun (legally) out of the stores (and onto the streets, which is a whole bigger issue that we should not take up here).

Now the same guy comes into the store, a place where if he was to try to buy any guns, he'd trip the background check...but he wants to buy 1,000 rounds of .45 ACP. Forget stealing it - he wants to buy it. What, exactly, does a guy who is not legally able to own or handle a gun need 1,000 rounds of ammo for?

And that's the path of reasoning that led to this law.

Now, the problem is, of course, that they really aren't concerned in the least with people who are legally buying ammo for their hobby, for their club, or for their personal self-defense.

While this is a defective law, the logic behind it is consistent.

There must be better ways to get to the same ends - reducing ammo getting to people who should not need it.