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.