When dealing with the enemies of freedom everything they don't approve of is a loophole.
Internet loophole? Check.
Gun show loophole? Check.
Background check loophole? Check.
Sen. Richard "I served in Vietnam (not!)" Blumenthal (D-CT) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) have come up with a new loophole that MUST be closed. That is the ammunition sale loophole. To that end, they have introduced the Ammunition Background Check Act (S.2627 / HR 5383) The bill would require instant background checks for the purchase of ammunition.
Excerpts from their joint press release:
“Ammunition sales should be subject to the same legal requirements as firearm sales, and that includes instant background checks. The same laws that prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing firearms also prohibit them from amassing arsenals of ammunition, with one major loophole: there are no background checks for ammunition sales to enforce the law. Closing this ludicrous loophole is a common sense component of a comprehensive strategy to reduce gun violence,” said Blumenthal.There are enough gun control buzzwords in those two paragraphs that you would be an automatic winner in buzzword bingo!
“This common-sense legislation simply enforces existing federal law, and will make it harder for criminals to amass hundreds of rounds of ammunition without so much as sharing their first name with a gun store clerk,” Wasserman Schultz said. “Closing this absurd loophole will not by itself stop the next mass shooting tragedy. But this popular approach must be part of our larger strategy for ending gun violence. Studies show it can help keep ‘bad guys with guns’ from perpetrating another mass slaughter like the one we witnessed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in my Broward County community, or the thousands of other acts of gun violence that devastate communities across the country. It takes more than just a gun to take an innocent life. It also takes bullets. We need to do all we can to make sure neither of them ends up in the wrong hands.”
While the bill text is not yet available, their release indicates that the purchase of ammo would be through a FFL who would be required to do a NICS check or, if the seller was not licensed, then the seller would have to have a FFL conduct the NICS check. Since I don't have the bill text yet, there is no word whether or not components would be require background checks.
If components are not regulated (and they should not be), then the enemies of freedom will have multiple new loopholes to rail about: the smokeless powder loophole, the brass loophole, the primer loophole, etc., etc.
For those not old enough to remember, after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 all ammunition sales including .22 rimfire ammo were required to be logged into a bound book. The requirement for .22 rimfire ammo sale logging was repealed in 1982. Finally, the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 finally repealed the requirement that ammo sales be logged in a bound book. The repeal of that requirement was supported by the ATF as they said it had little law enforcement value. While Bluementhal and Wasserman-Schultz quote a number of academics in support of their bill, they don't quote anyone in law enforcement which is telling.
This is a ridiculous bill brought by two ridiculous legislators. It should be relegated to the scrapheap of history just like they should.
H/T The Captain's Journal
In 1974 I "solved" 17 burglaries by noticing the victims name in the ammo purchase log. Two or three names later was that of one of our better known burglar's. A check with several other stores produced the same victims/suspect signatures. All the log did was provide targets. More loopholes= more targets? And how many of those "academics" have ever even held a firearm?
ReplyDeleteTime to discuss the term limits loophole!
ReplyDeleteI remember the 1968 ammo rules. If I went into the hardware store to buy some .22 ammo, it had to be annotated in the bound book whether it was for a rifle or handgun. Did not matter what I was going to shoot it from, I stated "rifle" because I was under 21. So, the law made a liar of me.
ReplyDeleteWe knew it was stupid then, and so it is to this day.
They're using the California model as the example... sigh
ReplyDeleteWhat Old NFO said, the recent California restrictions are being blue-printed nationwide.
ReplyDeleteOur opponents figured out that they could have more impact in the states and have taken the battle there. The NRA is very good on a national basis but not nearly as good on the state level. That's why we must support our state level groups regardless of whether they are affiliated with the NRA or not.
Delete