AG’s in 16 States Embrace Background Checks On Ammo Purchases

mikeyp

NES Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
14,499
Likes
29,486
Location
Plymouth
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
MA RI and CT are in there, MA is especially dumb since you already can't buy ammo without an LTC(preaching to the choir, I know)



California’s law requiring background checks on every purchase of ammunition has been a gigantic clusterfark since it took effect back in 2018. Since then, tens of thousands of Californians have been denied the ability to purchase ammunition because of problems with the government’s database of gun owners, while others have had to wait through lengthy delays to simply purchase a box or two of ammunition.

Back in April, a federal judge issued a stay on enforcement of the law, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quickly overruled the lower court, and the law remains in effect for the time being, though the case (known as Rhode vs. Becerra) is still actively being litigated. On Monday, a coalition of 16 attorneys general, all of them Democrats, filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the California law is constitutional and urged the court to permanently vacate the district court’s injunction.


If you live in Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, or Washington you should know that your attorney general has given the green light for your state legislature to implement California-style ammunition control if they want.

First, the amici States object to the district court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment constrained California’s ability to enact the ammunition regulations at issue here. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Second Amendment allows States to address the harmful effects of gun violence through new regulations. And California’s ammunition regulations—which are similar to numerous laws across the country—are an appropriate exercise of that prerogative.
Second, the amici States disagree with the district court’s apparent view that California’s interests in public safety and crime prevention cannot be substantiated by the types of evidence presented here. On the contrary, it is settled that States may support their interests in public safety and crime prevention with a wide range of evidence, including social science studies and legislative findings.
First off, there’s no other state in the country that requires background checks on ammunition sales, though the requirement was part of the SAFE Act signed into law in New York in 2013. The New York State Police never figured out how to actually conduct the background checks, however, and in 2015 Gov. Andrew Cuomo suspended the requirement due to the failure of his administration to find a way to implement the law.

The AG’s brief ignores New York’s failure and tries instead to point to laws in several states that they claim bear a strong resemblance to the law being challenged in California.

Relevant here, a number of States have also extended background checks or similar requirements to ammunition sales within their jurisdictions. Indeed, four States in addition to California require some form of background check to purchase ammunition. Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey currently require that individuals possess a license or firearms identification card—which requires passing a background check—before purchasing ammunition.
The District of Columbia also imposes restrictions on ammunition sales; District residents may only purchase ammunition if they are listed as a registered owner of a firearm of the same caliber or gauge as the ammunition they seek to purchase. D.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-2505.02(d), 7-2506.01. Nonresidents seeking to purchase ammunition must demonstrate that they lawfully possess a firearm of the same caliber or gauge. Id. § 7-2505.02(d). And like California, the District also requires all ammunition sales to be conducted in-person.
None of the states mentioned by the AG’s require background checks to be performed before every ammunition purchase, and none of them prohibit ammunition purchased out-of-state from being brought back home by legal gun owners. In fact, if that’s the law in Washington, D.C., no gun owner in the city would be able to purchase ammunition, because there are zero gun stores in the District. It’s laughable that the anti-gun attorneys general are citing a law that is utterly unenforceable in their quest to have California’s ammunition background check law declared constitutional.

If you’re a Second Amendment legal nerd, be sure to read the entire brief. And if you live in one of these 16 states with AG’s backing California’s asinine infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, you better contact your lawmakers now and urge them to reject any attempt to impose California-style ammunition purchase restrictions, even if your attorney general has given the go-ahead.
 
Back in the 1960s a Federal law was passed, requiring logging the sale of all (handgun?) ammunition.

After a few years, they realized it was stupid; first removed .22 rimfire from the requirement because of the sales volume, then eventually the law was repealed in 1986, as it had never contributed to solving a single crime, ATF testified in support of repeal stating "the registry served no substantial law enforcement value"

Additionally, the study claiming ammunition background checks would reduce homicides has been debunked (see the old thread)
 
They really need to work on article titles. Should be something like “AGs in 16 states limit firearms and ammo supplies to people of color in these uncertain times”.
How dare you notice openly bigoted gentry liberals trying to disarm minorities, the poor, the elder, women, and their political rivals. Have you decency sir? Think of the children if it only saves one life.
 
i don't see this as working. much like those dealers won't ship when they see payment comes out of a massachusetts address.

This just happened to me two weeks ago - tried to order some Korean import .30 Carbine ammo, and got a message from the website saying they didn't ship ammo to MA. So, I tried ordering with my credit card but shipping to my brother in Ohio and that time the error message said my credit card was rejected. Contacted the company and they said,

"Due to the restriction in your state, you would typically need to call in for our customer service team to override any restrictions and place an order for you. Unfortunately, due to the current situation with COVID-19, our customer service staff is currently working from home with limited technology and also unable to take phone calls. This being the case, we are not currently able to process orders in restricted states due to the limited technology while working from home. "

So, my brother ordered the ammo and I picked it up when I was visited last week. However, the kicker is this same company had no problem shipping a C&R pistol to me at my MA address - that arrived yesterday.
 
I havent had this issue yet and i have used my real billing address for orders to NH, ME, VT et al.

If Mass insists on more infringement and passes this sheet, I suppose pre paid visa cards would work fine.
 
I said it before, and I will say it again:

If they make me get a background check/permission slip per purchase, I am just going to buy a years worth of ammo at a time.
When the authorities knock on the door, I just explain that I used to buy a box at a time, but since it is now such a pain, I buy annually.
 
Back in the 1960s a Federal law was passed, requiring logging the sale of all (handgun?) ammunition.

After a few years, they realized it was stupid; first removed .22 rimfire from the requirement because of the sales volume, then eventually the law was repealed in 1986, as it had never contributed to solving a single crime, ATF testified in support of repeal stating "the registry served no substantial law enforcement value"

Additionally, the study claiming ammunition background checks would reduce homicides has been debunked (see the old thread)

Hey - 100 years later, they're still trying communism, too. They don't care about effectiveness. Just feelings.
 
I am sooo tired of this nonsense. MOAR LAW & REGULATIONS PLEASE! That will really take a bite outta crime. Just like every gang banger in Lowell, Brockton, Springfield and {enter a community near you} filing them 4473s when the trunk pops open in a vacant lot and it's sale time....I can just see the dealer reminding them to FA10 that HiPoint when they get home.

If the criminals don't follow the laws when acquiring a firearm....Y'all really think they are going to do it when they get ammo? Or is this just another way to slap law abiding gun owners? DING DING DING!!!!
 
I am sooo tired of this nonsense. MOAR LAW & REGULATIONS PLEASE! That will really take a bite outta crime. Just like every gang banger in Lowell, Brockton, Springfield and {enter a community near you} filing them 4473s when the trunk pops open in a vacant lot and it's sale time....I can just see the dealer reminding them to FA10 that HiPoint when they get home.

If the criminals don't follow the laws when acquiring a firearm....Y'all really think they are going to do it when they get ammo? Or is this just another way to slap law abiding gun owners? DING DING DING!!!!
BINGO!!!!!
 
RandCorp’s surveys of gun-violence experts ranked ammo background checks as virtually useless in preventing crime and violence. But they didn’t add a Gun Owner Harassment Factor to their survey. Ammo background checks would have been one of the very many laws that had little to no impact on crime and violence but high impact on harassment of gun owners.
 
Last edited:
RandCorp’s surveys of gun-violence experts ranked ammo background checks as virtually useless in preventing crime and violence. But they didn’t add a Gun Owner Harassment Factor to their survey. Ammo background checks would have been one of the very many laws that had little to no impact on crime and violence but high impact on harassment of gun owners axis.
So you're saying Maura isn't the only AG who is motivated by "stiggin' it"?
 
Back
Top Bottom