Off topic: Ammo Control

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
06/16/2016 at 19:11 • Filed to: None

Trigger warning: Politics after the jump. Enjoy the gunmetal GT-R.

Why isn’t ammo tracked like sudafed is in meth-heavy states?

It well understood that the only legal civilian uses of a firearm are for hunting firing ranges, and self defense.

Imagine if people are allowed to own a certain amount of ammo for self defense (say, 10 rounds), and you would only be able to buy more if you had a filed police report that your gun was fired in self defense. No police report? Not allowed to buy more ammo. Expired or damaged ammo could be turned in for replacements if the powder was present and undamaged/unfired.

Hunting and gun ranges should provide ammo but not let you take any with you when you leave. Hunting is not a right, for 99.9% of society it’s a luxury afforded as either recreation or the necessary cost of living on the fringes/outskirts of society too far from civilization.

DISCUSSION (51)

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:21

Because 10 rounds isn’t always enough for self defense. Quite often, at least where I’m from, people break in in groups. Per a police officer, one round doesn’t always work if they are strung out on meth. You also may miss the first time. Also, it’s not the gun or ammo, it’s the person. 9/10 mass shooters had tons of red flags. Background checks is one solution.

GhostZ > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
06/16/2016 at 19:24

There has to be a middle ground between “enough to shoot a home invader” and “mass shooting” quantities of ammo. It would be interesting to see how many shots actually do get fired in self defense cases.

I’m not saying ammo is the problem, but when it comes to identifying criminal behavior in advance, tracking ammo seems a whole lot more bang for your buck than banning guns or installing background checks. Just like how they track gang violence through drugs and money laundering instead of violent offenders.

Sudafed is good. Anyone buying it weekly or in bulk quantities is not planning on having a cold. Ammo is good. Anyone buying bulk quantities of handgun/rifle ammo for use outside of a gun range is not realistically planning on fighting off an armed militia of home invaders.

If anything it seems like limiting individual ammo purchases such that criminals have to get them directly from the manufacturer, manufacture their own illegally, or organize in large groups to invade someone’s home would provide far more red flags of intended criminal behavior than tracking gun purchases.

Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:28

Eh, I’d say magazine size is more important. Additionally, a lot of people don’t go to ranges to shoot. Lastly, this limit would be an issue for basically all bird hunting.

However, I am in favor of tracking ammo sales, and “serialized brass”. If your ammo shows up somewhere it shouldn’t be, you’re in trouble. You’d have to report stolen ammo.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:28

Fair enough, but some people do have private land that they shoot at. A lot of people actually. Location needs to be a factor as well.

GhostZ > Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch
06/16/2016 at 19:33

Yeah, the biggest problem I see is that it could cause overpopulation for open hunting areas where they couldn’t provide ammo.

I’m not sure how well serialized ammo would work, mostly because I don’t know what the additional cost in the manufacturing process would be. On top of that, wouldn’t criminals be able to simply shave off most serial numbers with a file?

GhostZ > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
06/16/2016 at 19:35

Private hunting grounds would have to be made legal entities that complied with the regulation. So if you had your own private land to hunt on, you’d have to have a legal entity distributing, collecting, and tracking ammo on-site to get a zoning permit to allow hunting there, with obvious liability to the owner of the entity if accounting standards are too lax.

Berang > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:36

If you want to drive a car, you have to take a test, get licensed, register your vehicle, and insure it to prove problems will be taken care of if you cause them.

Want to buy a gun? Don’t have to prove you know how to use it. Don’t have to register it*. Don’t have to prove you have any inkling of responsibility for it or anything you may do with it. And gun nuts act like it’s TOTALLY INSANE that they be responsible in any way whatsoever for their property or actions.

Seems kind of fucked to me. Don’t think ammo control would solve anything. You don’t need a lot of ammo to murder somebody. And I’m sure you could easily “borrow” more from many other gun owners if there were any sort of controls on how much one could buy.

All we really need is for people to be responsible for what they buy, and accountable for what they do with it, and not sell things to people who won’t/can’t be.

*rules may vary in your state.

Tekamul > Berang
06/16/2016 at 19:41

So much this.

How it’s easier to own and operate a gun than a car I’ll never understand.

Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:45

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Could you explain what you mean?

Also, I’m sure serial numbers could be made semi-difficult to remove.

TheHondaBro > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:45

NPR ran a story on this a few days ago.

The idea of banning assault weapons is a tricky area, because once you define an assault weapon, gun manufacturers make minor modifications to guns that would be considered assault weapons so that they won’t be classified as assault weapons.

Magazine limitation is a much better idea, since these people are normally detained while reloading.

LongbowMkII > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:45

I can reload my own shells if desired. Ammo control is silly.

GhostZ > Berang
06/16/2016 at 19:46

I would think ammo control would be a lot easier to enforce, because of how many guns are bought/sold illegally, imported from states with looser laws, or on the black market.

There’s very little you could do to prevent someone from murdering someone else. But you could definitely make it easier to flag people who might be committing violent crimes or using firearms illegally well in advance by tracking ammo, which you can’t really do by tracking gun sales.

Once a gun is sold, we have no way to tell if it’s going to be used legally and sensibly, or used completely illegally, other than the vague and nonstandard methods of background checks, and even those are only based on past behavior, not future behavior (which ammo sales would indicate).

Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:51

I don’t think an ammo limit like that would stand up to a Constitutional test. Not to say it wouldn’t prevent mass shootings (probably would), but like it or not the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, with few other stipulations. Any law limiting this is subject to the strictest scrutiny in that it has to be as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve a certain end, which the government has to prove that there is a public interest in achieving.

If the goal is reducing mass shootings, the trouble with ammo limitations is that any lawmaker or lawyer could hypothetically come up with a law to achieve this end that would be less restricting than outright ammo limits. e.g. more background checks, or any of the other ideas that have been proposed this week.

FWIW I also believe that the proposed banning of sales to people in the watch lists is unlikely to withstand a Supreme Court challenge, if it ever makes it there (which I also don’t think is likely).

Berang > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:53

I think it’d be rather harder to control ammo. On account that it is produced in huge quantities and it is disposable.

Guns on the other hand - sell them to people with licenses, and register them when they’re sold. Really the things should be insured when purchased too, so people have some good incentive to report when they get stolen or “lost”. I also think a waiting period should be mandatory in every state, most gun crime isn’t stuff that’s been planned out well in advance.

CCC (formerly CyclistCarCoexist) > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:54

It’s because special and elite interests have entrenched themselves so deeply into politics politicians dont really serve the people nowadays on both sides. NRA campaign finding combimed with small goverment ideals (with ironically big goverment ideals when it comes to social issues) make these issues become gridlock.

GhostZ > Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed
06/16/2016 at 19:55

My biggest issue with background checks is that they only track past behavior to try and predict future behavior, which isn’t a very strong set of assumptions, and it doesn’t prevent gun crime committed with black market guns. Ammo tracking both works on the black market AND flags for future behavior.

It doesn’t matter if you’ve been investigated before or are a squeaky-clean person with no history of crime, if you buy tons of ammo for a handgun and have never shot it in self defense, hunting, or at a shooting range, that’s not a good thing.

Unfortunately, I agree completely about how this would be very unlikely to be passed. A constitutional right to protect yourself with firearms doesn’t hold up in a world where firearms aren’t the major way to resolve conflict (lawsuits are) and where they aren’t necessary for feeding yourself. Likewise, land invasion is no longer a wartime threat to the US.

It might go against the letter of the constitution, but it’s not against the spirit.

GhostZ > CCC (formerly CyclistCarCoexist)
06/16/2016 at 19:58

I wonder if gun manufacturers make a higher profit margin on bullets, or guns, when selling to the public. I’d like to find that data.

Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 19:58

Predicting crime in this case would effectively mean depriving someone of a constitutional guarantee without due process and before they committed any crime, so you run into that issue.

GhostZ > Berang
06/16/2016 at 19:59

Tracking ammo might be more difficult but seems far more rewarding to me.

They are both tracked at the point-of-sale anyway, so the only thing making ammo tracking more difficult is that you have to account for shooting and hunting ranges.

Header 2

Header 3

Header 4

Small

Code

Pre

Slant6 > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 20:00

This is the only problem with your proposition. Hunting on private land is pretty common around me.

But you’re on the right track.

GhostZ > Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed
06/16/2016 at 20:00

They already do it with sudafed, so it’s not an issue there. Is it solely because we don’t have a “right to bear sudafed” in our constitution?

Berang > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 20:02

That’s the thing though, once it is sold it’s not really easy to track it if it changes hands again. A gun at least as a serial number, so if it is sold or stolen, and is found some place it shouldn’t be, there’s at least some clue about how it got there - and if it were registered and people were held accountable for their property, I think that’d take care of some problems.

GhostZ > Berang
06/16/2016 at 20:05

That’s why they track sudafed that way. If you’re making meth, you have to get it from multiple people and stores, which makes it a lot easier to track patterns in meth sales and identify where police need to start investigating, but without a total ban or waiting period.

Even with the best background checks and waiting periods, anyone with a clean history can still wait it out and then commit gun violence with no way of authorities being able to stop it in advance. Our system is designed to assume that only criminals and the mentally unstable commit future crimes.

Both are good things, but I feel like the reason ammo tracking isn’t done is more because of the revenue from selling ammo than the good the policies would do.

MountainRoadPhysicist > Slant6
06/16/2016 at 20:08

It is like that in most places in the middle of no where, or just even a few miles outside of towns as well. I would hate to imagine shooting prairie dogs being limited to 10 rounds. Hell, my .22 would eat through that in no time if I was trying to clear a field to make it have less holes that could injure horses and livestock.

Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 20:09

Exactly. If it were, the law would be subject so much stricter judicial scrutiny.

Slant6 > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 20:09

Well the 2nd amendment only gives the right to bear arms, not the right to use them. One could argue that the constitution doesn’t protect the right to own ammo.

Also since the constitution says the right to bear arms, and not exclusively fire arms it means that they’ll never be able to take away our cars when self driving cars become the norm. Cars are a weapon; ie an arm. 2nd amendment protects our right to own a car.

I Will Always Be The Honey Badger > Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch
06/16/2016 at 20:14

In Canada, semi auto rifles are over-the counter purchases. They just limit magazine capacity to 5 rounds. Better solution, I think.

just-a-scratch > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 20:27

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.htm…

No doubt about it, the 2nd Amendment is a thorny issue.

What’s a ‘well regulated militia’?
I don’t see how most gun owners, even myself are part of any well regulated miltia. Back in the day, common people had a responsibility to defend their communities with whatever they had. These were often fights with Native Americans or other citizens. The ‘militia’ had duties beyond protecting against other nation states.

What arms are covered by this?
The amendment has NO LIMITS written in it here. I’m glad that thermonuclear weapons have been excluded for civilians to keep and bear. However, I don’t see how this limitation is written in the constitution. Tradition & precedent give limitations, not the letter of the amendment here.

What does it mean for a right to be infringed?
This gets tricky in my mind. Clearly there are limitation on many aspects of life where we are supposedly free. So what then does it mean for a right to be infringed? I have no clear answer to that.

GhostZ > just-a-scratch
06/16/2016 at 20:48

The way I see it, owning a gun for self defense is like having the right to seek a doctor if you are sick, but buying ammo is like having the right to buy sudafed. It has a purpose, but in uncontrolled quantities it is illegal and dangerous.

Hamtractor > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 20:52

If I am to maintain proficiency with my carry piece, I should be shooting a minimum of 100 rounds, at least once a month. My every day loadout includes my CZ-75 and two spare magazines, for a total of 48 rounds. Limiting ammo purchases like you suggest only leads to less proficient shooters, and won’t do anything to keep ammo out of criminal hands, as reloading or making ammo is RIDICULOUSLY easy...

samssun > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 22:09

9mm sells for 15-20 cents/round, .22 about 7 cents. It’s really only specialty rifle rounds that sell for much more than the value of the components, and those are so low volume that tooling costs probably eat up much of the margin.

But trying to get around the Bill of Rights by restricting an essential component of its exercise would be considered an infringement by anyone rational, like making people get voice permits and restricting them to 100 written words a week.

Imagine if instead of opening the doors to those who hate us and, when they act on it, insisting we strip Americans of their freedoms, we instead treated individual rights as inalienable and put energy into weeding out the bad apples...

samssun > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 22:14

What if we took a break from the constant push for more “control” of American citizens, and stopped accepting those who are fundamentally opposed to Western civilization?

The father was an Afghani warlord cheerleader and New York welcomed him with open arms...we and Europe are the only places on earth encouraging openly hostile cultures to arrive with no intent to integrate. What outcome do we expect?

Dru > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 22:15

Guns for sure. Most of the .223 rifles at the center of the current debate are old designs that receive modest updates. The tooling is long since paid for for most manufacturers and the guns themselves are remarkably simple. Ammo fluctuates like oil.

Sam > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 23:19

My issue with this is not even a political one, but a purely economic one. It would be horrendously expensive to register all ammo purchases and maintain a database to track who has what, where, and when. It sounds awful, but it’s just not worth the cost. Also an ammo cap with a ton of strings attached would create a bunch of people who have guns for self-defense, but zero experience actually firing their gun because they don’t want to go through the hassle. Also, we go back to the classic “if criminals want guns, they will get guns”. I know of a dark net site, where you can buy enough explosive to level an office building, an RPG, or a fully auto AK47 with AP rounds. All you need is money.

GhostZ > samssun
06/16/2016 at 23:45

Tracking ammo is how you weed out the “bad apples”. Just because someone comes from another country doesn’t

The 2nd amendment prevents the government from denying weapons to the public, it doesn’t prevent states from regulating their use (which they already do) and it doesn’t prevent tracking/regulating/controlling their use within the bounds of existing laws. The reason we don’t have stricter gun control is because of congressional lobbying, not the supreme court upholding the constitution.

Closing the borders might be a good way to prevent people who don’t agree with you from entering the country, but be prepared for an extra few hundred billions of dollars a year being spent on that enforcement and the drop in economic production as a result.

GhostZ > Hamtractor
06/16/2016 at 23:48

You shoot your handgun for 100+ rounds a month in your home? I mentioned that gun ranges are perfectly fine to distribute and sell ammo, as long as it’s tracked.

It’s less about keeping bullets out of the hands of criminals, and more about reducing the ‘noise’ so that it’s MUCH easier to find criminals when they try to illegally purchase/move ammo or produce it themselves in bulk, just like they do with sudafed and meth labs.

Limiting sudafed sales does not stop meth from being made, but it makes it much easier to notice trends or target large quantities of it or localize laboratories when you see a spike in sudafed sales in a given area, or a long-term pattern in a region’s sales.

samssun > GhostZ
06/16/2016 at 23:52

DC, Chicago, and Illinois had bans on “keeping” and “bearing” arms as recently as 2014. It took a couple of Supreme Court rulings to tell them that “shall not be infringed” still has some meaning.

How would it take hundreds of billions of dollars not to import people from hostile places in the country? We’re spending money to actively encourage it (not to mention the lifetime of support payments), so how about we stop doing that as step 1?

GhostZ > Sam
06/16/2016 at 23:52

I’m not sure the cost would be that high. It’s not about registering all ammo purchases but mostly just maintaining a monthly list of purchases and IDs. They already do it with a number of medications and prescriptions.

It also has nothing to do with experience. Most people practice shooting at a gun range or while hunting, which wouldn’t be affected by this.

It’s about reducing the amount of noise in ammo sales to help pinpoint where bulk quantities of ammo are being fired off/stockpiled without any legal use for them being recorded.

GhostZ > samssun
06/17/2016 at 00:00

If you close the borders, you give every business in the united states a reason to go to another country. Not only that, but you dramatically increase the cost of enforcement against illegal immigration.

Almost all violent crime in the US is commited by US citizens born in the states. Spending billions to wall up against a handful of extremists just isn’t practical. The economy doesn’t work like that, most illegal immigrants create a net-positive effect on the standard of living of non-illegal immigrants.

Example: If you kick out all of the illegal mexicans in the US, expect supermarket prices to rise 20-80% higher by destroying the agricultural labor supply.

If you close the borders to immigrants from Muslim countries, even a 1% tariff or rise in prices from just ONE country (Saudi Arabia) would result in about a $500m loss of yearly exports.

Not only that, but you have to distinguish from “hostile” muslims and regular muslims. Which means closing borders to all muslims during background checks. That is also expensive.

It’s better that we make our country better by adopting sane policies for day-to-day life rather than spend billions chasing ghosts in the desert.

CCC (formerly CyclistCarCoexist) > Dru
06/17/2016 at 14:48

To be honest, a gun is a very simple piece of machinery. It just has to made to view low tolerances. That is what’s hard about it...

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Slant6
06/17/2016 at 15:58

To bear means to use. Without ammo a gun is useless, so any law restricting the ability to purchase ammo infringes on the constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > GhostZ
06/17/2016 at 16:38

Your proposal is very clearly unconstitutional. The second amendment states “...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The phrase “to bear” in this sense means “to use”. If you restrict the ability to purchase ammo, you infringe on the constitutionally protected right to use arms.

As for restricting ammo sales in principal it is a ridiculous proposition. In an hour or two of shooting I can easily go through a couple hundred rounds of ammo. To maintain proficiency you need to shoot, and shoot a lot. As someone else mentioned, you should shoot about 100 rounds per month. If I want to shoot, I do it on my own property. I don’t, nor should I need to seek out permission from any authority to do that.

It is painfully obvious that you learned everything you know about guns from the news and from TV and movies. The news media is painfully ignorant when it comes to guns and how they work. Expecting CNN to be able to give you useful correct information about guns is like expecting them to give you useful correct information about cars. You don’t fire up CNN to learn about cars, you go to Jalopnik or some other enthusiast specific site. Do the same thing to learn about guns. Talk to people who shoot guns, people who hunt and ask them about guns. They know way more about guns, how they work and what they are capable of than any news anchor. If you want to learn about guns and people who have guns, call your local gun store or shooting range. Tell them that you have never shot a gun before and you are interested in taking a basic gun safety course. The information you gain from that experience would be eye opening.

As for your assertion that hunting is not a right, that is absolutely false. Just because someone lives outside of a city or in a rural or remote area doesn’t mean they live outside of civilization. Yes, some people in those areas do need to hunt to add food to their table. They hunt because that allows them to be self reliant as opposed to having to rely on other people to provide for them.

Slant6 > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
06/17/2016 at 17:46

Kinja'd!!!

But I get it.

GhostZ > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
06/17/2016 at 20:47

Constitutional doesn’t bother me, it’s more about what is right and best for the country, not what matches the letter of the constitution.

Do you shoot hundreds of rounds in your own home? I think it’s great to have gun ranges and hunting grounds, provided that your ammo is tracked while you’re there. Pay for what you use, leave the rest at the door on your way out. You shouldn’t be allowed to have hundreds of rounds of ammo in your home, or be able to purchase that much for use in the home.

The only legal uses for a firearm are self defense, hunting, and and sport/gallery shooting. Hunting and sport/gallery shooting requires zoning and oversight already, and there’s no reason why someone needs hundreds of rounds of ammo for self defense.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > GhostZ
06/17/2016 at 21:42

Your attitude regarding the constitution scares me. It terrifies me that you seem so willing to give up your rights. A quote commonly attributed to Ben Franklin says “those who would give up their freedom for security will soon have neither”.

No, I don’t shoot hundreds of rounds IN my home. I can shoot as many rounds as I want from my back porch though.

What makes you think you have any right to tell me how much ammo I can possess in the privacy of my home? Why shouldn’t I be allowed to have thousands of rounds of ammo in my home? Please articulate a legitimate reason besides “it’s scary if someone has a lot of ammo in their home”.

Regarding hunting grounds and places where it is legal to use a firearm. Hunting doesn’t occur in convenient gated little areas where you check in and out with anyone. I can walk out my door and start hunting. Between myself, family and friends I have access to hundreds of acres of private lands. Besides that land I can hunt on all the CFR land or state owned land near me. With that I have access to 100's of thousands of acres. To access that land all I have to do is turn on to any of the 100's of miles of logging road. In terms of legal places to use a firearm, I can use one anywhere I want provided that location doesn’t specifically ban the use of firearms. An area doesn’t have to be zoned for the use of firearms.

On your idea of legal uses for a firearm. There is no list of legal uses like you seem to think there is. I can use my firearms for anything I want as long as that use isn’t defined as an illegal use.

GhostZ > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
06/18/2016 at 14:04

You do realize that the constitution doesn’t give you any rights, right? All it does is form the guidelines for what the supreme court can veto. It has no political power otherwise, and for good reason. When it is vague or outdated, it should be amended, and in the case of the 2nd amendment, it is both.

If the 2nd amendment is a good idea, it should be proven to be good without invoking the constitution or founding fathers.

So just assume everything I said comes with a preface of “Assuming we amended the constitution to better reflect the real world”.

Every policy comes at a price, and our current policy of not tracking any ammo purchases means that there’s no way to separate law-abiding gun owners from criminals until after they kill someone. There is such a risk that tens of thousands of people will die a year from gun violence because of that, then the vocal minority / special interest of gun owners is infringing on other people’s right to life and liberty.

However, if you believe that the number of deaths and inability to stop criminals is worth it, as a cost of human life, to letting you shoot guns off your back porch, then you would want to vote against this.

Here in America, you have rights until your rights infringe upon others.

Track ammo purchases, restrict the amount of ammo someone can have on-hand, outside of a gun range or hunting range. If you want to shoot guns off your back porch, your ammo should be tracked just like everyone else’s, so that means setting up a gun range in your own back porch and being held to the same accounting standards.

Anyone who tries to buy hundreds of rounds of ammo and have them in places where there is no legal use for a gun, and no evidence of self defense, should not be able to buy more ammo and should be investigated.

wiffleballtony > GhostZ
06/19/2016 at 20:50

How do you deal with the unregistered proliferation of hand loading gear? I know people who make their own ammo than purchase.

wiffleballtony > GhostZ
06/19/2016 at 20:51

That’s all well and good. What’s next your right to assemble? Your free speech?

wiffleballtony > GhostZ
06/19/2016 at 20:53

Your understanding of the political process is lacking. Read up on civillage liberties vs civil rights. Also the SCOTUS doesn’t veto anything.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > GhostZ
06/20/2016 at 08:52

Well, you managed to get one thing right in there. The Constitution doesn’t grant any rights. All rights are natural rights endowed by the Creator and are not granted by any document or government. The Constitution was written to define the structure of our federal government and to limit its powers. The framers of the Constitution felt it was obvious that all rights are natural rights and many of them felt there was no need to define protected rights in the Constitution. Fortunately some did realize that if certain rights weren’t enumerated it would only be a matter of time before tyrannical leaders would infringe on our natural rights unless they were specifically protected by the Constitution. The Constitution has a tremendous amount of political power, it is the document that defines our very system of government.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to veto anything. When Congress passes bills they are sent to the Presidents desk. He can then either sign the bill into law or he can veto the bill. Assuming a bill is passed by Congress and signed into law by the President it may eventually be challenged in court. That challenge would generally start in the lower courts and may eventually find its way to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court decides to hear a case they must determine whether the law being challenged runs afoul of the Constitution. They will either affirm that the law is within the limits of power afforded the federal government by the Constitution in which case the law will be upheld, or they will say that the law in unconstitutional because it goes beyond the limits imposed on the federal government by the Constitution and the law will be struck down.

You really need to educate yourself on our system of government and the basic documents that define our system of government.

Hamtractor > GhostZ
06/21/2016 at 10:51

In my locker right now:

2200 rds 9mm, 4000 rds 7.62X39, 1200 rds .308, and several things that eat that stuff up.

I don’t use the local range, I shoot in the desert, because I practice practical shooting with movement, draws and rapid fire, which most ranges frown upon. Anti-gunners hate guys like me, the armed citizen who practices relentlessly for a day I hope I never see. But if there’s ever a need to protect my family at church, the mall, or any other “soft target”, you can believe that I won’t go to my grave wishing I could have done more.

Limiting ammo sales is not how we stop mass killings, profiling radicals, revamping the mental health system and enforcing existing laws is where it’s at. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and they have the equivalent of Orlando every weekend...