Ammo ID bill ?
- Thread starter glove
- Start date
- Status
WardenWolf
member
Yes they are. However, it would likely be struck down in Federal court because the ability to regulate interstate commerce is the domain of Congress alone. And since even one state's passing would have widespread effects on commerce, it is almost certainly unconstitutional on face value.
Sorry, but wrong on the IC issue. It doesn't discriminate against other state's commerce, doesn't hinder an overarching federal regulatory scheme (or encroach upon an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction) and is an issue squarely within a state's police powers. It has other major problems, but IC is not one of them.
WardenWolf
member
Actually you're wrong. The interstate commerce clause can be invoked because it directly affects businesses (ammunition producers) in another state. A state could pass a law saying ammunition producers in-state must encode, but they would be on shaky legal ground to try to enforce this on ammo coming in from another state.
Congress's right to regulate interstate commerce is VERY powerful. It has been used in the past to force hotels to integrate, for instance, on the grounds that it affects travelers from other states. This is a much more cut-and-dried measure as it affects out-of-state businesses by forcing them to produce ammunition to local specifications or be barred from selling their products in the state. Such undue burdens on interstate commerce clearly infringe upon Congress's territory.
Congress's right to regulate interstate commerce is VERY powerful. It has been used in the past to force hotels to integrate, for instance, on the grounds that it affects travelers from other states. This is a much more cut-and-dried measure as it affects out-of-state businesses by forcing them to produce ammunition to local specifications or be barred from selling their products in the state. Such undue burdens on interstate commerce clearly infringe upon Congress's territory.
Eh - not so much as you might think.
All they have to do is say "any ammo coming into this state must meet these requirements...."
If there's companies out there that meet those requirements, they can bring ammo into the state for resale, if not - well, that's their choice.
You're not forcing companies from other states to ONLY sell the ammo you want, you're just saying they can only sell certain ammo in your state.
WardenWolf
member
The companies that produce ammunition have a LOT of money and a LOT of legal clout. Believe me.
gregormeister
Member
Sure, and are they gonna get all the ammo accountability at the flea markets, yard sales and swap meets?
BHP FAN
Member
no,it'll be just another charge to tack on if they bust you for something else.They just want you to shoot up all your reserve ammo.
moi_self26
Member
and hand-loaded shells?
Sorry Mike, but you need to read up on more CC cases. The IC clause provides Congress authority to stick its nose in almost any area they want to under the aegis of "regulating interstate commerce". That said, it does not preclude a state from legislating or regulating in an area which could also be regulated by the federal government under the IC clause. A state can use its police powers to regulate commerce within that state so long as it does not discrimintate against commerce from other states, place an undue burden on interstate commerce, or interfere with a larger federal regulatory program (There are exceptions to that, however, such as where the state is a market marticipant). For example, if state A passed that ammo ID law for out of state companies, but did not apply it to ammo companies within the state, there would be a dormant commerce clause problem. As long as they applied the same standard for encoded ammo to both in-state producers and retailers as well as producers and retailers of ammo from other states (for ammo entering state A), there would be no commerce clause problem.
WardenWolf
member
The problem is that it WOULD place an undue burden on interstate commerce by forcing suppliers to make expensive changes to production methods just to satisfy the laws of that state. Because of this, it applies.
There's a technical term for that in legal/financial circles. Its known as "tough luck". Increased costs due to state legislation which does not unduly burden IC is not a constitutional issue. There's no unconstitutional burden, or discriminatory effect, because it applies to ALL producers bringing ammo into the jurisdiction of that state. Increased costs to comply with a particuar states law sucks, but its not necessarily a dormant commerce clause problem. There's a fair amount of CC cases on the books, but I defy you to cite a SCOTUS case to support your position.
Understand, almost anything a state may do has some nexus to, and effect on, interstate commerce. Its only when it discriminates against other states is it usually a problem. The fact interstate commerce may be used as a basis of authority for congressional action in almost any situation, is not a bar to state action, so long as it doesn't implicate the dormant commerce clause.
Last edited:
The real issue isn't whether the law as passed would break interstate commerce rules. The law has been bent to fit a bewildering variety of politically inspired needs.
It's whether the federal government would deign to challenge it under IC rules......Which in the current climate would be very unlikely.
It's whether the federal government would deign to challenge it under IC rules......Which in the current climate would be very unlikely.
Link not current info?
Before you get too upset about the link, it's not current. Much of the legislation tracked on the link was introduced in various states' 2008 legislatures, which have now closed their sessions. A few bills may still be active, but the ones I viewed are dead unless carried over or until reintroduced in 2009.
Before you get too upset about the link, it's not current. Much of the legislation tracked on the link was introduced in various states' 2008 legislatures, which have now closed their sessions. A few bills may still be active, but the ones I viewed are dead unless carried over or until reintroduced in 2009.
If it were to pass
the ammo companies could simply pull a Ronnie Barrett move. "Sorry, your requirements are too costly for us. We won't be selling any of our product in your state. We hope your police and national guard units are real good at hand to hand combat and with slingshots, because we won't be selling any ammo to them."
the ammo companies could simply pull a Ronnie Barrett move. "Sorry, your requirements are too costly for us. We won't be selling any of our product in your state. We hope your police and national guard units are real good at hand to hand combat and with slingshots, because we won't be selling any ammo to them."
devilc
Member
It is almost shocking that we have not seen a special ammo tax.
Wait for it.
Wait for it.
This is what South Carolina Legislature is looking at.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess117_2007-2008/bills/1259.htm
I think it is BS.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess117_2007-2008/bills/1259.htm
I think it is BS.
shotgunjoel
Member
Why couldn't they get away with it? They get away with banning "high cap" mags and 50 cals, that all affects IC too. What a mess.
TEDDY
Member
ammo
thanks Dryhumor:I needed that bill as I called Kathy Havins office and they could not find it.It seems to be in ano. of states.unbelievable but Mass turned it down.
I wonder if the tide is turning.course they voted it in in cali I believe.
thanks Dryhumor:I needed that bill as I called Kathy Havins office and they could not find it.It seems to be in ano. of states.unbelievable but Mass turned it down.
I wonder if the tide is turning.course they voted it in in cali I believe.hayes1966
Member
CT threw this out .. at least this year no doubt it will be back in another format.
- Status