Posted on 12/29/2022 8:12:17 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
A USA Today/Associated Press column published Thursday suggests lawmakers struggling to get traction on gun control may want to redirect their energies toward “bullet regulation.”
Jeanine Santucci writes in USA Today, “Government leaders calling for reform say bullet regulation – including through the recording of sales, licensing of dealers or background checks – is necessary in the ongoing battle to curb mass shootings.”
She notes:
The Giffords group and other gun regulation advocates also propose that ammunition sellers be required to maintain records of their sales, and make the information available to law enforcement, as New Jersey will soon enact.
Data collection and reporting of large sales to state police, along with other measures such as behavioral threat assessments, will help law enforcement to identify bad actors, [New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D)] said. Law-abiding gun owners who purchase ammunition in bulk won’t have anything to worry about, Platkin said.
Santucci’s column also pushes for magazine capacity restrictions, claiming such limitations would reduce the effectiveness of high-profile shooters.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
these people are morons........................
No new regulation will stop someone already ignoring the current ones.
” USA Today Pushes ‘Bullet Regulation’ to Stop High-Profile Shootings, “
Me?: “Rktman Pushes ‘High speed printer regulation’ to Stop High-Profile misinformation,...”
“...the right...shall not be infringed.”
You mean foreign owned “USA Today”
Maybe there should be behavioral threat assessments of DEMOCRATS. Any that are found anti-Constitution, Marxist, Socialist, or just plain Bat Shit crazy should be, well you fill in the blank.
I assume that a single bullet would be ok. But a “WHOLE BOX” of ammo 20 or 50.. would constitute a “bulk” purchase?
And more than one box purchased in a single instance would trigger some sort of “wellness check”?
madness.
other measures such as behavioral threat assessments, will help law enforcement to identify bad actors
= = =
So is Alec finally in their sights?
Don’t serious trap and skeet shooters buy by the pallet?
You can only purchase bullets that are in a different caliber than the guns you own. And you can’t drive more than 15 miles from your home to purchase them in your EV whose charging is controlled by your smart meter, which is controlled by...
“Serious” trap and skeet shooters typically assemble their own cartridges.
Will they include nuts and bolts and nails and ball bearings as well as wheel weights?
These people are deluded!
Cartridges aka shells.
Despite this is unconstitutional, these morons never heard of the alcohol prohibition in the 1920s that FAILED. Anyway, dems encourage murder by allowing illegals including drug cartels to distribute fentanyl across the country killing 50,000 Americans every year.
Yes.
I was thinking of sponsored national level shooters.
They have trouble getting factory supplied ammo in CAlif.
These people are Marxist no guns no resistance.
Segregate calibers today.
We don’t want to limit anyone’s right to free speech and freedom of the press, we just want reasonable regulations on the purchase of any graphite, ink, dye, or toner cartridge product, including age limits, purchase quantity limits, background checks, licenses to purchase, safe storage requirements, registration, and the prohibition of transporting any such products across state lines. That’s all. It’s really quite modest, and only criminal extremist right wing terrorists hell-bent on violent overthrow of the government would ever object to such commonsense restrictions. Are you a terrorist?
"USA Today Pushes ‘Bullet Regulation’ to Stop High-Profile Shootings"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Not only have the states never expressly constitutionally given the "beloved" federal government the specific power to make peacetime restrictive gun laws, but the Supreme Court case of United States versus Cruikshank clarified that the 2nd Amendment (2A) was made for the main purpose of dealing with the always despised federal government when Congress becomes the enemy!
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress [emphasis added]. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." —United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
How does Congress infringe our 2A gun rights if not by making constitutionally indefensible peacetime restrictive gun laws?
Importantly, the main reason that our 2A-protected gun rights were not included in the 1st Amendment's list of powers prohibited to Congress is this imo. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention had already given Congress the express power to make "gun control" laws to arm the US Military.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming [emphasis added], and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
2nd Amendment: 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.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime penal laws — not even for murder!
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union [emphases added]. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day.” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
Regarding the Supreme Court identifying Congress as the possible enemy under 2A in Cruikshank, Congress has no constitutional right to know anything about the people's 2nd Amendment-protected munitions imo.
Next, emphasizing that desperate Democrats will always find a way to weaponize government power against the people, Congress needs to establish a court that does nothing but hear alleged federal and state violations of the oath to protect and defend the Constitution under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [emphases added]. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
The Section 3 court would undoubtedly put Congress out of business right away!
Any member of Congress who is not on record as supporting a veto override of a bill to establish a Section 3 court gets primaried in 2024.
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.