pith43
Member
That Anti's were buying all the ammo to drive prices up.
Dumbest rumor you've heard?
- Thread starter cratti
- Start date
- Status
Are you being intentionally naive? The EPA has regulatory authority to halt the production, import, sale, storage, and transport of any material or combination of materials within the US that the EPA deems to violate its regulations. Likewise the Consumer Product Safety Commission has broad powers. Even the FDA - since bullets are reasonably expected to enter the body and change its structure and function, the FDA could classify them as medical devices and regulate them, and regulate guns as delivery devices. The list goes on ad nauseum, as to ways that the administration could interpret existing laws to ban guns.
"Quote:
That Obama was going to sign an executive order banning all semi auto's that would hold more than 3 rounds.
How many ways is this wrong????
1. President doesn't make laws, he only signs them.
2. Executive orders aren't laws, they are policy letters.
3. ahhh screw it... I don't have time to continue this.
Are you being intentionally naive? The EPA has regulatory authority to halt the production, import, sale, storage, and transport of any material or combination of materials within the US that the EPA deems to violate its regulations. Likewise the Consumer Product Safety Commission has broad powers. Even the FDA - since bullets are reasonably expected to enter the body and change its structure and function, the FDA could classify them as medical devices and regulate them, and regulate guns as delivery devices. The list goes on ad nauseum, as to ways that the administration could interpret existing laws to ban guns."
The EPA, CPSC or FDA.....come on take the tinfoil hat off already.
Are you naive enough to think that this is how the government is going to try and control firearms thru the EPA, CPSC or FDA? This is their plan to take on a constitutional issue of this magnitude? You think that would hold up in any court, even the 9th as wacky as they are?
Please tell me your joking.............
That Obama was going to sign an executive order banning all semi auto's that would hold more than 3 rounds.
How many ways is this wrong????
1. President doesn't make laws, he only signs them.
2. Executive orders aren't laws, they are policy letters.
3. ahhh screw it... I don't have time to continue this.
Are you being intentionally naive? The EPA has regulatory authority to halt the production, import, sale, storage, and transport of any material or combination of materials within the US that the EPA deems to violate its regulations. Likewise the Consumer Product Safety Commission has broad powers. Even the FDA - since bullets are reasonably expected to enter the body and change its structure and function, the FDA could classify them as medical devices and regulate them, and regulate guns as delivery devices. The list goes on ad nauseum, as to ways that the administration could interpret existing laws to ban guns."
The EPA, CPSC or FDA.....come on take the tinfoil hat off already.
Are you naive enough to think that this is how the government is going to try and control firearms thru the EPA, CPSC or FDA? This is their plan to take on a constitutional issue of this magnitude? You think that would hold up in any court, even the 9th as wacky as they are?
Please tell me your joking.............
zinzan
Member
Its called the Ammunition Accountability Act, or the A.A.A. Ridiculous as this legislation is (only on a state level at the present time) it has a chance of making its way into a form of ammunition control legislation on the federal level. Don't forget Obama is from Illinois, my neighbor, and we know all to well what happens if you think you can buy ammo in illinois on your way to your buddie's farm for a day of shooting. they ask you for a form of identification. I gave them my Drivers License, and they said if I didn't have the proper ammunition license I couldn't purchase ammunition. get ready for this rumor broseph
scythefwd
Member
zinzan,
The ID they were looking for was a FOID. In IL, you cannot purchase ammo without a FOID. Your drivers license is not an acceptable form of ID for that purchase according to state law. When I had a FOID, I could walk in and grab a box of ammo any time I wanted. As of a few years ago, no other action was required but to flash your FOID. Nothing was recorded about the transaction. Last time I bought ammo in IL was back in 04-05 time frame though, so things may have changed.
The list goes on ad nauseum, as to ways that the administration could interpret existing laws to ban guns."
That almost seems feasible if it weren't for the whole owning guns is a personal right "Heller Vs DC" thing. I never said they weren't going after ammo. I fully expect them to. What I said was ignorant is that there will be a ban affected by an executive order. That won't happen as the president does not have the power granted by him through the constitution and laws of this nation to override a constitutional amendment (neither do any of the agencies existing today, only congress can do that and it still has to be ratified by the states). Lets look at this realistically. After Heller Vs. DC, I don't see the supreme court ruling a law as constitutional that would so severely limit the second amendment.
The ID they were looking for was a FOID. In IL, you cannot purchase ammo without a FOID. Your drivers license is not an acceptable form of ID for that purchase according to state law. When I had a FOID, I could walk in and grab a box of ammo any time I wanted. As of a few years ago, no other action was required but to flash your FOID. Nothing was recorded about the transaction. Last time I bought ammo in IL was back in 04-05 time frame though, so things may have changed.
The list goes on ad nauseum, as to ways that the administration could interpret existing laws to ban guns."
That almost seems feasible if it weren't for the whole owning guns is a personal right "Heller Vs DC" thing. I never said they weren't going after ammo. I fully expect them to. What I said was ignorant is that there will be a ban affected by an executive order. That won't happen as the president does not have the power granted by him through the constitution and laws of this nation to override a constitutional amendment (neither do any of the agencies existing today, only congress can do that and it still has to be ratified by the states). Lets look at this realistically. After Heller Vs. DC, I don't see the supreme court ruling a law as constitutional that would so severely limit the second amendment.
10-Ring
Member
That the new president is sooo liberal, he wants to further restrict our second amendment rights....do'h 
Man, if it only it was just a rumor :banghead:
Man, if it only it was just a rumor :banghead:Seriously. You guys EVER get tired of saying the same old crap over and over again? Every time I read a post about what the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL government is gonna do, I can't help but visualize old men wandering the streets in tinfoil hats waving signs that say "THE END IS NIGH."
Pull. Your. Heads. Out. Of. Your. [Censored]
Thank you.
Pull. Your. Heads. Out. Of. Your. [Censored]
Thank you.
209
Member
The latest told to me in a recent gun shop visit-
Don't order any ammo or gun related items on the internet because the Feds are "mining" all of that information and building a database of purchasers. Allegedly with the assistance of all of the vendors and credit card companies.
Don't order any ammo or gun related items on the internet because the Feds are "mining" all of that information and building a database of purchasers. Allegedly with the assistance of all of the vendors and credit card companies.
This isn't entirely untrue. Though I can't think of any succh legislation I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's been proposed though. However, legal or not, if you did have to use it the DA could have a field day with you. I've heard of a case involving the defensive use of a "cocked and locked" weapon. A very left leaning ADA tried to argue (Thankfully unsuccessfully) that carrying a weapon in such a state constituted premeditation. I wish I could give details but that's all I can remember.
- Status
