Skip to comments.Dem lawmakers to announce bill limiting online ammo sales
Posted on 07/29/2012 3:38:40 PM PDT by jazusamo
Two Democratic lawmakers on Monday will announce new legislation to regulate the online and mail-order sale of ammunition.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.) said the new law would make the sale of ammunition safer for law-abiding Americans who are sick and tired of the ease with which criminals can now anonymously stockpile for mass murder, in a statement released Saturday.
The lawmakers cite the recent movie massacre in Aurora, Colo. for spurring their bill.
The shooter who killed 12 and injured 58 in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater this month had purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition anonymously on the Internet shortly before going on his killing spree, according to law enforcement officials, the statement reads. The shooter used a civilian version of the militarys M-16 rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, a shotgun and two .40-caliber semi-automatic handguns commonly used by police officers.
Lautenberg and McCarthy, who will unveil their new proposal at New Yorks City Hall say they intend to make it harder for criminals to anonymously stockpile ammunition through the Internet.
Lautenberg and McCarthy are two high profile advocates of gun control legislation, but they face an uphill struggle in Congress.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week that he does not intend to bring gun control legislation to the floor and President Obama has been reluctant to press lawmakers to act on the issue in an election year.
Democratic senators though have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity magazines by some consumers. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) defended it last Thursday as a reasonable gun control measure.
The amendment is identical to a separate bill proposed in January 2011 by Lautenberg also banning the sale of high capacity ammunition magazines.
After the shootings in Colorado, the New Jersey senator urged lawmakers to reconsider his bill.
We need to start today on efforts to prevent the next attack, he said in a statement. We should begin by passing my legislation to ban the sale of high-capacity gun magazines. No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck, but allowing high-capacity magazines in the hands of killers like James Holmes and Jared Loughner puts law enforcement at a disadvantage and innocent lives at risk.
Loughner, the gunman charged in the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (R-Ariz.) and Holmes, who is the lone suspect in the Aurora theater shootings are both believed to have used high-capacity magazines.
...and the rest of the Democrat caucus GASPED. This is the very last thing they want.
LOL, I pray it turns out just the way that they fear, especially in light of increased gun sales in so many places.
You only need to look at Mexico to know that you can NEVER stop those that want weapons and ammo. They WILL get them and they WILL use them, no matter how many laws you create.
Effing idiots, the whole friggin lot of them.
Well if Harry is against it I guess it will go nowhere.
Everything's gonna be backordered, thanks to these morons....
They can shove it up their collective smelly Obamas.
I almost wish they would go ahead and try (that’s try) to ban weapons, ammo, etc.
I’ll not speak of the consequences.
You’re right and they’ll probably do more than gasp.
F ing a$$hats. Yes he bought 6 k rounds, but was he carrying 6 k rounds? Did he shoot 6k rounds?
I haven’t heard how many rounds exactly that he did shoot, but at some point he would have reached a maximum utility after which it wouldn’t mater whether he had 6000, or 200, or 600,000 rounds of ammunition. Apparently, he only needed 60 to create the carnage that he did, so any law regarding the possession of ammunition would have to set a really low level to be considered efeective. The goal would have to be one round per person to prevent killing more than one other person. It should also be noted that the shooter would not be constrained by legal limits on ammunition possession because he was a criminal, and criminals are, by definition, not bound by laws.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.) said the new law would make the sale of ammunition safer for criminals and politicians who are sick and tired of the ease with which law-abiding citizens can now anonymously stockpile for protection against mass murder, in a statement released Saturday.
(edited for accuracy)
“F ing a$$hats. Yes he bought 6 k rounds, but was he carrying 6 k rounds? Did he shoot 6k rounds?”
There’s plenty to worry about, but at the VERY BOTTOM of that list is the idea that the Dems can pass gun control legislatively.
LET THEM TRY - it only knocks out another 5 of them in the house, every time one of them opens their mouth.
Holmes may have bought 6,000 rounds, but only took a few hudred to do his deed. None of the past massacres involved thousands of rounds.
The Republicans need to brand the entire Dem party with this. Hang it around their necks at election time.
How much ammop did he actually expend in order to do the damage he did?
These politicians are ****ing morons of the worst sort.
Good thing that the nut chose the hundred 100 rd 'beta mag' that is prone to jam instead of regular 20 or 30 rd magazines or the carnage would have been much worse.
You mean like .... ZERO ?
Which doesn't matter because everyone on FR lost their guns while out deer hunting in their bass boats. A gator jumped into my boat, turning it on it's side. All my 'guns' sunk to the bottom.
I was able to swim to shore, pulling the boat behind me by it's anchor line. I saved the boat but I ain't gonna go swimming after the guns.
You should listen to Gov Romney defending Massachusetts’ tough gun control laws that he promised to never chip away at, and then proved it by banning “assault” rifles. And he’s now promising that if such legislation gets to his desk as president, he will sign it.
If words are the atoms of the First Amendment, then ammo is the atom of the Second.
Political figures who relentlessly attempt to suppress one part of the Constitution they don’t like cannot be trusted wih the remander.
PS does Lautenberg know what day of the week it is?
Lautenberg is so left wing he makes Obama seem almost
centrist and McCarthy is probably crazier than the shooter
Neither one can do anything except knee jerk react to events. And neither one of them can carry on a coherent conversation when interviewed by even the friendliest of
Remander = remainder
I haven’t read the number of rounds fired either, that info may not have been released. The rifle jammed and there were rounds left in the 100 round drum mag, he then fired pistol rounds. It’s probably safe to say he didn’t shoot too many more rounds than a hundred, if that.
The hype about him buying 6000 rounds is just that, hype, plus it was legal and those rounds could have been bought at a retail outlet or at a gun show.
Agreed, and that’s what Dingy Harry and other Rats are afraid will happen. Let it be so!
The largest mass murder only needed 1 gallon of gasoline.
Wow, libs are so much smarter than we.
All we had to do in Afghanistan was to have their legislature pass a ban on IEDs.
“Reid (D-Nev.) said last week that he does not intend to bring gun control legislation to the floor and President Obama has been reluctant”
You pussies don’t have the balls to do it!
Go ahead, we triple-dog dare you ...
(I’m sick and tired of Dims hesitating to grab that 2nd amend. third rail.)
If we can be forced to purchase insurance, we can most definitely be forced to buy ammo. This legislation would drive this horrendous fact home. I'm seriously going to recommend this to my rep. Someone has to rub this profligate government's face in the ridiculousness of it all.
Sales of ammo just went up.
Democrats never let a tragedy go to waste if they think they can walk on some dead bodies to further their agenda.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.)- two jerks with their usual knee jerk reaction to events. The side show bob shooter didn’t get many rounds off as his big magazine jammed, the shotgun held the usual 3 or 4 shells and the handguns magazines were not all used up. He may have had a lot of rounds in his apartment, but killed with far fewer. Limit rounds and the bad guys will use something else, like a big glass jug of gasoline - will that require a limit on gas sales?
>> The shooter who killed 12 and injured 58 in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater this month had purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition anonymously on the Internet shortly before going on his killing spree, according to law enforcement officials <<
You can’t purchase a stick of chewing gum on line anonymously. Paypal and credit cards are far from anonymous.
McVey killed a lot more with fertilizer. Should we ban that too?
Absolutely! Nothing online is annonymous.
>> “None of the past massacres involved thousands of rounds” <<
True, all they required is an UNARMED PUBLIC!
I wonder if there is any way for the author to find out for sure and then get back with us.
Was the Shooter “carrying” six thousand rounds of Ammunition when he committed the crime?
Now the ammunition is the problem? I thought 12 people died, not 6,000.
Only Communists, Dictators, Fascists and Nazis kill that many people at one time. Which is precisely why the Second Amendment exists.
He could have done the job with a machete!
Nobody in that theater was armed; who would have stopped him?
Were the Founding Fathers Sportsmen? Were the members of the Continental Army Sportsmen? Does the word Sportsmen appear in the text of the Second Amendment?
Maybe it was listed right after the word “hunters”, another word I must of missed.
Who cares of he had 600,000 rounds?
Was he carrying it around in his pocket?
I guess it was a good thing they weren't screening Inglorious Bastards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.