Background checks and permits for ammo?

[The Straight Story]

DURHAM, N.C. -

The grassroots community organization, ACORN, is fighting for a new law it says will save lives.

"Stop the Bullet" is a campaign that would make it harder for felons to buy ammunition from stores.

When you buy a gun, gun shops have to run a background check first to make sure you're not a convicted felon.

Although it is also illegal for convicted felons to buy bullets, a background check is not required. As it stands now, gun shops aren't required to ask any questions before selling bullets, as long as the buyer is 18 and can present identification.

Community organizer for the local NC ACORN group, The Rev. Melvin Whitley, says it's too easy for criminals to buy ammo, and he plans to close that loophole.

ACORN'S initiative would expand the law to include ammunition, and may even include a requirement for bullet permits.

http://static.mync.com/site/durhamcounty/news|Sports|Lifestyles/story/20995/nc-acorn-proposes-stricter-ammunition-laws

[Wapsie B]

1. There was a movement in the 70's called "Ban the Bullet."

I can't remember the particulars but I beleve its intent was much the same as this.

[Still Sensible]

2. Perhaps a laudable goal

if there is a way to have lawful gun owners only have to go through this once (when they acquire the gun and/or first buy ammunition)... then they could have a "I've been cleared" card or something.

But, this is all meaningless unless and until the gun show loophole is closed. IMO.

[villager]

5. sensibly stated, Still Sensible!

n/t

[Raskolnik]

17. What do you think that the "gun show loophole" actually is? n/t

[Still Sensible]

20. It is "individual-to-individual" sales of firearms

which avoid NCIS background checks. For this reason, many dealers actually participate in these public gun shows by proxy as "individuals" since individuals do not have to comply. I/m sorry, an "individual" that can lay out a couple hundred firearms on tables in a game show exhibit booth is a dealer.

[aikoaiko]

26. Yes, they would likely be an illegal dealer and the BATFE prosecutes such people

It is already illegal to engage in firearm dealing without a FFL. Anyone who would lay out 100s of firearms would be arrested.

[Thothmes]

48. But not for the individual.

I can legally sell a personally owned fire arm from my house to another private individual without any legal requirement for a background check or any record keeping requirement. I can also sell ammunition in the same manner. I am free to advertise a fire arm for sale in the local newspaper.

[aikoaiko]

57. yes, but a case could easily be made if you put up hundred of guns to be resold.

as the poster I responded to said. There is no clear line, but there already is law to prevent what the poster is worried about.


eta: the issue is whether the BATFE can make the case that the seller was "in the business" of selling guns or just a private individual selling a personal firearm.

[Raskolnik]

27. A couple of problems with what you wrote.

First, I do not see any evidence that "many" gun dealers make an end run around NCIS by going to these shows. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but there isn't much reason for a licensed gun dealer to risk his livlihood to make a couple of hundred extra bucks, particularly when legal business is booming (as it is now).

Second, I don't think that individual-to-individual sales should have to go through an NCIS background check. That would be unworkable, and only encourage subverting the system, in my opinion.

Third, the number of criminals who obtain their guns through gun shows is vanishingly small. What do you think would be accomplished (other than inconveniencing thousands of law-abiding people) by doing away with this "loophole" that hardly anyone seems to use as such?

[Still Sensible]

38. Except

I've gone to gun shows, we have at least three a year here in Tulsa, and when I see that almost all of the exhibitors are showing dozens--and many are laying out hundreds--of firearms in their exhibit space, I don't buy that these people are "individuals." Maybe it's just semantics.

If individual-to-individual sales don't require a background check, the whole thing is a sham and it doesn't mean anything anyway.

[Raskolnik]

46. So you don't like it, but that doesn't mean its harming anyone.

The numbers show pretty definitively that the "gun show loophole" accounts for a tiny fraction of the weapons used in crime.

If you think a dealer is breaking the law, what's stopping you from reporting the violation?

[sendero]

64. Please...

... if you buy a firearm from one of those dealers, you are going to go through the whole process - vanishingly few dealers are going to risk their livelihoods trying to circumvent the law.

[423aaron]

73. If you try to buy from one of those "individuals"

You will find that the vast majority are actually dealers. You will have to do the same paper work that you would at the store.

Aaron

[Lasher]

3. Plus put serial numbers on every cartridge.

Then we will know just who bought that shotgun shell, and when. And people younger than 21 would need a note from their mother before they can buy ammo.

OK this came from The Onion, right?

[Hubert Flottz]

23. We should just shoot all convicted felons and then forget the

mess and the bullshit. Government firing squad duty instead of jury duty... People would straighten their asses out ASAP and then we wouldn't need to spend all that money on congress, courts, cops, prisons, jails and bullshit. One strike you're history...jury fucked up...tough shit. I'm tired of my tax dollars being wasted on frivolous Rules Of Law and shit that only work for the fucking criminals.

DON'T FUCK WITH MY GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

4. Ahh it's bullets that kill, not guns.

[hedgehog]

6. Chris Rock

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

[bridgit]

76. That's one of Rock's funniest bits, "Man you better hope I can't get no bullets on lay-away!"

[michreject]

7. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

Yeah right!!!!!!!!!!!

I reload. Whole nuther black market. But then the criminals can go to Tennessee and buy it.

[county worker]

8. Sure, It's Saturday on my 20 acre lot in the boonies and I want to do some target shooting.

Ooops, I'm low on 22 long rifle cartridges. I drive 30 miles to the local sporting goods store to get some more. Ooops new law, I need to get a background check to get the .22 shells and that takes a couple of weeks. Too bad for me!


Next time I think I will buy a couple year's supply of shells. In one of those years I become a felon with lots and lots of rounds still to shoot. Ooops too bad for society who made the stupid fucking law in the first place!


Screw the "feel good" laws!

[nichomachus]

9. You're right, it won't work

So, we're back to banning all guns, instead. Thanks.

[county worker]

10. Your right it won't work so why propose it?

[Statistical]

21. We are NEVER going back to banning all guns.

Heller vs DC clearly states that banning even a class of weapons in common usage with legitimate purpose is Unconstitutional.

[backscatter712]

11. This proposal is idiotic.

It's not like criminals don't find ways around this shit. It's just a hassle for legitimate, legal gun owners.

[Bake]

14. A lot of people I know load their own rounds.

Bake

[dembotoz]

12. amazing-a number of folks around here--right wing nuts at that

Right after the election they bought cases of ammo and all manner of guns--they said they wanted to have plenty on hand when obama tried to take their deer rifles away from them.
I told them they were nuts.
We were not going to go after the deer hunters.
That would be political suicide in Wisconsin and we were not that stupid....
perhaps they were right?????????

[backscatter712]

15. This proposal hasn't gone very far.

It's just a proposal by an activist group.

I doubt Congress will pick it up, or if it does, it will be one isolated Congressman who'll enter a bill into the record, only to see it tabled in committee.

[slackmaster]

13. If convicted felons were kept in jail where they belong, there wouldn't be a problem

With them buying ammunition or firearms.

[Raskolnik]

18. Of all the social problems that currently plague us, *under*-incarceration is not one. n/t

[slackmaster]

31. I believe people who have committed SERIOUS crimes should be jailed until they can be safely let out

Then ALL of their civil rights should be restored.

People should not be incarcerated for having medical problems, e.g. drug addiction, or for victimless crimes.

[dysfunctional press]

71. what about people who commit armed robbery to support their medical problems?

addiction is one thing- endangering other people's lives and stealing to support the addiction is a whole 'nuther thing.

[varkam]

34. Oops - guess they shouldnta let me out. Who knew?

I'll let them know of their mistake right away.

[slackmaster]

36. See reply #31 for additional information

If you didn't do anything violent, or are truly rehabilitated, you should have all of your civil rights including the right to vote restored.

[varkam]

37. Have you ever been in prison? eom

[slackmaster]

39. Only to visit

I spent one night in the San Diego holding tank after being arrested for a failure to appear that wasn't my fault, and was released on OR in the morning.

[varkam]

40. Well, I'll say this...

there isn't a whole lot of rehabbing going on other than that which the inmate him or herself commits to. Substance abuse programs are sparse, so are educational and jobs training programs. Really, it's more of a warehousing program than anything else as evidenced by a 66% recidivism rate in 3 years post-release.

And, if you weren't violent going in, odds are you're going to be at least a little practiced coming out. That's not to say that prison is the horror story that many people make it out to be in pop culture - but there is some truth to it.

[slackmaster]

41. Thanks for that, it pretty much agrees with what my incarcerated friend tells me

And I need to write him. It's been too long.

My friend Jim (standard name I use for convicted felons) has about 10 years to go. He's a second-striker. I met him not long after his first prison term ended. He was in the process of kicking heroin.

During the about 16 months he was clean of narcotics, I helped him out in several ways and got to know him pretty well. He is a talented musician and writer. I paid to retrieve several master recordings that were being held by various studios around San Diego. We were preparing to actually produce and sell the music, and record some more. But he started using again, and within a few months he was robbing places for cash, using a cheesy plastic toy gun and campy disguises.

I know he would have done OK on the outside if he had gotten real help for his addiction, and developed the insight and support systems a person needs to stay off the drugs.

And, if you weren't violent going in, odds are you're going to be at least a little practiced coming out.

Probably not so much if you happen to be white, educated, and in your mid 50s. He's told me that due to his age the other inmates generally leave him alone. He also knows how to behave.

[TheKentuckian]

16. It is past time to stop re-fighting a losing battle

Stop trying to put us into the wilderness on this turkey of a losing issue.

[jody]

19. That idea is stupid and would be funded by the Joyce and Annenberg Foundations arch enemies of the

Second Amendment that protects the natural, inherent, inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

[TWiley]

22. It makes sense

I feel that convicted felons should not buy bullets or guns. I think it is absolutely reasonable. If a felon is buying ammo, then there is certainly a gun somewhere close by.

[Uncle Ho]

24. Ban them now

We need to ban guns and ammunition if we ever want to Change this country.

[Raskolnik]

25. Wow, it's almost like you're a parody of what you think a "liberal" should be.

I hope we get some more of your insight before your stay is cut short.

[bertman]

29. Ho Ho Ho!!! That was hilarious, Uncle Ho. You were kidding, right??

[rrneck]

30. Just out of curiosity,

could you describe how banning firearms would work? How would you craft that legislation? And then enforce it?

[Uncle Ho]

32. Had enough

I have lived in the inner city and have seen the problem that guns cause.

Civilized nations around the world have banned guns and their people are safer.

We need Change.

[The Straight Story]

33. Safer from whom? (nt)

[TahitiNut]

35. Sure you have. Uh-huh. Riiifght.

:eyes:

[dusmcj]

43. 'civilized' nations have had their murder and burglary rates go up after gun bans

Australia, the UK, Canada. All very civilized.

I believe that President Obama's notion of Change, borrowing your capitalization, does not involved creating a denatured population that spouts a laundry list of socially fashionable political correctness when exposed to the appropriate stimuli but is incapable of affecting its environment or otherwise controlling its individual or collective existence. That would be doubleplus ungood.

And, again, the world does not consist of the inner cities alone. And since I don't live in one, my responsibility for the life choices of their inhabitants is very limited. I owe them neither my income, nor a forfeit of my inherent freedoms. Not for the sake of some ill-conceived collective solutions which claim to sacrifice individual freedom for the common good but end up serving neither. That is NOT what Mr. Obama has in mind.

[Sheepshank]

66. bull

I call bull on your manufactured, pretend, possible, stats.

[dusmcj]

74. prove that they're wrong, provide cites

you're claiming I'm stating a falsehood. You do the work. Disprove it. Get on with it.

[alittlelark]

77. Do you only show up in gun posts?

[rrneck]

44. Ok, but that's not what I asked, I'll

paste it again in this post for your convenience.


Just out of curiosity, could you describe how banning firearms would work? How would you craft that legislation? And then enforce it?

[Thothmes]

49. Maybe the key would be to correct the problems that "guns"cause

Drug addiction, joblesness, poverty, homelessness. that is the "change" we need.

[michreject]

59. Who are you?

BillBuckhead or MrBechley with his pantload?

[jmg257]

45. Here's how I would do it...a bit rough of course...

1st, amend the Constitution of the United States as follows:
1) add a new amendment that
a)repeals the 2nd amendment
b) declares explicitly that the people no longer have an individual right to bear arms
c) re-defines the terms "Militia", "Militia of the several States", etc. to only refer to the Organized Militia of the United States (National Guard)

Once that is accomplished, pass this legislation:

Gun & Ammo Ban Law of 2010
Section 1
Findings: 1)Due to the prevalent use of firearms in crimes, unintentional injuries, and suicides, it is determined that it is in the compelling interest of the people, to better ensure their safety and security, that the possession and use of firearms be severely restricted.
2)Tragic events involving firearms occur irregardless of type, and/or function.
3)Due to the experiences learned in similar attempts at object bans, namely Prohibition and the War on Drugs, it is expected that normal methods of enforcement as used in the past to accomplish the intended goal will lead to an increase in violence, crime, and the involvement of criminal elements related to the banned object. Therefore, stronger means will be enacted, tolerated and enforced.

Section 2
1) The federal Freedom in Commerce Act of 2005 which declares that the people have the individual right to bear arms is hereby repealed.
2) In any case where it is determined that a state or local law conflict with this law, this law shall be supreme, past federal, state or local court decisions and/or laws notwithstanding.

Section 3
1) All privately owned firearms are hereby banned upon the enactment of this law.
2) All firearm ammunition is hereby banned upon the enactment of this law.
3) Within 6 months of the date of enactment of this law, all privately owned and held firearms must be turned in to a designated federal agent at a designated Firearm Recovery Center (FRC).
3) All privately owned firearm ammunition must be turned in within 6 months of the date of enactment of this law to a designated agent at a designated FRC
4) Any person possessing a firearm after 6 months will be guilty of a federal felony, punishable by a mandatory minimum 10 yr. prison term
5) Any person possessing 5 or more firearms will be guilty of a felony, punishable by life in prison. Any person whom it is shown exhibited a reasonable attempt to deal said firearms will be guilty of a felony, and subject to the death penalty.
6) Any person in possession of any firearm ammunition after 6 months will be guilty of a felony, punishable by 2 yrs in prison; possession of more then 10 rounds will be punishable by a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison.
7) Exemptions: This section does not apply to:
a) federal or State law enforcement agents who possess agency-registered firearms/ammunition while actively employed and working and under lawful orders to be under arms; This exemption does not apply to any agents off duty - all signed out firearms/ammo must be returned to the employing agency at shift end.
b) active members of the US Military, or the National Guard (Militia) when actively serving and under lawful orders to be under arms. This exemption does not apply to members no longer "on duty" - all signed out firearms/ammo must be returned.

Section 4
1) All issued federal firearms licenses are hereby revoked.
2) Any firearms in dealer inventory and/or private collections must be turned in to an agent at a designated FRC within 3 months.
3) All firearm transaction records of all federal firearm licensed dealers must be turned over to the BATF within 3 months.
4) All "internet sites" which currently or have previously dealt in firearm sales must turn any existing records of same over to the BATF within 3 months.
5) All State or local licensing, pistol permit, firearm registration records etc. will be turned over by the appropriate associated agencies to the BATF.
6) These records will be reviewed by federal agents, without any further cause or warrant necessary. Any documented purchase or transfer of a firearm within the past 15 years by any person will be sufficient evidence for a warrant to be issued for search of premises of said person, and/or the premises of their descendants on the occasion they are deceased.
5) For a period of 1 year & 6 months from the date of the enactment of this law, any person on public or federal property is subject to unwarranted search of their person and/or possessions.
6) Discovery of the possession of a firearm by a person under conditions as described in 4 or 5 above, will be reasonable grounds to assume evil intent. Justification will be a positive defense if force, including deadly physical force is used to effect an arrest of that person by a law enforcement officer/agent.

Section 5
Definitions
firearm - common codified definition - uses gunpowder to discharge a projectile, or the major parts necessary for the construction of a working firearm - including a firearm receiver, & a capable rifle barrel. Single-shot muzzle-loading rifles or muskets are exempt, as are any firearm rendered permanently inoperable and approved and registered as such; this definition is open to expansion as technology expands
possession - any person or persons who are shown to have knowledge of a firearm in their control or vicinity, or shown to be reasonably aware of the vicinity of illegal firearm(s), are declared to be in possession.

[Raskolnik]

47. At least you're honest about the fact that it would take a constitutional amendment, but

your #'s 4 & 5 are frighteninly police-state.

[Statistical]

50. Agreed. He may be a facist but at least he is an honest facist.

I do have more respect for people looking to repeal the 2nd rather than pretend it doesn't exist though so I give you some credit for that.

Have you considered the fact that there is nowhere near enough votes for repeal of the 2nd.
Even IF (and that is a stretch) in Congress (it would take 67 votes in the Senate to pass) how will you get 3/4 of the states to go along?

13 states (kinda a patriotic numbers = 13 original colonies) voting no or simply preventing a vote for 7 years would sink the ammendment.
I can probably count of 15-20 guaranteed states right now plus another 10 or so "maybe no" states.

Last consideration..... how will you pay for it.
Not even considering the massive LEO effort requires some compensation for personal property would be required.
Let's lowball it and say $250 per firearm there are about 300 million lawfully owned firearms in the United States so that would be about $75 Billion or so.
In all reality the value of all firearms in the United States is probably in the $100-$200 Billion range not even including administrative and manpower costs.
Add in enforcement on the new "war on guns" (likely to work just as well as "war on drugs", "war on crime", and "war on terror" and costs could be close to half a trillion.

Plus the ongoing cost of a fulltime police state.

Then again at least you were honest.

[jmg257]

54. Doesn't matter. Question was posed to come up with something that could work.

Bans, legistation, enforcment, etc. This is all I could come up with. Figure some "violators will be shot on sight" should have been in there, plus much wider-reaching warrantless search & seizures by agents of the state, but didn't want to get really unconstitutional (what was left of it anyway).

[michreject]

60. That wouldn't work

You would have armed revolt.

[jmg257]

72. Well - there could be that. nt

[jmg257]

56. Oh, and BTW, I am NOT looking to repeal the 2nd, to have to pay for gun control, or to ban ANY guns.

Especially mine!


Just to conduct an exercise to come up with some "gun control" that COULD actually be effective - "across the board" (i.e. address crime, accidents, suicides, mass murders, etc.).

[rrneck]

62. To my mind that's

why we're here. And a fine exercise it was.

[jmg257]

53. Of course - he asked to come up with something that could work, not some "common sense" do-nothing

ban / law.

[Thothmes]

51. You will also have to have another amendment to the Constitution

specifically you must remove the constitutional prohibition in Article I, section 9 that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

[jmg257]

55. Ahh - that has been ignored before. Ask New Yorkers and California citizens about

bans and confiscations. Surely keeping unregistered / banned arms after such bans are enacted in those cases was deemed quite illegal, ex post facto or not.

[michreject]

61. Wasn't the Lautenberg amendment

passed with an ex-post facto provision?

[rrneck]

58. That's very comprehensive and thank you, but it doesn't

really answer the question that I asked either.

It's simple enough to say, and forgive me for paraphasing you, "Amend the constitution of the United States to outlaw all guns and then confiscate them." What I asked was how would it work? Sure, you have done a fine job of outlining the legislation, but what you are proposing is not within the realm of possibility.

I would be remiss if I did not address your post in more detail, and there are a few things that jump out at me.

The balance of it we can stipulate (sections 2,3,4,5).

The National Guard to which you refer is currently on a mission of imperial conquest. It is indistinguishable from the United States Army and members of that National Guard have been involved in human rights abuses against the citizens of Iraq and Afganistan. I don't think Abu Ghraib is what the founders had in mind when they used the term "militia".

If we couple that with the phrase from your post, "stronger means will be enacted, tolerated and enforced" the implications of that position become pretty scary. It's really not all that difficult to turn well meaning, intellegent people into monsters. I would direct you to The Lucifer Effect by Phil Zimbardo for a detailed account of how easily well meaning people can be made to commit abuses against their fellow citizens. Now, you may be referring to a crackdown on the criminal elements in our society, but remember that the United States already has more people in terms of per capita population and in real numbers incarcerated than any other country in the world (the last time I looked), and what you are proposing would criminalize the behaivor of another 57 million people. Surely not all of them will just hand in their guns, and I notice you did not mention compensating them for their investment (unless I missed it).

What you are proposing would also shut down a two billion dollar a year industry (guns alone, peripherals like ammunition, ranges, publications, equipment and accesories could double that figure). Our economy is shedding jobs fast enough now.

The cost of what you are proposing, in terms of real money and the potential erosion of our civil liberties due to the overburdening of our legal system, reinterpretations of the constitution to enforce those laws, and the exposure of people to a still existent criminal element would be incalculable. What if we took all that money and political will and put it to work helping the needy, educating the ignorant, and finding work for the unemployed? People would actually be helped, and all those guns could just lay in their closets and rust.

In the end, the issue of firearms for self defense (and recreation and national defense) is an intensely personal matter for each one of us. That is what makes it such a hot button issue. We can propose all the laws, constitutional changes and other assorted regulations in the world but in the end there are at least 57 million people in this country who know that if they are confronted by someone or something that wants to do them harm there won't be anybody there to help them. They will have to defend themselves. And a gun ban will never, ever happen for that reason, because barring a rip in the space time continuium, civil authorities will never be able to respond to an emergency fast enough to save anybody. And they know it. To propose otherwise and to implicate any reduction in an individual's ability to defend themselves is to sound like just another elitist pointy headed liberal out of touch with everyday Americans, and that didn't work out too well at the polls.

[jmg257]

69. Sorry - should have responded sooner...

1) Please note I am proposing nothing. As I mentioned previously, this is what I could come up with re:gun control that might actually have the chance in this nation of effectively curbing gun violence, gun suicide, gun accidents, and armed mass murders, etc. without leaving a whole segment of the people who are summarily disarmed likely to be a victim of gun violence by criminals who under normal legislation won't give a shit about bans, registration, etc.

You are right though, as it would leave the disarmed populace subject to all other kinds of evil, including armed assault by intruders into this country for what ever reason.

2) No attention was made or paid to industry, cost, amendments, compensation, the National Guard vs the Constitutional intent & mandated duties of the Militia, or the effect on law enforcement re: off duty carry. That stuff would have to become...unimportant IF as a nation we wanted to "get serious about gun control". REAL serious intrusion into our rights would have to be tolerated, including the perfect example of tyranny - agents of the state going door to door & person to person to enforce an unpopular law, as well as the spending of A LOT of our money in support of it, the re-shifting of the role of our Guard and police, a huge increase in federal agents assigned to this stuff, etc. etc.

Cheers - it was interesting trying to figure out all the angles (while ignoring the stuff you poiinted out! :))

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. The fucking DEATH PENALTY? For committing a "crime" where no one lost their life?

Are you fucking kidding me? Tell me you're kidding me.

Come to my house, knock on my door for the purpose of searching for guns, and die a horrible death. You and whoever is standing immediately behind you. Hell, I'm willing to bet that once the shooting starts, you and your cohorts will be taking hostile fire from about seventy five percent of the houses on my block.

Batshit crazy is what you are.

[jmg257]

67. Not me - just the person or persons who try to enact such legislation.

And THEIR cohorts who try to enforce it - maybe.

Realizing of course that such stern measures would HAVE to be instituted to make the law effective.
No fear? No penalty? No compliance.

[The Straight Story]

68. So you only trust people like bush and his military with guns?

Thanks, not sure why you are scared of me...

[jmg257]

70. Who me? No fucking way. I own a few myself, and I trust no one (else)!.

Nor do I hope to ever have to rely on anyone else for the personal security of me and my family.

Of course that need does occur, and could certainly occur whether I armed or not, but I would still rather not have to rely on it.


Actually I do trust plenty of people, but the govt? In general, not as much.

[spin]

75. The chances of your ideas making it into law are less then my chances of winning the lotto tonight.

And if it did pass, how would you enforce it.

Do you seriously believe that everybody would simply turn over their weapons? If you do you are delusional.

There are at least 80 million gun owners in this country. A good percentage of those have received excellent training courtesy of our military. If merely 1% refused to obey the law, you would be looking at 8 million homes to disarm. If 1% of those individuals chose to resist, you would face 80,000 people willing to die to preserve their rights.

Realize that my figures are probably optimistic.

There is a good possibility that you might face an armed rebellion.

I could go on but I will merely suggest that you study the occult and try to discover a magic wand and a spell. You say the right words and wave the wand and instantly all civilian firearms simply disappear.

[rrneck]

28. Years ago some friends of mine

got pulled over by a local deputy and he said he thought he could smell marijuana in the car. He asked them if they had any pot, and they said, "we smoked it". For some reason he let them go. I guess because there was no evidence. Now, that's just a story, but the point is still valid.

If straw purchases on something like a gun are so easy to do, imaging the market for straw purchases for an expendable commodity? "Yer honor, I bought the bullets, then I shot 'em. That's why I don't have 'em any more." Case closed.

[L0oniX]

42. ACORN = NUTS

:evilgrin:

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

52. BTW There is a forum called Guns... and another thing, there are ammo "kits" out their

I use to know a guy that filled own ammo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

[spin]

78. I used to reload my own ammo...

and did so for years.

It's cheaper, it's easy to do, it's fun and it can produce ammo that is far more accurate than what you can buy. Of course, it does require some care. If you make a mistake you can blow a gun up.

I reloaded 5000 to 6000 rounds a year for 30 years. I never had any problems with my ammo, it was reliable and accurate. I retired and moved to an area where it's not as easy to find a range to shoot at, so when I do go shooting I just buy my ammo at Walmart. I still have all the equipment I need if I ever decide to reload again.

Most of the regular shooters I knew reloaded their own ammo.

[chollybocker]

63. Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.